A Marine explains which state would win if the US declared war on itself

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: BUSINESS INSIDER

URL: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-marine-explains-which-state-would-win-if-the-us-declared-war-on-itself-2015-7

by Jon Davis, Quora


We recently came across the following question on Quora: “If every state of the USA declared war against each other, which would win?“

We’ve published the full answer from Quora user Jon Davis, a Marine veteran who is now a writer and blogger on military, veterans, and Middle Eastern affairs. In Oct. 2014, Davis’ answer was optioned by a Hollywood producer for a potential television series.

These are the accounts of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and the American Warring States Period.

After the breakup many wondered which states would come out in control of the power void created by the dissolution of the United States. There were many with little chance against several of the larger more powerful states.

The states in possession of a large population, predisposition for military bases and a population open to the idea of warfare fared the best. In the long term we would look to states with self-sufficiency and long term military capabilities.

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

For all intents and purposes Alaska and Hawaii ended well enough since they were so far removed from the center of the country that they never really suffer greatly nor benefit from the shattering.



Day 12: “It’s getting scary. My mom said we are going back to Oklahoma to stay with Grandma. The other day my dad was yelling at some men at the door. They seemed really upset. I held Jamie. She is still little. She’s scared and doesn’t understand what is going on. I am scared too. There are also some boys at school who keep picking on her and calling her an “Okie”. We were both raised here, but I don’t really think that matters. All the other families on my street have huge one-star flags hanging from their homes. I don’t want to leave my house, but Mom says we have to go. The highways are packed with people. I wish things would just go back to how it was.”The Diary of Sarah Brennan

First came a period of massive migration back to the homelands. Facing the newly invented discrimination that will be created many felt the need to go back to their own people. While the individual states retained all military assets they couldn’t control the individuals who fight.

A Texas Marine stationed in California, would not fight for California. A soldier in New York would not fight against their home in Virginia and a sailor in Houston would not fight against their home state of Florida. The warriors returned to their home states and the states had to reconsider that when they measured troop strength of their new nations. Ultimately, they measured troop strength by how much of the population would return home.



After the migrations rough approximations left the states even, additionally, the balance of foreign nationals changed. At some point there was a migration of people back to their non-United States homeland. Over the next several months many from the North migrated to Canada and in the South to Mexico and South America. Millions of Latinos fled back South to the safety of their families and away from the looming danger of the war.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST

[Sanguine]

 

[thackney]

SOURCE: BUSINESS INSIDER

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....

Unless they plan on fighting the imaginary Civil War #2 with the Technology of Civil War #1, New York is going to have a tough time providing the energy needed, electricity and transportation fuels.

[240B]

I like the thought exercise. I believe if such a scenario were to happen, a large portion of the population would flee to Texas, regardless of their home State.


That's where I, and my family, would want to be.

[geronl]

I thought Wyoming, because no one would think to invade Wyoming

[Sanguine]

I thought Wyoming, because no one would think to invade Wyoming

Yes, but there's a good reason for that.

[EC]

Michigan. Well, the Upper bit, anyways. Good water communications, friendly country right next door, far enough away from the more aggressive states to have time to co-ordinate a defense plan, loads of natural resources. It's where I'd head.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I'd put my money on Texas.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Using the "Risk" strategic analysis standard, I would say that Florida would have an excellent chance as the pseudo-Australia.  A secure base with natural borders to the east, west, and south.
California also has a completely secure western flank, which is another advantage.  Texas....well, it's got a very long, awkward border and would be exposed on three sides.

That being said, we all know Texas would win.

[roamer_1]

I'd put my money on Texas.

Yeah maybe. But I dunno... More guns per square inch and more independent-minded people in the Rocky Mountain West, with the most defensible terrain, other than maybe the swamps. As projected force, not so much, but all dug in and hard to move... nuther story. If I had to do it anywhere, I'd be doing it right here.

Not that it matters, because the states would not act that way - Texas might be a linchpin, but if they do it right, Dixie and the desert, and the Rockies will go with them, and probably the midwest too.

[Joe Wooten]

Unless they plan on fighting the imaginary Civil War #2 with the Technology of Civil War #1, New York is going to have a tough time providing the energy needed, electricity and transportation fuels.

And California has the same energy problems as New York along with virtually no heavy manufacturing. Texas has substantial oil field heavy manufacturing that could be converted to war use very quickly. California has no military colleges, while A&M also graduates more officers than the 4 service academies combined.

[Cripplecreek]

Yeah maybe. But I dunno... More guns per square inch and more independent-minded people in the Rocky Mountain West, with the most defensible terrain, other than maybe the swamps. As projected force, not so much, but all dug in and hard to move... nuther story. If I had to do it anywhere, I'd be doing it right here.

Not that it matters, because the states would not act that way - Texas might be a linchpin, but if they do it right, Dixie and the desert, and the Rockies will go with them, and probably the midwest too.

I think it would end up being typically rural vs urban with rural people aligned regardless of what state they're from. The cities have a few deepwater ports but would need to import virtually everything they need and landlocked cities would be under seige and collapse pretty quickly.

Rural flyover country has the resources, the ability to feed ourselves, manufacturing capability and unimpeded travel.

[thackney]

Using the "Risk" strategic analysis standard, I would say that Florida would have an excellent chance as the pseudo-Australia.  A secure base with natural borders to the east, west, and south.

No significant energy resources of their own.  Most of their Natural Gas comes from Texas.  No refineries.

California also has a completely secure western flank, which is another advantage.  Texas....well, it's got a very long, awkward border and would be exposed on three sides.

That being said, we all know Texas would win.

[skeeter]

I think it would end up being typically rural vs urban with rural people aligned regardless of what state they're from. The cities have a few deepwater ports but would need to import virtually everything they need and landlocked cities would be under seige and collapse pretty quickly.

Rural flyover country has the resources, the ability to feed ourselves, manufacturing capability and unimpeded travel.

This is correct. In California there are many places outside of the urban centers that could easily be mistaken for rural Oklahoma, attitudinally speaking.

[Sanguine]

Don't forget - Texas Independence Day is March 2nd.

[roamer_1]

I think it would end up being typically rural vs urban with rural people aligned regardless of what state they're from. The cities have a few deepwater ports but would need to import virtually everything they need and landlocked cities would be under seige and collapse pretty quickly.

Rural flyover country has the resources, the ability to feed ourselves, manufacturing capability and unimpeded travel.

Mostly true - I left off the midwest (made it less likely) not because of the people, but because it is necessary for those city-states to survive, and it is relatively indefensible. Farmers can't just melt away into the woods. But you're right. It will be the Yankee vs Dixie thing all over again.... The industrial northeast and left coast against the rest of us.

[Victoria33]

Yeah maybe. But I dunno... More guns per square inch and more independent-minded people in the Rocky Mountain West, with the most defensible terrain, other than maybe the swamps. As projected force, not so much, but all dug in and hard to move... nuther story. If I had to do it anywhere, I'd be doing it right here.
Not that it matters, because the states would not act that way - Texas might be a linchpin, but if they do it right, Dixie and the desert, and the Rockies will go with them, and probably the midwest too.

We in Texas have plenty of guns and ammo, but we also have our own electric grid - we are not connected to the other states, and we have gasoline and natural gas plants to keep us moving.  Plants go here early spring/summer/fall - longer growing season than cold states so we will have food cold states won't have.

It is the underpinnings supporting the war that usually determines who wins.

[roamer_1]

We in Texas have plenty of guns and ammo,

I know you do, and no offense meant... But we've got more, and bigger. Y'all hunt boar and deer and ducks. We've got those, and bear and elk and moose. There ain't hardly a man here that can't handle at least a 250 yard shot, and many many that can go way past that, and have the guns to do it with. Not braggin', just so. Mountain boys got it over everybody when it comes to shooting (and tracking, and bush-craft), and always do.

but we also have our own electric grid - we are not connected to the other states, and we have gasoline and natural gas plants to keep us moving.

Yep. We do too. Plus big hydro-electric. Careful with that though - that sort of stuff is high value targets... They won't last long.

Plants go here early spring/summer/fall - longer growing season than cold states so we will have food cold states won't have.

True. But we're used to that, and are pretty much unassailable for 5 months of the year, we can rest... whereas you are gonna have to be wide open the whole time... Different strokes.

But not altogether true - Our farms can't go year round, but lots of folks have greenhouses and know how to use them. The knowledge is there, if not the capacity. And that's distributed system - Harder to take out than flat farm land.

It is the underpinnings supporting the war that usually determines who wins.

To a degree, that's right. But the last place to fall will be these high mountains. Very predictably.

[geronl]

Texas is also big and bad enough to use Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico as hostages and shields.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I know you do, and no offense meant... But we've got more, and bigger. Y'all hunt boar and deer and ducks. We've got those, and bear and elk and moose. There ain't hardly a man here that can't handle at least a 250 yard shot, and many many that can go way past that, and have the guns to do it with. Not braggin', just so. Mountain boys got it over everybody when it comes to shooting (and tracking, and bush-craft), and always do.

Yep. We do too. Plus big hydro-electric. Careful with that though - that sort of stuff is high value targets... They won't last long.

True. But we're used to that, and are pretty much unassailable for 5 months of the year, we can rest... whereas you are gonna have to be wide open the whole time... Different strokes.

But not altogether true - Our farms can't go year round, but lots of folks have greenhouses and know how to use them. The knowledge is there, if not the capacity. And that's distributed system - Harder to take out than flat farm land.

To a degree, that's right. But the last place to fall will be these high mountains. Very predictably.

Good point. We could put up one heck of a guerrilla operation to stop anyone from conquering the area. It all depends on how much technology the enemy is throwing our way.

[geronl]

Texas has millions of liberals to use for cannon fodder too

[Smokin Joe]

No significant energy resources of their own.  Most of their Natural Gas comes from Texas.  No refineries.

It all depends on how nasty it gets. Between North Dakota and Montana, you have the world's third largest nuclear power.

[roamer_1]

Good point. We could put up one heck of a guerrilla operation to stop anyone from conquering the area. It all depends on how much technology the enemy is throwing our way.

And that ain't likely - Drones are a game-changer, but not really... not when that whole land is on end like it is here. It'll take boots on the ground, and even that is iffy for them without the mountain scouts they'd need.

And what is there to take? They'll be dang busy everywhere else before they ever get on up in here... or the Appalachians, or the big swamp, or the high desert, or the high plains.

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah maybe. But I dunno... More guns per square inch and more independent-minded people in the Rocky Mountain West, with the most defensible terrain, other than maybe the swamps. As projected force, not so much, but all dug in and hard to move... nuther story. If I had to do it anywhere, I'd be doing it right here.

Not that it matters, because the states would not act that way - Texas might be a linchpin, but if they do it right, Dixie and the desert, and the Rockies will go with them, and probably the midwest too.

Take everything from Hudson's Bay to the Bay of Campeche, From the Western Divide to the Mississippi (or the Alleghenies), and let the rest of it find a new name. Clean up the Liberal cesspools, reroute the roads and rail lines around the 'hot' areas, and you'd have a viable country.

[roamer_1]

Texas is also big and bad enough to use Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico as hostages and shields.

If you're serious about it, y'all would do better to raise the Rebel flag over the state house. Dixie'd come a running, as would the mountain states. There ain't a redneck boy on the planet that don't know what that flag is for, and most of them wore that patch at some time in their youth...

There's only three flags on the planet that mean anything to me - One is Old Glory, one is that Rebel flag, and the other says 'Don't Tread on Me'.