Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hypothetical Battles: If every state of the USA declared war against each other, which would win?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The rules:


1. No foreign intervention/aid.
2. All civilians would be involved in the war (either producing supplies and food, and actually fighting).
3. Consider domestic factors (X state has x many firearm manufacturers, etc).
4. Military bases belong to the state.
5. Preferably no nukes, but hey however you want to answer.

In short order the winners are as follows:

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York

These states hold 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.


Here's snippet from this fascination Quora question:

The Republic of Texas sought to gain strategic advantages in the Central United States. To do this they sought to gain two strategic assets. The first was control of Whiteman AFB the home of the B-2 bomber program. The base was easily secured and the most coveted military bomber in the world was now in the hands of the Republic of Texas. The next was control of Colorado and her military installations of great value. Then finally was access to the Mississippi River. Two main offenses took place to do just that. The First Battle of New Orleans involved a massive force occupying the city to claim it as a port and artery for future engagements. In Colorado they met stiff resistance as many of the Texas military were unfamiliar with Mountain warfare. Colorado's major bases fell quickly since Colorado enjoys the smallest force to fight back the Texans, but they adapted an unconventional warfare stance that kept the Texans on edge for months. Still, at this point the mission behind taking Colorado had been achieved--control over its military bases and strategic assets. The insurgency does however slow down the growth of Texas.


Source to learn more about the outcomes: www.quora.com...

Enjoy ATS - this is right up our alley!

edit on 21-11-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
My money is on Michigan we have the best looking, most talented, intelligent, tenacious, stubborn and angry people in the nation



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iforget
My money is on Michigan we have the best looking, most talented, intelligent, tenacious, stubborn and angry people in the nation


Not to mention, a # load of guns and natural resources.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
New Mexico would win, no doubt, we have 2400 nukes and a giant underground flying saucer base.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


Question on the list of 3 top contenders (Cal, Texas, NY). from the site you linked in the OP it said they were chosen by..



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.


My question is about that "will to fight". Texas has a long history of being a scrapper and independent. So, I can see easily the "will to fight" for Texas. I honestly, can't get my head around Cal. or NY having much of a "will to fight".

Where is that coming from?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Yep, have to go with Michigan. Especially the lower pen. Our boarders are more easily defended, thanks to all the water. Plus we have a HUGE amount of militia, hunters ect.

Hhmmmm, Alaska would be alright too, and I think they are far enough away, we'd be live and let live with them.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Dangit!
edit on 19-11-2012 by chiefsmom because: DP



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Rhode Island hands down

RI is not only the smallest State; it also has the longest name: State of Rhode Island and Provindence Plantations. They may be small in size but they are big in stature and they are downright fierce in their patriotic zeal !
edit on 19-11-2012 by Valedictorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
My money is on Killadelphia.

In fact.....I think they may have already started.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


Dead wrong on New York, but California and Texas are big contenders. I think you are vastly underestimating the mountainous and difficult terrain and hardy people of certain areas.

Of course there are too many factors to be considered, such as where the war would be fought. Texas and California could cuccessfuly mount a major offensive on the rest of the country, but they might not have the best defensive strongholds. I believe Missouri and Arkansas, and some of the Appalachian states might have the very best defensive strongholds, and probably could not be conquered. There is a lot of rich history there of living off the lands hillbilly style and hanging G-men that try to interfere.

Florida would be easy to defend, because it is mostly coast line, so any land offensive would get bottlenecked. Of course, it would depend on which way the military units leaned. A major naval offensive could crush Florida with ease, but if the Navy and Air Force stayed loyal to Florida, it would be a great platform to launch offensives against the entire East and Gulf Coasts!

I'm not familiar with the Great Lakes region, but there is high population density, unique weather, and unique waterways, I would expect the Great Lakes states to be pretty formidable in their own defense.

The rural states like Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas have good survivalist types, but their population is just too sparse and the open land too vast to defend. They would be overrun easily. They might mount a continued guerrilla nuisance, but they would not retain control of their state for very long.
edit on 19-11-2012 by darkhorserider because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
none would win, they would all loose because they would be fighting the wrong enemy, each other. the real enemy is corruption and fascism.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Colorado would do well. we have military bases, the plains in the east to grow good, precious metals in the mountains, and strategic high ground.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
cali, for sure, large population alot of food and a bunch of weopons(legal and illegal), many bases, and probly one of the larger naval states which would serve well. i think texas and cali would end up falling in together and take over the rest of the country with ease.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
North Dakota but only in the winter. Lots of nukes...........two airbases............numbing cold.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by scholarwarrior
 


I second Colorado as the potential victor. The simple fact that NORAD headquarters are there, would give this state's air force quite the advantage. The population is already somewhat used to adversity in terms of weather and living conditions making them hardier in my opinion. Not to mention it's citizens already like to go on the occasional murderous rampage with firearms....



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
cali, for sure, large population alot of food and a bunch of weopons(legal and illegal), many bases, and probly one of the larger naval states which would serve well. i think texas and cali would end up falling in together and take over the rest of the country with ease.


But, they are pinned up by the Rocky Mountains. If they could defend their coast, they have the resources to be a great stronghold and outlast competitors, but I don't think they have the offensive capability to rule the nation.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Probably Cali takes everything West of the Rockies and all the way down into Mexico's Baja Peninsula. Texas takes the Midwest West of the Mississippi not including the Great Lakes States. Florida and the South take everything East of the Mississippi but again, not including the Great Lakes States, and probably not New York or New England. Sporadic resistance movements persist in the Appalachian Mountains, the Missouri/Arkansas Border, and remote outposts in the Upper and Western Midwest states.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The simple answer is Texas.

Because our ego here is to large to ever lose.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Alaska, hands down. We have guns and ammo for days, our own refinery, the terrain that you kids in the lower 48 couldn't handle for a day, as I'm sure the animals would pick most of you clean before you even found someone to fight.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
The simple answer is Texas.

Because our ego here is to large to ever lose.



If Texas mounted a first-strike offensive, they might take a huge chunk of the US, but if they were simultaneously attacked from the West by Cali, the South by Mexico, and the Coastline by Florida, they couldn't defend their vast real estate and rural areas. Controlling Galveston, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, and the refineries along the coast, and then creeping toward Dallas/Fort Worth would render Texas pretty helpless. They would only be a threat if they were the first to become aggressive.

Honestly, I think that is the key. The first state to become aggressive and take the fight elsewhere, would likely be the state to control the most real estate and protect their home territory the best.

Scary scenario if everyone is thinking the same thing, and everyone attempts to strike first!





new topics




 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join