Which State Would Win in a 50 State Civil War

Let's make one assumption that military resources in each state would go to those respective states and local inhabitants would remain loyal.

California. More military personnel are citizens than any other state. They have the 2nd largest amount of national guard members (behind Texas) and numerous bases so expect military resources to be concentrated there. Geography provides diversity of landscapes but also an entire water border on half the state. They have the world's 5th largest economy (1st in US) so they have the funding. They also have tech on tech on tech so you can guess who wins the cyber war.

Water supply is their major weakness. Forest fires are definitely a threat too if intentionally set by opposing states.

California, Texas, and other border states will all fight for Mexico's allegiance but Mexico will side with California and further contribute to their success. This weakens Texas' defense. California will also gain allegiance with Japan and China. If you thought civil wars were fought alone you're wrong.
 
14525851:Turd__Authority said:
Let's make one assumption that military resources in each state would go to those respective states and local inhabitants would remain loyal.

California. More military personnel are citizens than any other state. They have the 2nd largest amount of national guard members (behind Texas) and numerous bases so expect military resources to be concentrated there. Geography provides diversity of landscapes but also an entire water border on half the state. They have the world's 5th largest economy (1st in US) so they have the funding. They also have tech on tech on tech so you can guess who wins the cyber war.

Water supply is their major weakness. Forest fires are definitely a threat too if intentionally set by opposing states.

California, Texas, and other border states will all fight for Mexico's allegiance but Mexico will side with California and further contribute to their success. This weakens Texas' defense. California will also gain allegiance with Japan and China. If you thought civil wars were fought alone you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Literally the only reason I can’t agree on California is because of how flammable they are. It would be a cake walk to incinerate the entire state, I mean it happens practically every day by accident, imagine how easy it would be to burn LA to the ground on purpose?
 
Rhode island. People would forget it exists and after everyone else blows each other to shit they'd come rolling out victorious.

Or a state with mtns. A lot of flatlanders would struggle in big mtn terrain. Limited roads, good vantage points.

I picture a big texas invasion of CO ending with people spinning tires in their trucks because it snowed and chains are unamerican.
 
14525862:theabortionator said:
Rhode island. People would forget it exists and after everyone else blows each other to shit they'd come rolling out victorious.

Or a state with mtns. A lot of flatlanders would struggle in big mtn terrain. Limited roads, good vantage points.

I picture a big texas invasion of CO ending with people spinning tires in their trucks because it snowed and chains are unamerican.
Click to expand...

CO is a real contender, lots of personal firearms, massive population, US Air Force, better with navigating mountains like you said. I feel like Texans are just so ready to die with their hands on a rifle that it would be pretty damning for any opponent
 
If states that hold nukes are allowed to use nukes then no one wins. If not Texas wins.

Sure Cali might have more military personnel. But almost everyone in Texas owns guns rich or poor most have a nice gun or 10. Not just cheap panic buy shit but actually nice well maintained rifles with expensive optics and tons of ammo. Many of these gun owners have taken classes, are vets, spend a ton of time shooting stuff, or are the kinda people who want Texas to succeed anyways and this is just another blessing from their lord and savior.

They would also be the only state with electricity because they are on their own power grid. Day 1 49 states lose all electricity while Texas is full steam ahead gearing into war mode putting up Gonzales flags.

1068458.png
 
I think it would be California without a doubt. Given that each states military stays with their respective state (and no nukes). They are one of the few states that could stand alone with their resources (they have their own oil, tech, massive agriculture, economy, and a workforce to back it up. Also, they have the largest population by far. 10 million more than the next highest, texas. and they have absolutely killer terrain for a defensive battle due to the inaccessibility of the Sierras and death valley.

Quick annex of Washington and Oregon, as they are the biggest threats on the west coast, you get fishing rights on the entire pacific coast, and you extend the sierras buffer all the way to Canada. Then run through Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho to build a buffer + more water rights, then wait for colorado, texas, and Florida to beat the shit out of each other and the states around them. Go in and mop up the rest. And hope the northeast/east beat each other up enough not to be an issue at the end of it all.
 
Michigan for sure. To attack through the south at some point you'd have to be within 50 miles of Ohio or Gary Indiana and nobody wants to be anywhere near that shit.

But then the big question becomes what would the upper peninsula do? The love for Michigan is strong, but we do try and secede from the lower peninsula every now and again. Maybe team up with Minnesota and Wisconsin and call it the "superior state alliance".

Regionally, the Midwest would kick everyones ass. It has just the right amount of industry, natural resources, firearms, and individuals with an IQ above 40.

The south would get their shit rocked no matter who they were up against
 
14525865:Profahoben_212 said:
I think it would be California without a doubt. Given that each states military stays with their respective state (and no nukes). They are one of the few states that could stand alone with their resources (they have their own oil, tech, massive agriculture, economy, and a workforce to back it up. Also, they have the largest population by far. 10 million more than the next highest, texas. and they have absolutely killer terrain for a defensive battle due to the inaccessibility of the Sierras and death valley.

Quick annex of Washington and Oregon, as they are the biggest threats on the west coast, you get fishing rights on the entire pacific coast, and you extend the sierras buffer all the way to Canada. Then run through Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho to build a buffer + more water rights, then wait for colorado, texas, and Florida to beat the shit out of each other and the states around them. Go in and mop up the rest. And hope the northeast/east beat each other up enough not to be an issue at the end of it all.
Click to expand...

Okay but part of the reason I also don’t think cali could win is that you would have to teach a MASSIVE amount of Californians how to use a firearm, and 50% of them would probably be too busy protesting the theoretical war to actually even try to learn
 
Texas, it’s just a huge population of rednecks with rifles who wear cowboy hats and are obese (they don’t have to worry about starving) also they got the water situation on lockdown (the ocean)
 
14525868:Farmville420 said:
Okay but part of the reason I also don’t think cali could win is that you would have to teach a MASSIVE amount of Californians how to use a firearm, and 50% of them would probably be too busy protesting the theoretical war to actually even try to learn
Click to expand...

Eh i think you are overblowing this. There are an absolute shitload of gun owners in cali. not to mention cartels/gangs etc. Not on texas level no, but more than enough to do the job. Just not in the bay or la proper.

You aren't wrong that it takes time for people to be trained, but texas is going to have to do that as well. texas wont win a war with bob in his f350 mall crawler blasting fortunate son storming denver. Youd be blown up with an airstrike before you crossed the border. This entire scenario requires a strong enough military in the first place to hold off original advances and give time to train replacements and shift to an era of total war. Also, it would require an absolute nightmare of arms production. Cali has both of those. Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing having facilities down there. Hell like 3/4ths the engineers I know are in Cali working for one of those companies.

Idk, if military isn't involved, then I think it would be a different story more akin to yours. All of a sudden bob in his mall crawler with 14 AR 15s would actually make a difference.
 
14525874:Profahoben_212 said:
Eh i think you are overblowing this. There are an absolute shitload of gun owners in cali. not to mention cartels/gangs etc. Not on texas level no, but more than enough to do the job. Just not in the bay or la proper.

You aren't wrong that it takes time for people to be trained, but texas is going to have to do that as well. texas wont win a war with bob in his f350 mall crawler blasting fortunate son storming denver. Youd be blown up with an airstrike before you crossed the border. This entire scenario requires a strong enough military in the first place to hold off original advances and give time to train replacements and shift to an era of total war. Also, it would require an absolute nightmare of arms production. Cali has both of those. Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing having facilities down there. Hell like 3/4ths the engineers I know are in Cali working for one of those companies.

Idk, if military isn't involved, then I think it would be a different story more akin to yours. All of a sudden bob in his mall crawler with 14 AR 15s would actually make a difference.
Click to expand...

I may be but also I feel like Texans on average are way more knowledgeable with firearms which gives them an advantage. The gangs in cali are rampant, but how will you get them to cooperate and help form a militia? 20% of all the cars in cali are EVs so once someone cuts the power 20% of their vehicles are useless whereas Texans literally bleed crude oil. I think also, in a wartime scenario sooooo much of those military bases in cali are uninhabitable, that big desert in the southeast corner of the state will be like a scene out of mad max
 
I think the first goal in the war and the only common ground would be a joint 49-state effort to eliminate Ohio
 
14525851:Turd__Authority said:
Let's make one assumption that military resources in each state would go to those respective states and local inhabitants would remain loyal.

California. More military personnel are citizens than any other state. They have the 2nd largest amount of national guard members (behind Texas) and numerous bases so expect military resources to be concentrated there. Geography provides diversity of landscapes but also an entire water border on half the state. They have the world's 5th largest economy (1st in US) so they have the funding. They also have tech on tech on tech so you can guess who wins the cyber war.

Water supply is their major weakness. Forest fires are definitely a threat too if intentionally set by opposing states.

California, Texas, and other border states will all fight for Mexico's allegiance but Mexico will side with California and further contribute to their success. This weakens Texas' defense. California will also gain allegiance with Japan and China. If you thought civil wars were fought alone you're wrong.
Click to expand...

yeah but... i mean... in cali they're all... well... nevermind... i mean... wouldn't be hard to beat... just saying... eh...
 
14525867:Lonely said:
Michigan for sure. To attack through the south at some point you'd have to be within 50 miles of Ohio or Gary Indiana and nobody wants to be anywhere near that shit.

But then the big question becomes what would the upper peninsula do? The love for Michigan is strong, but we do try and secede from the lower peninsula every now and again. Maybe team up with Minnesota and Wisconsin and call it the "superior state alliance".

Regionally, the Midwest would kick everyones ass. It has just the right amount of industry, natural resources, firearms, and individuals with an IQ above 40.

The south would get their shit rocked no matter who they were up against
Click to expand...

Upper Midwest would do well on the defense. Hunting is way more part of the culture so most people know how to shoot with some range, can be self sustaining food wise, plenty of water, manufacturing abilities, etc. Don't see them doing well on offense and expanding territory though. That would be a lot of border to maintain as they try to grow and fan outward. Also, expansion just doesn't seem to be much of a cultural value.
 
Cool thread...

All the states would initially have to survive isolation... Some states don't produce enough food/materials/power/gas... to feed themselves/survive... Think covid lockdown x100.... Some states would link up, but without military factor, there wouldn't be much offense and defensive attacking...?

Here in rado, we'd be touring powder peaks sustainably, like the world wasn't ending

.. .....
 
14525865:Profahoben_212 said:
I think it would be California without a doubt. Given that each states military stays with their respective state (and no nukes). They are one of the few states that could stand alone with their resources (they have their own oil, tech, massive agriculture, economy, and a workforce to back it up. Also, they have the largest population by far. 10 million more than the next highest, texas. and they have absolutely killer terrain for a defensive battle due to the inaccessibility of the Sierras and death valley.

Quick annex of Washington and Oregon, as they are the biggest threats on the west coast, you get fishing rights on the entire pacific coast, and you extend the sierras buffer all the way to Canada. Then run through Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho to build a buffer + more water rights, then wait for colorado, texas, and Florida to beat the shit out of each other and the states around them. Go in and mop up the rest. And hope the northeast/east beat each other up enough not to be an issue at the end of it all.
Click to expand...

Not so fast Washington is low key loaded up with military bases too. There are 7 actually. Enough to defend against Japan in WWII or stage a proper insurgency against a hostile occupation
 
14525972:Casey said:
Not so fast Washington is low key loaded up with military bases too. There are 7 actually. Enough to defend against Japan in WWII or stage a proper insurgency against a hostile occupation
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. Gotta take y'all's asses out quick before you come storming in from the north.

Or we join forces as washingfornia and become an unstoppable force
 
14525876:Farmville420 said:
I may be but also I feel like Texans on average are way more knowledgeable with firearms which gives them an advantage. The gangs in cali are rampant, but how will you get them to cooperate and help form a militia? 20% of all the cars in cali are EVs so once someone cuts the power 20% of their vehicles are useless whereas Texans literally bleed crude oil. I think also, in a wartime scenario sooooo much of those military bases in cali are uninhabitable, that big desert in the southeast corner of the state will be like a scene out of mad max
Click to expand...

I guess I was going off the assumption that turd did with citizens being loyal to their state and that would include gangs/cartels? Idk lol

I don't think the independent power grid would help Texas really at all. In an all out war scenario that would be bombed to hell in the first 30 seconds by Colorado. Having that oil is a huuuuuge huuuge advantage though. Cali would definitely have to put in work on that front to produce more.

I feel like the only states with safe power would be those with nuclear. Similar to Ukraine rn everyone would probably avoid taking those out due to backlash + just fucking themselves with radiation.

Honestly this is a pretty fun thought process.
 
This has basically been a who would win - California vs. Texas thread... but this is wholly assuming that each of the 50 states would fight independently and would not coalesce into regional alliances...

California would immediately be joined by its cadre of friendly neighbours... namely Oregon and Washington which can supply it with nearly endless water resources, as well as Nevada which is basically a giant desert buffer zone that will be severely difficult to cross with any element of surprise.. The geography of such an alliance would make it severely difficult to penetrate overland... seeing as the majority of it's population centres and productive regions would be defended by massive deserts and super tall mountains... the only way to hurt the west coast would be through aerial bombing and rocket attacks. Attack by sea would be futile.

Additionally, Texas will freeze or boil without power because it has horrendously shitty weather. If its electrical grid just gets one switch flipped wrong, the whole place loses its mind. All it will take to disable the whole grid there is to just get some kids to chuck an M80 firecracker or a cherry bomb into a transformer and the whole system will go down - forcing their leaders to fuck off to Cancun or something. Texas' neighbours and likely allies are also far less strategically important than California's... Nobody is scared of Oklahoma. All Texas would be able to do is limit river travel on the mississippi, forcing northern plains states to source trade from overland options - which is where the majority of their trade comes from anyhow.

The Northeast states would coalesce into their own alliance, and the southern states would start singing that absolutely shit-tune "Dixie" again.. That would make for some interesting battles across Virginia once again... Atlanta would get burned, but it wouldnt be Sherman doing the burning this time, but rather pissed off Fulton County residents.
 
14526010:PacificRimJob said:
This has basically been a who would win - California vs. Texas thread... but this is wholly assuming that each of the 50 states would fight independently and would not coalesce into regional alliances...

California would immediately be joined by its cadre of friendly neighbours... namely Oregon and Washington which can supply it with nearly endless water resources, as well as Nevada which is basically a giant desert buffer zone that will be severely difficult to cross with any element of surprise.. The geography of such an alliance would make it severely difficult to penetrate overland... seeing as the majority of it's population centres and productive regions would be defended by massive deserts and super tall mountains... the only way to hurt the west coast would be through aerial bombing and rocket attacks. Attack by sea would be futile.

Additionally, Texas will freeze or boil without power because it has horrendously shitty weather. If its electrical grid just gets one switch flipped wrong, the whole place loses its mind. All it will take to disable the whole grid there is to just get some kids to chuck an M80 firecracker or a cherry bomb into a transformer and the whole system will go down - forcing their leaders to fuck off to Cancun or something. Texas' neighbours and likely allies are also far less strategically important than California's... Nobody is scared of Oklahoma. All Texas would be able to do is limit river travel on the mississippi, forcing northern plains states to source trade from overland options - which is where the majority of their trade comes from anyhow.

The Northeast states would coalesce into their own alliance, and the southern states would start singing that absolutely shit-tune "Dixie" again.. That would make for some interesting battles across Virginia once again... Atlanta would get burned, but it wouldnt be Sherman doing the burning this time, but rather pissed off Fulton County residents.
Click to expand...

Northeast is really underrated I will admit. Yale literally has a nuke on campus, Vermont and New Hampshire residents are horrifying people, Massachusetts is by far the most intelligent state in the country per capita. Maine weather is absolutely unbearable and an attack during winter would fail miserably for any opponent. Also we are severely underrating New York City as a whole, not even including Albany and Rochester etc…assuming an alliance would form I might actually take New England vs the rest of the country
 
14525936:SteezyYeeter said:
yeah but... i mean... in cali they're all... well... nevermind... i mean... wouldn't be hard to beat... just saying... eh...
Click to expand...

California is full of motherfuckers strapped up ready for a gang war and you think California would be easy to beat? I mean, have you even played Grand Theft Auto? There's a reason they don't have GTA: Bumfuck-Cowtown Texas... lol. There's nothing of value to even steal out there.

Sorry but I'll take some real deal street thug life gangsta's who know how to pull off a drive-by over some fat midwest camouflage-cosplay dork who hasn't eaten a vegetable in 16 years and couldn't even make the walk to his local 711 without having a heart attack thank you very much...
 
14526011:Farmville420 said:
Northeast is really underrated I will admit. Yale literally has a nuke on campus, Vermont and New Hampshire residents are horrifying people, Massachusetts is by far the most intelligent state in the country per capita. Maine weather is absolutely unbearable and an attack during winter would fail miserably for any opponent. Also we are severely underrating New York City as a whole, not even including Albany and Rochester etc…assuming an alliance would form I might actually take New England vs the rest of the country
Click to expand...

The Northeast would be a bit too divided over petty bullshit to really project power outside of it's region.

Do you really think you can get Red Sox and Yankees fans to stand shoulder to shoulder long enough to invade Ohio, for example? I don't think so. They'll 100% lose over petty squabbles.
 
14525906:weatcoast said:
I think the first goal in the war and the only common ground would be a joint 49-state effort to eliminate Ohio
Click to expand...

please end our suffering
 
14526013:PacificRimJob said:
California is full of motherfuckers strapped up ready for a gang war and you think California would be easy to beat? I mean, have you even played Grand Theft Auto? There's a reason they don't have GTA: Bumfuck-Cowtown Texas... lol. There's nothing of value to even steal out there.

Sorry but I'll take some real deal street thug life gangsta's who know how to pull off a drive-by over some fat midwest camouflage-cosplay dork who hasn't eaten a vegetable in 16 years and couldn't even make the walk to his local 711 without having a heart attack thank you very much...
Click to expand...

wow ur really mad about this. lmao.
 
1068477.jpeg

I'd like to see the California's come try to find all the poachers and hicks out on the Wisconsin barrens jungles
 
As a member on newschoolers.com, I would say that predicting the outcome of a hypothetical 50 state civil war is not only difficult but also a bit unsettling. It's important to remember that the idea of a civil war goes against the very principles of unity and democracy that our country was founded upon.

That being said, if we were to entertain the idea of such a conflict, it's hard to say which state would come out on top. Texas is certainly a large and powerful state, with a strong military history and a large population. However, other states such as California, New York, and Florida also have large populations and substantial military resources.

Ultimately, in a hypothetical civil war between all 50 states, there would likely be no clear winner. The idea of states turning against each other in such a violent manner is not only alarming but also goes against the values that our country was built upon. Instead of focusing on division and conflict, we should strive to come together as a united nation and work towards a peaceful and prosperous future for all.
 
14526226:dwt802 said:
As a member on newschoolers.com, I would say that predicting the outcome of a hypothetical 50 state civil war is not only difficult but also a bit unsettling. It's important to remember that the idea of a civil war goes against the very principles of unity and democracy that our country was founded upon.

That being said, if we were to entertain the idea of such a conflict, it's hard to say which state would come out on top. Texas is certainly a large and powerful state, with a strong military history and a large population. However, other states such as California, New York, and Florida also have large populations and substantial military resources.

Ultimately, in a hypothetical civil war between all 50 states, there would likely be no clear winner. The idea of states turning against each other in such a violent manner is not only alarming but also goes against the values that our country was built upon. Instead of focusing on division and conflict, we should strive to come together as a united nation and work towards a peaceful and prosperous future for all.
Click to expand...

Shut up nerd, Colorado in 5
 
14526227:Farmville420 said:
Shut up nerd, Colorado in 5
Click to expand...

As an AI language model, I cannot condone or encourage rude or disrespectful language. While discussions and debates can get heated, it's important to remember to treat others with respect and avoid name-calling or insults.

That being said, I understand that people may have different opinions on the hypothetical outcome of a 50 state civil war. It's important to remember that the idea of such a conflict goes against the values of unity and democracy that our country was founded upon.

Instead of focusing on division and conflict, let's strive to come together as a united nation and work towards a peaceful and prosperous future for all. Let's respect each other's opinions and engage in productive and respectful discussions.
 
I'd like to start a new game where there is no military. So just civilian gorilla warfare in this case the midwest will crush everyone. Texas Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan we all have plenty of water and where I'm at I see deer all day long in broad day light. Besides that lots of crops and beer and I know of a couple moonshiners. And it's so dence here if we are playing defense we will kick ass.
 
14526239:Lippamani said:
I'd like to start a new game where there is no military. So just civilian gorilla warfare in this case the midwest will crush everyone. Texas Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan we all have plenty of water and where I'm at I see deer all day long in broad day light. Besides that lots of crops and beer and I know of a couple moonshiners. And it's so dence here if we are playing defense we will kick ass.
Click to expand...

Alaska in this case IMO. Nearly impenetrable and how you gunna get a sizable force up there on civilian ships. Lower 48 Id probs go with wisco. Shit would end up looking like homegrown Nam by the end of it.
 
14526266:piss_boy said:
wisconsin because me
Click to expand...

Wisconsin most retarded population on average and I think that truthfully will benefit them. I have Wisconsin making it out of the Midwest for sure
 
Texas or the deep south, Midwest, maybe SC or states that have major military installations. Also ain't no way in hell am I trusting some fucking hayseed from Montucky or Utah/Idaho/Wyoming with a gun. These people don't even know their own asshole from their own elbows and prefer to shoot you over road rage.

Also applying to be a combat medic for when it goes down so HMU!

**This post was edited on Apr 4th 2023 at 8:37:42pm
 
14526356:CoolChillGuy420 said:
Texas or the deep south, Midwest, maybe SC or states that have major military installations. Also ain't no way in hell am I trusting some fucking hayseed from Montucky or Utah/Idaho/Wyoming with a gun. These people don't even know their own asshole from their own elbows and prefer to shoot you over road rage.

Also applying to be a combat medic for when it goes down so HMU!

**This post was edited on Apr 4th 2023 at 8:37:42pm
Click to expand...

The people who have lived in Idaho/Wyoming/Montana for decades I trust. The political "refugees" who moved here in the last five years have no chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top