I'll start with some numbers:

GDP (Nominal), 2010:

1. California $1.936 trillion
2. Canada $1.577 trillion

GDP (Per Capita), 2010:

1. California $51,914
2. Canada $46,361

Exports, 2011:

1. Canada $463,100,000,000
2. California $159,000,000,000

Labor Force, 2009:

1. Canada 18.4 million
2. California 18.2 million

GDP Growth Rate:

1. Canada 2.2%
2. California 1.5%
Update : No Allies

Washington and Oregon would not allow this :-D

1. This shouldn't be in general forum. It should be in the off topic one

2. In a real situation, California wouldn't be fighting Canada by itself. The rest of the U.S would most likely help (not to mention that so far we are in pretty friendly terms and we Canadians like peace) so this war would never actually happen at the moment.

3. Assuming a war did happen, Canada would have an easier time sustaining itself by exporting a lot more than California, and since Canada has an official army (there is no such thing as a Californian army) it is already more organized and ready for an invasion.

Also, Canada's GDP is actually roughly somewhere in the 1.8 trillion mark

I'm just suspriesd that California is almost just as strong as Canada. and it's just 1 state in the Union.

It's quite hard when the total population of Canada is only about 1/10 of the U.S

For China and Canada the population is 43:1

I'm just suspriesd that California is almost just as strong as Canada.

It isn't, those numbers mean nothing. If GDP per Capita was any reflection on millitary capabilities then Quatar would be top, followed by Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway then Brunei. While nominal GPD is slightly more accurate there are still countless other variables to consider, and as Mylor said, these figures are a little off.

Edited 4/18/2014 12:25:11

actually every state in the USA has a state militia so TECHNICALLY California does have a army... just not a full time trained army

SNinja, where exactly are you getting that from? Maybe the states had militias back in Revolutionary War era but they most certainly do not now.

Richard, we still have militias

8 men in the back of a pickup is not a militia.

No, we really don't.
Some states have the crazy paramilitary militias. Those are just whackjobs.
Some states have state guards which are reserves who backfill for the National Guard but not every state has those and those that do are generally something of a joke.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/key-charges-dismissed-against-michigan-militia-group/1


True, but it's still funny :D

Just scanned the picture.

Eight men in ... a pickup

I counted 6 men, a boy and a woman

Michigan militia is a right-wing paramilitary force with absolutely no ties to state or local government. In fact, I'd wager they are largely illegal.

They are whackadoos with weapons and certainly don't qualify as a true militia.

Lulz, it's true. My state has nothing ._.

State militia are now comprised of National Guard who are "usually" ex-military or reserve, but also comprised of civilians. Every state is permitted to have one, but not necessarily required and these National Guard units have access to the full array of military hardware available to G.I. They are considered reserve and technically shouldn't be sent outside US territory, however, since the Clinton administration it's become standard practice to send them into combat zones for "defensive purposes".

For all intents and purposes, they are the modern state militias that every state in the Union has a right, but not requirement, to have. Many states, like Colorado, have multiple battalions.

-Source, my step-father was in the National Guard, sent to Bosnia and Iraq.

Oh and no Richard, they aren't generally a joke, but if your only experience of them is through the media, then I can understand how you'd think that. Maybe you should stop reading so much and start living a little, armchair philosophy is so 18th century :P

Hauptmann, I was referencing State Defense Forces, not National Guard. They are two distinct things as I clearly stated. National Guard is ultimately a federal institution and not state, though the governor can direct them.

Well, while California doesn't have an army, certainly some of the US Army's soldiers came from California, right?

Assuming we just want soldiers from California, a rough estimate would be to take California's population compared to the US, and then use that proportion on the US Army to get an (actually trained) Californian Army.

I'm too lazy to look up more factual sources, but based on Wikipedia...
California has about 12% of the US population
The US Army has about 1.1 million people

1.1 million*12% = 132,000 soldiers for California (lazy estimate)
Canada: 120,000 soldiers