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.
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.
This whole State vs State construct is unrealistic.
Logistics. Always logistics.
/johnny
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.
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.
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!
Or China.
What an interesting war-game scenario. Frightening, because Texas is the only answer, but I admit my bias.
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.
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.