StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Suppose each US state declared indepenence and became hostile to other states. Which state would win the civil war ?

I guess Hawai would win. The have powerful naval fleets and are located far from the mainlaind. They can wait untill the mainland powers finish duking it out. Once the dust settels they can move in and conquer everything.

Hawaii would lack the manpower to conquer and hold any significant land area.

evilcat4000 wrote:Suppose each US state declared indepenence and became hostile to other states. Which state would win the civil war ?

None have the strength to gain more then local superiority

I guess Hawai would win. The have powerful naval fleets and are located far from the mainlaind. They can wait untill the mainland powers finish duking it out. Once the dust settels they can move in and conquer everything.

Hawaii was only annexed by the United States in 1898, became a territory in 1900 and only a state in 1959. In 1861 it was ruled by a local King with outside influence being limited to some sugarcane plantations. The US navy, which was quite small, had about half its ships laid up at Norfolk navy yard, with the rest dispersed around the world. Hawaii would not become a major naval base until after 1919 when the USN shifted its battleline to the Pacific. But even then the USN's main base was San Diego and remains so to this day.

evilcat4000 wrote:Suppose each US state declared indepenence and became hostile to other states. Which state would win the civil war ?

I guess Hawai would win. The have powerful naval fleets and are located far from the mainlaind. They can wait untill the mainland powers finish duking it out. Once the dust settels they can move in and conquer everything.

Actually Hawaii doesn't have much of a fleet stationed there anymore.


As to your question I'd go with California. There are plenty of military forces in the state and they have shipping so they can get supplies over seas. Plus the state has lots of it's own resources.

Note this scenario takes in modern day so Hawai would have the pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor.

evilcat4000 wrote:Note this scenario takes in modern day so Hawai would have the pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor.

Thanks for not stating that in the first post.

All modern American civil war scenarios are just fucking stupid. Economies would collapse instantly and no major conflict could be sustained for more then a matter of days. The war would quickly become little more then a bunch of guys in pickup trucks raiding towns across the boarder. No one would come close to winning.

ah hah! What if I find an old bazooka?

Simple, evryone loses.

Frank, don't be a fool, not everyone loses. Ever coposterity sphere around the world goes to take a bite on someting, NATO and the UN will likely become defunct, and massive global conflicts are sure to ensue. That and the Confedracy in hiding finally gets their 'States Rights.'

Even if every state declared war on every other state, it's unlikely that sort of state of war (excuse the pun) could sustain itself. Territories like New York and Clifornia with big industries would beging grouping together with other industrial states, and possibly a few off the plains to guarantee food supplies. States would beging forming into alliances once the initial missiles run out, and without knowing precisely who would go with who, a real judgement is impossible.

However,if we assume that all 50 states do stay at war with each other, without alliances, I'm going to say Colorado wins. IIRC, they've got large stockpies of nuclear missiles (as do Alaska), and territory that's easy to hold and difficult to capture (look at the Soviets and mountanous Afghanistan).

California, New York or Texas.

As the above poster said the former two possess huge industrial capacity while California also possesses many natural resources and shipping capacities as does Texas. Texas though most likely has a good deal more of rough and ready militia/soldiers than either states plus probably enough petrol to supply it's military from internal means plus it can quickly annex Louisiana. California has the advantage of a tremendous population advantage, land advantage, resource advantage and trade arrangement with Asian/Eastern countries. However, California is also the hotbed of hippies, liberals and democrats. Which should work AGAINST it, not FOR it.

New York has the advantages that California has except it has no natural resources, smaller size.. but still a huge population and immigrants from Europe and probably the Middle East(which won the first Civil War).

I say though, in the end.. it'll be Montana or Idaho (though I think those two would form an alliance). Those rough and ready wildnerness people would ambush and kill whoever entered their state and then move out when everyone was done killing each other.

California has a lot of pluses, but most of the population is down south and while the north has enough water for the north, there is not enough for everyone without the Colorado River. That could be an achilles heels or at least a major point of conflict. Who controls the Colorado's waters can feed their people.

Remember California is not called the "Golden State" because of the Gold Rush, its because most of the year large part of the state turn golden brown because its pretty dry.

How about the Dakotas? They may not have much going for them, but one thing they do have is lots of nuclear missiles.

I very much doubt any sort of war scenario would unfold —not the least reason being that no one state on its own would have the requisite material resources or industrial assets to successfully conquer its neighbour states or remain viable as an independent sociopolitical unit. It'd be a real bitch for the totally landlocked states.

No, if things in America get to the point where secession is again seriously pursued it will likely happen quite peacefully, as a fait accompli, with the United States breaking up into about five or six seperate nations. Eventually, a mutual free-trade arrangement such as has long existed between the US and Canada along with some sort of continental defence cooperation scheme would emerge. And a league of North American republics would take its place upon the world stage.

The problem with the Dakotas is that they're mostly flat. That makes their missile silos easy prey for airstrikes, and armoured vehicles and infantry can quickly cross and hold it. If you take somewhere like Idaho or Montana, which has rough terrain, infantry is going to have a much worse time pulling all the resistance fighters from the mountains, and tanks will be of limited use.

Granted, if Dakota fires everything they have in the first ten minutes, they can wipe out most of the large cities and important industries, as well as military bases and anchorages. It's all dependent on how quickly this war happens, if its a long disease inside America or all the state governers wake up one morning and decide to launch some missiles.

The Aliens wrote:Even if every state declared war on every other state, it's unlikely that sort of state of war (excuse the pun) could sustain itself. Territories like New York and Clifornia with big industries would beging grouping together with other industrial states, and possibly a few off the plains to guarantee food supplies. States would beging forming into alliances once the initial missiles run out, and without knowing precisely who would go with who, a real judgement is impossible.

However,if we assume that all 50 states do stay at war with each other, without alliances, I'm going to say Colorado wins. IIRC, they've got large stockpies of nuclear missiles (as do Alaska), and territory that's easy to hold and difficult to capture (look at the Soviets and mountanous Afghanistan).

Thats very mich likely. Most states would immedietly seek allies and eventualy the war become a major conflictt between several powerful alliences.

Modern Civil War senarios are always highly chaotic, and always hinge directly upon what happens in the first few days. Firstly, the states that could capture the most Federal military assets the first (nukes especially) would have a clear advantage. But it would all inevitably devolve into post-modern savagery if let go on long enough. Economic collapse and government instability would bring the states down. Scenarios like this also contain several huge variables.
1. What role does state resources and industry play?
2. What happens to the Federal military and other US assets?
3. Who controlls the disbanded Federal millitary units and how does the distribution of bases factor in?
4. How do our former allies react?

Forced to make a prediction, I would say states sieze nukes right off the bat. Highly chaotic and unpredictable conflict causes said states to use those nukes and scorched-earth holocaust ensues. Eventually foreign peace-keeping forces move in and take over.

ICBM silos would be of limited value in this war, since there minimal ranges are often measured in thousands of miles. I'm not sure what exactly the figures are for Minuteman III or Peacekeeper, but there certainly not going to be hitting the greatest threats, which are the neighboring states, and the whole lower 48 may well be too close.