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 ...
I’m plotting a waterborne invasion to free Chicago.
If the answer isn’t Texas, it’s wrong.
In theory California could be completely sufficient, but its run by liberals.
What an interesting question, great one for cocktail parties.
Which ever state that promised the most government benefits. ;-)
Why not Detroit? :-)
Frankly, I’d choose Texas. It has a ‘nation’ mindset already and a self-reliant tradition. It has a well-armed populace by all accounts and the sons&daughters in other states would quickly rally under such circumstances.
Of the others, only Alaska would probably be as tough.
I agree with the Alaska and Hawaii estimate and thought of that before opening the article. It would take more resources for any one state to invade either of those states and most states would have to cross another state to even be in a position to invade. They could sit it out while the others beat up on each other, storing resources and building assets at that time. It would mean a much weaker opposition to them when someone was left who was finally willing to turn their eyes on those states. They may not come out on the very top, but they will be one of the last standing.
Detroit is armed, they gotta free themselves.
Laying siege to Ann Arbor has its attraction.
This whole State vs State construct is unrealistic.
Logistics. Always logistics.
/johnny
“If the answer isn’t Texas, it’s wrong.”
I don’t live there but I’d put my money on Texas, easily over the west coast gays and NY snobs - and probably everyone else combined.
Which side are the illegal aliens fighting on?
I posted it after reading the first few paragraphs, then went back to read the rest.
Interesting analysis! I have a hard time thinking California could overtake the Pacific Northwest, though, because we have an awful lot of military resources here...
I remember reading something years ago which stuck in my mind. I am not even certain it is an accurate quote but probably not possible to tell for certain. The statement was by Robert E. Lee.
Anyway he said that he preferred troops from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. I thought that was a particularly high compliment since he was a Virginian.
Something which tends to back that up is a letter from a South Carolina soldier. He wrote his wife that all the Richmond papers were giving the Virginians credit for a victory when it was the Florida Brigade which actually won the battle and did the hardest fighting.
State of Confusion would be the winner.
None of them would “win” if they all fought the other 49 states.
Kalipornia won’t fight. Half its residents are loyal to Mexico, so....
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.