Posted on 11/29/2012 5:27:14 PM PST by djf
This question originally appeared on Quora. It was taken from Quora's "hypothetical battles" topic, where readers "can ask questions and get answer on fighting that wouldn't likely or ever happen in real life."
Answer by Jon Davis, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps:
These are the accounts of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and the American Warring States Period. ... 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
Excerpted... read the rest at link!
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Lets see, the liberals don’t like guns, they don’t like the military and manufacturing, I don’t see how the Republic of Kalifornia or New York can be on the top unless they count the gangbangers and thugs. I vote Texas, but I would like to see the South rise again.
WOW!!!!
In California people will make a left turn with tons of traffic n the way.
They will fall early.
Or he accidentally blows us up.
It is impossible to answer this question because you can’t know which states would align with which, except perhaps by region, nor how outside support could affect the outcome.
I've been there twice and studied their history and how they live now. I checked a grocery store and prices are really high because it all comes by ship. If you live in Hawaii and buy something from this country, your shipping charge raises the cost of that item so high you will think twice before you order it.
If no ships come, Hawaii dies. Planes can't get enough of anything there, it must be ships. Ships allow the many people who live there now, to live. Before ships, not many people lived on those islands.
I would not want to be in Hawaii surrounded by undrinkable water and no food or anything else coming in.
Interesting scenario. Do we get all the military assets in our state to work with?
The one with the most active missile silos.
In the story, Hispanics still Mexican citizens went back to Mexico. Mexico let them in but not anyone else who tried to flee the war.
Damned right! Most of these early postings seem to think that to win is defeat other states. I consider victory as "LEAVE US ALONE!" I'm 4th generation Texan. My family came here in 1839...
My thought, too. We also have oil and gas, coal, export electricity, and some pretty good export agriculture. I think we could even trade durum for some more exotic foods like bananas and citrus fruit. But we have food, fuel, electricity, livestock, even sources of salt and sugar. We'd be good until threatened, then unleash the dogs of war.
I think a ballistic missile won’t work and is useless if you are trying to fire it less than 500 miles or so.
Ground Launched Cruise Missiles would work though.
They used to (and maybe still do) make a lot of those at a Boeing plant about 25 miles from where I’m sitting right now...
There were quite a few Tennessee natives in the Alamo...
Not to me. As a Texan, we just want to be left alone! Cross our border and yeah you'll feel our wrath...
It’s not improbable that some states, especially the big agricultural ones, might say the same, and chose not to be at war with anyone.
But sooner or later they get an armed contingent on their borders wanting their wheat or corn or whatever, so what cha gonna do?
The Union tried that back during the CW. A complete failure. Mother Nature is hard to oppose.
As for Texas' oilfield expertise, I work for world's largest oilfield services company. Houston is the oil tool capitol of the world...
There aren't many cities within 125 miles of the Minot AFB, and all fewer than 200,000 pop. Montana is roughly 700 miles wide across the high line, so it must be farther than you think.
As Kurt Rusell's character said in "Soldier". When he was asked what he would do to the military force coming to kill them, "I'm going to kill them all, sir"...
I’m guessing Wyoming has more ICBMs than Texas.
I would bet almost any state in the lower 48 would contemplate attacking Alaska.
Especially if Alaska seceded or became independent, which may ver well happen. But then again most people could care less about Alaska, logistically its superior by its distance, and even if they did manage to invade they will hi-tail it out after the second month of its six month winter.
Sometimes I can be proud of living here in Alaska, though today it was pushing its luck, massive high winds are creating fires and people are being evacuated from subdivisions, even my shop had a massive wind related damage to it today, broken gas mains, big 14’ overhead door nearly destroyed, spent the day in 60mph winds trying to rig tarps and setting up auxiliary heating.
Well, I’m not trying to make a point about Montana specifically, more about ballistic missiles generally.
In fact I think they have essentially zero accuracy until well after they get past the boost phase and get into the cruise - straight line phase.
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.