I’m taking a break from studies to ponder something…
So I’m debating two leftists about who would win in a war between Texas and California. I argued that Texas has more firearms, and a better work ethic than California, and thus they would win the war. These guys (who both live in California) argue that since California has the higher GDP per capita, and the more educated, that they would win the war because they have better tacticians and a better work ethic. While California has more STEM majors, and more engineering majors, and that would mean more people to design equipment, but they do have a larger population in total, so it might just be the fact that they have more population (The percentage of STEM majors is 13% for California, and 14.94% for Texas).
However, I believe that California also has the advantage in regards to environment. They live in an environment similar to the mountains, so they would have no problem navigating the Rockies if they were to invade Texas. They are also flanked by the Pacific Ocean, which gives them protection. Also, if it were just military personnel, California would probably win with Texas in a close second.
Who do you think would win?
California has a very fractional population: lgbt+, homeless, asians, illegals, ms-13, hippies, vegans, communists etc… When a war broke out, which factions will fight and which fraction will loot the street among the ensuing chaos? Californians are more loyal to their consumers brands than they are to the state itself. How many pumpkin-latte sipping, macbook tweeting, iPhone selfie-ing soyboys do you think will pick up a weapon and fight?
P.S.: stem majors dont mean jack nowadays. The college degree is the new high schools diploma, for the overabundance of them in the market. Even worse, some account for “engineering study” i.e. “instead of studying women, we study engineers(??? why ???)” as stem, even tho its technically a subset of the humanity field.
Also, people with an engineering degrees (including myself) are not actual liscened engineers until they pass their Professional Engineering exam (PE). Here is some information below:
Now one of them is saying that they don’t know why Texas is going purple, but it’s blown out of the water by the fact that more natives voted for O’Rourke than for Cruz, that plants went for Cruz. I’m not making this up, I swear.
Show them this. Now you see why we lost senate seat in Arizona, and a near miss in Texas.
Bottom two charts also show that the “wealthy and educated” Cafiornians love moving to Texas and Arizona the most. Jeez I wonder why, shouldnt they choose less “racist” states, for example Illinois and New York? Shouldnt Californians enjoy the peek of their prosperity and civil rights under Obama?
Oh nah, they are being regulated and taxed out of their jobs and businesses under Obama. Wait till the next wave when it is too expensive to build a home post 2020, when it is required to have solar panels on every new home built, or face steep fine.
Do you know what the deadliest thing on the battlefield is?
One would be poor morale that leads you to question why you’re fighting. . . in that regard, California would quickly lose. Californians love their state but I don’t think they’re as fanatical as a Texan. Also, experience is a big factor. While California has more total veterans, Texas has more from the latest wars. California has more from Korea, WWII and Vietnam. That may play pivotal.
HOWEVER… Texas fights California… everyone loses. That means the US isn’t a whole and the entire world is harmed. A strong US is a major benefit to the entire world. I’ve always hated the talk of secession. We’re stronger together, I just wish the folks out there would vote against idiots once in a while. . . and if you move here to Texas from California, leave your damn politics in CA. You’re coming here because of what we built with Conservatives… don’t screw that up.
What’s the most deadly thing on the battlefield @Southern?
Which battlefield,@Bryan ?
I don’t know. I was asking @Southern. He posted the question.
The most deadly thing on ANY battlefield is one well placed round.
Well, I’m not speaking for @Southern , but I suspect his answer might be “the enemy”…to cover all wars.
If the answer is restricted to the hypothetical war between California and Texas, the most dangerous thing on the battlefield would be a Texan. California pussies would have no chance of survival.
I just answered…my point is that in a war between Texas and California, I’ll put my money on Texas all day. What are those sissies gonna do with their neutered rifles and mags?
There could be debate over that issue. Chemical weapons, shrapnel grenades, mortars and artillery shells only have to get close in order to kill.
However, if a round of mortar or artillery fire kills an enemy soldier, I suppose it would be considered “well placed”.
…and in the War Between the States, the lead balls didn’t have to be well placed…just not removed. A slow death is just as deadly as a quick one.
I know. I spent too much time typing…wasn’t aware that you did.
Man - why are you being so difficult. It was a light-headed hypothetical question. I was USMC infantry and I will never forget that statement because in modern warfare - the deadliest thing on the battlefield is one well placed round. It applies to both sides of the fight. If your on the wrong side it’s lights out.
You can say nukes, or sarin gas, or any of that other silly stuff. Nobody uses nukes and there are CBRNE PPP options which makes chem/bio irrelevant.
The OP question was hypothetical. Yours was not.
Mexico already invaded Texas, and we know how that ended. You have to think that those hippie/techie leftwits in Kali are not going to pick up arms, so they would leverage thier beloved immigrant population.
If there is any doubt, my money is on Texas.