Posted on 11/29/2012 5:27:14 PM PST by djf
This question originally appeared on Quora. It was taken from Quora's "hypothetical battles" topic, where readers "can ask questions and get answer on fighting that wouldn't likely or ever happen in real life."
Answer by Jon Davis, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps:
These are the accounts of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and the American Warring States Period. ... Here are the states that held the greatest strategic value from day one. They have the ability to be self-sufficient, economic strength, military strength, the will to fight, and the population to support a powerful war machine.
California Texas New York
Others that have many of the qualities that gave them an advantage are also listed.
Washington Colorado Illinois Virginia Florida Georgia
Excerpted... read the rest at link!
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I’m plotting a waterborne invasion to free Chicago.
If the answer isn’t Texas, it’s wrong.
In theory California could be completely sufficient, but its run by liberals.
What an interesting question, great one for cocktail parties.
Which ever state that promised the most government benefits. ;-)
Why not Detroit? :-)
Frankly, I’d choose Texas. It has a ‘nation’ mindset already and a self-reliant tradition. It has a well-armed populace by all accounts and the sons&daughters in other states would quickly rally under such circumstances.
Of the others, only Alaska would probably be as tough.
I agree with the Alaska and Hawaii estimate and thought of that before opening the article. It would take more resources for any one state to invade either of those states and most states would have to cross another state to even be in a position to invade. They could sit it out while the others beat up on each other, storing resources and building assets at that time. It would mean a much weaker opposition to them when someone was left who was finally willing to turn their eyes on those states. They may not come out on the very top, but they will be one of the last standing.
Detroit is armed, they gotta free themselves.
Laying siege to Ann Arbor has its attraction.
This whole State vs State construct is unrealistic.
Logistics. Always logistics.
/johnny
“If the answer isn’t Texas, it’s wrong.”
I don’t live there but I’d put my money on Texas, easily over the west coast gays and NY snobs - and probably everyone else combined.
Which side are the illegal aliens fighting on?
I posted it after reading the first few paragraphs, then went back to read the rest.
Interesting analysis! I have a hard time thinking California could overtake the Pacific Northwest, though, because we have an awful lot of military resources here...
I remember reading something years ago which stuck in my mind. I am not even certain it is an accurate quote but probably not possible to tell for certain. The statement was by Robert E. Lee.
Anyway he said that he preferred troops from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. I thought that was a particularly high compliment since he was a Virginian.
Something which tends to back that up is a letter from a South Carolina soldier. He wrote his wife that all the Richmond papers were giving the Virginians credit for a victory when it was the Florida Brigade which actually won the battle and did the hardest fighting.
State of Confusion would be the winner.
None of them would “win” if they all fought the other 49 states.
Kalipornia won’t fight. Half its residents are loyal to Mexico, so....
As a native Californian I’d still put my money on Texas for sure.
It depends on what the definition of “win” means. Also “it” could play a major role. “if” could play a role except in the south where “it” would “if’n”. I would also measure the rate of pot sales.
Yes, that does make sense. That makes perfect sense.
Could California or New York turn their masses into an effective army using liberal leadership? Sure they can create mobs of people, but what happens when a bunch of Texans starts shooting at them?
Interesting fantasifical fiction to ponder.
But I would bet on a better alliance through the midwest. A swath of control in the middle of the country that includes the seaports of Texas and gulf states would make a nation completely self reliant on resources, food, manufacturing, shipping, energy and military might.
The downside would be a near indefensible border to the east and west.
Mexico.. 'Illegal inhabitants' in California and Arizona would join with Mexicans down south to overtake Southern California and parts of Arizona. Perhaps this was Eric Holder's plan when he sent thousands of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
The big picture boils down to motivation.. I think Texas is best positioned, motivationally to combat ideology foreign to our Constitution. Are we outnumbered? Probably.
Blue states are more densely populated. Urban warfare could pose a challenge. Then again, most of the guns in blue states are in the hands of gangbangers and other criminals who aren’t the most disciplined. States with large populations of hunters (mostly red) would have the ultimate advantage. Bring it on!
JF'nK already tried that in Boston.
Or China.
I think Alaska too, at least on playing defense. Perhaps I was thinking more of seccesion. Heck - just secede and let the gov’t figure it out some day.
“Hey - anybody heard from Alaska lately?”
I did live there for about 3.5 years. Great state. Proud people. I have lived in 5 different states. Only TX citizens know the State History better than they know national history. You know how you can tell if a person is from Texas? They'll tell you. They are proud of their self reliance and independence.
What an interesting war-game scenario. Frightening, because Texas is the only answer, but I admit my bias.
There are more red counties in Kalifornia than blue. I believe many if not most in those counties would fight against their own state. I would.
Just as a guesstimate, my thought is that NY could barely make it across the Hudson before they started whining and getting their rumps roasted. Remember, NY’rs (not the upstate type - I am in fact a native upstater), the city flavor, are densly packed in with a constant influx of goods and materials to keep them going.
I just don’t see NY winning.
California has a problem. The same problem that doomed the Donner party. The rockies.
So cali is limited by having the greatest mobility being along the coast. The Rocky mountains are a natural defense mechanism/border that would keep Cali from going east.
So, in as much as I live in the Pacific Northwest, I would have to say my money would be on Texas.
Them boys know how to kick some butt!
I agree about this question; One of the most thought-provoking questions on FR here of late.
I have no idea who would win in a war, but if I had to return to the new USSA, I would head directly to my home red state of Tennessee, also known as the “Volunteer” state.
” the nickname the Volunteer State comes from the record number of volunteers the state provided during both the War of 1812 and the Mexican War.”
Tennessee would do the same in the war against the Obamination.
The State that Glenn Beck moved to.. Texas
NY, CA, and WA might have ports and things, but to suggest that the people that inhabit those states are even capable of fighting their way out of a wet paper bag is laughable.
Mexico is not a threat.
They don’t have the population. Or the guns.
I think all the old Confederate states would link up again, quickly. I think we (CSA2) would have more trouble with the East Coast than the West.
Lots of the Northeast wouldn’t put up much of a fight, they’d be too busy whining about not getting their food stamps.
Most of the West Coast population would be high and munchin on Cheetos.
“California has a problem. The same problem that doomed the Donner party. The rockies.”
That would be the Sierra Nevada, not the Rockies. OTOH, it would make California’s eastern border much easier to defend from a land invasion, at least from north of Barstow or thereabouts. Also, it has the Colorado River between itself and Arizona.
But I probably don’t have to tell anyone here how porous California’s southern border is.
North Dakota. Fourth largest nuclear power on the planet....
Potato guns.
Unlimited ammo.
I put my money on NY
You are thinking of just New York City
Just go 30 Miles North of the city people are just as armed as they are in Texas, the land is just as vast and rugged (The largest park in the lower 48 is not Yellowstone, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon or the Everglades, it's the Adirondack Park in NY which is bigger than all of them combined!!!)
And if somehow you did get up here, our brutal winters will take you out.
Upstate NY has no Alamo; Saratoga, Ticonderoga, French-Indian, Lake Champlain, we won them all
I wrote “Surviving Civil War II” to address what a second civil war would look like - nothing like CWI. In fact we are in it now.
http://www.futurnamics.com/civilwar.php
Who cares if the power is on just as long as the wind is blowing the stink of the dead bodies away from ya’ll?
It’ll be a producers vs. takers shootout, as you indicate.
Logistics, logistics, logistics, logistics.
California would win eventually.
All it would take would be 10 flights per day out of McChord AFB and Washington state could take over just about everything west of the Mississippi river!
And lets not talk about Bangor... or Bremerton, where they park some serious naval assets.
If Washington was a country, it would be like the 8th largest military in the world...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.