[Quickgun]

Why does secession start a war? No one is going to nuke us.Texas would have control over the nukes that are here, anyway.

[Verginius Rufus]

Could Texas handle 30 million refugees from the other states?

[Slambat]

“Texas would have control over the nukes that are here, anyway.”

They would nuke us before we ever got control of them. That
is if Obama doesn’t destroy them first. If there are any
nukes left in Texas anyway.

[drjimmy]

No one is going to nuke us.Texas would have control over the nukes that are here, anyway.

Texas would have control over nukes? You really think the U.S. military is gonna just throw the doors open and say "come on in and take them from us"? That's as ridiculous as the writer of the article, who says Texas would be fine because it boasts "aerospace and defense industries." Who the heck does he think pays for those industries? I'm pretty sure Texas has never shot off its own rocket, and let's see how great those defense industries do when the only thing supporting them are Texas taxpayers.

[Vermont Lt]

And by what right would Texas secure the property of the US government: Arms, planes, tanks, nukes, etc. All of these belong to the US Government and would not become the property of Texas.

[central_va]

Why does secession start a war? No one is going to nuke us.Texas would have control over the nukes that are here, anyway.

Agree. It is only the statist Free Republic anti states rights thugs that think that way. Bamby is no Lincoln.

[donmeaker]

Texas would not have control over nukes stationed there, any more than SC had control over Ft. Sumter. Attempt to take control by the secessionists would cause the war, as it did last time.

Why would secession cause a war? Because legal secession is difficult requiring 3/4s of states or 2/3rds of Senate and President to make a treaty. Illegal secession poses different difficulties. If you can get control of the presidency and 2/3rds of the senate, why would you need to secede?