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!
@marvelicious: And they got much wolves at their side
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.
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.
Alaska because they're too far and isolated for anyone to care whilst all the other states kill each other, lol.
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.
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.
@batwatch said:
Texas.
Texas.
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.
@cgoodness: and how many blue States are guns illegal?
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.
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...
@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.
@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.
@darthmummy: Absolutely. 5 Rounds for a centre fire rilfe? What a joke.
@batwatch said:
Texas.
Texas.
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
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.
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.
@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.
@batwatch said:
Texas.
Texas.
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.
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.
Not really because those naval vessels can attack from the Gulf Coast.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment