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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity


That's myself and three others!

The one potential problem with Alaska would be keeping the pipeline secure.

Alaska also has AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System). You've all seen them, those planes with the UFO-looking dealie on top. Yep, they'd be able to spot any advancing troops hundreds of miles away.

Don't discount those fishermen either. Some of those crabbers carry AR-15's on their boats.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:48 PM
Michigan hands down especially after we make a deal with Mexico to take out Cali and Texas.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:04 PM
my money is on mexico...i mean california.

all those vato's, cholo's, bloods and crips are experts in urban warfare.

imagine giving permission to all those fools to waste anybody without a cali license plate.

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

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:24 PM
Texas. Remember the Alamo?
Cali might have its handful of gangsters, but your average everyday Texan is locked and loaded and might I say in familiar slang, Texans are waiting and, "wishing a n****a would.."

edit on 19-11-2012 by LightWarrior11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:37 PM
So nobody weighs in for NY? It's not a surprise. Frankly, the entire Northeast corridor, from Philadelphia/Newark through NYC to Boston is doomed. There are too many people and not enough farmland. There'd be terrible food riots that would tear apart this region. Starvation would takeover...

I'm voting for Texas as the winner. It has access to plenty of farmland (sorry Alaska), access to the ocean, and strong energy resources. If full out war broke out among the US states; Texas would likely emerge as the most dominant. (I'm in Boston, we'd fight like hell but NY would overrun us in a heartbeat before its own downfall).

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by Jason88

Dear Jason88,

This is easy, California, we are aerospace, we make the drones, we control more food than people can even begin to understand and we control the ports through which goods from China come. Oh and we control the internet, look up ICANN it is based on Marina Del Rey. What would happen if we shut down the internet except for California? Game over.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:47 PM
I doubt the vast majority of people from California or New York would do well in a rural or mountainous environment, so 1 good ole boy in the hills would easily handle 7 to 10 city folk. The states with the most restrictive gun laws would be screwed because their residents have no idea how to use a firearm, and if they do I promise they haven't had the repetitions with one in order for it to be second nature. I think Texas, Alaska, West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Virginia, and the Dakotas would do quite well, New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois, Maryland would be screwed.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by Jason88

California is not going to win anything. As soon as Washington stops providing them water and power they will go dark and get thirsty.

The further south you go, the less there is an appropriate water supply to farm and drink.

The winner would be a northern half state for sure.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:08 PM
The states that benefit most from intercontinental war are self-sufficient: California, Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska. This is where most of the US oil refineries are located as well as the location of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While California may control the Internet (that's debatable regardless of ICAAN hence the nature of distributed computing), and without the aid of foreign nations (part of the original scenario); California would lose energy first therefor negating any power needed to fuel its armies and heavy weapons.

Again the win goes to Texas - you can't win a war if your tanks and planes don't have gas and you have no power to communicate. What's left are militias and ground troops, which are a joke if your opponent has heavy artillery or air superiority and the fuel to push through to Louisiana to annex their oil reserves as well and the Mississippi River.

Taking the nuke option off the table - I don't see Alaska or Hawaii being affected too much, except maintaining defensive positions against a Texas (new US) army that will come rolling though in the years to come.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:24 PM
Interesting question.

Georgia would hold their own in a battle, but not saying they would win. Being that Georgia has Ft. Benning and Ft Stewart. Ft Gordon the HQ of the Signal Corps which is responsible for communications within the Army. Warner Robbins AFB which is a pretty substantial AFB, and Kings Bay naval base to name a few. Could also turn Hartsfield-Jackson into another AFB.

The reason why I say we wouldn't win is most of the major bases border another state. Ft. Benning is close to Alabama, Ft Gordon is close to South Carolina, Kings Bay is close to Florida, so trying to defend those bases on multiple fronts against states with substantial populations would be difficult, but at the same time it could be a strategic advantage too.

Tennessee and North Carolina could come down from the mountains and have the high ground, then there's defending the Savannah River... Yeah it's a lost cause...

If I had to choose one state to win, I'd have to choose Colorado... I know it sounds crazy, but it makes sense, Norad is there, Denver International well we all know there's more than meets the eye when it comes to Denver International, but there is not much militarily there, but invading Colorado with ground troops would be difficult if not impossible, trying to attack from the air would be next to impossible because of Norad, and it's landlocked. They could hunker down and let the other states battle each other out and take over from there.

Sounds like an interesting strategy game. Not that I would ever want to ever see this play out in real life.

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

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by Jason88

Hawaii's ports would probably be attacked from San Diego and the Marines would eventually take Hawaii by way of a naval blockade. I would see Hawaii surrendering as a result of a war of attrition, but it would be one massive naval battle that's for sure. That would give California a huge strategic advantage to build up a Navy in which to go through the Panama Canal and attack through the Atlantic.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:29 PM
With so many interested replies I am no longer convinced this is not a possibility. You guys almost seem to take pleasure in discussing all the horrific scenarios.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:32 PM
Maryland - chemical weapons in Aberdeen, biological at Ft. Detrick and Ft. Meade square in betwixt the two.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by jeantherapy

I'm sure the brass at West Point probably have "War Games" and Op Plans for such scenarios. It's just a scenario or a strategy like the game Risk. Morbid maybe, but strategy yes. Nothing more nothing less.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:37 PM
Only one other poster gave Virginia its due respect. The impression I got from the OP is that federal facilities were inherited by the states. If that's the case, good luck attacking Virginia because with the bulk of DHS, CIA, DoD, and NSA resources located between Arlington and McLean, VA, we will know your plans before you do.

Likewise, we've got some of the largest training bases in the country. When your ragtag army comes battered and bruised through the Shenandoah Valley (good luck with those country boys aka self-made sharpshooters, btw, who know those ridges and hollows better than you know your own house), Virginia will have both the many divisions and battalions of experienced regulars (including seal teams) and well-trained militias ready to roll. A quick call to Oceana (the only naval strike-fighter installation on the east coast) and Langley AFB, and Virginia would be any brazen state's undoing.

Don't even think about attacking us on the coast either, as Naval Station Norfolk is the world's largest naval base. Any other state with a navy might need to get started building a shipyard as the Norfolk Navy Shipyard being in Virginia hands would make it tough to repair any damaged ships.

Even in the nuclear scenario, the presence of a large portion of US ballistic subs in VA would make Virginia an unattractive nuke target under MAD theory.

At the very least, Virginia would be a tough nut to crack. At best, I think VA would be positioned extremely well for a defensive war with minimal excursions into some neighboring states for easy strategic/resource gains.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by jeantherapy

No one - I mean no one - wants this scenario to be real. It's an exercise in evaluating the strengths (and weaknesses) of each state as compared to each other. It's not a pissing contest either, this ATS post offers a chance for members to contribute their thoughts on "winners" and "losers" from a strategic standpoint with known and unknown elements as part of the mix. What does your state have to offer? (If you're in the US, or just want to play along with strategy anyway).
edit on 19-11-2012 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:44 PM
Hawaii could win instantly if it sneak attacked all the other 49 states with nukes.
Unless the other states knew this and took out Hawaii first.

Honestly though, I think New York City alone could kick everybody's ass if they wanted to

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

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by hayek11

Very true in regards to Virginia. They might win, if they can get out of NoVa traffic in time to attack.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:54 PM

Originally posted by hayek11
Only one other poster gave Virginia its due respect. The impression I got from the OP is that federal facilities were inherited by the states. If that's the case, good luck attacking Virginia because with the bulk of DHS, CIA, DoD, and NSA resources located between Arlington and McLean, VA, we will know your plans before you do.

I'm thinking all of the other 49 states would be doing their best to level that entire area with cruise missiles. Plus there is Maryland to your north with the nasty chem/bio weapons at Fort Dietrick then you have the marines just south of you in North Carolina... I'm not so sure that Virginia would make it out standing.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:58 PM
I would need more details for your supposed scenario

Texas -
due to the number of military personnel it provides I would see enough coming home in addition to other things

Not because of the state governments... sheer number of military bases- specifically the marine corps and navy
weakness- civilians and gang bangers

military commands and yes nukes
weakness population

Military- Eglin and pensacola mixed with mayport

Weakness location and population overwhelming

New York-
honestly depends on who takes power- numbers have their own quality

After multiple rounds-
Cartels paying tribute

Left standing as major powers with more land(listed above

next stage... alliances

Texas Florida maybe Virginia

California, Cartels, Asian players

New York and UN

Colorado and other smaller states

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in