Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Turd__AuthorityLet's make one assumption that military resources in each state would go to those respective states and local inhabitants would remain loyal.
California. More military personnel are citizens than any other state. They have the 2nd largest amount of national guard members (behind Texas) and numerous bases so expect military resources to be concentrated there. Geography provides diversity of landscapes but also an entire water border on half the state. They have the world's 5th largest economy (1st in US) so they have the funding. They also have tech on tech on tech so you can guess who wins the cyber war.
Water supply is their major weakness. Forest fires are definitely a threat too if intentionally set by opposing states.
California, Texas, and other border states will all fight for Mexico's allegiance but Mexico will side with California and further contribute to their success. This weakens Texas' defense. California will also gain allegiance with Japan and China. If you thought civil wars were fought alone you're wrong.
theabortionatorRhode island. People would forget it exists and after everyone else blows each other to shit they'd come rolling out victorious.
Or a state with mtns. A lot of flatlanders would struggle in big mtn terrain. Limited roads, good vantage points.
I picture a big texas invasion of CO ending with people spinning tires in their trucks because it snowed and chains are unamerican.
Profahoben_212I think it would be California without a doubt. Given that each states military stays with their respective state (and no nukes). They are one of the few states that could stand alone with their resources (they have their own oil, tech, massive agriculture, economy, and a workforce to back it up. Also, they have the largest population by far. 10 million more than the next highest, texas. and they have absolutely killer terrain for a defensive battle due to the inaccessibility of the Sierras and death valley.
Quick annex of Washington and Oregon, as they are the biggest threats on the west coast, you get fishing rights on the entire pacific coast, and you extend the sierras buffer all the way to Canada. Then run through Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho to build a buffer + more water rights, then wait for colorado, texas, and Florida to beat the shit out of each other and the states around them. Go in and mop up the rest. And hope the northeast/east beat each other up enough not to be an issue at the end of it all.
Farmville420Okay but part of the reason I also don’t think cali could win is that you would have to teach a MASSIVE amount of Californians how to use a firearm, and 50% of them would probably be too busy protesting the theoretical war to actually even try to learn
Profahoben_212Eh i think you are overblowing this. There are an absolute shitload of gun owners in cali. not to mention cartels/gangs etc. Not on texas level no, but more than enough to do the job. Just not in the bay or la proper.
You aren't wrong that it takes time for people to be trained, but texas is going to have to do that as well. texas wont win a war with bob in his f350 mall crawler blasting fortunate son storming denver. Youd be blown up with an airstrike before you crossed the border. This entire scenario requires a strong enough military in the first place to hold off original advances and give time to train replacements and shift to an era of total war. Also, it would require an absolute nightmare of arms production. Cali has both of those. Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing having facilities down there. Hell like 3/4ths the engineers I know are in Cali working for one of those companies.
Idk, if military isn't involved, then I think it would be a different story more akin to yours. All of a sudden bob in his mall crawler with 14 AR 15s would actually make a difference.
Turd__AuthorityLet's make one assumption that military resources in each state would go to those respective states and local inhabitants would remain loyal.
California. More military personnel are citizens than any other state. They have the 2nd largest amount of national guard members (behind Texas) and numerous bases so expect military resources to be concentrated there. Geography provides diversity of landscapes but also an entire water border on half the state. They have the world's 5th largest economy (1st in US) so they have the funding. They also have tech on tech on tech so you can guess who wins the cyber war.
Water supply is their major weakness. Forest fires are definitely a threat too if intentionally set by opposing states.
California, Texas, and other border states will all fight for Mexico's allegiance but Mexico will side with California and further contribute to their success. This weakens Texas' defense. California will also gain allegiance with Japan and China. If you thought civil wars were fought alone you're wrong.
LonelyMichigan for sure. To attack through the south at some point you'd have to be within 50 miles of Ohio or Gary Indiana and nobody wants to be anywhere near that shit.
But then the big question becomes what would the upper peninsula do? The love for Michigan is strong, but we do try and secede from the lower peninsula every now and again. Maybe team up with Minnesota and Wisconsin and call it the "superior state alliance".
Regionally, the Midwest would kick everyones ass. It has just the right amount of industry, natural resources, firearms, and individuals with an IQ above 40.
The south would get their shit rocked no matter who they were up against
Profahoben_212I think it would be California without a doubt. Given that each states military stays with their respective state (and no nukes). They are one of the few states that could stand alone with their resources (they have their own oil, tech, massive agriculture, economy, and a workforce to back it up. Also, they have the largest population by far. 10 million more than the next highest, texas. and they have absolutely killer terrain for a defensive battle due to the inaccessibility of the Sierras and death valley.
Quick annex of Washington and Oregon, as they are the biggest threats on the west coast, you get fishing rights on the entire pacific coast, and you extend the sierras buffer all the way to Canada. Then run through Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho to build a buffer + more water rights, then wait for colorado, texas, and Florida to beat the shit out of each other and the states around them. Go in and mop up the rest. And hope the northeast/east beat each other up enough not to be an issue at the end of it all.
CaseyNot so fast Washington is low key loaded up with military bases too. There are 7 actually. Enough to defend against Japan in WWII or stage a proper insurgency against a hostile occupation
Farmville420I may be but also I feel like Texans on average are way more knowledgeable with firearms which gives them an advantage. The gangs in cali are rampant, but how will you get them to cooperate and help form a militia? 20% of all the cars in cali are EVs so once someone cuts the power 20% of their vehicles are useless whereas Texans literally bleed crude oil. I think also, in a wartime scenario sooooo much of those military bases in cali are uninhabitable, that big desert in the southeast corner of the state will be like a scene out of mad max
PacificRimJobThis has basically been a who would win - California vs. Texas thread... but this is wholly assuming that each of the 50 states would fight independently and would not coalesce into regional alliances...
California would immediately be joined by its cadre of friendly neighbours... namely Oregon and Washington which can supply it with nearly endless water resources, as well as Nevada which is basically a giant desert buffer zone that will be severely difficult to cross with any element of surprise.. The geography of such an alliance would make it severely difficult to penetrate overland... seeing as the majority of it's population centres and productive regions would be defended by massive deserts and super tall mountains... the only way to hurt the west coast would be through aerial bombing and rocket attacks. Attack by sea would be futile.
Additionally, Texas will freeze or boil without power because it has horrendously shitty weather. If its electrical grid just gets one switch flipped wrong, the whole place loses its mind. All it will take to disable the whole grid there is to just get some kids to chuck an M80 firecracker or a cherry bomb into a transformer and the whole system will go down - forcing their leaders to fuck off to Cancun or something. Texas' neighbours and likely allies are also far less strategically important than California's... Nobody is scared of Oklahoma. All Texas would be able to do is limit river travel on the mississippi, forcing northern plains states to source trade from overland options - which is where the majority of their trade comes from anyhow.
The Northeast states would coalesce into their own alliance, and the southern states would start singing that absolutely shit-tune "Dixie" again.. That would make for some interesting battles across Virginia once again... Atlanta would get burned, but it wouldnt be Sherman doing the burning this time, but rather pissed off Fulton County residents.
SteezyYeeteryeah but... i mean... in cali they're all... well... nevermind... i mean... wouldn't be hard to beat... just saying... eh...
Farmville420Northeast is really underrated I will admit. Yale literally has a nuke on campus, Vermont and New Hampshire residents are horrifying people, Massachusetts is by far the most intelligent state in the country per capita. Maine weather is absolutely unbearable and an attack during winter would fail miserably for any opponent. Also we are severely underrating New York City as a whole, not even including Albany and Rochester etc…assuming an alliance would form I might actually take New England vs the rest of the country
weatcoastI think the first goal in the war and the only common ground would be a joint 49-state effort to eliminate Ohio
PacificRimJobCalifornia is full of motherfuckers strapped up ready for a gang war and you think California would be easy to beat? I mean, have you even played Grand Theft Auto? There's a reason they don't have GTA: Bumfuck-Cowtown Texas... lol. There's nothing of value to even steal out there.
Sorry but I'll take some real deal street thug life gangsta's who know how to pull off a drive-by over some fat midwest camouflage-cosplay dork who hasn't eaten a vegetable in 16 years and couldn't even make the walk to his local 711 without having a heart attack thank you very much...
SteezyYeeterwow ur really mad about this. lmao.
weatcoastI think the first goal in the war and the only common ground would be a joint 49-state effort to eliminate Ohio
weatcoastLmaooo
dwt802As a member on newschoolers.com, I would say that predicting the outcome of a hypothetical 50 state civil war is not only difficult but also a bit unsettling. It's important to remember that the idea of a civil war goes against the very principles of unity and democracy that our country was founded upon.
That being said, if we were to entertain the idea of such a conflict, it's hard to say which state would come out on top. Texas is certainly a large and powerful state, with a strong military history and a large population. However, other states such as California, New York, and Florida also have large populations and substantial military resources.
Ultimately, in a hypothetical civil war between all 50 states, there would likely be no clear winner. The idea of states turning against each other in such a violent manner is not only alarming but also goes against the values that our country was built upon. Instead of focusing on division and conflict, we should strive to come together as a united nation and work towards a peaceful and prosperous future for all.
Farmville420Shut up nerd, Colorado in 5
LippamaniI'd like to start a new game where there is no military. So just civilian gorilla warfare in this case the midwest will crush everyone. Texas Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan we all have plenty of water and where I'm at I see deer all day long in broad day light. Besides that lots of crops and beer and I know of a couple moonshiners. And it's so dence here if we are playing defense we will kick ass.
piss_boywisconsin because me
CoolChillGuy420Texas or the deep south, Midwest, maybe SC or states that have major military installations. Also ain't no way in hell am I trusting some fucking hayseed from Montucky or Utah/Idaho/Wyoming with a gun. These people don't even know their own asshole from their own elbows and prefer to shoot you over road rage.
Also applying to be a combat medic for when it goes down so HMU!
**This post was edited on Apr 4th 2023 at 8:37:42pm
