It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:57 AM
I guess I'm prejudiced, but I gotta go with Texas. I've lived in California for 40 years. The majority of those people live in the city, or just outside the city limits. Their idea of outdoors living is driving to the mountains and renting a cabin. There are people who are more outdoorsy and survivalist in Northern Cali, but the population that does this is minimal. Take away their electricity and ability to go to the grocery store, and they'll turn on each other in a heartbeat.

New York, although populous, is similar to California. Same argument, although more hunters in upstate.

Texas, the natives are crazy out here. The men grew up roaming outside, shooting things with their .22s, and a lot of physical wrasslin'. Our population is more spread out, there are more people who either live the rural lifestyle or try to every chance they get. There's a hell of a lot of us, we're all armed, and fiercely proud of this state. There are many more family farms that have their own sources of fuel and food. Most of Cali's farms are corporate farms.

We'd probably absorb New Mexico, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Colorado and Arkansas, because the people are all sort of similar to Texans in thse states....big-time outdoorsmen, not afraid to fight.

Forget the coastal blue states when it comes to this scenario....The gangs may have guns, but they'll use them locally to terrorize each other. The original picture posted by the OP showing the way the US would be trisected is probably correct.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by darkhorserider

one must remember there is alot of desert surrounding cali, which would allow most of the attacks to be funneled through places that offer more cover, allowing cali to defend with ease and attack with the bulk of there forces, but in the end i think it would take a collaboration of many states to win, cali being able to offer so much food would get many states on its side

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:58 AM
Being in california and having it over ran with libs, panny waisted men, Literally, and gun control laws, I would say this state falls first to Nevada.
edit on 19-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM
reply to post by FissionSurplus

Yup - that was pretty much my thinking when I questioned where that "will to fight" came from for Cal and NY. Yes, I could see it for some in North CA or upstate NY... but like you say, not for the bulk of the state.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:09 AM

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.

Certainly would prove interesting. One would have to consider Austin, Texas where Californian dot-comm'ers came in and took it over. A spot of blue among all that red.

Texans, apparently, have not taken to the new Austin's liberal light handed artsy fartsy agenda and wants to excise that big blue mole off their proud Texas face.
I don't see Texas and California seeing eye to eye on much of anything, (That San Diego area seems to have plenty of people with the stones to fight though).

I believe the storm Sandy might have taught a thing or two about how to really come together in a time of crisis to Jersey, Philly, and NY...we'll see. It generally takes something like that to get people to learn to stop whining and get to working together.

IMO in a SHTF situation, I'm heading to Texas.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:16 AM
United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is headquartered at Offutt Air Force Base south of Omaha, Nebraska. In 2002 it merged with the United States Space Command (USSPACECOM). It employs more than 2,700 people, representing all four services, including DoD civilians and contractors.

So your military strategic command centre is in Nebraska - they must know something you don't?

Ohh......and what about the o'l Denver Airport, Colorado - massive construction project wasn't it? Some underground base thingy happening there - weird murals - mad stuff there. Colorado could be another good option - NORAD in a mountain and all!

Hawaii - Islands are always strategic, difficult to invade.

Florida - Peninsulas are good, difficult to invade. One way in-one way out. Easy to control once your embedded.

But my pick would be Shemya Island - the military outpost off the southern coast of Alaska. It’s about two miles wide and four miles long. The weather over at Shemya stays at a constant 50 degrees Fahrenheit and there is constant fog year-round. The base was established during the Cold War to watch for any suspicious Soviet satellite launches. Today it houses a United States Air Force radar, surveillance and weather station, and aircraft refuelling station.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:55 AM
Texas would win.

1. Texas is on it on independent power gird separate from the rest of the Country. California most of its energy from Arizona and Oregon.

2. Texas has a pretty big and well trained National guard, loads of militia and guns.

3. Lot of the U.S Oil comes from here.

So California is out because they lack oil reserves and would lack power. I don't know about New York though.

So while most states will be scrambling to get their power and oil situated Texas is already blitzkrieg across the states.
edit on 11/19/2012 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:17 AM
I going to guess Alaska. TX and CA can't defend their borders now.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:31 AM
The outcome (albeit hypothetical) would depend on alliances that would be formed among the states. The other factor would be the presence of military assets can could be appropriated at the state level. Dont mess with Texas (a culture of fighting there would trump the population superiority of CA and NY).

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Tangentially, if Texas were to secede from the Union, I bet that they would (coincidentally) get hit with a hurricane at Galveston which would destroy the bio lab there and release deadly viruses on the Texas population. My 2 cents worth.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:07 PM

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?

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)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by lucidclouds

In my 2nd post on it I said that the "will to fight" was probably a lot more present in North CA and Upstate NY than the rest of the state. Honestly, I could almost CA having a war within the sate about what to do and how to do it..

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:45 PM

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)

As an Ex-Californian that grew up in the Mountains I can attest this. However, California can't ship food if its oil is cut off and would have to deal with rolling black outs. Texas again has its own power grid, loads of oil reserves. They would have the momentum to secure Californian and its Farmland before they could even get their light-switches to work. Not saying it wouldn't be tough battle, and the Texas troops would have difficultly with Mountain warfare, I think they would do fine when battling the dessert, Terrain their used to and all that.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by Sublimecraft

Sure, but Florida has Hurlburt Field's Strategic Command Center, the largest Air Force base in the world at Eglin, plus the Naval Air stations in Pensacola, Panama City, and Jacksonville. It also has more radar sites than any other state in the country, and very broad gun laws and brags to be the first state to surpass 1 million concealed weapons permits!. That is more legally concealed weapons permit owners than many states have in total population!

Our swampy terrain is completely impassable to anyone that hasn't grown up here. The AC130 gunships alone would either intimidate or decimate any invading force bogged down on our few corridors into and out of the state.

Plus, the first thing that would happen upon the dissolution of the Federal Government would be for Florida to open up diplomacy and cooperation with Cuba! We would have the first foreign alllies of any state. Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi would ally with Florida, and that provides plenty of extra manpower and natural resources, plus a buffer zone before even approaching Florida. We could launch attacks anywhere along the Gulf or East Coasts with ease.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by camaro68ss

gun laws in cali, ha. do you know how many illegal guns there are here being so close to mexico, and as far as the liberals go, they just make the most noise, there are plently of people here that love guns. i know for fact there are plently of "liberal hippie"s that carry guns. there is a reason they call it killa cali. and i ask you this, why ARE the gun laws in cali so harsh?
edit on 19-11-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:21 PM

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.

US General Billy Mitchell told Congress "Whoever holds Alaska holds the world" during the lead up to US involvement in WWII. Anyone who doubts that Alaska is essentially America's Afghanistan/Tora Bora need only ask the Japanese how they fared in the Aleutians during the war. Now expand that through the entire state. I do not know how much work it would take to modernize and activate the old Titan missle sites peppered around the state, but if those were brought fully online that equals a huge defensive advantage.

In the lower 48, don't forget about Virginia. I don't believe any state has a greater density of military installations and troops than Virginia and, if we're getting downright technical, Virginia easily claims the crown of intelligence/alphabet agency HQ capital of the nation. Truth be told, the infrastructure to shut down every other state without much more than a keystroke or switch pull probably resides in Virginia. They could effectively win a domestic war before a single shot is fired.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by safetymeeting

Yep, Alaska.

They'd see anything coming, Canada is in the way, HAARP, F-22 squadrons, tons of oil, rugged people and a harsh climate.

Alaska hands down. There might not be much to "fight" as well. It'd be a classic guerilla-style battle, and if history serves me correct -- coventional forces don't fare well against a hardy guerilla force. Case in point, the Soviet Army in Afghanistan.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by Mcupobob

Oh, Alaska is also not connected to any of the lower-48's power grid either. Alaska also has some super advanced radar instalations that are part of NORAD.

Alaska used to be critical in the Cold War, and a large military presense is still there.

Also take into consideration many Alaskans are used to building or modifying their own gear due to the remoteness. It wouldn't be hard to get manufacturing up to speed with all of the industrial construction companies that have shops there.

Like I said, they'd see anything 100's of miles before it got close enough to be a threat. They could scramble the F-22s and load out the Stryker brigades in no time.

It's simply to large, remote, and sparsley populated for another state to take over. The logistics of a supply chain either through Canada or up the west coast would be a nightmare, plauged with guerilla sabatoge.


Alaska could probably just bribe the other states with gold, zinc, copper oil and natural gas. One of the largest zinc/copper mines in the world is in Alaska.

edit on 19-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:35 PM
My money is on West Virginia.
Or Kentucky as a second. A state with a lot of hollars and self-sufficient backwoods hunters
who could shoot the eye out of an owl at 100 yds., kind of people.

I've read there are places in West Virgina that even they don't want to go into.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:41 PM
I haven't ready any other posts but off the top of my head, I'd say Alaska. Borders easy to secure, plenty of natural resounces, they're used to tough conditions, and they have HAARP

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in