California versus Texas

Napisano od Google, 27.03.2017 at 10:43

I would compare it to Athens and Sparta, even though a little exaggerated.

Athens was actually militarily stronger than Sparta, Sparta simply had more and stronger allies.

Cowboy win

Napisano od Google, 27.03.2017 at 10:43

Napisano od Checkmate., 27.03.2017 at 10:33

ikik it is a lot...maybe one of the highest in country.... but is it more than cali?

too lazy to research

It is different. California has tons of potential for oil for example, but they don't tap it.

Texas controls the Oil industry.
California controls Social life.

I would compare it to Athens and Sparta, even though a little exaggerated.

I live in Texas, and I know hundreds of hunters that have quite a steady hand, and even more people who are technological geniuses.

I know people from California, and most of them have more of a taste for art. The population of Texas would be ready to annex if the correct situation arises. Texas is like America in the 1935 as far as war mentality goes, California not so.

I feel Texas, in a war situation, would have to go for a quick blow against California. Otherwise they would start to get outproduced by California in most aspects.... early on Texas would be winning due to control on oil and high population of guns... tbh i think it could go either way if no support from anyone else

Napisano od Checkmate., 27.03.2017 at 11:05

I feel Texas, in a war situation, would have to go for a quick blow against California. Otherwise they would start to get outproduced by California in most aspects.... early on Texas would be winning due to control on oil and high population of guns... tbh i think it could go either way if no support from anyone else

Oil would be long term. Not only short term... I think reverse of what you said. California would have to blitz, texas would win in the long-haul.

We also control a higher amount of military arms then any other state.

Napisano od Google, 27.03.2017 at 11:11

Napisano od Checkmate., 27.03.2017 at 11:05

I feel Texas, in a war situation, would have to go for a quick blow against California. Otherwise they would start to get outproduced by California in most aspects.... early on Texas would be winning due to control on oil and high population of guns... tbh i think it could go either way if no support from anyone else

Oil would be long term. Not only short term... I think reverse of what you said. California would have to blitz, texas would win in the long-haul.

We also control a higher amount of military arms then any other state.

you said cali has high amount of oil but they dont tap it... if in long term war dont u think they would start tapping into their amazing potential for porduction, similar to what the entire usa did in ww2

Napisano od Rock Lee, 26.03.2017 at 23:51

Napisano od Helly, 26.03.2017 at 23:48

I'll take gun advocates over green party any day.

If war breaks these morons will abandon army after one week. living under command or in system is not obvious.

Roi you have a misconception about the typical gun owner in the United states. They are usually patriotic conservitive christians, who served in the military, or police force, they are usually well educated because of the strict process Obama implimented to prevent a normal person from obtaining a fire arm. You would have the state with the largest amount of militias, going against the state with the highest amount liberal cry babies. Production, population, infrestructure, wouldn't even matter because of the lame brained political elite that have taken over California, California would die of drought abd famine in 2 years because katy perry advocated that #MyLawnMatters and needs our valuable water to survive. Roi back to my point, gun owners are the true heart of American patriotism, they are more powerful do to sheer numbers then even our military, this is not even a debate, California wouldn't even have to fight a war to destroy itself, if California was left to its own devices it would be a Cambodian dictatorship in 10 years.

I think it's silly to base the success of Texas on a commodity whose price has been as low as it is now. Furthermore, California has shale of its own if it wants to curtail the environmentalists.

On to other points, the population difference would greatly benefit California. Especially when you have capacity to draft, train, and equip them well.

The terrain between the two is mountainous, but both have different features. California would have defensive mountainous terrain. Meanwhile, Texas is largely flat with less defensive terrain than California.

On to present capabilities, California's large navy could blockade Texas efficiently and essentially starve Texas out.

For those reasons, I believe California would have an assured victory, but overcoming Texas hubris will take some time to chip at their morale.

Napisano od Universali, 27.03.2017 at 12:16

I think it's silly to base the success of Texas on a commodity whose price has been as low as it is now. Furthermore, California has shale of its own if it wants to curtail the environmentalists.

On to other points, the population difference would greatly benefit California. Especially when you have capacity to draft, train, and equip them well.

The terrain between the two is mountainous, but both have different features. California would have defensive mountainous terrain. Meanwhile, Texas is largely flat with less defensive terrain than California.

On to present capabilities, California's large navy could blockade Texas efficiently and essentially starve Texas out.

For those reasons, I believe California would have an assured victory, but overcoming Texas hubris will take some time to chip at their morale.

If the original point of the United states staying neutral, texas has the largest amount of ranches in the country, and in the north eastern part if the state it's cimate let's Texans have a large diverse farming economy. Californias largest water supply is from navada and are suffering from water shortages as is.

Napisano od Universali, 27.03.2017 at 12:16

Overcoming Texas hubris will take some time to chip at their morale.

This is true. Texans will have strong will power to win any war that directly involves their state. Californians, not so much. Will is the strongest of weapons, look at the revolutionary war.

Napisano od Helly, 27.03.2017 at 12:09

Napisano od Rock Lee, 26.03.2017 at 23:51

Napisano od Helly, 26.03.2017 at 23:48

I'll take gun advocates over green party any day.

If war breaks these morons will abandon army after one week. living under command or in system is not obvious.

Roi you have a misconception about the typical gun owner in the United states. They are usually patriotic conservitive christians, who served in the military, or police force, they are usually well educated because of the strict process Obama implimented to prevent a normal person from obtaining a fire arm. You would have the state with the largest amount of militias, going against the state with the highest amount liberal cry babies. Production, population, infrestructure, wouldn't even matter because of the lame brained political elite that have taken over California, California would die of drought abd famine in 2 years because katy perry advocated that #MyLawnMatters and needs our valuable water to survive. Roi back to my point, gun owners are the true heart of American patriotism, they are more powerful do to sheer numbers then even our military, this is not even a debate, California wouldn't even have to fight a war to destroy itself, if California was left to its own devices it would be a Cambodian dictatorship in 10 years.

Great post.

I talked about some ceratin militias and their types. but i guess it's actually irrelevant and they are minority.

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 27.03.2017 at 18:44

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

There are 10 military bases in California vs 33 in Texas, Texas would have a huge advantage in military grade hardware, at that point it doesn't matter which state has more guns in the hands of citizens

Napisano od Viruslegion, 27.03.2017 at 23:26

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 27.03.2017 at 18:44

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

There are 10 military bases in California vs 33 in Texas, Texas would have a huge advantage in military grade hardware, at that point it doesn't matter which state has more guns in the hands of citizens

And you think US Army will let them have it if they secede?
Yeah, cause armies are famous for that.

Napisano od Black Swans, 28.03.2017 at 02:07

Napisano od Viruslegion, 27.03.2017 at 23:26

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 27.03.2017 at 18:44

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

There are 10 military bases in California vs 33 in Texas, Texas would have a huge advantage in military grade hardware, at that point it doesn't matter which state has more guns in the hands of citizens

And you think US Army will let them have it if they secede?
Yeah, cause armies are famous for that.

Part of this debate is if the USA as a whole stayed apart from the conflict.

Napisano od Helly, 28.03.2017 at 02:17

Napisano od Black Swans, 28.03.2017 at 02:07

Napisano od Viruslegion, 27.03.2017 at 23:26

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 27.03.2017 at 18:44

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

There are 10 military bases in California vs 33 in Texas, Texas would have a huge advantage in military grade hardware, at that point it doesn't matter which state has more guns in the hands of citizens

And you think US Army will let them have it if they secede?
Yeah, cause armies are famous for that.

Part of this debate is if the USA as a whole stayed apart from the conflict.

Well yeah, Tx and Cali independent, US armed forces leave those two states, they keep trading with both of them

Why bring up naval power? What navy does california have? It only has bases for the US navy in it, thats all.

Napisano od Evic, 28.03.2017 at 07:38

Why bring up naval power? What navy does california have? It only has bases for the US navy in it, thats all.

Considering the amount of ships california pumped put during ww2 and how easily texas is blockaded by just patroling the gulf of mexico, it is significant

Napisano od Viruslegion, 27.03.2017 at 23:26

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 27.03.2017 at 18:44

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

There are 10 military bases in California vs 33 in Texas, Texas would have a huge advantage in military grade hardware, at that point it doesn't matter which state has more guns in the hands of citizens

I think you're making shit up. Give me a source for that. If you cant , then stop making shit up.

According to this, there are 4 army 7 air force 2 coast guard and 14 naval bases in california.

http://www.militaryauthority.com/wiki/military-bases/nationwide/california/

Texas has 4 army 7 air forces and 4 navy bases

http://www.militaryauthority.com/wiki/military-bases/nationwide/texas/

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 08:42

I think you're making shit up. Give me a source for that. If you cant , then stop making shit up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_installations_in_Texas
https://militarybases.com/california/

Is it your time of the month or something? Or are you always an angry little shit?

Fort Hood is well known to be the third largest military base... in the world... with over 230,000 population, covering thousands of acres. If you don't believe me on the stats look it up. They are accurate.

Napisano od Viruslegion, 28.03.2017 at 10:26

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 08:42

I think you're making shit up. Give me a source for that. If you cant , then stop making shit up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_installations_in_Texas
https://militarybases.com/california/

Is it your time of the month or something? Or are you always an angry little shit?

Use the same sources for both dumbo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_installations_in_Texas

I counted 32

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_facilities_in_California

California has 55 facilities

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 11:55

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_facilities_in_California

California has 55 facilities

Quite a few of the "facilities" on that list would have no use in a War. Several are historical landmarks. Such as Elk Camp and others.

Please make sure your references are viable, especially if you are going to rebuke others for not doing so.

Napisano od Google, 28.03.2017 at 12:22

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 11:55

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_facilities_in_California

California has 55 facilities

Quite a few of the "facilities" on that list would have no use in a War. Several are historical landmarks. Such as Elk Camp and others.

Please make sure your references are viable, especially if you are going to rebuke others for not doing so.

Why dont you go through the texas installations and scrutinize it. My ONLY point there was him not using the same sources was bullshit.

I'm still sticking with my original references for the military bases.

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 11:55

Use the same sources for both dumbo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_installations_in_Texas

I counted 32

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_facilities_in_California

California has 55 facilities

hmm, I wasn't able to find the source for Cali that you found, that's my mistake

never answered my question though

Napisano od Viruslegion, 28.03.2017 at 13:06

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 11:55

Use the same sources for both dumbo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_installations_in_Texas

I counted 32

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_facilities_in_California

California has 55 facilities

hmm, I wasn't able to find the source for Cali that you found, that's my mistake

never answered my question though

Honestly neither of us have any sources for how many tanks and other land based hardware either side has.

What I do have is how many ships and plausibly how many airplanes.

California most likely has more anti air capabilities simply because it is located on the west coast facing russia and china.

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 13:01

Why dont you go through the texas installations and scrutinize it.

Because all except for one (brook city, which is retired) are legitimate. Please "scrutinize" it then. That's how we carry on a healthy debate instead of petty arguments using faulty reasoning.

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 13:01

I am still sticking with my original references for the military bases.

Note: The lists you provided were of "Military Installations" and "Military Facilities", not "Military Bases"... None of which are the same.

Napisano od Google, 28.03.2017 at 14:16

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 13:01

Why dont you go through the texas installations and scrutinize it.

Because all except for one (brook city, which is retired) are legitimate. Please "scrutinize" it then. That's how we carry on a healthy debate instead of petty arguments using faulty reasoning.

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 13:01

I am still sticking with my original references for the military bases.

Note: The lists you provided were of "Military Installations" and "Military Facilities", not "Military Bases"... None of which are the same.

Read my earlier post about military bases. Before the wiki post. Stop
being lazy

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 28.03.2017 at 08:42

Napisano od Viruslegion, 27.03.2017 at 23:26

Napisano od Witch-Doctor, 27.03.2017 at 18:44

I like how the people vibing for texas have provided zero evidence except fpr GC.

Stop arguing on stereotypes, prove that "liberals" cant just go and be as effective as some redneck.

There are 10 military bases in California vs 33 in Texas, Texas would have a huge advantage in military grade hardware, at that point it doesn't matter which state has more guns in the hands of citizens

I think you're making shit up. Give me a source for that. If you cant , then stop making shit up.

According to this, there are 4 army 7 air force 2 coast guard and 14 naval bases in california.

http://www.militaryauthority.com/wiki/military-bases/nationwide/california/

Texas has 4 army 7 air forces and 4 navy bases

http://www.militaryauthority.com/wiki/military-bases/nationwide/texas/

Go texas

California you nerds.

But Texas already have its ''own'' army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Military_Forces