U. S. A. at war with one another! You decide.

Avatar image for slimj87d
slimj87d

15685

Forum Posts

397

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This was a interesting reddit topic I wanted to bring to the vine.

The USA has broken up into several countries by state. Which states end up going to war first? Who would win?

Discuss!

Avatar image for Eeshaan1685
Eeshaan1685

3517

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Mexico, cuz they own all of USA's guns.

Avatar image for magnablue
magnablue

10500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Texas

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Mer Midwest!!!!!

Avatar image for noone301994
Noone301994

22169

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Texas stomps.

Avatar image for elderskaar
ElderSkaar

5319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By ElderSkaar

New York and New Jersey because they have similar names

Avatar image for elderskaar
ElderSkaar

5319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Texas solos everyone except for New York and California.

Avatar image for lettsplay10
lettsplay10

21364

Forum Posts

1143

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

North korea nuff said

Avatar image for rpgesus
Rpgesus

5380

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ohio stomps lol

Avatar image for rpgesus
Rpgesus

5380

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

For real though

1. California

2. texas

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Not sure who would end up going to war first.

California would win though. Compared to the next biggest state, Texas, California has: 43% higher GDP. 44% higher population. 35% more military personnel.

Avatar image for slimj87d
slimj87d

15685

Forum Posts

397

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Not sure who would end up going to war first.

California would win though. Compared to the next biggest state, Texas, California has: 43% higher GDP. 44% higher population. 35% more military personnel.

That is true, CA has a lot of Navy SEAL teams and Navy carriers also in San Diego. But what CA doesn't have is water O_O. What if the imported water stopped coming, I think a lot of people would die.

But where are all the nukes launched and located? If those are controlled and reversed engineered, a lot of people would be screwed.

Avatar image for thewhiteronin
Thewhiteronin

1556

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Alaska because they're too far and isolated for anyone to care whilst all the other states kill each other, lol.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

This is every state for themselves? I'm going with Texas. Lots of space, lots of people, lots of local pride, lots of guns, lots of soldiers, lots of resources.

Texas.

Avatar image for hatemalingsia
hatemalingsia

15494

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Texas.

Avatar image for mark_stephen
Mark_Stephen

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Who ever has the nukes and fires them first.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By dshipp17

For the most part, the country has basically never healed from the same divides present during the Civil War. It would basically be another civil war between Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, and Alaska against the rest of the country, except this time, I think most African Americans would eagerly migrate to fight for the Union States. I think the Jim Crow era could have been avoided, if the Union would have brought in military forces to snuff out activities which basically could have been perceived as insurrections, when the Southern States started to implement the practices to reverse the Reconstruction Era gains achieved on behalf of African Americans.

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Canada supplies the south, Texas and Canada stomp all.

Avatar image for vivide
Vivide

3278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Texas

Avatar image for nishi99
nishi99

1374

Forum Posts

398

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

New York is too versatile.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@slimj87d said:

@willpayton said:

Not sure who would end up going to war first.

California would win though. Compared to the next biggest state, Texas, California has: 43% higher GDP. 44% higher population. 35% more military personnel.

That is true, CA has a lot of Navy SEAL teams and Navy carriers also in San Diego. But what CA doesn't have is water O_O. What if the imported water stopped coming, I think a lot of people would die.

But where are all the nukes launched and located? If those are controlled and reversed engineered, a lot of people would be screwed.

CA could just conquer the neighboring states with water, problem solved.

As far as nukes, I doubt anyone would seriously consider using them. Any large scale use of nukes would only create fallout and contamination nation-wide as the winds carry the radioactive fallout all over the place. Nuking a neighbor would therefore only be a temporary victory.

Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#24  Edited By Cream_God

A Red state like Texas will likely win, Blue states where guns are basically illegal are basically screwed

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@batwatch said:

Texas.

Texas.

@vivide said:

Texas

They might put up a fight against California, but lose in the end. Like I pointed out above, Cal has everything over Texas... economy, manpower, firepower, etc.

No amount of praying will help them, just like it didnt when Rick Perry held his pray-off in a stadium to try to get God to help with the drought and bring rain. Surprise surprise... nothing happened. California has Silicon Valley with all the science and tech at its disposal. I'll go with tech and science over superstition any day.

CA wins.

Avatar image for vivide
Vivide

3278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I pity the fool who tries to invade Florida

Avatar image for slimj87d
slimj87d

15685

Forum Posts

397

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cgoodness: and how many blue States are guns illegal?

Avatar image for masterkungfu
MasterKungFu

20773

Forum Posts

9757

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 11

texas

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

For srs, it will likely be a north/south divide again, with Arizona, Nevada and Vermont joining the south this time around.

Though the North and Cali outstrip the south in terms of raw numbers and technology, the southern united states is the singular, most heavily armed area on the planet earth. The average person there owns about 4 guns, The largest part of the US military is based in Texas, multiple states with access to Oil, and a dense geography play to their edge.

Nukes are not an issue. No General would order a strike on his homeland, and no pilot would release a bomb. It would come down to ground warfare, and I think the south would have it.

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@rd189 said:

For srs, it will likely be a north/south divide again, with Arizona, Nevada and Vermont joining the south this time around.

Though the North and Cali outstrip the south in terms of raw numbers and technology, the southern united states is the singular, most heavily armed area on the planet earth. The average person there owns about 4 guns, The largest part of the US military is based in Texas, multiple states with access to Oil, and a dense geography play to their edge.

Nukes are not an issue. No General would order a strike on his homeland, and no pilot would release a bomb. It would come down to ground warfare, and I think the south would have it.

O_O Stats like that blow my mind as a Canadian. Not that I dislike the right to bear arms, quite the opposite. Our gun control is far too strict...

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darthmummy: It's roughly the same in Alberta though. You have to remember, bigger population in the states = more of everything.

Theres not really a deffenitive stat, but it's estimated that about 10 million people in Canada own guns. Our population is about 34 million, so thats roughly a third of the country.

The u.s population is 350 million, 10 times ours, and the best estimate is that there are 160 million legally held firearms in the nation. So if you discount illegal firearms, 1/3 of The US owns guns.

Of course, as per my previous stats, ownership is more concentrated in the south.

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@rd189: Yeah I guess it was the concentration that really got me; the actual ownership rates are comparable. A lot of the issues I have with our gun law deal with restricted types of firearms and components, like magazine caps, and limits on what you're able to do, like concealed carry. It's all heavily regulated because gun ownership is treated as a government-bestowed privilege here, whereas in America it's a right. We have our charter of rights and freedoms as well, but it's far from bulletproof...but that's a whole other matter. At any rate, our constitutional law in general doesn't deal with firearms.

Avatar image for legacy6364
legacy6364

7622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By legacy6364

In theory California.

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darthmummy: Absolutely. 5 Rounds for a centre fire rilfe? What a joke.

Avatar image for wolverine008
Wolverine008

51027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@batwatch said:

Texas.

@hatemalingsia said:

Texas.

@vivide said:

Texas

They might put up a fight against California, but lose in the end. Like I pointed out above, Cal has everything over Texas... economy, manpower, firepower, etc.

No amount of praying will help them, just like it didnt when Rick Perry held his pray-off in a stadium to try to get God to help with the drought and bring rain. Surprise surprise... nothing happened. California has Silicon Valley with all the science and tech at its disposal. I'll go with tech and science over superstition any day.

CA wins.

Considering that none of the people you quoted mentioned praying as a reason Texas would win, is this anything besides you just being salty about religion? :D

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By dshipp17

@rd189 said:

For srs, it will likely be a north/south divide again, with Arizona, Nevada and Vermont joining the south this time around.

Though the North and Cali outstrip the south in terms of raw numbers and technology, the southern united states is the singular, most heavily armed area on the planet earth. The average person there owns about 4 guns, The largest part of the US military is based in Texas, multiple states with access to Oil, and a dense geography play to their edge.

Nukes are not an issue. No General would order a strike on his homeland, and no pilot would release a bomb. It would come down to ground warfare, and I think the south would have it.

In my post, I meant to say Utah instead of Nevada. I don't think Nevada or Vermont would join the southern states. Those are pretty progressive places to live.

Avatar image for blueecho
BlueEcho

1154

Forum Posts

18020

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 92

User Lists: 13

A military alliance of Rhode Island and Delaware.

Avatar image for makhai
makhai

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

In theory California.

Sure. If protesting won wars. Just kidding. They have, I believe, the strongest ground military forces in their favor.

Texas stomps.

In all honesty, absolutely this. They have one of the strongest economies in the nation, so are best equipped to wage a civil war. It leads the nation in exports, so it can continue to fund its war ventures. I assume the states will be granted their military bases as their own, so they get a respectable naval and air force might to protect from neighboring naval-enabled states and continue their exports (California's navy is basically useless).

Not only that but the general public is heavily armed, and extremely in favor of the very idea of this thread. Remember when the general public wanted to secede from the nation? While they lack in military ground forces, what they do have makes them extremely unattractive targets to any other state.

Not only that, but Texas would likely ally with all its neighboring states anyway, which are all Red states. California is cut off from its democratic brothers and all that military might would be forced to defend its bloated boarders anyway. So the rest of the Blue states can count assistance from Cali out. If all states were divided, Texas has the best chance at success and any states that would ally with them would only increase their chances.

However, if the Union was allowed to keep its military for this scenario, all the states that are trying to secede from the nation would be wiped out. There is no civilian force in America that would be able to contend with American military. It would be an extremely short second Civil War if the Union commanded all the military might.

Avatar image for noone301994
Noone301994

22169

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@makhai: I agree with everything you said but I think the citizens of America would do a lot better against the military than you think.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@willpayton said:

@batwatch said:

Texas.

@hatemalingsia said:

Texas.

@vivide said:

Texas

They might put up a fight against California, but lose in the end. Like I pointed out above, Cal has everything over Texas... economy, manpower, firepower, etc.

No amount of praying will help them, just like it didnt when Rick Perry held his pray-off in a stadium to try to get God to help with the drought and bring rain. Surprise surprise... nothing happened. California has Silicon Valley with all the science and tech at its disposal. I'll go with tech and science over superstition any day.

CA wins.

Considering that none of the people you quoted mentioned praying as a reason Texas would win, is this anything besides you just being salty about religion? :D

It's me showing total contempt for the Governor of Texas and the people who voted for him. It just happens that this is the best example of his stupidity and ineffectiveness that I could think of. If he thinks that praying will help bring rain, no doubt this would be his go-to strategy if war broke out.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@makhai said:
@noone301994 said:

Texas stomps.

In all honesty, absolutely this. They have one of the strongest economies in the nation, so are best equipped to wage a civil war. It leads the nation in exports, so it can continue to fund its war ventures.

By your logic California is better equipped than Texas.

@makhai said:

I assume the states will be granted their military bases as their own, so they get a respectable naval and air force might to protect from neighboring naval-enabled states and continue their exports (California's navy is basically useless).

Not really because those naval vessels can attack from the Gulf Coast.

@makhai said:

Not only that but the general public is heavily armed, and extremely in favor of the very idea of this thread. Remember when the general public wanted to secede from the nation? While they lack in military ground forces, what they do have makes them extremely unattractive targets to any other state.

An armed civilian population would make little difference because they have 1) no training and 2) no hope of defeating professional armed forces that heavily outgun them. Also, California also has a lot of civilian-held weapons.

@makhai said:

Not only that, but Texas would likely ally with all its neighboring states anyway, which are all Red states. California is cut off from its democratic brothers and all that military might would be forced to defend its bloated boarders anyway. So the rest of the Blue states can count assistance from Cali out. If all states were divided, Texas has the best chance at success and any states that would ally with them would only increase their chances.

This really doesnt make much sense because there's no need for a land bridge. Maybe 100 years ago that would have mattered, but today with the communications tech we have and air power... this is really a non-factor.

What would be more of a factor is that this hypothetical alliance of "red states" would be encircled by a bigger alliance of "blue states". If there's one thing that history shows us is that fighting a war on more than 1 front is a really bad idea. This was one of Hitlers major mistakes in opening up the Eastern front.

@makhai said:

However, if the Union was allowed to keep its military for this scenario, all the states that are trying to secede from the nation would be wiped out. There is no civilian force in America that would be able to contend with American military. It would be an extremely short second Civil War if the Union commanded all the military might.

Basically my point above about why having a bunch of civilians with guns will be meaningless.

Avatar image for makhai
makhai

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@makhai: I agree with everything you said but I think the citizens of America would do a lot better against the military than you think.

Fair enough.

Avatar image for rouflex
Rouflex

35970

Forum Posts

16652

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Going by Papineau will, Québec win.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme