Ping, interesting article and discussion you will enjoy.
Here is the Quora thread with a ton more detail and analysis.
http://www.quora.com/Hypothetical-Battles/If-every-state-of-the-USA-declared-war-against-each-other-which-would-win
Rhode Island. They’ve become warriors from having to fight clams.
Easy: The one with the most nukes
Lets see, the liberals don’t like guns, they don’t like the military and manufacturing, I don’t see how the Republic of Kalifornia or New York can be on the top unless they count the gangbangers and thugs. I vote Texas, but I would like to see the South rise again.
It is impossible to answer this question because you can’t know which states would align with which, except perhaps by region, nor how outside support could affect the outcome.
Interesting scenario. Do we get all the military assets in our state to work with?
The one with the most active missile silos.
I would bet almost any state in the lower 48 would contemplate attacking Alaska.
Especially if Alaska seceded or became independent, which may ver well happen. But then again most people could care less about Alaska, logistically its superior by its distance, and even if they did manage to invade they will hi-tail it out after the second month of its six month winter.
Sometimes I can be proud of living here in Alaska, though today it was pushing its luck, massive high winds are creating fires and people are being evacuated from subdivisions, even my shop had a massive wind related damage to it today, broken gas mains, big 14’ overhead door nearly destroyed, spent the day in 60mph winds trying to rig tarps and setting up auxiliary heating.
If we were to unwrap some of the Limburger up wind we could probably hold off advances from Illinois and Minnesota indefinitely. We'd probably make a deal for mutual aid with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and cut off the Mackinaw bridge to exclude the flatlanders. Between the Yoopers and cheese heads we could probably field about 2 million well armed men and women.
Regards,
GtG
PS There was a time when the UP was pushing for annexation by Wisconsin, too bad it never came to be as both of us would have come out ahead.
This is really a very silly article. For one, because the deciding lines are not like the 1860s with state loyalties as strong or stronger than national loyalties. People for the most part line up along ideological lines that in physical geography is demarcated by urban vs rural. Most states will have large groups of adherents to both sides within them making it a true civil war rather that a war between states.
Second is that the break up would be driven by half of the country wanting just to be left alone by the other half. The animosity would be like a divorced couple where one side just wants to get away from the relationship and the other wants retaliation for what they sense as an abandonment. The “Texas Republic” of this story wouldn’t be looking to conquer California to reunify the country, but defend themselves and prevent LA, SanFran, Chicago, New York, etc. from imposing on them.
I think such a conflict would be very tough on urban dwellers as much of the supplies a large city depends on could be blockaded by damage to the infrastructure. Country folks being more self sufficient would withstand the deprivation better while in the urban areas the armed and aggressive would scavenge first from their unarmed and passive neighbors before foraging out further. When the urbanites do make their way out into the country they will find the country folks more often than not armed and having greater community cohesion with neighbors banding together to protect what they have. In the end the makers will win over the takers, but the victory would be terrible and ugly and a violent conflict always something to be avoided if possible.
This is really a very silly article. For one, because the deciding lines are not like the 1860s with state loyalties as strong or stronger than national loyalties. People for the most part line up along ideological lines that in physical geography is demarcated by urban vs rural. Most states will have large groups of adherents to both sides within them making it a true civil war rather that a war between states.
Second is that the break up would be driven by half of the country wanting just to be left alone by the other half. The animosity would be like a divorced couple where one side just wants to get away from the relationship and the other wants retaliation for what they sense as an abandonment. The “Texas Republic” of this story wouldn’t be looking to conquer California to reunify the country, but defend themselves and prevent LA, SanFran, Chicago, New York, etc. from imposing on them.
I think such a conflict would be very tough on urban dwellers as much of the supplies a large city depends on could be blockaded by damage to the infrastructure. Country folks being more self sufficient would withstand the deprivation better while in the urban areas the armed and aggressive would scavenge first from their unarmed and passive neighbors before foraging out further. When the urbanites do make their way out into the country they will find the country folks more often than not armed and having greater community cohesion with neighbors banding together to protect what they have. In the end the makers will win over the takers, but the victory would be terrible and ugly and a violent conflict always something to be avoided if possible.
Pantex is in Amarillo.
The South will rise again!
Thinking about what would happen in my home state of Alabama. Since we can’t sustain a welfare state, there would probably be a mass exodus of people going to places that could or would at least try, and those who didn’t move would have to fend for themselves. There would probably some unrest in the cities as the state adjusted to the new economy. My home county would be in good shape as far as the riots go so long as we control the bridges. Alabama has resources, but would still need to form an alliance with other states for economic and defense issues.
Protect our southern boarder while the rest of the states battle it out amongst themselves........
I find it amusing that the folks in the states that tried it before, are suggesting that the folks who kicked their ass couldn’t do it again.
Texas. Resources and People and Terrain. No doubt. Of course, a few other States have nukes.
Even though I avoid Slate like the plague, this was a two-thumbs-up read!