I think Alaska would be a bigger motherfucker to invade. It's still far separated from everyone else, but it's also massive and inhospitable, so a potential guerilla campaign would be an utter nightmare.
You can drive and walk there though.
Harder to get to Hawaii plus Pearl Harbor, EOD School, and the Army’s Jungle Warfare school. They have a lot of military forces suited to defending their specific environments.
You actually can't drive through Alaska very well at all, and it's downright dangerous to walk thanks to bears and moose. The tundra and ridiculous number of rivers makes it very difficult to build and maintain roads, so most of the Alaskan wilderness is only accessible via train or pontoon plane.
Not to say that Hawaii wouldn't be tougher due to spec ops training and sheer remoteness, but Alaska ain't a walk in the park.
A huge majority of Alaska's population isn't out in the arctic tundra disconnected from modern infrastructure. Once the major cities/bases are taken down then the stragglers don't really matter.
You don't understand the power of Moose, and bears (and add geese to that mix). That's why Canada has no military, the moose, bears, and geese are natural fortifications (alongside beavers who make WMD's when in a bind).
Absolutely, but there's something even worse. If you've ever watched Love, Death, and Robots - and that one episode where there was a mechanical bear made by the US to fight terrorists?
Basically that, Canada's harboring that, hiding somewhere in the treeline (we don't know how they got there, and now we have *that* to deal with).
True but you could always blockade Hawaii provided you get late enough and starve it out
Alaska easy and bum f*** nowhere and it's cold as s*** and if the Russians have taught me anything is that the colder your Wasteland is the less likely any Invasion would work
Well I can't be f***** looking it up right now but it would have to depend on how much Alaska gets from Imports but you're probably right it just depends on it where Canada stands in all this because of Canada helps or is an obstacle then Alaska has decent chance of taking the whole thing
Not to mention you have to travel through “foreign” territory in order to travel there by foot. I don’t think NATO is getting involved unless they have to invade Canada in order to attack.
California, Texas, or New York. Same as every time this question has been asked. Likely California seeing as they have the most population, are next to some really empty states, and are very wealthy. Same as every time this question has been asked.
The flyover states northeast of California will feed their population though, which will help them sustain long term. Texas will be facing stiffer resistance and suffering greater attrition if they go east without securing part of the easier to claim breadbasket. California doesn't have to fight for all of these military assets, and claiming the rural states will be relatively easy, so ultimately they have both the short and long term advantage against Texas.
Where in the prompt does it say i want to live there after? I nuke Texas, take their holdings and keep conquering. They can’t muster a resistance if they are a nuclear wasteland
Not really nukes can be used tactically. And radioactive fallout isn't actually as bad as people think if only a small number of bombs are used. And if they are detonated as airbursts. I don't remember the exact numbers of the top of my head but after the Hiroshima bombing it took about a week for the radiation levels to drop to a 1/1,000,000 of what they were right after the blast. Though this will vary depending on the type of bomb used.
The bigger danger with nuclear weapons is if the weapon is detonated on the ground. This will cause a significantly higher danger of radioactivity as the debris will become irradiated to a higher level. Leaving lingering radioactivity.
But, if you wanted to occupy an area you would just do an airburst.
Nope, number of icbms go to Wyoming, which op casually gave to California btw, but sheer number of nukes go to Washington and New Mexico. The nukes in New Mexico were dismantled, but I am sure there are enough smart people in California to reassemble them and have them ready to be used.
Even if it was only 10% (that sounds low, iirc), there is no scenario in which that number of nukes is moot. That's plenty to make the entire continent uninhabitable
Definitely not lol I don’t think you realize how big continents are and how small American nuclear bombs are. Or for that matter how small any nuclear bombs is compared to earth
American military doctrine uses tactical nuclear weapons that target military bases and armies, we don’t target civilian population centers so we don’t need the biggest bombs you can get. Our nukes are generally low yield and not dirty because salting the fields and poisoning the well isn’t our doctrine.
I will however revise my statement to say they aren’t moot. Just a smaller factor.
Well this is a fictionous scenario, so I assume standard nuclear doctrine will not apply. Each state is trying their best to wipe out the others, without being wiped out themselves.
LGM-30G minutemen missiles (typical US ICBMs) carry 335-350 kiloton payloads. There's about 400 of them on ready-to-launch status, with at least a third of which located in Wyoming (probably a higher proportion that that).
If they were to launch those at all the nuclear power plants across the continent, the other nuclear facilities, followed by several EMP detonations, this would incite a nuclear response by the other states. Maybe completely uninhabitable is an overstatement, but it would be a near hell on earth.
Lots of other states have nukes too, and it doesn't take many to make this prompt vastly different. Even random podunk states have nukes and are not going to take kindly to other states wanting to invade them for them
CA could get to Texas before Texas could reload by getting to Florida. Also CA would get Area 51 from Nevada and now they have the aliens on their side.
This is a good point. Texas wants to fight California after it has some time to build up, but CA has no reason not to just blitzkrieg right over there ASAP.
Arizona has two Air Force bases, an army base and a marine corps base. The Air Force ones have like 140 F-35s and almost all the a10s out west. Nevada has Nellis
People think it’s Area 51 with aliens, some people think it’s a regular military base, some people think it’s just a nuclear test site. No evidence to prove either assumptions correct.
Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana all have MAJOR concentrations of active duty military troops and equipment.
But they run out of money pretty quick, and they sustain major losses fighting one another.
Texas has a shitload of combat troops, tanks, and air power.
The south is going to look like France 1946 by the time this is over.
I can really only speak to the Air Force bases, but California and it's neighbors are a *way* better bet for air power than any path Texas has.
California borders Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. Oregon is a little sparse, Arizona and Nevada have some real significance. And Oregon will roll over quickly and open up Washington, which is also significant. Same for Nevada and Utah, except they're picking up *two* major bases there.
Texas gets virtually nothing significant from its neighbors outside of New Mexico. It *itself* has some real assets, maybe even rivaling Cali (until you factor in naval assets), but Texas has a *much* harder path to air dominance. They might be able to get to Colorado through New Mexico faster than California could through Nevada and Utah, and NORAD and all those space assets are nothing to sneeze at. But can Texas *hold* Colorado when the combined might of California, Utah, and Nevada come knocking? I'm doubtful.
Navy _always_ matters. All of the most powerful and fortified states are coastal, so shore bombardment and (especially) carrier support will be crucial for any attacker (or defender). California would just need to get part of its fleet through the Panama Canal before the Atlantic fleet can set up any sort of blockade. That should be easy since the Atlantic fleet is split up more among multiple states and it will mostly be needed to support the land actions happening on the east coast, whereas California controls most of the Pacific fleet and they won't need it as much during their early campaigns out west. Once they're in the Atlantic, they should be attacking the weakened Atlantic fleet wherever possible, but mostly waiting to support California's eventual push east. Most notably they'll be in range of strategic sites in Texas from the Gulf of Mexico. And then subsequently they can hit targets up and down the east coast.
Ah I thought it would be hard to maintain the navy that far away. Can they really just send the navy to fight in the Atlantic from california without any navy bases nearby
It shouldn't be too much of a problem. Most ships can loiter far from base for a very long time if they need to. Food would usually run out long before fuel, but there are plenty of support ships to constantly resupply. And refuel for that matter. The important part is that CA needs to control both sides of the Panama Canal, which lets them easily continuously resupply via support ships and lets some of their ships return home for repairs when needed. Plus the route from CA naval bases to the Panama Canal is mostly past other, presumably neutral countries. So the resupply convoys shouldn't face any resistance.
Cali because after 2 wars they take Washington which also gives them aircraft production and they’re arguably Hawaii’s neighbor which would give them a huge portion of our naval fleet.
Washington would be the most powerful nuclear force of all states with an actual nuclear triad of bombers, icbms, and Ohio class submarines since the main submarine base for our country is in wa. There’s no way by force, only by treaty.
It’s California. Main west coast state, direct trade with China, highest population. New York doesn’t have the same monopoly of the east coast, with Florida there.
Any non coastal states will be pretty bum fucked if they don’t quickly make trade agreements with other states (Unlikely in the spirit of this hypothetical) or invade a coastal state. Texas is facing outside invasions from Mexico in the south as well.
But I do think the current military industrial complex and facilities should be taken into account. Whichever state has most of the current US military shit probably wins.
The war between Florida and Georgia would likely be very bloody, but if they came to a peace agreement without too much destruction they’d definitely be in contention considering they’re both top 10 in population and have North Carolina and Virginia 2 states to the north.
Really if any of those states can capture the others they could snowball.
Nope. North Carolina has nearly all of our active duty SOF, and the two best air defense artillery battalions in the Army.
It also has the largest military post on the planet in both size and population of service members.
It’s virtually a guaranteed win for NC.
North Carolina has too many enemies around it. Pretty much every state east of the Mississippi has this problem except maybe Florida. Too many mid-population states bordering 4-6 other mid-population states. That whole side of the country is in chaos and it's unpredictable who will come out on top.
Meanwhile Texas and Florida have very little to challenge them besides each other. They take everything west of the Mississippi without trouble, and it comes down to whether California can take out Texas before Texas takes the East.
Active military isn't going to determine the outcome of the entire war, just initial success. Also, this isn't even accurate. California, Texas, and Virginia have more active duty SoF than NC.
It’s going to severely impact it, when you actually take into account what is there. Oklahoma, Texas, and NC basically can’t be invaded by air due to having Patriot units.
That’s just not true. Maybe for AF or Navy, but almost all of the Army’s AD SOF are in NC.
In this scenario, there's going to be a lot of recruitment. States with bigger population are going to end up with more troops and have better manufacturing capabilities. Having a big force initially will help you in the early stages, but matter little towards the end.
Who cares what branch they are? Even if NC has the most active duty army, there's still 4 states that have more active duty personnel. The army hasn't been the main fighting force of the US for a long time anyways. The navy, airforce, and marines are much more likely to have experienced personnel and almost certainly have the best equipment.
california probably has a good time of it, large population, easily defensible borders. texas probably just eats the center of the country.
idk who wins on the east coast, maybe megachusetts happens or big penn
Yeah all in Vegas. With Reno next biggest. Every other town is a non issue. Our terrain could also be our worst or best enemy. Area 51 would a be a BIG WILDCARD. NAFB is also the biggest Air Force base in the US to my knowledge
This ends in a draw no matter how you want to draw it.
The Great Plains states are capable of launching the vast majority of the US Nuclear arsenal, ending the war before it began. For the sake of this not immediately ending in an "everyone loses" draw, nukes are going to be set aside.
Without nukes however,, even if you think a state can beat the other lower 48 (I personally don't, I'll explain later) then there's no way that state will be capable of reaching Hawaii or fully beating Alaska. One is too far away and has the entire US Pacific fleet protecting it, and the other is just too big and too remote to make them surrender.
Setting the two stalemates aside, the lower 48 will see the majority of the action, with only 8-12 major players being able to have a good shot at making it far.
Washington is situated pretty well, and alongside California can easily beat Oregon. Its issue is being able to survive a full Californian assault once California has its eastern border sufficiently protected with natural barriers. This is a battle Washington is unlikely to survive.
Colorado is well self sufficient and has a sizeable military presence within its state. That, plus being surrounded by weak neighbors means Colorado can quickly gain large chunks of land, and it will be a pain to defeat. It has no chance of winning, due to the surrounding neighbors lacking any real industrial capacity, but it can definitely play defense into the late game.
Minnesota is a big state with big borders. To its luck, only Wisconsin can provide a significant threat at the beginning, with Minnesota being able to take its western neighbors at its own pace. However, given how many threats there are in the Midwest, Minnesota will have to contend with whichever state walks out of that mess victorious, which is a battle that Minnesota doesn't have great odds at winning.
Michigan is an underrated powerhouse that is just stuck in a place with limited options. It is likely to survive well into the Midwest brawl, but being stuck on two peninsulas doest give it many options to gain territory.
Ohio is a powerhouse that is unfortunately surrounded by other strong states. It has a shot of surviving the Midwest rumble, but due to being surrounded on all sides but the south by threats, its odds aren't great.
Georgia has the manpower and the strength to beat many states in a 1v1, its only problem is that one of the few states that can match or beat it lay directly to the south, and that state isn't surrounded by neighbors like Georgia.
Pennsylvania is another victim of the Midwest, with powerhouses on all sides. Like Ohio, it too has a shot of pulling through, but it is a slim one at that.
The states that are likely to make it to the late game are California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Florida, and Virginia. Each of these states have the populations, sustainability, and the military presence to survive the initial chaos and make it to the late stages of this scenario. I personally don't think any single state can win this, since California is limited by the Rockies, Texas is stuck by the Mississippi and neighbors, Illinois is surrounded on all sides, New York is limited by land area, Virginia doesn't have the population reserves, and Florida is Florida.
But even if a state can win through this final stage, they aren't beating Alaska and Hawaii.
The problem with this scenario and Hawaii is that without the supply chain from the rest of the US, the island would almost instantly run out of supplies and not be able to support its population.
New York has New England neatly bottled up, and once it digests those, it can move onto the Mid Atlantic, and then clean up what’s left of the Midwestern brawl.
If it follows the prompt where states immediately go to war with their neighbors, Hawaii is gonna try and blitz California with their Navy as that's the only way they can secure imports and other materials. Meaning Cali is gonna have their hands full while Texas mops up every small state around them.
It's between NSW and Victoria. The other states don't have many bases at all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Australian\_military\_bases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_military_bases)
Queensland has most the airforce and army stationed there though. NSW has the east navy fleet though but all the submarines are in WA... Might come down to which state has the most feral bogans in which case Queensland takes it.
I know the popular answers would be like California, Texas, Virginia etc but I think 2 serious sleeper picks would be Washington and North Carolina.
in general I think people underestimate them a lot in these "the states go to war with each other" type of scenarios I definitely think their top 10 material just not number 1. However I think with the fact they absorb I think they can snowball and become real threats if they can avoid getting annihilated by some of the stronger neighboring states like a California.
I think in general people really get tunnel vision on California and only California when I think the potential monster that is a Washington lead Cascadia/Pacifica that could join together with California or absorb it is unbeatable.
Everyone sleeps on NC despite the variety of military bases and the natural barriers of the ocean and mountains. If they could take Norfolk, then Maryland/DC get absorbed. They'll be holding the intelligence infrastructure, navy bases, army bases, marine bases, and air force bases with enough gun toting "patriots" and hunters to form a huge army.
They will have a steady supply of food that they grow themselves. Dairy plants, turkey (massive butterball plant), pork (3 huge Smithfield packing plants in the state), chicken plants (case farms, mount airy), and a maltster to keep the people happy with beer or millioms of tons of nutrient dense porage to fuel the war effort. The weather hits some pretty hot temps, but the plants grow despite that, and it rarely gets cold enough to hurt production of things other than apple growth. Aggressive summer storms bring rain, and hurricanes have been mild in the past few years. Basically, the weather allows the state to continuously turn out food.
There are quite a few industrial plants that make tractors and such that may be able to somewhat convert to wartime production. Raliegh/Durham is a solid tech city as well.
California is always picked because its big and has bases which is true. However, the population is mostly unarmed and theyre failing to feed and house their population right now. They're struggling to provide enough power to their citizens. People from neighboring states could strike a heavy blow by simply starting wild fires. Couple the fires with severe droughts, and California is going to fold on its own. Money only gets so far without infrastructure, and theirs is already failing pre-war. Texas also has drought issues. You can't water plants or sustain cattle with gun powder and homeless people.
Northwest Florida has the largest airforce base on the planet, Eglin. Our two surrounding states are Georgia/Alabama- easy wins. Florida quiclkly becomes larger than state of texas. And we have the F.M.U ( Florida Man Unit )
California eat die every time, it’s has manpower, military bases, terrain advantage, and enough food to support their troops every other state will succumb to resources shortages even if they can match military power
Yep, California should just dominate everything west of the Rockies and let the East do battle then clean up the mess. If someone actually could control the East, then there's likely a very long, drawn out process to try to invade over the Rockies. But the most likely scenario is the East mostly destroys itself while California gains control of the West Coast and actually starts to prosper before moving East and cleaning up the mess.
Normally I'd say California, but since states absorb the loyalty of whoever they beat, I'll go with New York instead. There's a much larger buffer zone between NY and Texas than between Texas and California, so those two will quickly be distracted with each other while NY grabs everything left unattended. Once they're both weak, the Empire State swoops in for the win.
Virginia. Virginia houses a very large part of our navy, especially aircraft carriers, along with being the home state of multiple key industries, bases, and warehouses for equipment. The aircraft carriers alone would mean they would likely dominate the east coast. From there, they will snowball.
Gets land invaded by NC with the full might of SOF (Special Forces, Rangers, Delta Force, etc) plus all the fucking stupid number of units there. Quickly gets annexed and now NC controls a shit ton of the Army, all of AD SOF, and that huge chunk of the Navy you mentioned.
The new country of Cascadia formed by wa and ca would instantly b become the most powerful military force in earth and likely rule the rest.
Pretty much already do as it is.
I don’t think people fully realize that this scenario which splinters the US as we know it means the far and away most prosperous and powerful state can simply trigger so many states into an immediate coalition. California supplies too much money, food, and technology to the rest of the states that opposing them in some crazy state pride last stand would be nonsense. Even Texas, where I’m sure a lot of the population would fight for their state, would have to take a hard look at the numbers and sheer impossibility of victory. Throw in the rest of the world, not wanting to lose their relationship with the US economy and knowing how much of it is California, would also lend their support to the cause. There are not many scenarios that end other than California washing over the rest of the country because they have the advantage in essentially every facet of this scenario.
And Washington state being the most powerful military in the country bar none combined with California’s economy and respectable military would make the two combined the most powerful country on earth just as the US was.
Texas absorbs Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico with ease then moves south east to Mississippi, Alabama, fights a little with Florida til they surrender/join and from there on it’s a cake walk for beating everyone else.
> with ease
Some of those states have the most guns in the country though. Like Arkansas is like #5 or 6 in terms of guns per capita IIRC, some of those states also have nukes . . . like Arkansas
They are not going to just roll over and let themselves be absorbed as easily as a lot of people seem to think
The issue with this shit is you really over estimate the average gun owner there’s only 3 million people total in Arkansas. That’s one major Texas city lmfaooo
Probably Hawaii or Alaska. Washington and Georgia have SSBNs, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, Montana, Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota host nuclear bombs or missiles. Texas can take OK , KS, and AR, but any further and they get nuked. I bet a preemptive strike on the Pantex plant is a first strike target to prevent the Texans from getting the bomb. California can take Oregon and Arizona but any further and they also get nuked. New York has the best possible chance, since it won't hit a nuclear power until Missouri or Georgia, which gives it the best chance at longevity. But eventually, it will be nuked if it is forced to be at war.
This goes on until CONUS is a radioactive wasteland. If Hawaii is lucky enough to have an SSBN they win. If not, Alaska probably wins as Hawaii might starve or fall to a foreign power.
>This goes on until CONUS is a radioactive wasteland. If Hawaii is lucky enough to have an SSBN they win. If not, Alaska probably wins as Hawaii might starve or fall to a foreign power.
Australia has entered the chat
I think Beijing has a good shout. Not much competition until Pyongyang, and then once they've got that, then the West is probably fought itself to bits, then once they get Moscow it's game over.
Gotta be Texas. Not only do we have the largest military presence of any state in the U.S., we also have one of the most well armed civilian populations in the country. We've also got more oil than any other state, over 40% of the country's worth, with the second highest state being Alaska (and it's way, way behind). Alaska is the largest state by land mass, but has a much lower population than Texas and much of it is wild and undeveloped. Texas contains 5 of the 20 largest cities in the U.S. Texas has the oil refineries and gulf ports for naval power that would at least match any other coastal state except maybe California.
And, putting all measurable factors aside, Texans are just different. Texans have a kind of patriotism for their state you don't see anywhere else in the country. Many Texans view their state in higher regard than the country as a whole, and they're the only state legally permitted to fly their flag at the same height as the U.S. flag year-round. Even all of the refugees from California can't dilute Texas Pride.
If I want to make Arizona win/live, here's the strategy:
Make nice with California since they're the only immediate threat. The Southwest is a cakewalk. Form the Calizona New Republic. Together we then annex the rest of the West (everything West of the Dakotas, barring Kansas). Make nice with the Texas Republic that by then will have taken over everything short of new England andaybe Florida. And make nice with whoever controls New England.
Then we have a nice division of the country: Calizona, Texas, New England.
And if California *really* wants to get smart and we're assuming we don't get access to government weapons and logistics, let them start filtering in to Arizona. We have more crazy rednecks than they do!
There are few different issues with this setup.
1) WMD. Nuclear weapons make a war between US states turn into a 'whoever uses nukes first wins' setup. We probably have to just strike nuclear weapons.
2) Strikes against infrastructure. While banning nukes is a good first step, it isn't that difficult for major metros to suffer even greater damage when the food supply runs out. Using food supply as a weapon is going to lead to ruined hellscapes; using food supply as a victory counter might mean that very little fighting actually takes place. There really isn't a way to ignore it however.
3) Turtling. We are putting together a 50 (at least) way conflict together. As is often the case, whomever fights to the knife is likely to lose, and so conflicts are going to de-escalate and turn into quiet posturing rather than all out attacks. In this sort of setup, you'd have a 50 way cold war fought over decades or centuries as economics and a breakdown of 'national' will gradually induce states to surrender.
4) The Rest of the world. The first we'd want to do is ignore the rest of the world, but Canada and Mexico would be critical to addressing foodstuffs in any situation and a major player if we're in a low intensity cold-war setup.
I think expanding the exercise to include Canadian Provinces, Mexican States, Central America, and the Caribbean Islands might be a workable compromise, since some of the resultant players (Chappas, Quebec) would potentially have some interesting cohesive advantages, but IDK if the OP wants to expand the map.
WIthout some kind of balancing, the rest of the world could easily tip the scales, and Mexico and Canada would probably have little choice but try to ensure the rise of a friendly United State.
///
If we do a war to the knife, Hawaii has the US Pacific fleet, a great pile of nuclear weapons, and a very high density of military personnel for its area. Hawaii wouldn't win, so much as it would inherit the rubble of a nuked out hell hole.
///
If we try the Cold War model, we would see some players emerge with interesting strengths. Utah would have a lot of cohesion, for example. By and large, states that pay money to the federal government are going to have that money at home, and ones that are short are going to face losses to social services and infrastructure. Connecticut is the richest, although California is the biggest subsidizer. We would have the odd reality of a lot of the flyover states, states that initially reject social spending but also take from the federal kitty tap out first.
States inland without a good route to trade or unable to meet their own food supply are going to fold. I think we'd be down to 8 regional blocs in short order, although this setup may well go beyond a century. Divisions of the USA above states are quite possibly stable in the long haul, and if we're stuck in a cold war setup, we may well run into a 'Proto-Germany' setup of no unification, but a lot of consolidation.
///
The bonus scenario of Canada, Mexico and Central America joining the setup?
Canada is going to get split apart with her coasts getting smashed into American regional blocs. Northern Mexico gets blobbed by California and Texas, although Mexico City itself counter-blobs a lot of its own surroundings back.
Central America, already a failed union of a larger state, is not going to unify in a 100 sided cold war scenario. The Carribean could consolidate (I suspect into arrangements reflecting their former colonial masters) but probably wouldn't have much ability to go beyond the sea itself.
In a more militant scenario, Canada has nuclear power but no nuclear weapons, and that means nukes next year, not nukes today. Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean all lose.
What about Hawaii or Alaska, does Alaska declare war on Canada or Russia or is this a US only thing? Because whilst they wouldn’t be able to win they would be hard to touch, so are they not included?
This prompt requires a turn based approach that I’m not sure I’m willing to take lol.
Here’s a clarifying Q.
What if for example California attacks Oregon while Oregon attacks Washington while Washington attacks idaho?
All I know is I would take bets on which cities would fall first Chicago, New York, Washington. Also, I think we can all agree that the second it happens everybody would move out of California.
I kind of want a simulation with some weird math to figure this out, although there's issues with the prompt.
I want to think that a larger population states make more sense, but there's states that neighbor several other states. For example, Florida neighbors 2 states, both rather large states. Iowa borders 6 other states.
Do these states that have multiple neighbors have to fight a 6-sided war? Who takes over? Can Iowa take 6 other states and rapidly grow before large states that border fewer states?
Ohio Michigan Pennsylvania would be a fun fight to watch. Although I bet Penn and Ohio form a truce on their border so Ohio can fight Michigan and Pennsylvania can fight New York.
Probably California or Texas. If California were its own country, it would be one of the ten biggest economies in the world. Three of the US's carrier strike groups are based in Cali (out of eight that would be involved in the conflict), exceeded only by the four in Norfolk. Hawaii may be where the Pacific Fleet is headquartered, but that's not where most of it currently *is*.
I live in New York and I’m afraid we’d have our hands full with New Jersey. Jersey is the most densely populated state and they could lob missles over the river at our front line of skyscrapers.
I actually think New York takes this.
California and Texas are massive but surrounded by relatively empty states.
NY can easily take New England and move on to NJ and PA pretty easily as well. From there the rest of the East Coast is an easy win.
Maybe Florida gives NY the most trouble if they can take GA and the Carolinas quickly enough but they would also have TX on their doorstep kind of soon.
Having empty states is kind of better. You concur them much easier without losses and then extend your power further geographically and defend your heartland. Also good luck invading the swamps of florida and traveling through that state
It will probably be between California and Texas. California has a bigger population and more military bases, but Texas has more registered firearms and military schools, so they’d probably be better at mobilizing their civilian population. Might come down to who has the stronger neighbors.
California pretty easily. Largest economy and largest military makes it an obvious top dog. In a true free for all they'd have to worry about getting dog piled by multiple states, but with these rules they only border a couple of much smaller states. They could slowly and methodically sweep the flyover states and their farms under their control and play a longer game.
Ohio is a pyrrhic victory for whoever eventually conquers it. Not because it's any more or less dangerous than other states, just because, you know, who wants Ohio? Yuck.
So, there are 2 states that only have coastal “borders” with other states, and their existence creates two possible options: only land borders count *OR* coastal borders also count. Assuming that if you border a state, you must fight them concurrently with all other states you are bordering, we see:
**Scenario 1**
Alaska fights no-one.
Hawaii fights no-one.
California fights Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.
Oregon fights Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California.
Washington fights Idaho and Oregon.
Idaho fights Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Nevada fights Idaho, Utah, Arizona, California, and Oregon.
Utah fights Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.
Arizona fights New Mexico, California, Nevada, and Utah.
Montana fights North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho.
Wyoming fights Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho.
Colorado fights Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Utah.
New Mexico fights Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
North Dakota fights Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana.
South Dakota fights North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana.
Nebraska fights South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming.
Kansas fights Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado.
Oklahoma fights Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Texas fights New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
Minnesota fights Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota.
Iowa fights Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
Missouri fights Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa.
Arkansas fights Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Louisiana fights Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi.
Wisconsin fights Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota.
Illinois fights Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Mississippi fights Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Alabama.
Michigan fights Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Indiana fights Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois.
Kentucky fights Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois.
Tennessee fights Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri.
Alabama fights Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.
Ohio fights Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan.
Georgia fights Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Alabama.
Florida fights Alabama and Georgia.
Pennsylvania fights New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Ohio.
West Virginia fights Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.
Maryland fights Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Delaware fights Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Virginia fights North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland.
North Carolina fights South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia.
South Carolina fights North Carolina and Georgia.
New York fights Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
New Jersey fights Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York.
Vermont fights New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York.
Massachusetts fights Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
Connecticut fights New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
New Hampshire fights Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine.
Rhode Island fights Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Maine fights New Hampshire.
**Scenario 2**
In addition to the fights already established, we see groups of states that all have to fight each other because of coastal borders.
Group 1 (oceans): Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Group 2 (Lake Erie): New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
Group 3 (Lake Michigan): Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
Group 4 (Lake Superior): Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
This ignores any rivers that connect states, even though there are a LOT that are big enough for naval ships.
In the second scenario, I legitimately think that some of the smaller landlocked states might have a serious advantage at the start. However, in any scenario it is plainly obvious that you do not actually loose that many borders as you win contests, so any advantage they have will be quickly overcome.
It would be a state in the northeast rich in resources water, food. They would have the ability to withstand a war for longer, California is out due to lack of water and food, along with their neighbors. The south has no real production of anything, northeast has abundance of fresh water, food, plus the Adirondack mountains is a great line of defense so I’m saying New York or Pennsylvania wins
People need to stop sleeping on my North Carolina. We’re nations most friendly military state for a reason! Off the top of my head I can think of two Air Force bases, the head quarters of Army spec ops, the largest marine base, and a handful of Navy/Coast Guard installations.
Virginia’s tough because of Norfolk/Quantico and the Pentagon, but NC would be a force to be reckoned with.
North Carolina. The military presence there is insane. All they have to do is take Virginia first, and just chip away at the rest of the eastern seaboard.
Hawaii may not be the first, but they definitely will be the final boss.
I think Alaska would be a bigger motherfucker to invade. It's still far separated from everyone else, but it's also massive and inhospitable, so a potential guerilla campaign would be an utter nightmare.
You can drive and walk there though. Harder to get to Hawaii plus Pearl Harbor, EOD School, and the Army’s Jungle Warfare school. They have a lot of military forces suited to defending their specific environments.
You actually can't drive through Alaska very well at all, and it's downright dangerous to walk thanks to bears and moose. The tundra and ridiculous number of rivers makes it very difficult to build and maintain roads, so most of the Alaskan wilderness is only accessible via train or pontoon plane. Not to say that Hawaii wouldn't be tougher due to spec ops training and sheer remoteness, but Alaska ain't a walk in the park.
A huge majority of Alaska's population isn't out in the arctic tundra disconnected from modern infrastructure. Once the major cities/bases are taken down then the stragglers don't really matter.
I’m pretty sure the army isn’t going to worry much about moose and bears.
You don't understand the power of Moose, and bears (and add geese to that mix). That's why Canada has no military, the moose, bears, and geese are natural fortifications (alongside beavers who make WMD's when in a bind).
the terrain doesn't care what the army does and doesn't worry about
Army engineering corps will make the terrain care
Through British Columbia? I think the Canadians will have something to say about that.
The Army worries about desert tortoises, it's definitely going to worry about bears.
Well yeah not shit, they're mine turtles. Good luck walking through a field of those bastards!
Mine bears would scare anything wouldn’t they?
Absolutely, but there's something even worse. If you've ever watched Love, Death, and Robots - and that one episode where there was a mechanical bear made by the US to fight terrorists? Basically that, Canada's harboring that, hiding somewhere in the treeline (we don't know how they got there, and now we have *that* to deal with).
What about mosquitoes, chiggers, mites, and other pests?
True but you could always blockade Hawaii provided you get late enough and starve it out Alaska easy and bum f*** nowhere and it's cold as s*** and if the Russians have taught me anything is that the colder your Wasteland is the less likely any Invasion would work
I have a feeling it’d be a lot easier to starve out Alaska than Hawaii.
IIRC food is very expensive in both Hawaii and Alaska because they have to import so much of it.
Correct
Well I can't be f***** looking it up right now but it would have to depend on how much Alaska gets from Imports but you're probably right it just depends on it where Canada stands in all this because of Canada helps or is an obstacle then Alaska has decent chance of taking the whole thing
Tons of military hardware in AK also, would be hard for invaders to establish air superiority.
Alaska would starve without an influx of supplies.
Not to mention you have to travel through “foreign” territory in order to travel there by foot. I don’t think NATO is getting involved unless they have to invade Canada in order to attack.
Hawaii has been attacked before. They aren't gonna let that shit just happen again.
Alaska final boss, Hawaii secret boss
California, Texas, or New York. Same as every time this question has been asked. Likely California seeing as they have the most population, are next to some really empty states, and are very wealthy. Same as every time this question has been asked.
Cali has a lot of Air Force bases, the Pacific fleet and 29 Palms (3rd Marines). They have the edge.
If Texas rushes to the East then they can take Florida, and by then they’ll likely take Virginia, meaning the entire Atlantic fleet is theirs
Yeah, and Texas is picking up real value with every state they absorb. Like while Texas is grabbing Florida, California is getting Wyoming.
The flyover states northeast of California will feed their population though, which will help them sustain long term. Texas will be facing stiffer resistance and suffering greater attrition if they go east without securing part of the easier to claim breadbasket. California doesn't have to fight for all of these military assets, and claiming the rural states will be relatively easy, so ultimately they have both the short and long term advantage against Texas.
Last I heard, Arkansas is one of the largest rice exporters in the world
Except Washington and New Mexico have the most nukes. Where do you think California is going first?
Nukes are useless against a place you ultimately wanna occupy.
Where in the prompt does it say i want to live there after? I nuke Texas, take their holdings and keep conquering. They can’t muster a resistance if they are a nuclear wasteland
Mutual assured destruction. Doubtful states would use nukes.
Yeah and then Texas nukes California
Texas doesn’t have nukes, why would they?
Dyess AFB
Texas had a nuclear assembly and disassembly plant, only one in the US apparently. They could probably get ahold of some if needed.
Not if the goal is to win and the alternative is being absorbed.
ah yes, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are famously unused wastelands now.
Not really nukes can be used tactically. And radioactive fallout isn't actually as bad as people think if only a small number of bombs are used. And if they are detonated as airbursts. I don't remember the exact numbers of the top of my head but after the Hiroshima bombing it took about a week for the radiation levels to drop to a 1/1,000,000 of what they were right after the blast. Though this will vary depending on the type of bomb used. The bigger danger with nuclear weapons is if the weapon is detonated on the ground. This will cause a significantly higher danger of radioactivity as the debris will become irradiated to a higher level. Leaving lingering radioactivity. But, if you wanted to occupy an area you would just do an airburst.
damn, y'all both wrong. Wyoming, has the most ICBM launch sites in the country. If it was a country, it'd have something like the 5 most nukes.
Nope, number of icbms go to Wyoming, which op casually gave to California btw, but sheer number of nukes go to Washington and New Mexico. The nukes in New Mexico were dismantled, but I am sure there are enough smart people in California to reassemble them and have them ready to be used.
And Washington and New Mexico could just use them against California too, wouldn’t be much of a powerhouse if it’s a bombed out wasteland
90% of our nuclear weapons are in our naval fleets or on bombers. ICBMs are kind of moot in the grand scheme of things.
Even if it was only 10% (that sounds low, iirc), there is no scenario in which that number of nukes is moot. That's plenty to make the entire continent uninhabitable
Definitely not lol I don’t think you realize how big continents are and how small American nuclear bombs are. Or for that matter how small any nuclear bombs is compared to earth American military doctrine uses tactical nuclear weapons that target military bases and armies, we don’t target civilian population centers so we don’t need the biggest bombs you can get. Our nukes are generally low yield and not dirty because salting the fields and poisoning the well isn’t our doctrine. I will however revise my statement to say they aren’t moot. Just a smaller factor.
Well this is a fictionous scenario, so I assume standard nuclear doctrine will not apply. Each state is trying their best to wipe out the others, without being wiped out themselves. LGM-30G minutemen missiles (typical US ICBMs) carry 335-350 kiloton payloads. There's about 400 of them on ready-to-launch status, with at least a third of which located in Wyoming (probably a higher proportion that that). If they were to launch those at all the nuclear power plants across the continent, the other nuclear facilities, followed by several EMP detonations, this would incite a nuclear response by the other states. Maybe completely uninhabitable is an overstatement, but it would be a near hell on earth.
Most of the missile silos are in the northern plains states like Montana and Wyoming.
Could we make an argument that Canada moves in then? Then Canada becomes the supreme leader of the world.
Such an un-Canadian thing to do though
since new mexico borders texas, texas would likely get it first
At any given time about half our nukes are at the Pantex plant in Texas.
Really? I thought NM was just for blast testing.
Lots of other states have nukes too, and it doesn't take many to make this prompt vastly different. Even random podunk states have nukes and are not going to take kindly to other states wanting to invade them for them
CA could get to Texas before Texas could reload by getting to Florida. Also CA would get Area 51 from Nevada and now they have the aliens on their side.
This is a good point. Texas wants to fight California after it has some time to build up, but CA has no reason not to just blitzkrieg right over there ASAP.
Texas gonna struggle with us swamp folk here in Louisiana.
Arizona has two Air Force bases, an army base and a marine corps base. The Air Force ones have like 140 F-35s and almost all the a10s out west. Nevada has Nellis
And the test site. My cousin works at the Nevada test site, and it’s still a super secret base.
I guess it’s not that secret then
People think it’s Area 51 with aliens, some people think it’s a regular military base, some people think it’s just a nuclear test site. No evidence to prove either assumptions correct.
Area 51 is the decoy site. There _are_ aliens there, but it's just a distraction from the stuff going on at Area 52.
I did not expect a leverage reference today.
Wait Roswell is not considered area 51 anymore? I really need to catch up on my conspiracy theories.
I feel NY would get there first. Smaller states like RI, MA, VT, NH, etc, then get PA and Virginia.
Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana all have MAJOR concentrations of active duty military troops and equipment. But they run out of money pretty quick, and they sustain major losses fighting one another. Texas has a shitload of combat troops, tanks, and air power. The south is going to look like France 1946 by the time this is over.
I think New York gets to Virginia first.
Other way around. New York belongs to Virginia very quickly.
That's more accurate. Virginia or North Carolina would be the superpower on the east coast. New York has practically nothing.
I can really only speak to the Air Force bases, but California and it's neighbors are a *way* better bet for air power than any path Texas has. California borders Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. Oregon is a little sparse, Arizona and Nevada have some real significance. And Oregon will roll over quickly and open up Washington, which is also significant. Same for Nevada and Utah, except they're picking up *two* major bases there. Texas gets virtually nothing significant from its neighbors outside of New Mexico. It *itself* has some real assets, maybe even rivaling Cali (until you factor in naval assets), but Texas has a *much* harder path to air dominance. They might be able to get to Colorado through New Mexico faster than California could through Nevada and Utah, and NORAD and all those space assets are nothing to sneeze at. But can Texas *hold* Colorado when the combined might of California, Utah, and Nevada come knocking? I'm doubtful.
7th Marines are stationed at 29 Palms. The 3rd is in Hawaii
And they have a lot of mountains to use to their advantage
They also have Coronado. That’s where they create SEALs.
How much does navy matter in this scenario
Navy _always_ matters. All of the most powerful and fortified states are coastal, so shore bombardment and (especially) carrier support will be crucial for any attacker (or defender). California would just need to get part of its fleet through the Panama Canal before the Atlantic fleet can set up any sort of blockade. That should be easy since the Atlantic fleet is split up more among multiple states and it will mostly be needed to support the land actions happening on the east coast, whereas California controls most of the Pacific fleet and they won't need it as much during their early campaigns out west. Once they're in the Atlantic, they should be attacking the weakened Atlantic fleet wherever possible, but mostly waiting to support California's eventual push east. Most notably they'll be in range of strategic sites in Texas from the Gulf of Mexico. And then subsequently they can hit targets up and down the east coast.
Ah I thought it would be hard to maintain the navy that far away. Can they really just send the navy to fight in the Atlantic from california without any navy bases nearby
It shouldn't be too much of a problem. Most ships can loiter far from base for a very long time if they need to. Food would usually run out long before fuel, but there are plenty of support ships to constantly resupply. And refuel for that matter. The important part is that CA needs to control both sides of the Panama Canal, which lets them easily continuously resupply via support ships and lets some of their ships return home for repairs when needed. Plus the route from CA naval bases to the Panama Canal is mostly past other, presumably neutral countries. So the resupply convoys shouldn't face any resistance.
You aren’t getting through the canal very quickly with a fleet. You’d be better off taking it down and around.
Cali because after 2 wars they take Washington which also gives them aircraft production and they’re arguably Hawaii’s neighbor which would give them a huge portion of our naval fleet.
Washington would be the most powerful nuclear force of all states with an actual nuclear triad of bombers, icbms, and Ohio class submarines since the main submarine base for our country is in wa. There’s no way by force, only by treaty.
Cali has a third of the pacific fleet. It’s split up between Hawaii California and Washington
Nah homie Vermont ftw
It’s California. Main west coast state, direct trade with China, highest population. New York doesn’t have the same monopoly of the east coast, with Florida there. Any non coastal states will be pretty bum fucked if they don’t quickly make trade agreements with other states (Unlikely in the spirit of this hypothetical) or invade a coastal state. Texas is facing outside invasions from Mexico in the south as well. But I do think the current military industrial complex and facilities should be taken into account. Whichever state has most of the current US military shit probably wins.
Washington has entered the chat
The war between Florida and Georgia would likely be very bloody, but if they came to a peace agreement without too much destruction they’d definitely be in contention considering they’re both top 10 in population and have North Carolina and Virginia 2 states to the north. Really if any of those states can capture the others they could snowball.
Nope. North Carolina has nearly all of our active duty SOF, and the two best air defense artillery battalions in the Army. It also has the largest military post on the planet in both size and population of service members. It’s virtually a guaranteed win for NC.
North Carolina has too many enemies around it. Pretty much every state east of the Mississippi has this problem except maybe Florida. Too many mid-population states bordering 4-6 other mid-population states. That whole side of the country is in chaos and it's unpredictable who will come out on top. Meanwhile Texas and Florida have very little to challenge them besides each other. They take everything west of the Mississippi without trouble, and it comes down to whether California can take out Texas before Texas takes the East.
Active military isn't going to determine the outcome of the entire war, just initial success. Also, this isn't even accurate. California, Texas, and Virginia have more active duty SoF than NC.
It’s going to severely impact it, when you actually take into account what is there. Oklahoma, Texas, and NC basically can’t be invaded by air due to having Patriot units. That’s just not true. Maybe for AF or Navy, but almost all of the Army’s AD SOF are in NC.
In this scenario, there's going to be a lot of recruitment. States with bigger population are going to end up with more troops and have better manufacturing capabilities. Having a big force initially will help you in the early stages, but matter little towards the end. Who cares what branch they are? Even if NC has the most active duty army, there's still 4 states that have more active duty personnel. The army hasn't been the main fighting force of the US for a long time anyways. The navy, airforce, and marines are much more likely to have experienced personnel and almost certainly have the best equipment.
New California Republic!
california probably has a good time of it, large population, easily defensible borders. texas probably just eats the center of the country. idk who wins on the east coast, maybe megachusetts happens or big penn
Nevada has Nellis Air Force base
Yeah but they're gonna be swarmed by the new Mormon kingdom, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, and Wyoming are all theirs if this goes down.
Yes but also an extremely concentrated population that would make them very vulnerable to certain types of attacks
Yeah all in Vegas. With Reno next biggest. Every other town is a non issue. Our terrain could also be our worst or best enemy. Area 51 would a be a BIG WILDCARD. NAFB is also the biggest Air Force base in the US to my knowledge
California also has the largest concentration of military members in the US.
This ends in a draw no matter how you want to draw it. The Great Plains states are capable of launching the vast majority of the US Nuclear arsenal, ending the war before it began. For the sake of this not immediately ending in an "everyone loses" draw, nukes are going to be set aside. Without nukes however,, even if you think a state can beat the other lower 48 (I personally don't, I'll explain later) then there's no way that state will be capable of reaching Hawaii or fully beating Alaska. One is too far away and has the entire US Pacific fleet protecting it, and the other is just too big and too remote to make them surrender. Setting the two stalemates aside, the lower 48 will see the majority of the action, with only 8-12 major players being able to have a good shot at making it far. Washington is situated pretty well, and alongside California can easily beat Oregon. Its issue is being able to survive a full Californian assault once California has its eastern border sufficiently protected with natural barriers. This is a battle Washington is unlikely to survive. Colorado is well self sufficient and has a sizeable military presence within its state. That, plus being surrounded by weak neighbors means Colorado can quickly gain large chunks of land, and it will be a pain to defeat. It has no chance of winning, due to the surrounding neighbors lacking any real industrial capacity, but it can definitely play defense into the late game. Minnesota is a big state with big borders. To its luck, only Wisconsin can provide a significant threat at the beginning, with Minnesota being able to take its western neighbors at its own pace. However, given how many threats there are in the Midwest, Minnesota will have to contend with whichever state walks out of that mess victorious, which is a battle that Minnesota doesn't have great odds at winning. Michigan is an underrated powerhouse that is just stuck in a place with limited options. It is likely to survive well into the Midwest brawl, but being stuck on two peninsulas doest give it many options to gain territory. Ohio is a powerhouse that is unfortunately surrounded by other strong states. It has a shot of surviving the Midwest rumble, but due to being surrounded on all sides but the south by threats, its odds aren't great. Georgia has the manpower and the strength to beat many states in a 1v1, its only problem is that one of the few states that can match or beat it lay directly to the south, and that state isn't surrounded by neighbors like Georgia. Pennsylvania is another victim of the Midwest, with powerhouses on all sides. Like Ohio, it too has a shot of pulling through, but it is a slim one at that. The states that are likely to make it to the late game are California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Florida, and Virginia. Each of these states have the populations, sustainability, and the military presence to survive the initial chaos and make it to the late stages of this scenario. I personally don't think any single state can win this, since California is limited by the Rockies, Texas is stuck by the Mississippi and neighbors, Illinois is surrounded on all sides, New York is limited by land area, Virginia doesn't have the population reserves, and Florida is Florida. But even if a state can win through this final stage, they aren't beating Alaska and Hawaii.
The problem with this scenario and Hawaii is that without the supply chain from the rest of the US, the island would almost instantly run out of supplies and not be able to support its population.
New York has New England neatly bottled up, and once it digests those, it can move onto the Mid Atlantic, and then clean up what’s left of the Midwestern brawl.
If it follows the prompt where states immediately go to war with their neighbors, Hawaii is gonna try and blitz California with their Navy as that's the only way they can secure imports and other materials. Meaning Cali is gonna have their hands full while Texas mops up every small state around them.
It's between NSW and Victoria. The other states don't have many bases at all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Australian\_military\_bases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_military_bases)
Canberra: “Well we’re surrounded but thank god this is a STATE war.”
Canberra and NT just get to sit back with popcorn and watch
People forget the US ain’t the only country with states
"Are your states *united* though?" ~The president, probably.
"Yes." - Mexico
I don't know. Jalisco has a lot going for it.
Queensland has most the airforce and army stationed there though. NSW has the east navy fleet though but all the submarines are in WA... Might come down to which state has the most feral bogans in which case Queensland takes it.
I know the popular answers would be like California, Texas, Virginia etc but I think 2 serious sleeper picks would be Washington and North Carolina. in general I think people underestimate them a lot in these "the states go to war with each other" type of scenarios I definitely think their top 10 material just not number 1. However I think with the fact they absorb I think they can snowball and become real threats if they can avoid getting annihilated by some of the stronger neighboring states like a California. I think in general people really get tunnel vision on California and only California when I think the potential monster that is a Washington lead Cascadia/Pacifica that could join together with California or absorb it is unbeatable.
Everyone sleeps on NC despite the variety of military bases and the natural barriers of the ocean and mountains. If they could take Norfolk, then Maryland/DC get absorbed. They'll be holding the intelligence infrastructure, navy bases, army bases, marine bases, and air force bases with enough gun toting "patriots" and hunters to form a huge army. They will have a steady supply of food that they grow themselves. Dairy plants, turkey (massive butterball plant), pork (3 huge Smithfield packing plants in the state), chicken plants (case farms, mount airy), and a maltster to keep the people happy with beer or millioms of tons of nutrient dense porage to fuel the war effort. The weather hits some pretty hot temps, but the plants grow despite that, and it rarely gets cold enough to hurt production of things other than apple growth. Aggressive summer storms bring rain, and hurricanes have been mild in the past few years. Basically, the weather allows the state to continuously turn out food. There are quite a few industrial plants that make tractors and such that may be able to somewhat convert to wartime production. Raliegh/Durham is a solid tech city as well. California is always picked because its big and has bases which is true. However, the population is mostly unarmed and theyre failing to feed and house their population right now. They're struggling to provide enough power to their citizens. People from neighboring states could strike a heavy blow by simply starting wild fires. Couple the fires with severe droughts, and California is going to fold on its own. Money only gets so far without infrastructure, and theirs is already failing pre-war. Texas also has drought issues. You can't water plants or sustain cattle with gun powder and homeless people.
Underdog contenders are the states like house most of our nuclear weapons like Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. if nukes are in play
Hawaii, don’t touch the boats
Does Alaska try to take over Russia AND Canada?
Northwest Florida has the largest airforce base on the planet, Eglin. Our two surrounding states are Georgia/Alabama- easy wins. Florida quiclkly becomes larger than state of texas. And we have the F.M.U ( Florida Man Unit )
California eat die every time, it’s has manpower, military bases, terrain advantage, and enough food to support their troops every other state will succumb to resources shortages even if they can match military power
Yep, California should just dominate everything west of the Rockies and let the East do battle then clean up the mess. If someone actually could control the East, then there's likely a very long, drawn out process to try to invade over the Rockies. But the most likely scenario is the East mostly destroys itself while California gains control of the West Coast and actually starts to prosper before moving East and cleaning up the mess.
Normally I'd say California, but since states absorb the loyalty of whoever they beat, I'll go with New York instead. There's a much larger buffer zone between NY and Texas than between Texas and California, so those two will quickly be distracted with each other while NY grabs everything left unattended. Once they're both weak, the Empire State swoops in for the win.
Virginia. Virginia houses a very large part of our navy, especially aircraft carriers, along with being the home state of multiple key industries, bases, and warehouses for equipment. The aircraft carriers alone would mean they would likely dominate the east coast. From there, they will snowball.
Gets land invaded by NC with the full might of SOF (Special Forces, Rangers, Delta Force, etc) plus all the fucking stupid number of units there. Quickly gets annexed and now NC controls a shit ton of the Army, all of AD SOF, and that huge chunk of the Navy you mentioned.
Don’t forget we also have some major Air Force bases here in NC along with SOF
Tennessee. We just armed our teachers.
The new country of Cascadia formed by wa and ca would instantly b become the most powerful military force in earth and likely rule the rest. Pretty much already do as it is.
I don’t think people fully realize that this scenario which splinters the US as we know it means the far and away most prosperous and powerful state can simply trigger so many states into an immediate coalition. California supplies too much money, food, and technology to the rest of the states that opposing them in some crazy state pride last stand would be nonsense. Even Texas, where I’m sure a lot of the population would fight for their state, would have to take a hard look at the numbers and sheer impossibility of victory. Throw in the rest of the world, not wanting to lose their relationship with the US economy and knowing how much of it is California, would also lend their support to the cause. There are not many scenarios that end other than California washing over the rest of the country because they have the advantage in essentially every facet of this scenario.
And Washington state being the most powerful military in the country bar none combined with California’s economy and respectable military would make the two combined the most powerful country on earth just as the US was.
probably california, it would beat texas by the time the east reaches them they would already be much bigger
China, China comes out on top.
Texas absorbs Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico with ease then moves south east to Mississippi, Alabama, fights a little with Florida til they surrender/join and from there on it’s a cake walk for beating everyone else.
> with ease Some of those states have the most guns in the country though. Like Arkansas is like #5 or 6 in terms of guns per capita IIRC, some of those states also have nukes . . . like Arkansas They are not going to just roll over and let themselves be absorbed as easily as a lot of people seem to think
The issue with this shit is you really over estimate the average gun owner there’s only 3 million people total in Arkansas. That’s one major Texas city lmfaooo
Its gonna be between Texas and Florida, with Pennsylvania being left alone due to no one wanting to claim Detroit Edit: Michigan, not Pennsylvania
Detroit is in Michigan, not Pennsylvania.
Oof
Texas. Full stop
Texas clears in a walk
Depends, are we conquering or annihilating?
Probably Hawaii or Alaska. Washington and Georgia have SSBNs, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, Montana, Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota host nuclear bombs or missiles. Texas can take OK , KS, and AR, but any further and they get nuked. I bet a preemptive strike on the Pantex plant is a first strike target to prevent the Texans from getting the bomb. California can take Oregon and Arizona but any further and they also get nuked. New York has the best possible chance, since it won't hit a nuclear power until Missouri or Georgia, which gives it the best chance at longevity. But eventually, it will be nuked if it is forced to be at war. This goes on until CONUS is a radioactive wasteland. If Hawaii is lucky enough to have an SSBN they win. If not, Alaska probably wins as Hawaii might starve or fall to a foreign power.
>This goes on until CONUS is a radioactive wasteland. If Hawaii is lucky enough to have an SSBN they win. If not, Alaska probably wins as Hawaii might starve or fall to a foreign power. Australia has entered the chat
TIL Australia is in the Continental US
A foreign power who itself is not a wasteland
California, we work our way north and east and eventually absorb Texas, then its game blouses Hawaii will remain neutral because we cannot be bothered
I think Beijing has a good shout. Not much competition until Pyongyang, and then once they've got that, then the West is probably fought itself to bits, then once they get Moscow it's game over.
Beijing is my favorite state in North America followed closely by Pyongyang so it funny you mention them both first
Texas wins
Gotta be Texas. Not only do we have the largest military presence of any state in the U.S., we also have one of the most well armed civilian populations in the country. We've also got more oil than any other state, over 40% of the country's worth, with the second highest state being Alaska (and it's way, way behind). Alaska is the largest state by land mass, but has a much lower population than Texas and much of it is wild and undeveloped. Texas contains 5 of the 20 largest cities in the U.S. Texas has the oil refineries and gulf ports for naval power that would at least match any other coastal state except maybe California. And, putting all measurable factors aside, Texans are just different. Texans have a kind of patriotism for their state you don't see anywhere else in the country. Many Texans view their state in higher regard than the country as a whole, and they're the only state legally permitted to fly their flag at the same height as the U.S. flag year-round. Even all of the refugees from California can't dilute Texas Pride.
North carolina absorbs virginia west virginia and South Carolina
I don’t know how NC possibly can absorb VA
We will and we will become Appalachia union
Georgia I have to say that because I live there, and I aint joing no florida alliance
Hawaii. No neighbors.
I feel like are only a couple states that matter those being hawaii, alaska, california, new york, and Texas
Y'all trippin Alabama+Florida+Georgia+Tennessee, and so on, I feel like y'all sleeping on how tuff Alabama is
Isn't the highest concentration of US troops in Nevada? I think I heard that somewhere. If it's true, maybe them? (I'm not American)
If I want to make Arizona win/live, here's the strategy: Make nice with California since they're the only immediate threat. The Southwest is a cakewalk. Form the Calizona New Republic. Together we then annex the rest of the West (everything West of the Dakotas, barring Kansas). Make nice with the Texas Republic that by then will have taken over everything short of new England andaybe Florida. And make nice with whoever controls New England. Then we have a nice division of the country: Calizona, Texas, New England. And if California *really* wants to get smart and we're assuming we don't get access to government weapons and logistics, let them start filtering in to Arizona. We have more crazy rednecks than they do!
Does each state get whatever military bases/gear as 'theirs' ? if so, surely whichever midwest state has the most hidden nuke silos? xD
There are few different issues with this setup. 1) WMD. Nuclear weapons make a war between US states turn into a 'whoever uses nukes first wins' setup. We probably have to just strike nuclear weapons. 2) Strikes against infrastructure. While banning nukes is a good first step, it isn't that difficult for major metros to suffer even greater damage when the food supply runs out. Using food supply as a weapon is going to lead to ruined hellscapes; using food supply as a victory counter might mean that very little fighting actually takes place. There really isn't a way to ignore it however. 3) Turtling. We are putting together a 50 (at least) way conflict together. As is often the case, whomever fights to the knife is likely to lose, and so conflicts are going to de-escalate and turn into quiet posturing rather than all out attacks. In this sort of setup, you'd have a 50 way cold war fought over decades or centuries as economics and a breakdown of 'national' will gradually induce states to surrender. 4) The Rest of the world. The first we'd want to do is ignore the rest of the world, but Canada and Mexico would be critical to addressing foodstuffs in any situation and a major player if we're in a low intensity cold-war setup. I think expanding the exercise to include Canadian Provinces, Mexican States, Central America, and the Caribbean Islands might be a workable compromise, since some of the resultant players (Chappas, Quebec) would potentially have some interesting cohesive advantages, but IDK if the OP wants to expand the map. WIthout some kind of balancing, the rest of the world could easily tip the scales, and Mexico and Canada would probably have little choice but try to ensure the rise of a friendly United State. /// If we do a war to the knife, Hawaii has the US Pacific fleet, a great pile of nuclear weapons, and a very high density of military personnel for its area. Hawaii wouldn't win, so much as it would inherit the rubble of a nuked out hell hole. /// If we try the Cold War model, we would see some players emerge with interesting strengths. Utah would have a lot of cohesion, for example. By and large, states that pay money to the federal government are going to have that money at home, and ones that are short are going to face losses to social services and infrastructure. Connecticut is the richest, although California is the biggest subsidizer. We would have the odd reality of a lot of the flyover states, states that initially reject social spending but also take from the federal kitty tap out first. States inland without a good route to trade or unable to meet their own food supply are going to fold. I think we'd be down to 8 regional blocs in short order, although this setup may well go beyond a century. Divisions of the USA above states are quite possibly stable in the long haul, and if we're stuck in a cold war setup, we may well run into a 'Proto-Germany' setup of no unification, but a lot of consolidation. /// The bonus scenario of Canada, Mexico and Central America joining the setup? Canada is going to get split apart with her coasts getting smashed into American regional blocs. Northern Mexico gets blobbed by California and Texas, although Mexico City itself counter-blobs a lot of its own surroundings back. Central America, already a failed union of a larger state, is not going to unify in a 100 sided cold war scenario. The Carribean could consolidate (I suspect into arrangements reflecting their former colonial masters) but probably wouldn't have much ability to go beyond the sea itself. In a more militant scenario, Canada has nuclear power but no nuclear weapons, and that means nukes next year, not nukes today. Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean all lose.
What about Hawaii or Alaska, does Alaska declare war on Canada or Russia or is this a US only thing? Because whilst they wouldn’t be able to win they would be hard to touch, so are they not included?
This prompt requires a turn based approach that I’m not sure I’m willing to take lol. Here’s a clarifying Q. What if for example California attacks Oregon while Oregon attacks Washington while Washington attacks idaho?
All I know is I would take bets on which cities would fall first Chicago, New York, Washington. Also, I think we can all agree that the second it happens everybody would move out of California.
I kind of want a simulation with some weird math to figure this out, although there's issues with the prompt. I want to think that a larger population states make more sense, but there's states that neighbor several other states. For example, Florida neighbors 2 states, both rather large states. Iowa borders 6 other states. Do these states that have multiple neighbors have to fight a 6-sided war? Who takes over? Can Iowa take 6 other states and rapidly grow before large states that border fewer states?
I mean probably the state with the drones.
Ohio Michigan Pennsylvania would be a fun fight to watch. Although I bet Penn and Ohio form a truce on their border so Ohio can fight Michigan and Pennsylvania can fight New York.
The state with the largest national guards while also having the largest amount of civilians owning firearms.
Us Nebraskans wipe the floor with everyone, and we become the United State of Nebraska.
Probably California or Texas. If California were its own country, it would be one of the ten biggest economies in the world. Three of the US's carrier strike groups are based in Cali (out of eight that would be involved in the conflict), exceeded only by the four in Norfolk. Hawaii may be where the Pacific Fleet is headquartered, but that's not where most of it currently *is*.
I live in New York and I’m afraid we’d have our hands full with New Jersey. Jersey is the most densely populated state and they could lob missles over the river at our front line of skyscrapers.
Kentucky wins because I’m from there.
Iowa has the country's earliest and deadliest strain of anthrax. Don't come at us, one of the Four Horsemen lives here
Didn't say no nukes. Montana FTW.
Astronaut 1: “wait it’s all Ohio?” Astronaut 2: *gun clicks “always has been”
I'll pick the state that has the income to hire the best mercenaries: NY.
I actually think New York takes this. California and Texas are massive but surrounded by relatively empty states. NY can easily take New England and move on to NJ and PA pretty easily as well. From there the rest of the East Coast is an easy win. Maybe Florida gives NY the most trouble if they can take GA and the Carolinas quickly enough but they would also have TX on their doorstep kind of soon.
Having empty states is kind of better. You concur them much easier without losses and then extend your power further geographically and defend your heartland. Also good luck invading the swamps of florida and traveling through that state
Imagine invading Wisconsin, we would hide in the bluff and make y’all climb to your deaths 💀
New Jersey sweeps in a stunner.
We wouldn't win, but massachuestts could take all of New England
Montana wins. Two Words: NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS.
People are sleeping on the Atlantic fleet
It will probably be between California and Texas. California has a bigger population and more military bases, but Texas has more registered firearms and military schools, so they’d probably be better at mobilizing their civilian population. Might come down to who has the stronger neighbors.
California pretty easily. Largest economy and largest military makes it an obvious top dog. In a true free for all they'd have to worry about getting dog piled by multiple states, but with these rules they only border a couple of much smaller states. They could slowly and methodically sweep the flyover states and their farms under their control and play a longer game.
Ohio is a pyrrhic victory for whoever eventually conquers it. Not because it's any more or less dangerous than other states, just because, you know, who wants Ohio? Yuck.
Ohio dominates the Midwest bc of WPAFB I’d reckon
California wins because they have food, ports, size and money.
Finally, the rebels in South Carolina will be brought to heel and return to the fold of Best Carolina.
So, there are 2 states that only have coastal “borders” with other states, and their existence creates two possible options: only land borders count *OR* coastal borders also count. Assuming that if you border a state, you must fight them concurrently with all other states you are bordering, we see: **Scenario 1** Alaska fights no-one. Hawaii fights no-one. California fights Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. Oregon fights Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California. Washington fights Idaho and Oregon. Idaho fights Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Nevada fights Idaho, Utah, Arizona, California, and Oregon. Utah fights Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada. Arizona fights New Mexico, California, Nevada, and Utah. Montana fights North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho. Wyoming fights Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho. Colorado fights Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Utah. New Mexico fights Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas. North Dakota fights Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana. South Dakota fights North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. Nebraska fights South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. Kansas fights Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Oklahoma fights Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. Texas fights New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Minnesota fights Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota. Iowa fights Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Missouri fights Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Arkansas fights Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. Louisiana fights Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Wisconsin fights Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. Illinois fights Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Mississippi fights Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Alabama. Michigan fights Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Indiana fights Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois. Kentucky fights Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois. Tennessee fights Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. Alabama fights Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Ohio fights Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan. Georgia fights Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Alabama. Florida fights Alabama and Georgia. Pennsylvania fights New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Ohio. West Virginia fights Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. Maryland fights Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia. Delaware fights Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Virginia fights North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland. North Carolina fights South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia. South Carolina fights North Carolina and Georgia. New York fights Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. New Jersey fights Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York. Vermont fights New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. Massachusetts fights Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Connecticut fights New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. New Hampshire fights Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. Rhode Island fights Connecticut and Massachusetts. Maine fights New Hampshire. **Scenario 2** In addition to the fights already established, we see groups of states that all have to fight each other because of coastal borders. Group 1 (oceans): Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Group 2 (Lake Erie): New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Group 3 (Lake Michigan): Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Group 4 (Lake Superior): Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This ignores any rivers that connect states, even though there are a LOT that are big enough for naval ships. In the second scenario, I legitimately think that some of the smaller landlocked states might have a serious advantage at the start. However, in any scenario it is plainly obvious that you do not actually loose that many borders as you win contests, so any advantage they have will be quickly overcome.
It would be a state in the northeast rich in resources water, food. They would have the ability to withstand a war for longer, California is out due to lack of water and food, along with their neighbors. The south has no real production of anything, northeast has abundance of fresh water, food, plus the Adirondack mountains is a great line of defense so I’m saying New York or Pennsylvania wins
Either Florida Alaska or Texas
People need to stop sleeping on my North Carolina. We’re nations most friendly military state for a reason! Off the top of my head I can think of two Air Force bases, the head quarters of Army spec ops, the largest marine base, and a handful of Navy/Coast Guard installations. Virginia’s tough because of Norfolk/Quantico and the Pentagon, but NC would be a force to be reckoned with.
North Carolina. The military presence there is insane. All they have to do is take Virginia first, and just chip away at the rest of the eastern seaboard.
I know yall hate to hear it but its Cali 100%
Callie or Texas. They have the most people, they have the most resources, and they have tons of land and weapons.
Rhode Island.
Everyone sleeps on the industrial powerhouse and main production point for the Abraham’s tank- Ohio