A Golden Island To The West — California ISOT from 2018 to 1850

It is depressingly difficult to overstate just how terrible Trump is, just, across the board in general. Most attempts to do so end up falling short of the truth, because Trump really is that bad.

He is probably the most successful con-man the world has ever seen though, which is... something I guess?
 
You really do have to wonder just how fucked the USA of 2018 is, in the original universe. Losing California would decimate the economy in the short term, and even in the long term would take decades to recover from. I mean the state alone makes up roughly 1/6th of the entire US Economy. To say nothing of the energy it exports to surrounding states, which will crumple until something is done to give them power (just losing Hoover Dam by itself would damn near kill Nevada completely).

For that matter, the world economy is going to go haywire.

And lastly of course, is that there is no way in hell the USA will be able to stop a sudden flood from Mexico of immigrants. Getting in, and all the best places, before the, ahem, 'real' government can step in.

On that note, about the Government? Trump's doomed. On his watch an entire state vanished off the map and the national economy shattered. The Republican party would turn on him in an instant to save their elected skins.

To say nothing of what might happen if various Chinese 'corporations' decide to call in all their markers, as to lands owned in California, and debts owed. At which point, things will get outright vicious and desperate on Capitol Hill.
 
Last edited:
Once told a SSgt I know about this scenario. He was quiet for a moment, then he said, "If California of today was replaced with 1850s Cali, that would be followed by the immediate invasion of the United States. We kind of needed those missile defense systems."

Food for thought.
 
We kind of needed those missile defense systems.
The missile defense systems spread out over most of the western US and the rest of the globe? They aren't all jammed into Cali and the most crucial portions aren't even in the US at all. As for the rest of that, I think your SSgt was talking out his ass. Cali is a critical part of our economy, yes, and there would be some major shifts, but it isn't like our entire military, government, or really anything is so concentrated in cali that it would immediately precipitate an invasion. Also, an invasion by who? China? You've got to be kidding me. Russia? Yeah ok. Either way, the US still has enough nukes to say "fuck off you dumb cunts" if we really need to.
You're kind of alone in thinking that, because the guy was undemocratically elected. By any measure of democratic values, Donald Trump is not my president. Of course, I have similar sentiments about the Senate (the institution where equal representation is given to arbitrarily-divided tracts of land, rather than people--and this legislative body is vastly more powerful than the one that actually (somewhat) proportionately represents the actual people in the country). But the President has the most power, and the institution that officially put him in power was designed to prevent a demagogue who is blatantly incapable and unacceptable for the job from taking office.
I don't really want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but just to play devil's advocate here, essentially, under a purely democratic method for presidential elections, rural america would never win a presidential election again. As globalization increases, as population increases, as technology advances, people naturally gravitate to urban centers, which are almost universally liberal. The people of rural america would be essentially denied voice.

Personally, I agree with you. The voice for rural america is made manifest in the Senate which vastly favors the larger number of rural states, having multiple branches of government operating under the same system essentially disenfranchises urban centers. But, like I said, there is a good argument for why things are the way they are.
 
I don't really want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but just to play devil's advocate here, essentially, under a purely democratic method for presidential elections, rural america would never win a presidential election again. As globalization increases, as population increases, as technology advances, people naturally gravitate to urban centers, which are almost universally liberal. The people of rural america would be essentially denied voice.

Personally, I agree with you. The voice for rural america is made manifest in the Senate which vastly favors the larger number of rural states, having multiple branches of government operating under the same system essentially disenfranchises urban centers. But, like I said, there is a good argument for why things are the way they are.

So, what you're saying is that tyranny of the minority is preferable to tyranny of the majority?
 
So, what you're saying is that tyranny of the minority is preferable to tyranny of the majority?
Jesus. Read the rest of my post.
Personally, I agree with you.
Personally, I agree with you.
Personally, I agree with you.
And...
The voice for rural america is made manifest in the Senate which vastly favors the larger number of rural states, having multiple branches of government operating under the same system essentially disenfranchises urban centers.
 
I've always been confused by the phrase 'tyranny of the majority', I mean; isn't the majority being in charge exactly what a democratic system is supposed to (theoretically) achieve? If you don't like the idea of the majority ruling, then perhaps democracy isn't for you?

Am I just missing some kind of deeper meaning to the phrase?
 
It has unfortunate connotations in regards to oppression of minorities. Ideals against reality and all that.
 
I've always been confused by the phrase 'tyranny of the majority', I mean; isn't the majority being in charge exactly what a democratic system is supposed to (theoretically) achieve? If you don't like the idea of the majority ruling, then perhaps democracy isn't for you?

Am I just missing some kind of deeper meaning to the phrase?
Because as the size of a group increases, their ability to make informed and intelligent decisions goes down exponentially.
Now consider the intellectual capability of the average voter.
Concerned yet?
 
The missile defense systems spread out over most of the western US and the rest of the globe? They aren't all jammed into Cali and the most crucial portions aren't even in the US at all. As for the rest of that, I think your SSgt was talking out his ass. Cali is a critical part of our economy, yes, and there would be some major shifts, but it isn't like our entire military, government, or really anything is so concentrated in cali that it would immediately precipitate an invasion. Also, an invasion by who? China? You've got to be kidding me. Russia? Yeah ok. Either way, the US still has enough nukes to say "fuck off you dumb cunts" if we really need to.
The full and proper operation of anti-missile defense rests on a combination of Aegis line ships, installations, and sensor ships and posts. You can do it without a few pieces, but without every single element, its just impossible.
Cali represented a substantial piece of that puzzle, many of which were in its fleet of Aegis ships, and especially radar/sensor/surveillance ships ,like Pacific Tracker, Collector, Howard Lorentz. Without them Aegis equipped ships cannot see missiles above a certain ceiling, thus can't track and target. Only spot them when they begin reentry, after splitting of to targets.
Without those ships USN is also incapable of defending its own western shoreline, and monitor pacific lines. Have to chose between safety back home, or leaving your allies to Asian politics.

China could demand its cash back and force its demands regarding company owned land, office spaces in Cali. And with favorable international conditions it could go to war, and US would not have the seaborne assets to stop it, with China having enough troops to carry the day on land.
Its hypothetical why they would want to do this, as they have more enticing targets in Asia that would benefit them more.
Then again after Cali is gone, China OWNS the entirety of the South Asian and Indian Ocean trade routes. They become the dominant world power by lack of competition.
 
A piece of education about the electoral college: 1) It was setup by the Founding Fathers to prevent the rule of the illiterate/uneducated (and, assumed, easily conned) mob. 2) The electoral college delegates are chosen by the voting district political party; you are not voting for the candidate, you are voting for the party by district (thus total popular vote becoming an interesting data point, but irrelevant outside of that specific district), regardless of what the ballot says with the only exception being write-in candidates. 3) Though the delegates do promise to follow the party line for selection, they are not legally obligated to and can vote their conscience if they so choose.

That said, I do believe adjustments need to be made to the system that would limit the all-or-nothing effect that most states have. On the other hand, the only difference between the time of the Founding Fathers and now is that we have a great number of somewhat-or-better educated idiots in the "mob" rather than being an illiterate/uneducated one.

Regarding the status of forces as a result of the loss of up-time Cali: For USMC forces, this would involve the loss of nearly 1/2 the deployable forces and equipment (as well as training centers), USAF loses L.A. AFB, Vandenburg and March, the Army loses the bulk of their landing craft (stored in San Diego) but little else, while the USN loses (maybe) two carriers, about 1.5 CV battlegroups (those not deployed or stationed outside of San Diego) for maybe 1/4 the total (in all cases, of the Pacific (only) Fleet), as much as 1/3 the Pacific sub fleet, 3 ARGs (amphib groups) or about 2/3 to 3/4, Seal Beach weapons depot, COMTHIRDFLT, COMNAVAIRPAC, a SEAL team or two (and the BUDS training center), a significant portion of the USN training capacity, and a few other R&D/control facilities. This would involve a major blow to control of the Pacific Fleet and its mission (including several others not specified here), but would not be the total mission kill that is implied; that said, the US would be significantly weakened for an extended time recovering from the issue (upto 30 days for immediate defense requirements for sail-around shifting of LANT resources). This does not include ground forces that could move in as needed within a couple of days to a week.
 
China could demand its cash back and force its demands regarding company owned land, office spaces in Cali. And with favorable international conditions it could go to war, and US would not have the seaborne assets to stop it, with China having enough troops to carry the day on land.
Its hypothetical why they would want to do this, as they have more enticing targets in Asia that would benefit them more.
Act of God. China can go sit and spin for all the good it would do them. And we still have nukes, so good luck with invasions. And beyond all of that, China would have to be dealing with the complete implosion of the global economy that it relies on.
 
Also. Again. Fucking NATO. For all of Trump's bluster, that alliance would pick up the revolver and cock the hammer until we were back on our feet. Russia and China wouldn't want to deal with that combined.

More to the point, what purpose would any invasion serve? At all?
 
And we still have nukes, so good luck with invasions.
Good luck using those on your own soil, since you now have no missile defense on the west coast and are open to full retaliation. MAD works only if both sides suffer.
Also. Again. Fucking NATO. For all of Trump's bluster, that alliance would pick up the revolver and cock the hammer until we were back on our feet. Russia and China wouldn't want to deal with that combined.
That seems awfully close to Polish rhetoric and thinking right before WW2.
 
Also. Again. Fucking NATO. For all of Trump's bluster, that alliance would pick up the revolver and cock the hammer until we were back on our feet. Russia and China wouldn't want to deal with that combined.

More to the point, what purpose would any invasion serve? At all?
If you'd said that 5 years ago, I'd agree with you, and not even question the fact. With things now and the story canon which pulls, partially, from real life incidents going on right now?

Dicey. Very dicey.

There are some big cracks right now that, as long as nobody does anything stupid, probably will mend over time.

But right now, a sharp/sudden and completely OCP massive 'whack' in the right place, might just see some nations say 'fuck it' and leave the treaty alliance.
 
We've still got Seventh Fleet and Hawaii. If the Chinese were stupid enough to decide INVADE CALI we would know about it far before they could land troops. At which point, nukes are going to fly considering who we have in leadership.

This is all rather off topic, though, considering the world Cali left behind is background.
 
Good luck using those on your own soil, since you now have no missile defense on the west coast and are open to full retaliation. MAD works only if both sides suffer.
So don't drop it on US soil? Nukes aren't tactical devices. They're meant to force surrender or keep another at bay. Recall the one time they've ever been used. That's how they're used.

Again, why on Earth would China invade the US? Ever? What possible advantage would there be? Take and hold the entire western seaboard? Try another joke.
 
So don't drop it on US soil? Nukes aren't tactical devices. They're meant to force surrender or keep another at bay. Recall the one time they've ever been used. That's how they're used.

Again, why on Earth would China invade the US? Ever? What possible advantage would there be? Take and hold the entire western seaboard? Try another joke.

I agree with this. Also China's still building up its long-range sea capability, and currently, they don't have enough to force a realistic landing on the US anyways. Honestly, unless someone jumps the gun for no real good reason, there won't be a war. The United States as a country, however, will be immeasurably damaged and its already slowly eroding hegemony uprooted and destroyed.
 
I agree with this. Also China's still building up its long-range sea capability, and currently, they don't have enough to force a realistic landing on the US anyways. Honestly, unless someone jumps the gun for no real good reason, there won't be a war. The United States as a country, however, will be immeasurably damaged and its already slowly eroding hegemony uprooted and destroyed.

The issue is that the manchild in charge might jump the gun when told that the left flank of the US is vulnerable, and do something impossibly... rash.
 
You really do have to wonder just how fucked the USA of 2018 is, in the original universe. Losing California would decimate the economy in the short term, and even in the long term would take decades to recover from. I mean the state alone makes up roughly 1/6th of the entire US Economy. To say nothing of the energy it exports to surrounding states, which will crumple until something is done to give them power (just losing Hoover Dam by itself would damn near kill Nevada completely).

For that matter, the world economy is going to go haywire.

And lastly of course, is that there is no way in hell the USA will be able to stop a sudden flood from Mexico of immigrants. Getting in, and all the best places, before the, ahem, 'real' government can step in.

On that note, about the Government? Trump's doomed. On his watch an entire state vanished off the map and the national economy shattered. The Republican party would turn on him in an instant to save their elected skins.

To say nothing of what might happen if various Chinese 'corporations' decide to call in all their markers, as to lands owned in California, and debts owed. At which point, things will get outright vicious and desperate on Capitol Hill.
It would be a cold day in hell before Americans tolerate selling land in California to China. It'd be a mistake on par with Russia selling Alaska or the French selling half of the eastern US.
 
So don't drop it on US soil? Nukes aren't tactical devices. They're meant to force surrender or keep another at bay. Recall the one time they've ever been used. That's how they're used.

Again, why on Earth would China invade the US? Ever? What possible advantage would there be? Take and hold the entire western seaboard? Try another joke.
Do you want to face fifty million pissed off, gun-armed, patriotic volunteers backed by a world class military? Because that's how you face fifty million pissed off militia.
 
It would be a cold day in hell before Americans tolerate selling land in California to China. It'd be a mistake on par with Russia selling Alaska or the French selling half of the eastern US.

Salty, just to clarify he's talking about them China calling in their markers/debts, not selling off California and if that did happen either faith in the US economy would collapse if it hadn't already, or the US has literal magic on its side to kiss everything better because the US is not recovering from this.
 
Cali wanted independence so hard that before Trump could call up the troops for Civil War Mk2 Electric Boogaloo they done all packed up and left with their whole damn State. What is this bullshit sparkly Liberal magic?


Meanwhile:

"FREE QUEBEC!"

"Go. Just... go."

"RRRRGH."

"Please just leave. Why isn't it working?"

"KAIO KEN!"
 
Back
Top