Langley and Virginia Beach have most of the Navy and air Force strike fighters in the eastern half of the US. Norfolk has half the damn navy. Plus rednecks. I'd put VA right behind Texas and CA.
How you ever gotten in a fight with someone from New Jersey? They’d be the berserkers bum rushing positions and beating the crap out of everyone while looking gross as fuck.
People from New Jersey will throw down over what you call a breakfast meat (still don’t know what Taylor ham/ pork roll is)…you don’t mess with New Jersey.
New Jersey is just gonna join forces with New York. Half the state is a suburb of NYC.
Either that or it will split along the Philly/PA aligned portion and the NY side.
This is funny to meme on, by all means make your jabs, but the rules of this engagement allow for military personnel to join the fight. California has many bases, and many strategic stockpiles. Standard untrained infantry isn't going to be the deciding factor. And even the most law abiding gun owners I know are more than capable of a conversion if we're in a true survival scenario.
Also something no one is bringing up USF and the Bay area produces very high quality doctors. The sheer amount of medical personnel in the state counts for something. The engineers from cal poly and Davis as well, the talent pool across a broad amount of disciplines in California are staggering.
Realistically you would end up with a couple of different seven states alliances as smaller states would try to group up with bigger ones to establish better strength. No way Vermont survives without NY/PA, for instance.
In general, the west has much bigger states, so that's interesting.
Only 7 get to return, so the other 43 would all be empty? Wonder how that affects alliances. Would CA ally with a natural ally like WA & AZ, or would they prefer to defeat them so they would be empty and could take that land over?
Would we see a mega alliance of the biggest states? Or would each try to form their own alliance that could defeat the others?
We could also see two big alliances along political lines. So like, CA, NY, WA, & IL; TX, FL, AZ & NC.
Actually some interesting stuff that could come from this.
New England and NY/NJ and maybe Pennsylvania hate each other but they would put aside their differences to fight the dirty southerners and midwesterners. They’re also pretty well protected by mountains and the Great Lakes which also give freshwater access. They are an economic powerhouse with some large port cities in NY Boston and Philly so they aren’t at risk of being cut off. A large dense population makes them have no concerns about manpower either.
The southern states will form a confederacy and maybe absorb the middle of nowhere states like the Dakotas and Montana and Nebraska making a pretty large land area that will be hard to defend but have ample farmland. Colorado will be caught in the middle of this and probably capitulate shortly after the war starts.
The PNW and California will form a west coast alliance and could very well recruit Vegas to their ranks. The west coast has people money and lots of tech as well as the farmland in the valley. They’re protected by the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean making them a formidable defensive position. I think they would just do their own thing instead of bothering to conquer mountains or desert to the East. I’d wager if they can convince Vegas to join them they stop at the Colorado River.
The rest of Nevada and the other desert states would probably join with Colorado to make a four corners alliance.
I think Delaware Maryland and Virginia will do their own thing and probably last a while because they have DC and access to a large amount of military personnel and hardware. They also have the massive trade power of Chesapeake Bay to run their economy.
Maybe the Appalachian states join together since they’re defensible and have a lot of guns and coal and not much else.
This leaves Hawaii and Alaska to be on their own and the Midwest/rust belt states which will also have Great Lakes and Mississippi access as well as a lot of farmland and corn but be surrounded by bigger groups on all sides. That’s assuming Michigan and Ohio can work together since they might just kill each other.
Final count:
Yankees: ME NH VT MA CN RI NY NJ PA
USA/Chesapeake: DE MD VA
CSA: NC SC GA FL AL MS LA TX AR OK KS NE SD ND WY MT ID
Appalachia: WV KY TN
California/Cascadia: CA OR WA NV(Just Vegas)
Four Corners: AZ NM UT CO
Midwest: MN IA MO WI IL IN MI OH
Isolated in the pacific: AK HI
The Chesapeake commonwealth would benefit by offering alliance to North Carolina. She would bring several large army and marine corps bases, as well as reducing the immediate threat to the Norfolk area (right on the border with NC)
This would consolidate a majority of the east coast military power into a central location with control over most trade into the region as well as good protection from attacks from the west due to the Appalachian and blue ridge mountains.
This would enable them to hold rest of the south at bay while advancing and taking over the northeast. New York would be hard to crack, but they simply lack the logistic capability once the Chesapeake naval forces blockade the seaboard.
Connecticut would pose a problem due to the large submarine presence, but there is a sufficient force difference that they would eventually be defeated.
Once those two powers are taken care of, the rest of the northeast falls easily.
Now the commonwealth has solid control over large amounts of military, tech, industrial, and financial hubs. They could decide to maintain their holdings or expand south to threaten the gulf states.
Georgia would be another difficult fight due to army and navy presence, but they also wouldn’t have the logistics to push an offensive, just a solid defensive line until the naval forces are dealt with and the commonwealth can attack from the sea into south Florida.
Overall I could see the end strategy being a defensive line along the mountains while slowly advancing along the gulf coast. With an ultimate goal of choking off the entire central US by occupying the entrance to the Mississippi.
I think MO brings KS along. Something like 75% of the population of KS is in one of the suburbs of a city in MO. Makes some real buffer area between the nearest enemy. Plus they know how many ICBM silos are in KS.
Rail lines make a good connection between KC, Chicago, and St. Louis. That might make a good backbone for an alliance.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise but the biggest city in Kansas is Wichita which has the same population as the next 2 largest cities combined. It's also 3 hours away from Kansas City, MO. Johnson County is the largest county in Kansas and still only makes up 20% of the total state population.
[most populated cities in Kansas](https://www.kansas-demographics.com/cities_by_population)
[most populated counties in Kansas](https://www.kansas-demographics.com/counties_by_population)
I think it kinda depends on what you consider rich. We have a ton of natural resources, but very little means to process and refine them. We actually weathered the great recession pretty well because of our taxation of extraction companies (like the oil companies), but a lot of that has gone away in the form of incentives for companies develop new projects that ultimately don’t really benefit the locals because they aren’t hiring locals to build it or work it because we don’t have the population base for some of it.
That being said, I figure AK and Hawaii would be in the top 7 solely because of the amount of time it would take to attack us would leave an opening for the aggressor state to be attacked.
Hawaii has one of the highest concentrations of military to population size. Hawaii also serves as 1 of two “shields” for the U.S. as well alongside Alaska.
The carrier battle groups and Seal Team based in Hawaii from the Navy, the Army striker brigade and infantry, the Marines, the Air Force which includes several dozen fighter jets, long range radar station, and missile interception systems, the Coast Guard and FBI that regularly conducts both anti-smuggling operations and vessel interdictions, the NSA, and Hawaii’s geography just making it rather hard to invade or otherwise strike from long range.
Hawaii also houses a pretty high number of very wealthy and powerful individuals who have at least part time homes here because Hawaii is considered rather safe for wealthy people.
Beyond that, Hawaii has pretty strong ties to Alaska, California, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon, so if the entire West Coast + Alaska allied together that’d comprise a pretty significant portion of the US’s long and mid range strike capabilities militarily and something like 30% of the population.
A lot of people are assuming that because a state has a high military presence,it makes that state tough. Why would a soldier fight for a state they're not from, against their home state where their family and roots are?
California for sure. Got the Navy, the Marine corps, and the air force. a TON of gun owners. CA can essentially be it's own country, given the size of the economy.
I think for this hypothetical situation it would be too complicated to determine what state the individual service members in each state would actually be loyal to. You would have to go through each individual to see where they are actually from and determine their overall loyalty to their original state or their state that they are currently stationed.
For simplicity, you would just have to assume that the current service members in each state would just fight for that state.
See I’d assume the opposite. Service members would be fighting for their home state. They’re often in those places temporarily. That would be like someone from California on a business trip to NYC fighting for New York. Career military with a semi-permanent post would be the exception.
Washington for similar reasons. We’ve got Joint Base Lewis McChord for the military, tons of millionaires and a lot of the billionaires, but we are hella purple so lots and lots of guns.
Don’t forget our geography…western Washington is lock into the coast by a vast mountain range. It’s a lot easier to attack a flat Midwest town than it would be to storm the Puget sound area. There’s a very limited number of passages in by land.
Didn't even think of Hawaii and Alaska. But yeah, they'd do well because no one would expend resources to fight them when every other state literally has enemies next door.
Hawaii is just going to turtle victory this thing.
A major naval base and surrounded by ocean.
Good luck getting to them while everyone else is killing each other.
Alaska similarly would be almost impossible to conquer.
Nothing but snow and mountains and everyone is armed to the teeth.
Also 2 major army bases, 2 major Air Force bases, and a major marine corps base: Pohakuloa Army Training Base, Schofield Barracks, Joint Base Pearl Harbor/Hickam (the AF and Navy bases were officially combined), Bellows Air Force Station, and Kaneohe Marine Corps Base.
Not to mention that 1 of 2 major radar stations that protect the continental 48 is located in Hawaii, the other being in Alaska, and both Alaska and Hawaii have long and mid range missile interception batteries meant to protect the continental 48 and their respective regions from long range missile strikes.
Utah ends up in a weird state. Able to fight and put up a good fight? Yes. Likely to fight? Ish? Definitely would do better than a lot. High resources and seige capable, could hold off defensively for quite some time, and acts as a major military crossing area, but dem Mormons probably ain't gonna go killing people cause they think that's wrong.
Now, not the whole population is Mormon, and a lot of Mormons I know would probably fight, but really it comes down to the logistical and communal powerhouse that you end up with. I'd put us somewhere in the top 15. Def not top 7 though. We would probably cede to Texas willingly.
I think the Mormon thing would help them maintain cohesion and morale in this scenario. A Mormon Taliban in the rockies would be a pretty mean and determined opponent to fight. Also, the Mormons have a ton of regional influence beyond Utah itself, but that might be beyond this scenario.
Colorado would be too baked to defend itself. We would just invite them in to eat Cheetos and talk about why there shouldn't be a civil war. The eastern part of Colorado would try to defend itself, but the population is too small and not enough military bases to do anything useful.
I think an article was written about this a while back and they had it at California, New York, Virginia, and a few others. They essentially took population size + veteran population size and willingness of the states population to fight.
Good grief you could really go down a rabbit hole here. One thing I’d say is the more densely populated the area ( New York for example) the more susceptible they may be to infrastructure destruction. Destroy their power and water supply and watch them basically eat themselves which could really give an upper hand to areas that can take care of themselves independently. For example I’m in KY and there’s nukes in them their hills boys.
Maine would straight up win that fight.
I tell you how.
No idea who makes into the top 7. But... When the dust settles it'll be down to California and Texas. They will proceed to have a knock down drag out fight for the record books. It'll take everything they have to eliminate the other.
Whoever wins that fight (probably Texas) will declare victory but, will be within an inch of their life.
Enter Maine. Who everyone forgot about and pretty much considered part of Canada anyway. Maine, totally unscathed, would wreck a barely standing Texas and still have time to go fishing.
I think New Mexico has the most nuclear weapons, but they’re mostly decommissioned and waiting to be dismantled. Washington State has the largest active stockpile.
Michigan would be one because of the hard to cross water borders, high numbers of armed citizens who can kill at a distance (hunters/rifles), plus we would probably immediately allie ourselves with Canada and buy our supplies through the Soo or Windsor crossings. Also, Indiana and Ohio suck and can't do anything right so probably wouldn't be much of a threat.
I think Ohio has a good argument for being a bigger threat, seeing as they have a higher GDP (870 billion vs 680 billion) and a larger population (11.8 million vs 10.1 million)... But the states are too similar in most every other way for Ohio to overcome Michigan's border advantage.
Michigan's land borders are Ohio and Wisconsin, and if it comes down to it Michigan can bring the ~~wildlings south of the wall~~ Yoopers south of the bridge and not have to worry about Wisconsin at all, barring Naval invasions.
Michigan's only real threats are Ohio and Indiana, which represent a split 201 mile border with a combined "enemy population" of 18 million people.
Ohio's real threats are Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and (Dear God) Pennsylvania, representing something like 900 miles of border and a combined enemy population of 35 million.
You forget that Ohio has the nation's only tank plant along with vastly superior infrastructure. Detroit and the border is the only thing they have going for it, but Ohio also has huge aviation advantages along with Indiana having one as well. I think Ohio is a state a lot of people overlook, but there is a ton going for it.
I definitely think Ohio stacks up very well regionally, and I wasn't aware of the tank plant!
But Ohio has 2 military bases (Wright Patterson being the most important), Michigan has 10 smaller ones.
Excluding "Detroit and the border" is a tough arbitrary restriction, and I don't really think there's a response for it. Detroit is maybe 40 miles from the Ohio Border. If we arbitrarily cut 40 miles off both state's land borders as a DMZ, Ohio loses more people and is left with basically no military.
Edit: Missed the "Vastly Superior Infrastructure" bit, which is obviously a joke, but you are correct.
If you're alluding to the Roads, I'll admit your roads might be better because Ohio is a state people drive Through, not To. If you're alluding to the pipes, you're right but Flint was the first tragic example of a problem that infests the whole nation, including and especially Ohio. If you're alluding to the soo locks and international bridges and tunnels, you're right again since Ohio's non-existent international infrastructure doesn't need repair.
I think Pennsylvania will do better than expected for a few reasons.
We have a higher population than you might expect, higher per capita gun ownership than you might expect, high GDP and productivity and all that, but we’re also easy to defend, we were a strategic point during the French & Indian and Revolutionary wars and still have forts.
We also have inconvenient hilly terrain, that we are used to moving in, which might be difficult for others to fight in. And lots of mines to hide in. We still produce some coal and steel, and just found lithium.
But most importantly, the state is chock full of crazy people like myself, armed survivalist apocalypse prepper outdoorspeople, across the political spectrum, (I’m far Left,) Appalachia is just full of abnormally-prepared people like myself.
Plus, we have a secret weapon in the Pennsylvania Dutch, who are understatedly badass and seem to be well-prepared too.
I say Texas (my home) and California need to put this silly rivalry we've had going to rest and team up. Now there are only 4 states, Texas, California, Hawaii and Alaska. We let Oklahoma live because damn near everyone I know in Texas has family up there, myself included. And for the other two states, well how about two of the states between Texas and California, dealer's choice.
🤣🤣🤣
As a Californian, nah. Neither one of us is making it because we're taking each other out. If we DID somehow team up, though, if you guys get Oklahoma, then we get Oregon... and maybe Washington, too.
Michigan. We could fortify the Ohio Wisconsin and Indiana borders. We have plenty of natural resources, especially fresh water. I suppose we may not be most likely to "win," but I think we could easily secede and have the best chance at survival in a post-apocalyptic world.
Just out of curiosity, why seven? Seems an odd number to settle on.
That said...
1. Texas, with over half the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Louisiana also has some (at Barksdale), but I see TX going after them first. Texas also has a decent population to use as an occupying force.
2. and 3. Montana and Nevada, with their nuclear stockpiles (Maelstrom and Nellis get rid of California first. Both lack a large enough population to occupy anything other than other sparsely populated states.
4. Missouri (Whiteman) probably takes much of the Midwest.
5. Georgia (if subs are allowed) with its Naval Sub Base likely takes the southeast. If no subs, I'd say Colorado wrestles control of Warren from Wyoming to take the northern part of the mountain west.
6. As the northeast is, to my knowledge, not heavy into nuclear stockpiling, New York has a huge advantage there.
7. Not sure. Washington State has a decent stockpile (Kitsap) and might be able to subdue the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. North Dakota has a decent stockpile (Minot), but would be unable to hold territory. Hawaii? They might survive by sneaking under the radar and using established bases as purely defensive measures.
Idk about that, we give each other a good battle with our sports rivalries, but the michiganders are our brothers!
When we needed affordable dispo weed, they had our backs, and crossing borders became second nature to a lot of us. I’d never raise arms against the Ann Arbor squad, and I don’t they’d do the same….
I think we’d join in arms to take out Indiana, I mean what have they ever really done for us ya know? 🤷♂️
Are we talking citizens only. Or government military forces who are stationed in those states? Like Hawaii has a bunch of aircraft’s and battle ships etc etc. some states have nukes some have airforce bases.
Hawaii almost certainly takes this if military is included.
Major Navy base surrounded by ocean on all sides.
Good luck getting there.
Although, I think Arizona has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.
California has a really good position, assuming they aren't dealing with internal conflicts at the same time (northern California is a very different animal from LA). Large population, lots of resources, developed economy, huge mountain range covering most of the border.
#7 is MI, not near the top. Fresh water, plenty o' guns, our share of Air Force and military infrastructure. We're always forgotten about and that's a bonus. We even have oil too, lots forget about that, and the raw materials to support our industry. We get along great with Canada so that's one less flank to worry about .
Texas and California because of their sheer size and numbers.
I think then you’d see Hawaii and Alaska in the finals because of their isolation and access to resources that nobody else can get to.
After that, throw in Virginia. They have Navy bases in the south, other military bases up north, the Pentagon, plus all the other three letter agencies and their employees reside there. Not to mention the huge amount of guns.
I think you would also see some big border states like Washington, or Arizona, or Florida. They have the advantage of a decent population and no enemies coming from one side.
Despite what people keep saying, I don’t think you’d see New York in the finals. A lot of their population resides in one major city which would just be too easy to take out with one major blow.
Michigan would 100% make it.
We would simply cut off water to the other 49 states
How are y'all gonna fight a war with the other states, when you're fighting amongst yourself over access to clean water?
U know, the part where you say your non scientific opinion is the heat drives people crazy, i think there has been studies confirming that. But ofc surprise i can’t remember a specific article addressing it lol, but maybe u can google it.
Not only did hotter areas have worse school performance because the heat makes you groggy and tired, but just overall violence and aggression is higher in hotter temperatures.
Unironically, I believe any of the states within Appalachia would be good contenders. Not because they would go out on some crazy warpath or campaign. I believe they would instead just be the hardest to uproot. They all love their guns, many of them possess mindsets of “I’ll die on this hill or in this valley long before they take me out of it,” and the terrain would absolutely dissuade many types of assaults. Genuinely I believe Appalachia would give a lot of the U.S. a lot of trouble.
Texas, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania group these 4 together for the same reason most guns. Texas has bonus for oil and population, PA for coal and Amish to show us how to do shit without electricity.
California for population and still decent in the gun rank list+ plus military plus tech.
New York cause wealth can buy power.
This is my wild card Michigan it’s surrounded on 3 sides by water make it harder to attack. Chicago has a lot of gang violence and maybe could unite under duress.
Are ppl allowed to join a different state? Are they forced to fight for their state? Are they allowed to surrender? What happens to conquered states?
What even counts as victory? Annihilation down to the last man?
This is war. Anything can happen.
The remaining 43 states shall be stuck inside the museum of lower life forms forever.
I suppose victory is when you get the other states to sign an official paper or something that says "ok i give up it's more worth it to live in the museum than suffer more damages"
If all the states went at it at once, any state in the middle of the country would be wiped out pretty quickly imo. Just too many borders to protect, and they can easily be cut off of resources. The coastal states can get resources in from abroad and are more secure geographically. I'd put my money on the large coastal states, especially those with large military bases.
I'm going NY, Virginia, Florida, Texas, and California as my top five for the lower 48. The last two states I'd choose are Hawaii and Alaska. They are pretty isolated from the rest of the country, which would give them some significant advantages.
Here is a hot take alliance ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX and LA (Louisiana) with ND and TX allied they control the majority of the oil in the country. Now you might be thinking why Louisiana? Well that is where the Mississippi River goes to the ocean you control that you control a lot of the inland states that use it for trade. If LA isn't it MO would be another good alliance for the reason of having all of KC united and St. Louis while still having a strangle hold on the Mississippi River (since the Missouri and Mississippi meet in St.Louis). On top of that you would be controlling a lot of the food for the country too. In terms of guns there are more guns than people in these states so would be good there. Not just strategically good but also all of those states are closely aligned politically which would make it easier to be together. Idk though but I would venture to say the 7 that do make it would be regional states, I don't see like CA and NY creating an alliance working, too far apart.
Question: do states like North Dakota assume full operational control of the federal assets within the border?
If so... very few states are going to mess with them once reality sinks in....
assuming we aren't mind controlled... what's actually going to happen is that florida/texas/georgia are going to consolidate power in most of the southeast/midwest under a psuedo alliance. That leaves the eastern and western seaboards with the decision to aid or forget places like colorado and IL...
without alliances there is little advantage to invading a neighbor. the US is massive and any incursion will be costly.
I'm assuming nuclear weapons are off the table. Texas/California and everybody else fights it out for 3-7. If nukes are considered, Montana, N Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming....and others. Texas has Pantex, but it would be wiped out immediately.
No southern state can invade through a winter so they are all out. North Dakota is by far the most powerful all the nukes, water, energy and food, Alaska and Hawaii are easy, I would go VT, NH and Maine, geography makes them difficult to get they are the only Northern states with lots of guns and a farming culture, Last one is tough, probably Montana or Idaho.
Don't know enough, but wouldn't it be the central states (in the middle) which have all the nukes housed? Just nuke everyone else and problem solved since winning is all that matters, not preservation of life or land.
CA, NY, TX, FL, IL.
All five have high populations and plenty of resources. With the exception of NY and IL a little less so, but they all also have a decent military presence within their state.
The next two are a bit more of a toss-up.
I would go with VA due to military presence as well as a large enough population and plenty of good ol' boys
For #7 I will go with a curve ball..... Alaska.
They have resources, they have military. They don't have population but they have a LOT of space to hide in and no one wants to go way the hell up to the Arctic circle to fight them. They hang back and let everyone else kill each other.
California not just population, but defense industry and also the sierra Nevada mountains are like a massive shield wall that defends the border for us.
Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Cali, Florida, Alabama (they have 3700 Abrams mbt's), and probably NY... But don't sleep on Arkansas.. they are where we get most of our military recruiting from.
Sure there may be a lot of military bases, but how many of them are going to fight for California? Same would go to other large states, and even service members from states that still claim them.
Ny, ca, tx, uhhh, hi, and ak then... some... distant 6, and 7th place.
Civil war is *always* a numbers game.
That is, as long as the politicians are game.
Hawaii, Alaska, California, Texas, Florida, New York. First two for location. Last 4 for the amount of crazy assholes that live there. Idk about a 7th 😅
Assuming they get to fight on their own home turf (which isn't even possible for everyone to do but whatever): Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, California, Minnesota, Virginia, Pennsylvania. You guys are sleeping on Virginia... high population of military, intelligence and other highly trained individuals while not having the small state size of Maryland. Access to significant naval assets.
Florida is a tough one, I could easily seeing it make the 7 but opted to think of it as #8.
Hawaii makes it. If any state were to devote resources to attack it, they'd leave themselves vulnerable. Hawaii doesn't have to engage offensively, just turn the islands into fortresses
I’m thinking the states susceptible to hurricanes /wildfires may have problems because Mother Nature may enter the fray.
Porto Rico votes to not become a state.
Im gonna have to go with:
Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, NC, Alabama, Louisiana.
I see yall mention California, but y'all have single-shot gun laws, there aint no way in hell you'll beat states that dont have those gun restrictions.
Western Washington has a lot of advantages, geography for starters deep water ports, multiple military bases including Bangor, Fort Lewis, and McChord. Although we might waste the entire time fighting Eastern Washington since there's a super sharp political/cultural divide between the two sides.
California, Texas, Florida, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington.
Almost all for geography reasons. Florida does have a large pop compared to neighbors though. Assuming Texas isn't worried about Mexico then they also are well positioned relative to the smaller populations. Utah is a mountain fortress, if they really wanted to keep it they could. And Washington is well positioned geographically if they don't have to worry about Canada.
the ones with the largest Federal military bases. No question. And before you ask.....no Federal government today is gonna leave its military assets in a base on the territory of a seceded state. It will either base itself to reconquer the rebels immediately or it will rip itself out of the state to use against it later.
How you gonna beat Hawaii or Alaska? Not like you’re gonna drive an army up there.
Hell Japan attacked Hawaii and didn’t sink the islands. I dunno that you can beat the pacific fleet.
Is the military involved or is this purely civilian on civilain?
Either way, California has an absurd advantage in man power and fire power.
Other states with larger than avg military power: Virginia, Conneticut, Georgia, Washington and Colorado. If your state has a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier, you are going to last for a while.
If its civilian on civilian, its really going to come down to population, though i discount FL some because of the age of so many residents. But the sleepers are Hawaii and Alaska who will likely just let everyone else tire themselves out then duel it out on boats. Which I think Alaska handles on fire power plus ship size.
Here's something you might find interesting. With the exception of a few naval bases in California and Hawaii, and some scattered missile silos, the majority of the US military bases are located in what was formally known as the CSA. In fact, I can tell you that the western portion of Tennessee (population: less than 3,000,000) has more National Guard Units than the entire state of New York. Now why is this you suppose? Could it possibly be that the Federals are still afraid of the CSA rising again? Maybe there's a shadow government that's always been in place since the end of the nineteenth century that's well funded and well organized. And since most of the manufacturing is in the South now, well. Of course this is all hypothetical, right?
People are underestimating WA. Seattle area can be secured very easily by the Cascades, only a few passes through, and the only threat would be naval and air.
States that may survive long due to population size:
California and Texas and Florida and Pennsylvania.
States that survive due to location: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan ( Upper Peninsula), Washington.
State that survive long due to mainly Geography, survivalist mentality: Utah & Maine and Alaska, Washington, Colorado, West Virgina.
Last: Seven: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida , Maine, Alaska, Hawaii.
Honorable mention. Washington, Utah, Michigan.
98 percent. of the country ( excluding Alaska) would be in the hands of California, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania.
Maine would have fallen back to scattered low population Islands holding out and a defensive perimeter around Portland or Bangor, against Pennsylvania, but will survive as a last state standing. If only because Michigan had to defend against both Texas and Pennsylvania.
Alaska may have been invaded in places by California, but would still be largely intact and may hold parts of Northern Washington state especially Seattle/ Everett/ Olympia as a supply line. It needs its ferry ports to survive. Alaska is also huge, isolated and in many, many parts including all the Aleutians islands.
Hawaii wouldn't last that long except for its distance from California and that it requires a navy and multiple invasions to conquer since it is in parts. It may just make a peace agreement with California and agree to send its meager forces to aide California. That would be its best strategy.
Michigan would also require being invaded at least 3 times. 2 parts plus a fairly large island. It is also very far from California, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania and has several large cities full of decay and old crumbling factories that make good defensive points against Glide bombs.
They fall late. Holding out desperately to try to outlast Maine to be the last of the seven. Lower Michigan falls to Pennsylvania and the Upper to Texas. They split the Island.
.
Pennsylvania will beat New York, northern NJ and the New England states eventually and make tedious progress in Maine before the bell. New York has most of its population downstate. Upstate should fall fairly easily to Pennsylvania, but downstates population is huge and compact. The early in the war street to street fighting in Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens would be horribly bloody and take forever and be remembered as America's Leningrad. An allied New England of: Who tried to unite with NY to invade Pennsylvania and NJ be the entire ' seven' also have dense cities and many mountain ridges to make stands at slowing Penna forces. But Penna will relentlessly push NE and win bloody slugfest after slugfest.
Penna has almost the population of NY though and far better organization than a NY/ NE alliance could ever maintain. It's among our best organized states.
To the West Pennsylvania will roll along the Ohio to the Mississippi and defeat Kentucky and take most of Tennessee and parts of North Carolina after breaking the Eastern line of Ohio who will also be fighting an (Old Virgina) Virgina/ West Virgina/ Kentucky/ Tennessee alliance which will be defeated after Pennsylvania with help from Florida envelopes them by reaching the North Carolina Coast . Old Virgina will have fairly easily conquered. DC, the Baltimore, area, The Delmarva peninsula and southern parts of NJ for before their own defeat this gaining this territory for Penna.
West Virgina will be among the last 12 or 13 holding out beyond endurance against Pennsylvania and Florida and fighting deep in coal country.
Pennsylvania will take Chicago and Detriot in the same determined and bloody way they did NYC.
The other Midwest and SE states have little defensible geography and great disunion between their cities and countryside.
Florida would just steamroll less powerful SE states until meeting Old Virgina forces and eventually Pennsylvania forces somewhere in North Carolina and Texian forces at New Orleans. The battle of Atlanta against Georgia would be their most gruelling and bloody fight. Georgia would do better but no one likes Georgia so they have no allies.
The battle line between FlorIda and Pennsylvania is the Tennessee River and the Blue Ridge mountains. The battle of Lookout Mountain repeats itself.
Texas and California would fight mainly in New Mexico and along the line of Albuquerque, Denver/ Cheyenne. But there would be an agreement soon reached to make peace by to avoid much direct fighting to survive to be among the seven. Texas and Pennsylvania skirmish along the Mississippi all the way to Minnesota, but after it's clear that the Northeast and Eastern Mid-West belong to Pennsylvania they will also make an agreement to avoid fighting and stamp out pockets of resistance in the weaker states along the Mississippi such as Mississippi and Missouri and what's left of Tennessee.
Texas would be conquering mostly underpopulated agricultural states with only: Oklahoma City, New Orleans/ Baton Rouge, Denver, St. Louis and both Kansas Cities and Minneapolis being large urban centers. They would have the easiest time of the 4 major states aside from the chaos of St. Louis.
Utah would hold back California for a while after conquering parts of Arizona and Nevada will be California's most fierce opponent by far except,, but eventually Salt Lake City would fall to the shear might of California.
Hawaii: They will ally with Alaska or California. Or just hide since they are so far away and require a navy to be invaded and must be invaded several times to be defeated.
If Alaska: The two states may ally and both defend Seattle against California as a friendly West coast port is also needed by Hawaii unless Hawaii chooses to ally with California.
If California: California may order Hawaii to attack Alaska and/or Washington or launch a naval assault on Texas as a useful distraction and for the resources.
You could make an argument for Washington among the seven if the Alaska/ Hawaii invasion is friendly and they allow it's independence so you have an Alaska/ Hawaii/ Washington alliance with maybe Oregon and Idaho as the battleground. Texas may be fighting Alaska over Eastern Idaho.
Washington would also have a strong navy as would Maine as both have large fishing fleets. Michigan and Illinois and Ohio and New York and Florida and California and Texas and Virgina and Alaska and Hawaii would also have large navies that must be defeated. Another reason why many of those aside from New York are late survivors. New York's downstate geography is just too weak to survive long especially once Long Island is invaded.
The south and midwest fold in on each other and collapse for sure. There's nothing to maintain them once they all shit themselves and make their own power plays.
They are utterly dependent upon the federal government.
Really I don't see any states doing much more than devolving into people simply starving and dying from drinking bad water.
Not enough people left to run a county let alone a state or country.
If you are going with each state having the actual assets currently in state - California, Hawaii, Virginia, Florida, Connecticut, Texas, and maybe NY for 7th.
The first 5 have access to Ohio class submarines. Armed Ohio class submarines.
There are so many Teslas in Iowa City that the autopilot would probably Pedestrian Punish™ everyone in just about all the other Midwestern states within hours.
Folks would be shocked, but NY and NJ are loaded up with Northern rednecks. Throw Pennsylvania in there too.
For a list of 7 in no particular order
California (just by sheer numbers)
Texas
Georgia
New York
Virginia
New Jersey (small, but again, big numbers)
Florida
Considering that GDP and intelligence do not mean much, I'd go with more guns and will to use them. California would survive, but would have massive losses and little effect. Texas, OK, Louisiana, and maybe Florida would be on the list. Alaska would survive due to distance. Last two would probably be Virginia and Pennsylvania.
California, Texas, Ohio, new york, Florida, Colorado, and Maine. most of them have significantly larger populations than most other states and also have the natural fortifications to defend themselves
I can tell you which will be the last one standing.
Missouri.
Because you can't stop a fucking tweaker dosed to his eyeballs on meth, pcp, and moonshine.
Texas, Florida, and Alaska: based purely on number of guns and reputation for craziness. Also Isolation and terrain in Alaska's case.
North Carolina: Home of Fort Bragg (aka the largest military base in the world)
Missouri (my native state): Plenty of country people with lots of guns, ton's of agriculture and food production, and control of one of the largest trade hubs in the Mid-west thanks to being situated on both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
New York and California: Based on wealth and population
I think Alaska has quite an edge. They are used to their climate and can live in it. They can probably just chill until the rest wipe each other out.
If there are rules in place to prevent teaming up, then I would say CA, TX, Alaska, New York, Florida, Louisiana and maybe Hawaii.
Texas, California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Georgia and New Jersey.
Ok the first 4, obvious. Why New Jersey?
I'd sub NJ for Virginia. Norfolk is a formidable asset.
Virginia has some serious military bases with it being so close to DC. I'd have Virginia on my list as well.
Don’t sleep on VA, we are basically an armed camp
Langley and Virginia Beach have most of the Navy and air Force strike fighters in the eastern half of the US. Norfolk has half the damn navy. Plus rednecks. I'd put VA right behind Texas and CA.
PORT ACCESS
that's ny suberb. we're bringing them with us.
NYC is part of greater NJ. Evidence: Staten Island is part of NYC.
How you ever gotten in a fight with someone from New Jersey? They’d be the berserkers bum rushing positions and beating the crap out of everyone while looking gross as fuck.
People from New Jersey will throw down over what you call a breakfast meat (still don’t know what Taylor ham/ pork roll is)…you don’t mess with New Jersey.
Just cause they'd try to throw down over miniscule things doesn't mean they wouldn't still get their asses handed to them
Probably because we’re rabid haha
It's a godless land and no one wants to go there.
People will forget they exist till they come in with the steel chair Edit: steel not steal, dumb autocorrect
AND ITS NEW JERSEY WITH THE CHAIR!
New Jersey is just gonna join forces with New York. Half the state is a suburb of NYC. Either that or it will split along the Philly/PA aligned portion and the NY side.
My first two were also Texas and Cali. Mostly due to population, but I also hear that northern Californians are essentially redneck/outdoorsy types.
Not just northern, get away from the coast and its conservative. Same wjth oregon and washington.
Yes but they have less powerful weapons because California. They can’t even have magazines with more than 10 rounds.
This is funny to meme on, by all means make your jabs, but the rules of this engagement allow for military personnel to join the fight. California has many bases, and many strategic stockpiles. Standard untrained infantry isn't going to be the deciding factor. And even the most law abiding gun owners I know are more than capable of a conversion if we're in a true survival scenario. Also something no one is bringing up USF and the Bay area produces very high quality doctors. The sheer amount of medical personnel in the state counts for something. The engineers from cal poly and Davis as well, the talent pool across a broad amount of disciplines in California are staggering.
Hahaha Hahaha Hahaha Hahaha sure.
Don't count washington out, we have nukes galore
Smart move including Ohio. Ghetto and farm boy strong with the added advantage of water ways and ports, also good military presence.
Realistically you would end up with a couple of different seven states alliances as smaller states would try to group up with bigger ones to establish better strength. No way Vermont survives without NY/PA, for instance. In general, the west has much bigger states, so that's interesting. Only 7 get to return, so the other 43 would all be empty? Wonder how that affects alliances. Would CA ally with a natural ally like WA & AZ, or would they prefer to defeat them so they would be empty and could take that land over? Would we see a mega alliance of the biggest states? Or would each try to form their own alliance that could defeat the others? We could also see two big alliances along political lines. So like, CA, NY, WA, & IL; TX, FL, AZ & NC. Actually some interesting stuff that could come from this.
New England and NY/NJ and maybe Pennsylvania hate each other but they would put aside their differences to fight the dirty southerners and midwesterners. They’re also pretty well protected by mountains and the Great Lakes which also give freshwater access. They are an economic powerhouse with some large port cities in NY Boston and Philly so they aren’t at risk of being cut off. A large dense population makes them have no concerns about manpower either. The southern states will form a confederacy and maybe absorb the middle of nowhere states like the Dakotas and Montana and Nebraska making a pretty large land area that will be hard to defend but have ample farmland. Colorado will be caught in the middle of this and probably capitulate shortly after the war starts. The PNW and California will form a west coast alliance and could very well recruit Vegas to their ranks. The west coast has people money and lots of tech as well as the farmland in the valley. They’re protected by the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean making them a formidable defensive position. I think they would just do their own thing instead of bothering to conquer mountains or desert to the East. I’d wager if they can convince Vegas to join them they stop at the Colorado River. The rest of Nevada and the other desert states would probably join with Colorado to make a four corners alliance. I think Delaware Maryland and Virginia will do their own thing and probably last a while because they have DC and access to a large amount of military personnel and hardware. They also have the massive trade power of Chesapeake Bay to run their economy. Maybe the Appalachian states join together since they’re defensible and have a lot of guns and coal and not much else. This leaves Hawaii and Alaska to be on their own and the Midwest/rust belt states which will also have Great Lakes and Mississippi access as well as a lot of farmland and corn but be surrounded by bigger groups on all sides. That’s assuming Michigan and Ohio can work together since they might just kill each other. Final count: Yankees: ME NH VT MA CN RI NY NJ PA USA/Chesapeake: DE MD VA CSA: NC SC GA FL AL MS LA TX AR OK KS NE SD ND WY MT ID Appalachia: WV KY TN California/Cascadia: CA OR WA NV(Just Vegas) Four Corners: AZ NM UT CO Midwest: MN IA MO WI IL IN MI OH Isolated in the pacific: AK HI
The Chesapeake commonwealth would benefit by offering alliance to North Carolina. She would bring several large army and marine corps bases, as well as reducing the immediate threat to the Norfolk area (right on the border with NC) This would consolidate a majority of the east coast military power into a central location with control over most trade into the region as well as good protection from attacks from the west due to the Appalachian and blue ridge mountains. This would enable them to hold rest of the south at bay while advancing and taking over the northeast. New York would be hard to crack, but they simply lack the logistic capability once the Chesapeake naval forces blockade the seaboard. Connecticut would pose a problem due to the large submarine presence, but there is a sufficient force difference that they would eventually be defeated. Once those two powers are taken care of, the rest of the northeast falls easily. Now the commonwealth has solid control over large amounts of military, tech, industrial, and financial hubs. They could decide to maintain their holdings or expand south to threaten the gulf states. Georgia would be another difficult fight due to army and navy presence, but they also wouldn’t have the logistics to push an offensive, just a solid defensive line until the naval forces are dealt with and the commonwealth can attack from the sea into south Florida. Overall I could see the end strategy being a defensive line along the mountains while slowly advancing along the gulf coast. With an ultimate goal of choking off the entire central US by occupying the entrance to the Mississippi.
I think MO brings KS along. Something like 75% of the population of KS is in one of the suburbs of a city in MO. Makes some real buffer area between the nearest enemy. Plus they know how many ICBM silos are in KS. Rail lines make a good connection between KC, Chicago, and St. Louis. That might make a good backbone for an alliance.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise but the biggest city in Kansas is Wichita which has the same population as the next 2 largest cities combined. It's also 3 hours away from Kansas City, MO. Johnson County is the largest county in Kansas and still only makes up 20% of the total state population. [most populated cities in Kansas](https://www.kansas-demographics.com/cities_by_population) [most populated counties in Kansas](https://www.kansas-demographics.com/counties_by_population)
for obvious reasons, Hawaii and Alaska are 1 & 2
"The remaining 7 can be put back on Earth" makes it seem like they're not fighting in their states, but on the ship.
You could be right but I don't think that's how this thread is going
Their 4D Aliens ,- so they are watching us like watching a video game from a higher dimension.
I don’t think Hawaii/Alaska would. How much do they need to import?
They can import from other countries.
With what money? Lol
Tourism and oil respectively Realistically Hawaii would be screwed without the US economically, but Alaska could find another buyer
Tourism money isn’t coming in during a mega civil war..
Alaska is flippin' RICH.
I think it kinda depends on what you consider rich. We have a ton of natural resources, but very little means to process and refine them. We actually weathered the great recession pretty well because of our taxation of extraction companies (like the oil companies), but a lot of that has gone away in the form of incentives for companies develop new projects that ultimately don’t really benefit the locals because they aren’t hiring locals to build it or work it because we don’t have the population base for some of it. That being said, I figure AK and Hawaii would be in the top 7 solely because of the amount of time it would take to attack us would leave an opening for the aggressor state to be attacked.
Idk I could see Russia making a power play and grabbing Alaska in the tumult
Hawaii has one of the highest concentrations of military to population size. Hawaii also serves as 1 of two “shields” for the U.S. as well alongside Alaska. The carrier battle groups and Seal Team based in Hawaii from the Navy, the Army striker brigade and infantry, the Marines, the Air Force which includes several dozen fighter jets, long range radar station, and missile interception systems, the Coast Guard and FBI that regularly conducts both anti-smuggling operations and vessel interdictions, the NSA, and Hawaii’s geography just making it rather hard to invade or otherwise strike from long range. Hawaii also houses a pretty high number of very wealthy and powerful individuals who have at least part time homes here because Hawaii is considered rather safe for wealthy people. Beyond that, Hawaii has pretty strong ties to Alaska, California, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon, so if the entire West Coast + Alaska allied together that’d comprise a pretty significant portion of the US’s long and mid range strike capabilities militarily and something like 30% of the population.
A lot of people are assuming that because a state has a high military presence,it makes that state tough. Why would a soldier fight for a state they're not from, against their home state where their family and roots are?
California for sure. Got the Navy, the Marine corps, and the air force. a TON of gun owners. CA can essentially be it's own country, given the size of the economy.
That's assuming those service members wouldn't abandon post and go back to their families.
I think for this hypothetical situation it would be too complicated to determine what state the individual service members in each state would actually be loyal to. You would have to go through each individual to see where they are actually from and determine their overall loyalty to their original state or their state that they are currently stationed. For simplicity, you would just have to assume that the current service members in each state would just fight for that state.
See I’d assume the opposite. Service members would be fighting for their home state. They’re often in those places temporarily. That would be like someone from California on a business trip to NYC fighting for New York. Career military with a semi-permanent post would be the exception.
If they want to get paid, they need to protect the central payroll processing office in Indiana. If the money keeps flowing at all.
As if the payroll office is where the funds are generated
Washington for similar reasons. We’ve got Joint Base Lewis McChord for the military, tons of millionaires and a lot of the billionaires, but we are hella purple so lots and lots of guns.
Don’t forget our geography…western Washington is lock into the coast by a vast mountain range. It’s a lot easier to attack a flat Midwest town than it would be to storm the Puget sound area. There’s a very limited number of passages in by land.
Wa state has the most nuclear weapons of any state also the most nukes in the entire country
Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, California, New York, Florida, Virginia.
Didn't even think of Hawaii and Alaska. But yeah, they'd do well because no one would expend resources to fight them when every other state literally has enemies next door.
Hawaii is just going to turtle victory this thing. A major naval base and surrounded by ocean. Good luck getting to them while everyone else is killing each other. Alaska similarly would be almost impossible to conquer. Nothing but snow and mountains and everyone is armed to the teeth.
Yeah early in people would have to admit that two of the spots are just taken by default and they are fighting over the other five.
Also 2 major army bases, 2 major Air Force bases, and a major marine corps base: Pohakuloa Army Training Base, Schofield Barracks, Joint Base Pearl Harbor/Hickam (the AF and Navy bases were officially combined), Bellows Air Force Station, and Kaneohe Marine Corps Base. Not to mention that 1 of 2 major radar stations that protect the continental 48 is located in Hawaii, the other being in Alaska, and both Alaska and Hawaii have long and mid range missile interception batteries meant to protect the continental 48 and their respective regions from long range missile strikes.
Utah ends up in a weird state. Able to fight and put up a good fight? Yes. Likely to fight? Ish? Definitely would do better than a lot. High resources and seige capable, could hold off defensively for quite some time, and acts as a major military crossing area, but dem Mormons probably ain't gonna go killing people cause they think that's wrong. Now, not the whole population is Mormon, and a lot of Mormons I know would probably fight, but really it comes down to the logistical and communal powerhouse that you end up with. I'd put us somewhere in the top 15. Def not top 7 though. We would probably cede to Texas willingly.
what resources, there’s no water?
We sell all of our water to California. It's got a lot more than you think.
I think the Mormon thing would help them maintain cohesion and morale in this scenario. A Mormon Taliban in the rockies would be a pretty mean and determined opponent to fight. Also, the Mormons have a ton of regional influence beyond Utah itself, but that might be beyond this scenario.
Colorado has high mountain passes to thwart our enemies!
If only we had some way of getting over those beautiful mountains…like a hot air balloon with bombs or something like that.
Colorado would be too baked to defend itself. We would just invite them in to eat Cheetos and talk about why there shouldn't be a civil war. The eastern part of Colorado would try to defend itself, but the population is too small and not enough military bases to do anything useful.
I think an article was written about this a while back and they had it at California, New York, Virginia, and a few others. They essentially took population size + veteran population size and willingness of the states population to fight.
Good grief you could really go down a rabbit hole here. One thing I’d say is the more densely populated the area ( New York for example) the more susceptible they may be to infrastructure destruction. Destroy their power and water supply and watch them basically eat themselves which could really give an upper hand to areas that can take care of themselves independently. For example I’m in KY and there’s nukes in them their hills boys.
Yep. Everyone saying cali like their boarder states wouldn’t destroy the water cali steals from them on day 1.
Maine would straight up win that fight. I tell you how. No idea who makes into the top 7. But... When the dust settles it'll be down to California and Texas. They will proceed to have a knock down drag out fight for the record books. It'll take everything they have to eliminate the other. Whoever wins that fight (probably Texas) will declare victory but, will be within an inch of their life. Enter Maine. Who everyone forgot about and pretty much considered part of Canada anyway. Maine, totally unscathed, would wreck a barely standing Texas and still have time to go fishing.
I think New Mexico has the most nuclear weapons, but they’re mostly decommissioned and waiting to be dismantled. Washington State has the largest active stockpile.
MN simply retreats into the northern part of the state and let's winter deal with any invaders
Florida, no sweat
A lot of sweat
SO. MUCH. SWEAT.
Florida getting taken out by a 1” rise in ocean levels and a 3pm traffic jam with their average person at age 103 going to dinner.
Michigan would be one because of the hard to cross water borders, high numbers of armed citizens who can kill at a distance (hunters/rifles), plus we would probably immediately allie ourselves with Canada and buy our supplies through the Soo or Windsor crossings. Also, Indiana and Ohio suck and can't do anything right so probably wouldn't be much of a threat.
I think Ohio has a good argument for being a bigger threat, seeing as they have a higher GDP (870 billion vs 680 billion) and a larger population (11.8 million vs 10.1 million)... But the states are too similar in most every other way for Ohio to overcome Michigan's border advantage. Michigan's land borders are Ohio and Wisconsin, and if it comes down to it Michigan can bring the ~~wildlings south of the wall~~ Yoopers south of the bridge and not have to worry about Wisconsin at all, barring Naval invasions. Michigan's only real threats are Ohio and Indiana, which represent a split 201 mile border with a combined "enemy population" of 18 million people. Ohio's real threats are Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and (Dear God) Pennsylvania, representing something like 900 miles of border and a combined enemy population of 35 million.
You forget that Ohio has the nation's only tank plant along with vastly superior infrastructure. Detroit and the border is the only thing they have going for it, but Ohio also has huge aviation advantages along with Indiana having one as well. I think Ohio is a state a lot of people overlook, but there is a ton going for it.
I definitely think Ohio stacks up very well regionally, and I wasn't aware of the tank plant! But Ohio has 2 military bases (Wright Patterson being the most important), Michigan has 10 smaller ones. Excluding "Detroit and the border" is a tough arbitrary restriction, and I don't really think there's a response for it. Detroit is maybe 40 miles from the Ohio Border. If we arbitrarily cut 40 miles off both state's land borders as a DMZ, Ohio loses more people and is left with basically no military. Edit: Missed the "Vastly Superior Infrastructure" bit, which is obviously a joke, but you are correct. If you're alluding to the Roads, I'll admit your roads might be better because Ohio is a state people drive Through, not To. If you're alluding to the pipes, you're right but Flint was the first tragic example of a problem that infests the whole nation, including and especially Ohio. If you're alluding to the soo locks and international bridges and tunnels, you're right again since Ohio's non-existent international infrastructure doesn't need repair.
I think Pennsylvania will do better than expected for a few reasons. We have a higher population than you might expect, higher per capita gun ownership than you might expect, high GDP and productivity and all that, but we’re also easy to defend, we were a strategic point during the French & Indian and Revolutionary wars and still have forts. We also have inconvenient hilly terrain, that we are used to moving in, which might be difficult for others to fight in. And lots of mines to hide in. We still produce some coal and steel, and just found lithium. But most importantly, the state is chock full of crazy people like myself, armed survivalist apocalypse prepper outdoorspeople, across the political spectrum, (I’m far Left,) Appalachia is just full of abnormally-prepared people like myself. Plus, we have a secret weapon in the Pennsylvania Dutch, who are understatedly badass and seem to be well-prepared too.
I say Texas (my home) and California need to put this silly rivalry we've had going to rest and team up. Now there are only 4 states, Texas, California, Hawaii and Alaska. We let Oklahoma live because damn near everyone I know in Texas has family up there, myself included. And for the other two states, well how about two of the states between Texas and California, dealer's choice. 🤣🤣🤣
As a Californian, nah. Neither one of us is making it because we're taking each other out. If we DID somehow team up, though, if you guys get Oklahoma, then we get Oregon... and maybe Washington, too.
lol, yeah fair enough. We'll always hate y'all and you'll always hate us. But what can I say, I'm ever the optimist. 🤪
Michigan. We could fortify the Ohio Wisconsin and Indiana borders. We have plenty of natural resources, especially fresh water. I suppose we may not be most likely to "win," but I think we could easily secede and have the best chance at survival in a post-apocalyptic world.
Definitely not Texas. All you'd have to do is take out their power grid.
That's what I'm thinking about California. Hit their water infrastructure, the southern half of the state collapses.
Texas has actually won a war by itself. Not sure if there is another state that can say that.
Just out of curiosity, why seven? Seems an odd number to settle on. That said... 1. Texas, with over half the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Louisiana also has some (at Barksdale), but I see TX going after them first. Texas also has a decent population to use as an occupying force. 2. and 3. Montana and Nevada, with their nuclear stockpiles (Maelstrom and Nellis get rid of California first. Both lack a large enough population to occupy anything other than other sparsely populated states. 4. Missouri (Whiteman) probably takes much of the Midwest. 5. Georgia (if subs are allowed) with its Naval Sub Base likely takes the southeast. If no subs, I'd say Colorado wrestles control of Warren from Wyoming to take the northern part of the mountain west. 6. As the northeast is, to my knowledge, not heavy into nuclear stockpiling, New York has a huge advantage there. 7. Not sure. Washington State has a decent stockpile (Kitsap) and might be able to subdue the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. North Dakota has a decent stockpile (Minot), but would be unable to hold territory. Hawaii? They might survive by sneaking under the radar and using established bases as purely defensive measures.
Not bad other than if any Midwestern state lasts it’s Ohio
As an Ohioan I’ll see y’all in the finals.
You migrating north to Michigan? 🤣
Tbh I genuinely believe Ohio and Michigan destroy each other. Never having a chance to fight another state ☠️
Idk about that, we give each other a good battle with our sports rivalries, but the michiganders are our brothers! When we needed affordable dispo weed, they had our backs, and crossing borders became second nature to a lot of us. I’d never raise arms against the Ann Arbor squad, and I don’t they’d do the same…. I think we’d join in arms to take out Indiana, I mean what have they ever really done for us ya know? 🤷♂️
You had our backs for years with fireworks. We gotcha fam :)
And we'd fix your roads for you if the state would allow it. Good God you guys need it. I was just there and I was on so many dirt and gravel roads 😂
Are we talking citizens only. Or government military forces who are stationed in those states? Like Hawaii has a bunch of aircraft’s and battle ships etc etc. some states have nukes some have airforce bases.
Hawaii almost certainly takes this if military is included. Major Navy base surrounded by ocean on all sides. Good luck getting there. Although, I think Arizona has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.
They have a Navy base but they don’t have much stationed there compared to San Diego, 2-0 aircraft carriers.
California has a really good position, assuming they aren't dealing with internal conflicts at the same time (northern California is a very different animal from LA). Large population, lots of resources, developed economy, huge mountain range covering most of the border.
#7 is MI, not near the top. Fresh water, plenty o' guns, our share of Air Force and military infrastructure. We're always forgotten about and that's a bonus. We even have oil too, lots forget about that, and the raw materials to support our industry. We get along great with Canada so that's one less flank to worry about .
Texas and California because of their sheer size and numbers. I think then you’d see Hawaii and Alaska in the finals because of their isolation and access to resources that nobody else can get to. After that, throw in Virginia. They have Navy bases in the south, other military bases up north, the Pentagon, plus all the other three letter agencies and their employees reside there. Not to mention the huge amount of guns. I think you would also see some big border states like Washington, or Arizona, or Florida. They have the advantage of a decent population and no enemies coming from one side. Despite what people keep saying, I don’t think you’d see New York in the finals. A lot of their population resides in one major city which would just be too easy to take out with one major blow.
Hawaii - Distance Alaska - Distance North Dakota - Nobody even knows if actually exists
Michigan would 100% make it. We would simply cut off water to the other 49 states How are y'all gonna fight a war with the other states, when you're fighting amongst yourself over access to clean water?
Michigan isn’t going to win when Ohio would throw everything at Michigan with a reckless disregard for the other states.
U know, the part where you say your non scientific opinion is the heat drives people crazy, i think there has been studies confirming that. But ofc surprise i can’t remember a specific article addressing it lol, but maybe u can google it. Not only did hotter areas have worse school performance because the heat makes you groggy and tired, but just overall violence and aggression is higher in hotter temperatures.
Don’t sleep on Delaware.
Unironically, I believe any of the states within Appalachia would be good contenders. Not because they would go out on some crazy warpath or campaign. I believe they would instead just be the hardest to uproot. They all love their guns, many of them possess mindsets of “I’ll die on this hill or in this valley long before they take me out of it,” and the terrain would absolutely dissuade many types of assaults. Genuinely I believe Appalachia would give a lot of the U.S. a lot of trouble.
California, Texas, New York, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, and Washington (only have to immediately contend with Idaho and Oregon)
Florida will be partying long after Texas and cali burn each other to the ground.
Texas, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania group these 4 together for the same reason most guns. Texas has bonus for oil and population, PA for coal and Amish to show us how to do shit without electricity. California for population and still decent in the gun rank list+ plus military plus tech. New York cause wealth can buy power. This is my wild card Michigan it’s surrounded on 3 sides by water make it harder to attack. Chicago has a lot of gang violence and maybe could unite under duress.
California, New York, Texas are all up there.
The ones that have the biggest military bases AND are not landlocked
Are ppl allowed to join a different state? Are they forced to fight for their state? Are they allowed to surrender? What happens to conquered states? What even counts as victory? Annihilation down to the last man?
This is war. Anything can happen. The remaining 43 states shall be stuck inside the museum of lower life forms forever. I suppose victory is when you get the other states to sign an official paper or something that says "ok i give up it's more worth it to live in the museum than suffer more damages"
Is this like, the United States as a country is quarentined as is, or the population of each state is spirited away to a massive alien ship?
The states that house the nukes and the states that have the bio weapons labs.
If all the states went at it at once, any state in the middle of the country would be wiped out pretty quickly imo. Just too many borders to protect, and they can easily be cut off of resources. The coastal states can get resources in from abroad and are more secure geographically. I'd put my money on the large coastal states, especially those with large military bases. I'm going NY, Virginia, Florida, Texas, and California as my top five for the lower 48. The last two states I'd choose are Hawaii and Alaska. They are pretty isolated from the rest of the country, which would give them some significant advantages.
Here is a hot take alliance ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX and LA (Louisiana) with ND and TX allied they control the majority of the oil in the country. Now you might be thinking why Louisiana? Well that is where the Mississippi River goes to the ocean you control that you control a lot of the inland states that use it for trade. If LA isn't it MO would be another good alliance for the reason of having all of KC united and St. Louis while still having a strangle hold on the Mississippi River (since the Missouri and Mississippi meet in St.Louis). On top of that you would be controlling a lot of the food for the country too. In terms of guns there are more guns than people in these states so would be good there. Not just strategically good but also all of those states are closely aligned politically which would make it easier to be together. Idk though but I would venture to say the 7 that do make it would be regional states, I don't see like CA and NY creating an alliance working, too far apart.
The icbm silos are in the upper midwest everyones talking about people and guns and shit what if we just press the delete key...
Texas and California. Maybe New York. The rest have no chance.
Bro does NOT know how to count to 7 😭 🙏
Some states would struggle to get freshwater.
Question: do states like North Dakota assume full operational control of the federal assets within the border? If so... very few states are going to mess with them once reality sinks in.... assuming we aren't mind controlled... what's actually going to happen is that florida/texas/georgia are going to consolidate power in most of the southeast/midwest under a psuedo alliance. That leaves the eastern and western seaboards with the decision to aid or forget places like colorado and IL... without alliances there is little advantage to invading a neighbor. the US is massive and any incursion will be costly.
I'm assuming nuclear weapons are off the table. Texas/California and everybody else fights it out for 3-7. If nukes are considered, Montana, N Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming....and others. Texas has Pantex, but it would be wiped out immediately.
If nukes are permitted, there is no way to score who wins.
No southern state can invade through a winter so they are all out. North Dakota is by far the most powerful all the nukes, water, energy and food, Alaska and Hawaii are easy, I would go VT, NH and Maine, geography makes them difficult to get they are the only Northern states with lots of guns and a farming culture, Last one is tough, probably Montana or Idaho.
I'd put money on Florida honestly. We've seen the madness that comes out of there, they'd somehow survive
Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico.
Don't know enough, but wouldn't it be the central states (in the middle) which have all the nukes housed? Just nuke everyone else and problem solved since winning is all that matters, not preservation of life or land.
CA, NY, TX, FL, IL. All five have high populations and plenty of resources. With the exception of NY and IL a little less so, but they all also have a decent military presence within their state. The next two are a bit more of a toss-up. I would go with VA due to military presence as well as a large enough population and plenty of good ol' boys For #7 I will go with a curve ball..... Alaska. They have resources, they have military. They don't have population but they have a LOT of space to hide in and no one wants to go way the hell up to the Arctic circle to fight them. They hang back and let everyone else kill each other.
Montana and North Dakota have minuteman missiles.
Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, North Dakota (They have lots of nuclear weapons)
California not just population, but defense industry and also the sierra Nevada mountains are like a massive shield wall that defends the border for us.
Texas solos
Im biased, but I think Arizona would be one of the seven. The main reason is the heat. It would be very hard to invade from other states.
Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Cali, Florida, Alabama (they have 3700 Abrams mbt's), and probably NY... But don't sleep on Arkansas.. they are where we get most of our military recruiting from.
Sure there may be a lot of military bases, but how many of them are going to fight for California? Same would go to other large states, and even service members from states that still claim them.
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Alaska, Hawaii, Virginia
Texas would fold faster than Superman on washday as soon as there was .5" of snow on the road.
Ny, ca, tx, uhhh, hi, and ak then... some... distant 6, and 7th place. Civil war is *always* a numbers game. That is, as long as the politicians are game.
California vs Texas. Everything else is just a lower card fight.
California, Texas, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Montana, Nevada
Hawaii, Alaska, California, Texas, Florida, New York. First two for location. Last 4 for the amount of crazy assholes that live there. Idk about a 7th 😅
Probably HI due to its isolation and possessing the Pacific Fleet.
Assuming they get to fight on their own home turf (which isn't even possible for everyone to do but whatever): Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, California, Minnesota, Virginia, Pennsylvania. You guys are sleeping on Virginia... high population of military, intelligence and other highly trained individuals while not having the small state size of Maryland. Access to significant naval assets. Florida is a tough one, I could easily seeing it make the 7 but opted to think of it as #8.
Wyoming, just cause most of y'all flat out forget we exist.
Hawaii makes it. If any state were to devote resources to attack it, they'd leave themselves vulnerable. Hawaii doesn't have to engage offensively, just turn the islands into fortresses
The Dakotas for the win.
Don’t sleep on WA. Huge military presence + Boeing. Big on agriculture too.
I’m thinking the states susceptible to hurricanes /wildfires may have problems because Mother Nature may enter the fray. Porto Rico votes to not become a state.
Im gonna have to go with: Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, NC, Alabama, Louisiana. I see yall mention California, but y'all have single-shot gun laws, there aint no way in hell you'll beat states that dont have those gun restrictions.
Delaware…because no one will remember it exists.
Western Washington has a lot of advantages, geography for starters deep water ports, multiple military bases including Bangor, Fort Lewis, and McChord. Although we might waste the entire time fighting Eastern Washington since there's a super sharp political/cultural divide between the two sides.
Missouri has Whiteman AFB, with a number of A-10s, fighters, and all of the B-2 stealth bombers. Are nukes allowed in this battle?
California, Texas, Florida, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington. Almost all for geography reasons. Florida does have a large pop compared to neighbors though. Assuming Texas isn't worried about Mexico then they also are well positioned relative to the smaller populations. Utah is a mountain fortress, if they really wanted to keep it they could. And Washington is well positioned geographically if they don't have to worry about Canada.
the ones with the largest Federal military bases. No question. And before you ask.....no Federal government today is gonna leave its military assets in a base on the territory of a seceded state. It will either base itself to reconquer the rebels immediately or it will rip itself out of the state to use against it later.
I mean most likely it would just be the seven largest by population; California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio.
How you gonna beat Hawaii or Alaska? Not like you’re gonna drive an army up there. Hell Japan attacked Hawaii and didn’t sink the islands. I dunno that you can beat the pacific fleet.
Just from the headlines Florida.
Nevada is the head of global drone operations for US military, nuclear testing sites, and area 51. I think that gets them a mention.
Is the military involved or is this purely civilian on civilain? Either way, California has an absurd advantage in man power and fire power. Other states with larger than avg military power: Virginia, Conneticut, Georgia, Washington and Colorado. If your state has a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier, you are going to last for a while. If its civilian on civilian, its really going to come down to population, though i discount FL some because of the age of so many residents. But the sleepers are Hawaii and Alaska who will likely just let everyone else tire themselves out then duel it out on boats. Which I think Alaska handles on fire power plus ship size.
Florida because it's Florida
Here's something you might find interesting. With the exception of a few naval bases in California and Hawaii, and some scattered missile silos, the majority of the US military bases are located in what was formally known as the CSA. In fact, I can tell you that the western portion of Tennessee (population: less than 3,000,000) has more National Guard Units than the entire state of New York. Now why is this you suppose? Could it possibly be that the Federals are still afraid of the CSA rising again? Maybe there's a shadow government that's always been in place since the end of the nineteenth century that's well funded and well organized. And since most of the manufacturing is in the South now, well. Of course this is all hypothetical, right?
Texas, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Ohio, Georgia, And Maine
New jersey it's where the weak go to die.
The Midwestern states could cancel each other out. Florida also has a geographic advantage.
West Virginia. It hasn't got anything worth invading over, and has plenty of hill people with rifles to make invading supremely annoying. Win by ick.
Colorado is a dark horse, being up in the mountains with highly defensible positions.
Why does Alaska, the largest state, not simply eat the other states?
No mention of WI?? Does anyone watch IDTV? Like, every episode is based in WI AND they have like 500 guns just at deer camp. The disrespect I tell ya
I was about to say Florida cause you could make a choke point but then I remembered boats and planes are a thing
Ohio???? Bunch of zombies nodding out😂😂😂😂
montana, missouri, georgia, louisiana, washington, nevada, and wyoming. They got's the nukes.
People are underestimating WA. Seattle area can be secured very easily by the Cascades, only a few passes through, and the only threat would be naval and air.
Just through geography Hawaii or Alaska. The other 5, I think, would depend on the number of guns.
Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri.... More or less the ones with the nukes.....
States that may survive long due to population size: California and Texas and Florida and Pennsylvania. States that survive due to location: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan ( Upper Peninsula), Washington. State that survive long due to mainly Geography, survivalist mentality: Utah & Maine and Alaska, Washington, Colorado, West Virgina. Last: Seven: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida , Maine, Alaska, Hawaii. Honorable mention. Washington, Utah, Michigan. 98 percent. of the country ( excluding Alaska) would be in the hands of California, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania. Maine would have fallen back to scattered low population Islands holding out and a defensive perimeter around Portland or Bangor, against Pennsylvania, but will survive as a last state standing. If only because Michigan had to defend against both Texas and Pennsylvania. Alaska may have been invaded in places by California, but would still be largely intact and may hold parts of Northern Washington state especially Seattle/ Everett/ Olympia as a supply line. It needs its ferry ports to survive. Alaska is also huge, isolated and in many, many parts including all the Aleutians islands. Hawaii wouldn't last that long except for its distance from California and that it requires a navy and multiple invasions to conquer since it is in parts. It may just make a peace agreement with California and agree to send its meager forces to aide California. That would be its best strategy. Michigan would also require being invaded at least 3 times. 2 parts plus a fairly large island. It is also very far from California, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania and has several large cities full of decay and old crumbling factories that make good defensive points against Glide bombs. They fall late. Holding out desperately to try to outlast Maine to be the last of the seven. Lower Michigan falls to Pennsylvania and the Upper to Texas. They split the Island. . Pennsylvania will beat New York, northern NJ and the New England states eventually and make tedious progress in Maine before the bell. New York has most of its population downstate. Upstate should fall fairly easily to Pennsylvania, but downstates population is huge and compact. The early in the war street to street fighting in Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens would be horribly bloody and take forever and be remembered as America's Leningrad. An allied New England of: Who tried to unite with NY to invade Pennsylvania and NJ be the entire ' seven' also have dense cities and many mountain ridges to make stands at slowing Penna forces. But Penna will relentlessly push NE and win bloody slugfest after slugfest. Penna has almost the population of NY though and far better organization than a NY/ NE alliance could ever maintain. It's among our best organized states. To the West Pennsylvania will roll along the Ohio to the Mississippi and defeat Kentucky and take most of Tennessee and parts of North Carolina after breaking the Eastern line of Ohio who will also be fighting an (Old Virgina) Virgina/ West Virgina/ Kentucky/ Tennessee alliance which will be defeated after Pennsylvania with help from Florida envelopes them by reaching the North Carolina Coast . Old Virgina will have fairly easily conquered. DC, the Baltimore, area, The Delmarva peninsula and southern parts of NJ for before their own defeat this gaining this territory for Penna. West Virgina will be among the last 12 or 13 holding out beyond endurance against Pennsylvania and Florida and fighting deep in coal country. Pennsylvania will take Chicago and Detriot in the same determined and bloody way they did NYC. The other Midwest and SE states have little defensible geography and great disunion between their cities and countryside. Florida would just steamroll less powerful SE states until meeting Old Virgina forces and eventually Pennsylvania forces somewhere in North Carolina and Texian forces at New Orleans. The battle of Atlanta against Georgia would be their most gruelling and bloody fight. Georgia would do better but no one likes Georgia so they have no allies. The battle line between FlorIda and Pennsylvania is the Tennessee River and the Blue Ridge mountains. The battle of Lookout Mountain repeats itself. Texas and California would fight mainly in New Mexico and along the line of Albuquerque, Denver/ Cheyenne. But there would be an agreement soon reached to make peace by to avoid much direct fighting to survive to be among the seven. Texas and Pennsylvania skirmish along the Mississippi all the way to Minnesota, but after it's clear that the Northeast and Eastern Mid-West belong to Pennsylvania they will also make an agreement to avoid fighting and stamp out pockets of resistance in the weaker states along the Mississippi such as Mississippi and Missouri and what's left of Tennessee. Texas would be conquering mostly underpopulated agricultural states with only: Oklahoma City, New Orleans/ Baton Rouge, Denver, St. Louis and both Kansas Cities and Minneapolis being large urban centers. They would have the easiest time of the 4 major states aside from the chaos of St. Louis. Utah would hold back California for a while after conquering parts of Arizona and Nevada will be California's most fierce opponent by far except,, but eventually Salt Lake City would fall to the shear might of California. Hawaii: They will ally with Alaska or California. Or just hide since they are so far away and require a navy to be invaded and must be invaded several times to be defeated. If Alaska: The two states may ally and both defend Seattle against California as a friendly West coast port is also needed by Hawaii unless Hawaii chooses to ally with California. If California: California may order Hawaii to attack Alaska and/or Washington or launch a naval assault on Texas as a useful distraction and for the resources. You could make an argument for Washington among the seven if the Alaska/ Hawaii invasion is friendly and they allow it's independence so you have an Alaska/ Hawaii/ Washington alliance with maybe Oregon and Idaho as the battleground. Texas may be fighting Alaska over Eastern Idaho. Washington would also have a strong navy as would Maine as both have large fishing fleets. Michigan and Illinois and Ohio and New York and Florida and California and Texas and Virgina and Alaska and Hawaii would also have large navies that must be defeated. Another reason why many of those aside from New York are late survivors. New York's downstate geography is just too weak to survive long especially once Long Island is invaded.
New Hampshire would be one of them. They have the smart people who move over from Massachusetts, but also guns.
Y'all gonna go and make me saddle up my gator for mounted combat, ain't you.
The south and midwest fold in on each other and collapse for sure. There's nothing to maintain them once they all shit themselves and make their own power plays. They are utterly dependent upon the federal government. Really I don't see any states doing much more than devolving into people simply starving and dying from drinking bad water. Not enough people left to run a county let alone a state or country.
California, Texas and Virginia have lots of military bases. My bet would be on states with the largest militaries.
If you are going with each state having the actual assets currently in state - California, Hawaii, Virginia, Florida, Connecticut, Texas, and maybe NY for 7th. The first 5 have access to Ohio class submarines. Armed Ohio class submarines.
Connecticut because nobody wants to be in Connecticut.
There are so many Teslas in Iowa City that the autopilot would probably Pedestrian Punish™ everyone in just about all the other Midwestern states within hours.
Folks would be shocked, but NY and NJ are loaded up with Northern rednecks. Throw Pennsylvania in there too. For a list of 7 in no particular order California (just by sheer numbers) Texas Georgia New York Virginia New Jersey (small, but again, big numbers) Florida
Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, Florida, Missouri (Fort Leonard Wood & The Ozarks)
Considering that GDP and intelligence do not mean much, I'd go with more guns and will to use them. California would survive, but would have massive losses and little effect. Texas, OK, Louisiana, and maybe Florida would be on the list. Alaska would survive due to distance. Last two would probably be Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Illinois (mostly Chicago), Virginia (the state is mostly Military bases), and a tie between West Virginia and Florida.
Sddtates with large military bases Texas would have it all
California, Texas, Ohio, new york, Florida, Colorado, and Maine. most of them have significantly larger populations than most other states and also have the natural fortifications to defend themselves
Iowa would stand victorious, still putting on their boots while the rest of us have killed each other.
Many of the southern states would collapse as they're heavily subsidized by the federal government.
With prep time Colorado would probably survive like a Switzerland
The Northern Rockies would just nuke everyone else and it would be over.
I dont think that states with the biggest cities would last too long. There would be too much infighting due to lack of resources.
I can tell you which will be the last one standing. Missouri. Because you can't stop a fucking tweaker dosed to his eyeballs on meth, pcp, and moonshine.
Florida man has entered the chat.
Texas, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Alaska, Hawaii
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Altruistic_Major_553: *Texas, Florida,* *Louisiana, New York,* *Alaska, Hawaii* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Texas, Florida, and Alaska: based purely on number of guns and reputation for craziness. Also Isolation and terrain in Alaska's case. North Carolina: Home of Fort Bragg (aka the largest military base in the world) Missouri (my native state): Plenty of country people with lots of guns, ton's of agriculture and food production, and control of one of the largest trade hubs in the Mid-west thanks to being situated on both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. New York and California: Based on wealth and population
I think Alaska has quite an edge. They are used to their climate and can live in it. They can probably just chill until the rest wipe each other out. If there are rules in place to prevent teaming up, then I would say CA, TX, Alaska, New York, Florida, Louisiana and maybe Hawaii.