Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you guys think the likelihood of this happening?

Discuss

Also here is some info.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/whoa-texas-just-took-this-huge-step-toward-secession-from-the-united-states/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/06/could-texas-really-secede-from-the-union-the-answer-is/

http://www.inquisitr.com/2225932/texas-blows-the-secessionist-dog-whistle-ahead-of-jade-helm-15-state-to-bring-gold-stockpile-home/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/texas-secede_n_4213506.html

I think the chances of Texas succeeding at seceding are virtually 0, but I'm all for it.

Texas could never secede. Hypothetically if it did, it would take a huge tool on the U.S. economy, because TX contributes a whole lot to it. But yeah, Texas seceding would never happen.

The assumption that Texas would do as well if it was not within the infrastructure and protection of the United States is imo not warranted. It is more likely that Texas would become closer to Mexican standards, than that they continue to thrive.

We could if we wanted to. But we won't.

That, and I'd simply prefer we didn't. I'm not exactly worried, though.

It won't happen barring a massive change to the state of the nation.

Also, I'm with Bardock, as big as Texas's economy is now, it would suffer from secession.

From what I can tell, the likelihood of secession happening is about 1%.

Texas is famous for oil, however, as is Alaska.

I'm curious, what percentage of the state's total reserve has been pumped out as of today? How much remains?

From my understanding, there is currently a great mass of oil that the United States allows to go unused, holding it out for the future, perhaps even military preparedness. I think the bulk of this unused oil is in Alaska, but, if I'm wrong, if Texas has a sizeable reserve, then it could weather economic storms on its own better than almost any other state in the Union.

The only weakness I can see Texas having is a lack of great freshwater reserves.
On the other hand, by that reasoning, I suppose it could be argued Michigan is the most potentially rugged survivor of all ...

It'd negatively impact Texas's economy significantly if it did, so pretty darn unlikely. Sure, they can manage independently, just like California could, but there's no particular benefit to.

It also doesn't help that like most red states, they get more from federal spending than they put in. Link

They aren't as dependent as a lot of others, but they'd still take a hit when just talking direct money.


Plus social reasons, i.e. 'they don't want to.'

Not going to happen, but entertaining the idea that it did, we'd have Texans illegally crossing over taking jobs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The assumption that Texas would do as well if it was not within the infrastructure and protection of the United States is imo not warranted. It is more likely that Texas would become closer to Mexican standards, than that they continue to thrive.

I take the exact opposite position of you.

Not only would they do well, they'd probably do better if we assume the US doesn't become a dick and just treats Texas like a friendlier Mexico. Additionally, Texas would improve it's "standards" and thrive even more if it were independent.


Let's go down the list of why they could succeed:

1. Money: They have "financial solvency." They are a net positive state with federal taxes. So any federal assistance they receive for things such as schools and highways is moot: they'd actually have more money if they seceded. And it is a comfortable margin. So much so that they could increase the funds they have available for state programs AND reduce taxes: both with comfortable changes. Not bad, right? But some would argue the federal military and federal contracts would evaporate which would cut out a large part of both the revenue and assistance from Texas.

Regardless, here is a nice chart that talks about the tax revenue versus the tax spending:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state#Tables_of_f
ederal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

For Texas, it is:

Federal Tax Revenue: $265,336,000,000
Federal Tax Burden: $147,338,000,000

If we assume that the Federal Government does not throw a fit and keeps the military bases and federal contracts in Texas (because we do that with Japan and Germany, for example, already), there shouldn't be a problem. It's just that Texas would get a massive bump in "funds" due to the loss in tax burden to the Federal Government.

Why should the US keep friendly relations with Texas if Texas secedes? That's a good question...but the obvious answer is that there are too many federal contracts and military bases in Texas at the moment and it would cost too much to just get rid of them.

By the way, it looks like the financial burden on the US Government is even less, now, for FY2015, than the above numbers:

https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/StateSummary.aspx?StateCode=TX&FiscalYear=2015

$96 billion instead of $147 billion. We don't have FY2015 Tax Revenue Collection data quite yet but it is likely higher than $265 billion because Texas economy is still growing and the shifts in tax policy from 2014 to 2015 did not change very drastically. My estimate for for FY2015 Federal Tax Revenue is $285 billion.

Regardless, the case for financial solvency for Texas is made very strong for this year better than many others. More than in a long time, Texas can be quite financially comfortable if they seceded and lost their federal tax burden. Texas could drastically increase spending per citizen and still offer tax breaks to its people. Additionally, they could probably increase tax revenues, marginally, due to being an independent nation that can conduct trade with other nations and states. Meaning, increased revenue, decreased tax burdens.

2. Energy Leverage: So let's assume the US wants to play hardball and really tries to stick it to Texas if it seceded. Would the US even do that? Probably not. Here's why:

Texas has 1/4th of the US's oil reserve and 1/3 of the US's natural gas reserves. 95% of the nations oil and gas comes from Texas' pipelines as well (pun). For these 3 very basic reasons, alone, the US would not try to play hardball with an independent Texas. Relations would remain friendly (assuming Texas successfully seceded).

3. Economy: Texas has a very robust economy and is home to more Fortune 500 businesses than any other state.

4. Power Grid: Texas has it's own power grid. It would be far easier for them to drop from the US than any other state when it comes to electricity.

5. Military and Law Enforcement: Texas has it's own robust military and law enforcement (Texas Rangers). They can and do police themselves. They'd still need to rely on the FBI for crimes that cross borders, however.


Here's another source that chops down my post to very simplistic points:


http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/secession-yall-why-texas-can-pull-it-off/









Originally posted by Q99
It also doesn't help that like most red states, they get more from federal spending than they put in. Link

I directly contradict this with numbers straight from the sources. The above site uses a weighted/calculated measure instead of raw numbers (and they use 3 different categories)...which skews the perception of what is taking place. Texas is actually the second highest tax positive state in the US: behind California.

And the whole world just puts in all the agreements it has with the US with Texas because **** it...that's how politics work

It would be the same as if Scotland had broken off from the UK. Pointless.

One non-economic impact on the USA would be that the Republicans would likely never get a president in the White House again.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It would be the same as if Scotland had broken off from the UK. Pointless.

One non-economic impact on the USA would be that the Republicans would likely never get a president in the White House again.

idk, democracy seems to have a way of voters getting disappointed with the parties in power.

I'm sorry if the question is would Texas survive sure it would but would it thrive. It would have to go through some growing pains.

If Texas seceded any US resources and items would be removed. Yes this would include US military bases. We keep the ones we do in Japan and Germany because A) They serve strategic purposes for location) and B) we have treaties with them.

They would also have to get their own currency which could be valued pretty low. I mean Texas has oil but they aren't competing with the other major oil producing countries.

Also the US economy will still be much stronger than Texas' and that is who they would be competing with. Also most businesses would probably move their offices back to US soil. So all those Fortune 500s could quickly leave Texas.

BTW, The US has vastly decreased its military presence in Germany. Partly because with the end of the cold war different places have become of more interest to the US. At any rate, I don't see why the US would keep their bases in Texas for a long time, if Texas was an independent country.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And the whole world just puts in all the agreements it has with the US with Texas because **** it...that's how politics work

Yes, because in modern history, European nations that split or merged utterly collapsed. And economies as small and insignificant as Texas wouldn't warrant renegotiation nor would people be willing to put in the effort to do so. Nor would temporary measures for things like NAFTA be put into place during a transition period. In fact, no one knows how to actually make trade agreements or negotiate them. All the trade agreement writers and negotiators died under the Reagan administration back in the 80s.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is more likely that Texas would become closer to Mexican standards, than that they continue to thrive.

You mean like how the rest of the Nation is already being turned into a 3rd world crap hole? All thanks to our current political leaders?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, because in modern history, European nations that split or merged utterly collapsed. And economies as small and insignificant as Texas wouldn't warrant renegotiation nor would people be willing to put in the effort to do so. Nor would temporary measures for things like NAFTA be put into place during a transition period. In fact, no one knows how to actually make trade agreements or negotiate them. All the trade agreement writers and negotiators died under the Reagan administration back in the 80s.


The point he was trying to make is that Texas isn't just going to become a massive international power. It's going to need to get it's own trade agreements and won't be able to rely on the US power behind it.

Also most of those small countries aren't exactly rocking a lot of power.

Originally posted by Newjak
The point he was trying to make is that Texas isn't just going to become a massive international power. It's going to need to get it's own trade agreements and won't be able to rely on the US power behind it.

Yeah, that much is very obvious but it is a argument from ignorance or argument from incredulity fallacy. "It's too hard and we just don't know" won't cut it. And it since there is much more incentive to make trade agreements than not, it would very obviously be expeditiously negotiated. Also, as I hinted, it would be obvious that a transition period would be undertaken. Since it would be easier for Texas, than any other state, to make this transition, as I indicated in my previous post, this transition is not some incredulous and insurmountable task.

Originally posted by Newjak
Also most of those small countries aren't exactly rocking a lot of power.

I think your sentence should finish with, "...like Texas would have." That's a very valid point. Since Texas would be a world player, if it is independent, it's transition into the big leagues of nations would rustle some jimmies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that much is very obvious but it is a argument from ignorance or argument from incredulity fallacy. "It's too hard and we just don't know" won't cut it. And it since there is much more incentive to make trade agreements than not, it would very obviously be expeditiously negotiated. Also, as I hinted, it would be obvious that a transition period would be undertaken. Since it would be easier for Texas, than any other state, to make this transition, as I indicated in my previous post, this transition is not some incredulous and insurmountable task.



I think your sentence should finish with, "...like Texas would have." That's a very valid point. Since Texas would be a world player, if it is independent, it's transition into the big leagues of nations would rustle some jimmies. Pretending that it is not a massive undertaking does not help as well. Nor does it mean Texas will maintain the same economic level without the US.

The US would also take their oil reserves back/military/funding/resources. That's a decent chunk of the Texas economy right there. The main point being it doesn't help Texas to secede from the Union. It may have some minimal gains but the risk is far greater then any rewards it is going to get.

Also I think you are devaluing the amount of federal funding Texas gets. I mean it is in the upper 50% of states for the amount of funding it receives from the federal government. It is ranked 24th if you're wondering. That's not chump change. Also I imagine the first Texan that needs a passport to go visit family is not going to be happy.

Texas wouldn't be a world power. It would be a regional power with clout comparable to that of Spain or Australia, competing with Mexico for the #3 position in North America and that's all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Texas wouldn't be a world power. It would be a regional power with clout comparable to that of Spain or Australia, competing with Mexico for the #3 position in North America and that's all. If it manages to maintain even Spain level of influence in the region.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Texas wouldn't be a world power. It would be a regional power with clout comparable to that of Spain or Australia, competing with Mexico for the #3 position in North America and that's all.

Mexico would annex Texas back.

They should go for it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Mexico would annex Texas back.
That seems unlikely.

Even if Mexico had the military power to do so, I don't think Mexico really has the expansionist/irreidentist impulse, and America would never allow it.

Originally posted by Newjak
Pretending that it is not a massive undertaking does not help as well.

And pretending I was pretending it wasn't a massive undertaking is just plain dishonest, as well. Let's not devolve into shit slinging where we pretend points were made that weren't.

Originally posted by Newjak
Nor does it mean Texas will maintain the same economic level without the US.

The counter: nor does it mean Texas will cease its current economic growth. Nor does it mean that Texas will not experience increased economic growth.

Originally posted by Newjak
The US would also take their oil reserves back/military/funding/resources.

That's in your arbitrary scenario. In my scenario, which is based on reality, the split would be amicable. And bullshit petty childish things like you suggest would not be done. Because, you know, all of the reasons I outlined.

Originally posted by Newjak
The main point being it doesn't help Texas to secede from the Union. It may have some minimal gains but the risk is far greater then any rewards it is going to get.

Risks that you're creating that would not actually happen in the real world. In the real world, very little would change if they successfully seceded except they'd have more money. Perhaps we differ on this because you think Texas would need to secede through violent or shitty means. In reality, that's not what would happen nor could it happen. It would happen because US Congress voted for it to happen and, if challenged, the Supreme Court would need to uphold the vote.

None of those are violent or vindictive means. And in order for congress to comfortably agree on something like this, there'd have to be a smooth transition. Meaning, none of this "ZOMG! All trade lost, derpy do!"

Originally posted by Newjak
Also I think you are devaluing the amount of federal funding Texas gets. I mean it is in the upper 50% of states for the amount of funding it receives from the federal government. It is ranked 24th if you're wondering. That's not chump change. Also I imagine the first Texan that needs a passport to go visit family is not going to be happy.

I also think you didn't read what I posted because you'd understand that Texas pays more in that it gets.

2014 numbers show Texas pays in, to the federal government, $117 billion. Billion. That's after you subtract out all the federal money: not just things like road money. All of it. I linked straight to the site which also included federal contracts as sources of revenue. 2015 showed a huge drop in federal funding for Texas but tax revenues did not come in...

wait a minute. Now you have me repeating myself. Just read my post again.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Texas wouldn't be a world power. It would be a regional power with clout comparable to that of Spain or Australia, competing with Mexico for the #3 position in North America and that's all.

Depends on what you mean by regional power. I mean, because, clearly, it wouldn't be a regional power by some perspectives because it is already not a regional power but an international player without even seceding.

In other areas, it is definitely only a regional power. It is a rather arbitrary discussion.


But, it would be the 13th or 12th largest economy in the world if it did secede. Seems kind of silly to think it wouldn't be an international player when it already is as just a state. I don't think of places like Australia and Canada as being regional powers. Any of the top 20-30 nations are not "just regional powers."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Depends on what you mean by regional power. I mean, because, clearly, it wouldn't be a regional power by some perspectives because it is already not a regional power but an international player without even seceding.

In other areas, it is definitely only a regional power. It is a rather arbitrary discussion.


But, it would be the 13th or 12th largest economy in the world if it did secede. Seems kind of silly to think it wouldn't be an international player when it already is as just a state. I don't think of places like Australia and Canada as being regional powers. Any of the top 20-30 nations are not "just regional powers."
Well, as you suggest, the distinction between world and regional powers can be muddy, but my personal definition of world power includes more than just economic importance, but also includes soft power output, military strength, influence in regional or international blocs, and diplomatic clout. Texas would probably hold average grades in all of these for quite some time.

As to the top 30 countries all being "more than regional powers," I'd point out that my motherland, Belgium, which is 25th on the list, *might* qualify as a world power ONLY because it hosts NATO and the EU in its capital. If it weren't for that, nothing about Belgium gives it global reach. Same for countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, South Korea, and Argentina. They can make waves in their own backyard, but can they resolve a crisis between world powers a continent away? Can they deploy a sizable military expedition to the opposite side of the planet in short order? Do they have the wherewithal to change a third world country's fortunes through massive, comprehensive infrastructure projects?

To me there are only a handful of world powers, and all but one or two of them have permanent seats on the UN Security Council, and there are another handful of countries who could be considered global powers by some definitions or who have clear potential to become global powers, (these would include India, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Mexico, and maybe Texas if it were independent) but they're not there yet and they may never get there.

Jesus Christ. They actually lifted bluewaterrider's ban. What kind of world are we living in?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, as you suggest, the distinction between world and regional powers can be muddy, but my personal definition of world power includes more than just economic importance, but also includes soft power output, military strength, influence in regional or international blocs, and diplomatic clout. Texas would probably hold average grades in all of these for quite some time.

You're overlooking the influence TX would have on the US (I outlined why TX would have leverage on the US). Also, TX would be the US's new Israel.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As to the top 30 countries all being "more than regional powers," I'd point out that my motherland, Belgium, which is 25th on the list, *might* qualify as a world power ONLY because it hosts NATO and the EU in its capital. If it weren't for that, nothing about Belgium gives it global reach.

That's odd. Belgium is an international player as all of the top countries. Why would you think that being the host country to NATO and the EU? And why is a country with a globalized economy not an international player when, by definition, having a globalized economy makes it an international player?

You have a really odd definition of "international player." I think you are putting far too much emphasis on internal military power. Real international power comes from resources, money, and people who scream about having a big stick (Russia). Texas stick would be smaller than other countries like, say, China's, obviously. But that's not the only way to be an international player.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Same for countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, South Korea, and Argentina. They can make waves in their own backyard, but can they resolve a crisis between world powers a continent away?

Not even the US can so why do you think another country, with less resources and a smaller military, can?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Can they deploy a sizable military expedition to the opposite side of the planet in short order?

Sure. NATO and the UN seem to be able to organize military campaigns. Additionally, have the US as a big sister seems to be a great choice. In this hypothetical, TX would have to split on good terms...and the US is all about protecting her resources.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Do they have the wherewithal to change a third world country's fortunes through massive, comprehensive infrastructure projects?

Yes.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To me there are only a handful of world powers,

So now you are wanting to change the topic to "world powers" instead of countries who are international players? Seems you want to talk about something else. I believe, at this point, you want to talk about superpowers. But, in order for a country; by what seems to be your definition of international player; to be considered an international player, they just need to be able to have significant influence in more than one region at a time. Texas already has that. That much should be obvious because Texas is home to 54 of the Fortune 500 companies and Global 500 companies (I could not find that number but they are #1 out of the US states for the Global 500 company list).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(these would include India, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Mexico, and maybe Texas if it were independent) but they're not there yet and they may never get there.

So what are we talking about if you already concede this point? Of course Texas would be a international player. An TX will not secede anytime soon. That much is obvious. They need to get far more support from within TX and THEN from US Congress. I'd think that we'd need to see a 2/3 vote from Congress, similar to an amendment, because it would be that serious.

So before I continue with this dadudemon I think there is a disconnect with what we are saying. You are implying that I think the succession will be violent or petty. It could be but that is not central to my point.

You seem to think when Texas leaves the Union everything will be the same. You're making Texas to be that ex that still wants to be friends and have the other person buy it things. As well as keep all of the ex's stuff that is their in aprtment.

I'm not saying the US is going to be violent or petty. What I'm saying is that I don't see the US continuing to put resources into Texas majorly nor do I see the US really needing Texas. I also think it is foolish for you to think that the US is going to keep major American resources that were funded by the federal government in Texas. Like military bases or military equipment. Not without making Texas pay for it. I definitely don't see them leaving any missile defense systems or advanced tech in Texas. Or that the US would allow Texas to piggy back on their treaties with other countries. Saying they will is childish. Most of this would hopefully be peaceful but I could definite see the US sending in troops if Texas tried to play tough while the US would be getting it's stuff back.

From there it is a lot of what ifs with the Texas economy but I think they would be in for some growing pains and don't pretend the US losing Texas is the same as Texas losing the US. The US is and would still be a major super power in the world Texas would be a big ? But not a super power assuming they kept their economy the same without the backing of the US federal Goverment. Of course Texas would probably be allowed into NAFTA but that would probably go against what they want from a political standpoint.

Originally posted by Newjak
You seem to think when Texas leaves the Union everything will be the same.

Since my post directly contradicts what you state I think, you're wrong. In other words, you're still not capturing my position appropriately and are using strawman arguments.

Originally posted by Newjak
What I'm saying is that I don't see the US continuing to put resources into Texas majorly nor do I see the US really needing Texas. I also think it is foolish for you to think that the US is going to keep major American resources that were funded by the federal government in Texas. Like military bases or military equipment. Not without making Texas pay for it. I definitely don't see them leaving any missile defense systems or advanced tech in Texas. Or that the US would allow Texas to piggy back on their treaties with other countries. Saying they will is childish. Most of this would hopefully be peaceful but I could definite see the US sending in troops if Texas tried to play tough while the US would be getting it's stuff back.

Regardless of what you think would happen, the US would actually lose money if Texas seceded if literally everything else stayed the same because Texas is a net positive tax payer to all of the monetary resources that the US puts into Texas. Texas has lots to gain and the US has lots to lose if Texas seceded. And, no, the US would not pull out military bases and contracts. Again, that's childish and petty. As Bardock42 touched on, they may scale back over time. But it wouldn't be like an ex moving out of an apartment on a whim. It would cost the US too much to just supplant all military investments overnight.

What you're not acknowledging or understanding is, even if all US military stuff ceased in TX, nothing of my points would change except maybe some numbers on the money US puts into TX (by the way, military contracts* are not even a majority of the money the US puts into TX: that includes bases).

But, let's be clear: you say the US would react like a petty child and I say they wouldn't. You say the US would pull out of Texas in every single way imaginable, I say they wouldn't. My justification is the requirements to get TX out of the union would require ridiculous amounts support from US Congress which would directly shit all over the notion that the US would react like a petty child (or as you said, exes and apartments).


*This includes military installations/bases, as well. Check the site I linked. It even shows where that money is going to, on a map, so you can see exactly what resources the US puts into TX. Cease all of it, even if those existing assets are removed, and it literally changes nothing on my point. TX still gets over $100 billion in funds, annually. These are funds they currently do not have because of being a state in the US.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since my post directly contradicts what you state I think, you're wrong. In other words, you're still not capturing my position appropriately and are using strawman arguments.



Regardless of what you think would happen, the US would actually lose money if Texas seceded if literally everything else stayed the same because Texas is a net positive tax payer to all of the monetary resources that the US puts into Texas. Texas has lots to gain and the US has lots to lose if Texas seceded. And, no, the US would not pull out military bases and contracts. Again, that's childish and petty. As Bardock42 touched on, they may scale back over time. But it wouldn't be like an ex moving out of an apartment on a whim. It would cost the US too much to just supplant all military investments overnight.

What you're not acknowledging or understanding is, even if all US military stuff ceased in TX, nothing of my points would change except maybe some numbers on the money US puts into TX (by the way, military contracts* are not even a majority of the money the US puts into TX: that includes bases).

But, let's be clear: you say the US would react like a petty child and I say they wouldn't. You say the US would pull out of Texas in every single way imaginable, I say they wouldn't. My justification is the requirements to get TX out of the union would require ridiculous amounts support from US Congress which would directly shit all over the notion that the US would react like a petty child (or as you said, exes and apartments).


*This includes military installations/bases, as well. Check the site I linked. It even shows where that money is going to, on a map, so you can see exactly what resources the US puts into TX. Cease all of it, even if those existing assets are removed, and it literally changes nothing on my point. TX still gets over $100 billion in funds, annually. These are funds they currently do not have because of being a state in the US. I'm sorry but your argument about the US removing resources out of Texas continues to be if they do so it would petty is ridiculous. There is nothing petty about the US removing vital resources from foreign soil instead of keeping them to freely bolster another countries resources and presence. Pretending that is petty is childish. It is Texas/you saying we're leaving and we're keeping your stuff for free because if you want it back it makes you look petty. That's not how international relations between countries work. Wanting to make sure vital US resources are in the US is not petty and definitely would happen if Texas removed itself from the Union.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry but your argument about the US removing resources out

Wrong.


Assets. Military assets, to be exact. And the funding that went with them. Texas definitely cannot, currently, count them as assets. So why would they be assets after a hypothetical secession?

Originally posted by Newjak
There is nothing petty about the US removing vital resources from foreign soil instead of keeping them to freely bolster another countries resources and presence.

That's an act of war, good sir! If they stole Texas resources when it was a sovereign nation, that's not going to look too good in the international community. It'd be worse than Russia v. Ukraine.

Originally posted by Newjak
Pretending that is petty is childish.

I think this is a more accurate wording: "Assuming the US would act petty and childish by stealing resources from a sovereign nation is stupid."

Originally posted by Newjak
It is Texas/you saying we're leaving and we're keeping your stuff for free because if you want it back it makes you look petty.

Those military assets do nothing. Remove military industrial equipment? Cool. Still the same for Texas. Remove a military base? Cool. Nothing changes. Why do you think it does anything? The money for those assets is already taken into account in the numbers I presented. So why do you think you have any sort of point? I've already covered it, by the numbers...it's moot.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's not how international relations between countries work. Wanting to make sure vital US resources are in the US is not petty and definitely would happen if Texas removed itself from the Union.

Why do you think tanks, artillery, missiles, etc. create some sort of money for Texas?

Okay, this may be what you're missing. If the US goes, so does the money for the military bases. This is included in the "money" figures (remember my previous post and my initial one that linked the map showing where the money is going from the US Government?).

And the military bases are not just going to be dissolved immediately. Nor will NASA's assets. As I've been telling you, that type of knee-jerk reaction is petty and childish. That's not something that would happen in an amicable split that was authorized by the US. Sure, maybe if Texas won independence through violent means...but something tells me that even if that were possible, they'd take control of those assets, anyway, which still invalidates any point you think you have.