It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by Frogs
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?
Originally posted by lucidclouds
I'm assuming your thinking falls into the typical ignorant stereotype of California and its people.
The entire population is not filled with Hollywood actors and hippies. A lot of people here are willing and able to fight for their home, especially here in the north.
Plus California would end up starving a lot of other states since I believe it provides nearly a 1/3 of the country's food.edit on 19-11-2012 by lucidclouds because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by safetymeeting
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.