Posted on 12/29/2012 7:38:23 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
These are the accounts of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and the American Warring States Period.
After the breakup, many wondered which states would come out in control of the power void created by the dissolution of the United States. There were many with little chance against several of the larger more powerful states. The states in possession of a large population, predisposition for military (i.e.) military bases, and a population open to the idea of warfare fared the best. In the long term, we would look to states with self-sufficiency and long term military capabilities.
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.
California Texas New York
Others that have many of the qualities that gave them an advantage are also listed.
Washington Colorado Illinois Virginia Florida Georgia
For all intents and purposes, Alaska and Hawaii ended well enough since they were so far removed from the center of the country that they never really suffer greatly nor benefit from the shattering.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
China:)
It would be conservative/country vs. liberal/city, not a simple state vs. state.
Which states are in possession of the nukes?
You don’t necessarily need a large population to win this.
One person. one red button.
Mexico, China and the Devil.
The state with the most gun owners and bullets.
This is like the old “Ditka versus Godzilla” debate. I’ll get the popcorn, a bunny, and a pancake.
I call this total BS.
They look at this only from economics.
My great state of Tennessee, the Volunteer State, could take a band of mountain boys and whip the entire sissy state of California.
Bookmark.
And remember, New Mexico has nukes and several air force squadrons. Bombs Away!!!
You would have to define “win”.
In an odd sort of way, I think that both California and Texas would define it the same way : Fedgov, get out of our business.
I mean to my mind the beauty of the original intent is to have a bunch of experiments in government running at the same time with a common defense, commerce and currency.
This has to be the most ridiculous articles I’ve ever read. Sooo many stupid assumptions.
Wouldn’t it be easier to get rid of D.C. and start over?
I call this total BS.
They look at this only from economics.
My great state of Tennessee, the Volunteer State, could take a band of mountain boys and whip the entire sissy state of California.
Uh, huh.
Likely more like Chicago against downstate.
So, at what point in this scenario does the present danger to liberty that is posed by the federal government outweigh any dangers to liberty that might come out of a Constitutional Convention that has the power to totally abolish the federal government?
But then if each state could agree to do the same thing at the same time why would they go to war if they could agree to do the same thing.
What is the capacity of each state to produce pancakes and how many rabbits do they have. .
North Dakota and Montana. Together, the world’s third or fourth largest nuclear power.
Much respect to the great state of Tenn., but Los Angeles county has about three million more people than your whole state. I’m willing to bet that it has nearly as many guns, registered and unregistered, as well.
I’m in MA-—we don’t stand a chance.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.