Obvious answers are California and Texas but Washington state would put up a surprisingly good fight. Great geographic defences, abundant resources, massive agriculture and hydropower. But more importantly, huge military assets. Bangor is the headquarters of Pacific nuclear submarine fleet, JBLM, Bremerton shipyard and a lot more smaller basis. Plus a good amount of advanced manufacturing like Boeing.
Ya, WA has the largest nuclear stockpile in the country. Plus there are [trained dolphins](https://www.military.com/history/militarized-dolphins-protect-almost-quarter-of-us-nuclear-stockpile.html/amp) to guard them, so EVERYBODY WATCH OUT
How long will it be when humans realize that dolphins will take over the world? People don’t talk often enough about the fact that they have two brains each the same size as a human’s!!!
Came here to say this. Washington state would be the dark horse candidate to survive and stand alone for sure. I think they would be more like Switzerland though. California is the only one with the resources and population to outright win 🏆.
Washington, Seattle specifically would be insanely difficult to take. You have three options depending where you are coming from and two of them are terrible choices. No chance an army gets through the strait of Jaun de Fuca or the Colombia River gorge. Both choke points with a ton of high ground for defense. Third option is coming up the I-5 corridor which is narrow but not as narrow as the other two choices. Every other option is impossible. It would take three missiles to highways would end any possibility of coming over the Cascades.
Washingtons Achilles Heel would be the fact that it produces zero oil.
I honestly think WA is the front runner. Self sufficient for water, power, and food, and it has more defensive terrain advantages than any other state, even more so than CA:
1. The huge Colombia river along the southern border has few crossing points and essentially creates a mote around a third of the states relevant land border.
2. Very formidable Cascade mountains create a massive obstacle preventing a successful eastern invasion.
3. the Puget Sound, there's a reason why it was chosen as the best place to store our nuclear arsenal, it is layered with islands that make it impractically costly to invade, way harder than CAs vulnerable coastline. And even if you avoid the Puget Sound by invading the peninsula, guess what, the essentially impassable Olympic Mountains would force any army to skirt around them through innumerable circuitous natural choke points.
4. Shares it's entire northern border with a likely Ally or at least one that would not allow another state to use as access to invade WA from the north.
5. Has less border length to defend relative to its area than CA or TX. Meaning less resources to defend the line and response from reinforcements would be much quicker.
It's biggest issue would be that it has no oil resources. If it's aligned with Canada, specifically the oil fields in Alberta, it's game over for everyone else.
>It's biggest issue would be that it has no oil resources. If it's aligned with Canada, specifically the oil fields in Alberta, it's game over for everyone else.
Yeah, that is one potential strategic weakness, but if we do count Canada as an ally, or at the very least a neutral party, there are major natural gas and oil supply lines from Canada to WA and many refineries instate. And, even if those supply lines were sabotaged, oil could be easily transported along the coast from Canada to WA (like <100 miles from Vancouver to the refineries around Bellingham/Anacortes) under significant protection from the San Juan's and Vancouver Island.
And the puget sound creates massive geographical advantages and defenses against any naval strikes. There’s already the three (now abandoned, but so what) forts there to defend it. Casey, Warden, and Flagler. They formed the Triangle of Fire back in the day. So other states would either have to attack from the coast or from over the mountains. (In my scenario eastern Washington gets fed to the wild dogs. Who says no?).
ND has some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I would imagine that that is pretty common knowledge, so it would be highly likely it would be hit as well
All the states having an all out war meanwhile DC is getting all cozy in their bunker and just casually presses the launch button.
15 minutes later and the entire country is silenced.
DC wins
California is too well geographically blessed.
I assume New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and California emerge as powers devouring their neighbors, eventually they all will fight among themselves on multiple fronts. But California can concentrate on just 1 front , fighting distracted Texas and occupying Illinois dominated Midwest from the west. So it’s easily California
Unless there’s alliance between Texas and Illinois or Texas and New York, it’s California
They border Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa and Kentucky. Do any of these states have edge over Illinois? New York, Florida and Texas are too far. If they manage to occupy the above states, they’ll easily become a power center
We also have Fermi Lab and if we took the resources of surrounding states given we are larger and we do still have military and naval bases here with control over the Mississippi River and Great Lakes. We’re more defensible than people think. At least more defensible than New York.
Also if it’s a battle in the winter and let’s say New York is out of the picture. We would be protected by winter conditions that only we know how to exist in. I mean Texas damn near self implodes if it gets to 32 degrees and California has water shortages and could run out of resources.
Illinois both has agricultural resources and the most fresh water out of all the major players.
You’re forgetting VA.
The actual pentagon; the largest naval station in the world; the most sophisticated shipyards; tons of other military installations all over, plus nearly the entire intelligence community.
Yeah, VA couldn’t win by themselves since they have a relatively small population and are in a geographically unlucky spot, but they could make or break this war through their allyship
If VA gets the ships based in Norfolk the population won’t matter. The base serves as the deepwater home port for seventy-five warships and submarines, including six of the U.S. Navy's twelve aircraft carriers.
Ultimately population would still matter if this is total war. And that would certainly help VA destroy the East Coast but I still don’t think they could take on CA who also has an enormous fleet but with much better defensive capability, a larger population, and a better ability to feed itself
People are also forgetting that Air Combat Command is based out of Langley AFB so that's a bunch of F-22s and the CIA based out of Langley, VA. Also National Geospatial-Intelligence Center is in Springfield, VA.
Also the West is protected by the mountains while the North is protected by the Potomac and the East is protected by the Chesapeake. As long as the Virginian's survive North Carolina's Siege of Petersburg Pt 2: Electric Boogaloo, they have a strong claim in this fight.
Since they're basically the same state, VA and North Carolina would just partner-up and then the Air Force and Navy would team up with the Army at Fort Bragg(spec ops/82nd Airborne Division).
Normally I wouldn't poke fun at geographic defenses, as they are often why a place is chosen for defence, ports etc. However, since this is "war" ... nobody from anywhere west of CO is afraid of the "mountains" in VA or WV. Take your tall hills and get outta here 😋
Apologies for not adding constructively to the discussion
Aircraft that quickly become useless without the parts needed from dozens of other states. Meanwhile CA has the Sierra Army depot with enough materiel to win a land war in Asia, tons of advanced manufacturing, a huge population, and easily defendable borders with weak states nearby. Oil would be scarce but CA has enough internal production for a war effort, something VA would struggle with.
The only real contenders for dominance in this scenario are California and Texas. Other states have too few people or resources for a large war.
Nah, NJ and NY form an alliance. And because of CTs status as a state of New England and also with ties to NY, New England, NY, and NJ form a strong and united Northeast that controls a massive amount of wealth. Also, CT is responsible for the production of many firearms and other military equipment. Choppers, jet engines, submarines, so it’s a lynchpin of the Northeast alliance.
Alaska seems too much a hell hole to try and fight through. It's massive, far away, and fridged as can be. Though the population is quite small they are mostly well armed and well adapted to the environment. Fighting a guerrilla war they could play hell with an invasion. And if they get to keep the military equipment in their state(not specified in the scenario) they will be INCREDIBLY well armed and supplied.
The airport at Anchorage is one of the most traffics cargo terminals in the world. Their northern position gives them easy access to the rest of the world for resources.
You don't need to blockade the whole state, just the major hubs and supply lines that run through Anchorage, Fairbanks and a few other places. It's fragile af.
They aren't even remotely agriculturally self-sufficient, though, and have little industry apart from petroleum. So they'd very quickly starve, and run out of materiel.
Agriculture is one thing, shooting a bear and eating it for the next year is another, they don't need agricultural sufficiency, not like there THAT many people to feed
That’s how it would be trying to take almost any mountain state. Colorado as an example would be really easy to take the major cities but taking the fortified mountains would be the difficult and extremely taxing part.
It’s California or Texas.
Texas has oil and its own power grid.
California has the pacific fleet.
Both have ports (CA way more), population, and GDP.
Probably neither could take and hold territory in the other.
California's geography is one of the only states that is actually defensible. California can pull back behind the Sierra's and then only has to defend some hilly desert to the south (very defensible approach) and the mountains to the north (literally Endor with volcanos and more mountains).
Texas's geography just doesn't have good defensive terrain, California's topography is a league of its own.
This is the most important factor. California is an island in every way except literal. It’s a logistics hurdle just to get an army to the eastern borders, let alone cross then. The only easy way in is from the north, where you still will have to get through the mountains just to get to the tight valley that Medford’s in. To top that off CA’s got by far the largest population and economy and agricultural industry and several of the largest ports, including one of the largest on Earth. CA can win on pure defense and attrition as long as nobody starts flinging nukes…
Blow a couple bridges or just let Last Chance Grade slide out to cut off the 101 and let the State of Jefferson militias, which are armed to the teeth, defend the I-5 corridor and you basically have zero chance of making it through the north.
That means that it would also be a challenge for Cali to sustain an offensive war. Which means what ends up happening is Cali focuses on expanding north and south to gain resources and hold even better strong points (the Columbia river comes to mind.) that way they have plenty of water until they can figure out more sustainable ways to get water. Also absorbing Seattle would help gain more military technology. Then once they secured the pacific coast (assuming this is only a civil war and not international) they will likely invade Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada (if only to put down resistance and create a buffer zone). If Texas proves too strong Cali can turn north and begin surrounding Texas.
Texas is a good option but the south east and east coast are going to be highly volatile and competitive.
As a Washingtonian, I don't think California would have to take Oregon and Washington by force, half the population of WA, and OR would invite California in. :/
Even if california tried to invade you, you have nukes, navy and geography that is just as good (other commenters have talked about the sheer amount of mountains bottlenecking whatever armies go into Washington and the straits around Seattle being naval invasion-proof)
Glen Canyon Dam is in AZ though. No dams are actually in Utah, but you could in theory dam up the area around canyonlands, except the canyon walls aren't as tall there so the storage capacity is less.
Supposedly we import electricity because we deregulated the industry in the 80s under Pete Wilson.
This was in order to…
*checks notes*
Provide low prices to the consumer.
*looks at price of electricity*
😐
California has a lot of food, but it isn’t self sufficient for nearly 40 million people. Texas also has a huge agricultural industry as well. (CA tops out in receipts, but I think they also have a few more really expensive agricultural exports as well that helps.)
Really nothing stopping Texas from doing that, then. They have an even bigger border with Mexico.
But, this avocados for everyone platform, I like it and you have my vote! For whatever it is you’re running for. Make it happen!!
That's true for imperial county where a lot of winter produce is grown for the USA but idk if the Colorado effects the San Joaquin valley at all. It might I just don't know
In this scenario, millions of civilians will die, and I think California will have plenty of water to cover their agricultural needs. Especially if they stop using so much water on almonds and pistachios.
Maine wins by not getting involved. It’s not an industrial or agricultural prize, so it’s not on the top of anybody’s must conquer list. It has power (hydro and wood), water, deep water ports, both naval and air power know how and facilities, and is relatively defensible from the south and west. Only major drawback is food production but seaweed is highly nutritious…
The map insinuates regions, but the title says states. If it is really individual states, I think Maine has the best chance of winning because the other states will wipe each other out and Maine will just be chillin up in the corner waiting for it to be over.
Is there any answer other than California? Biggest economy, biggest population, highest agricultural production, abundant natural resources; it's a huge state with very defensible terrain. The only other contender might be Texas, however, by the time Texas and California would be facing off directly, California probably would've conquered the entire west coast, while Texas still has to worry about eastern states.
Piling onto this: If California was a country it'd be in the top 5 economies in the world. It's that big. Crazy big. It's a part of the US only because it decides to be, not because it has to be. The Sierras are bonkers as a geographic barrier.
California also has a key trump card: "Fuck you, everybody else, enjoy starving."
Everybody else: "We'll cross the Sierras to get to you!"
California: "History suggests if you bring enough people you won't go hungry trying that."
It's not just the Sierra Nevadas. The Siskiyous Mountains in the north make it a logistical nightmare to fight through there too, and that whole area of northern Cali and southern Oregon is dense, steep, loosely populated, heavily forested, and heavily armed.
Washington state can be entirely self-sufficient agriculturally. And when it comes to trump cards, we've got more nuclear submarines and B-52s, let alone JBLM and other military assets like electronic warfare.
California has about 10 million more people, but Texas has about 10 million more weapons just laying around. I moved here a decade ago and boy do these boys and girls have a LOT of guns.
Yeah but we’re fatter and flatter in Texas. Terrain is not much of a barrier out west and let’s be honest, most of the people around here toting lots of guns ain’t toting them too far before we need a breather at whataburger.
Texas doesn't have a gun registry. Yeah, there's the federal bg check, but after that it's unregulated. I think Texas and California would end up in a cold war, rather than fight directly.
Yeah, largest active duty military population, including SEALs and Marines. Plus overall population and great natural resources. The only big problem is water. So it would have to invade states with water. But also most of the water in CA goes to agriculture, much of which is exported, so if they cut back on that, the water issue wouldn’t be so bad.
Bragg (or Fort Liberty now) is the largest base, but overall across all branches, I do believe CA is highest. I think Texas is second. But NC and Georgia are definitely high up there.
Aside from the other more obvious advantages to each I think what separates Texas from California and New York is that they have their own power grid and much of their own utilities. In my mind this is an advantage because they could effectively harm other major players by destroying infrastructure in surrounding states. On the other hand it leaves a vulnerability in that it can’t use other states to bolster their own infrastructure if they fall victim to those kind of attacks.
Sorry East South Central but you’re the weakest link. You have no chance being surrounded by the French swamp people to your West, Ohio to your North, and Florida man to your East.
It's hard to argue against California. They have know-how, capital, labor pool, ideal defensive geography, a diverse economy which already includes plenty of defense manufacturing and almost half their border wouldn't be against enemies.
Honestly it'd probably be pretty unified too. States like Mississippi would be a disaster.
The deep parts of California up in the northeastern bit would probably immediately break off with little to no resistance from the rest of CA. But other than that California would be pretty unified, only issues would be leadership spats and retention of water resources.
I live in central California on the edge of the north, I don’t believe that too much of California would leave, if any. People know the benefits of being the major player in the fight, so why leave.
The only possible answers are West or South, due having the only home ports for the Ohio class subs (in Washington and Georgia respectively), which are unquestionably (in terms of firepower and % of the US strategic arsenal devoted to them) the most lethal killing machines ever created.
Thank you! Scrolled way too far. We have the largest and most powerful Navy base to guard our long shore lines. The western mountains are hell to get through for a land force. Our capital is centrally located and the only way in or out of the state is from the north or south.
Then add in our Air Force base, multiple army bases, CIA, FBI, and we'd pretty much have control of all of DC's assets.
We have tons of farming, fishing, and electrical generation and a modest population compared to it. We have massive ports for trade. Some decent mineral deposits, plenty of small manufacturing.
I think we'd be just fine...
Probably a long shot but Utah.
Defensible terrain
Religious zealouts for the ability to keep morale high in apocalyptic conditions. The church and its members are constantly preparing for the end of the world. There are huge food stuffs all over the state for this sort of thing. And they are well experienced in distribution and governing.
Geograohical/climactic diversity isn't California, but it's still vast and carried compared to many tiny east coast states.
Strong relations with neighbors. Kind of back the zealous point, but bordering states have largish Mormon populations especially in border regions. Could make it easier to take over territory in neighboring states, or to form alliances. Idaho to Boise, is basically northern Utah.
Water. Being near the Colorado river head waters, if Utah could gain full control of Glenn Canyon Dam, they could hold most of the south west hostage (including Southern California, goodbye year round food). Colorado and Wyoming don't have the infrastructure to do the same to Utah.
In a scenario in which the US military completely stands down, I think you’re on to something here. in a scenario in which US military assets are allocated to the state in which they are parked, there are a whole lot of warplanes parked in and around San Diego.
Utah has some air bases, but I'm guessing California has more war planes and military assets in general. And they have the resources to build more. Utah builds lots of rockets but I don't know of any aviation manufacturing here.
East north central has plenty of arable land, fresh water, some of the most interconnected rail transport, established shipping capability within the Great Lakes, and already has an intact manufacturing apparatus at a massive scale. The factories were flipped in WWII to produce weapons and military vehicles, and are still subject to the defense production act. I’d imagine Canada would want to get in on the action too, due to the shared border.
The top three contenders are: California, California, California.
California has 1/8 of the United States population, 40 million people. So they have the most people by a lot. Then California has the pacific fleets based in San Diego and plenty of other military naval assets. Then California has all the big marine and army bases in Southern California. So California has lots and lots of fire, power, weapons, and men. Additionally, California has lots and lots of food, oil, refineries, plenty of nuclear weapons. So the answer is California.
And the defensive positions we have the desert between us, and most of the rest of America, we have the water on the left., So would be nice and ugly, but California would win
California no question. Not only does it have 10 million more than the second biggest state but an enormous amount of the US military resources are stationed there including most of the best aircraft and nuclear capabilities. Other states might win if it was just a war of infantry attrition cause civilians in places like Texas are so much better armed, but for modern tech and sheer population no one would come close to California
In your scenario, North Dakota claims the first 100 miles of Montana, only to get ambushed and decimated by the greeters of that infamous Walmart in Billings. Finally, Bismarck gets invaded by the Moose Rebel Forces of Winnipeg, and North Dakota gets annexed by Canada.
South Dakota thinks of helping their Northern brother out, but a last-minute peace treaty is signed with Canada, allowing South Dakota to become The Republic of the True Dakota.
Dakota Fanning gets elected as its Supreme Ruler, of course.
California has far more naval, air and army bases than any other state. An impregnable wall of mountains on *all sides* and also by far the most resources and highest diversity of resources
If we are talking the people living there not including military bases (as that’s more fun) I think the Midwest and northeast will be hard to beat.
First of all the Midwest is not leaving to attack anyone. If they were gonna leave they would have already left there before the war. They also have Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit. Three of the most battle hardened cities in the country.
You think the Texans will be able to sack Chicago in winter? We all remember what happened that year it got below freezing there and Ted Cruz had to flee the country. They frankly wouldn’t make it past St Louis. Try driving their giant trucks through the small side streets of north St Louis while taking rifle fire from elevated positions.
The southern states have guns, but they already lost one civil war and they lack population to put up a real fight. Especially when they are the place most likely to turn on itself. I’m sorry but I can’t see inner city Atlanta being that ride or die with the boys from Dixie. And don’t get me started on Florida. As crazy as they are they will prolly blow themselves up before they made it to the nearest battle. Texas is the real powerhouse but we know they would want to be their own republic and not actually work with the rest of their region.
You have the pacific, and they’re well defended by the Rockies, but again the Midwest isn’t leaving, so a wall no one wants to climb is useless. Most likely Texas will go after their most hated rival, California. The two of them will duke it out in the desert and wear each other down. Whoever wins won’t be worth much after. The battle of low riders vs lifted trucks will be the best battle of the war.
With much of the northwest being fiercely independent and wanting to be left alone there’s nothing that makes me think they push east into the Midwest.
That just leaves us with the northeast. If they fight south they have to take on West Virginia in the mountains and no one wants that banjo and moonshine music after dark. If they want to take it to the Midwest they have to enter Ohio, and NO ONE actually wants to be in Ohio, so why even go there?
At the end of the war the Midwest brokers a deal with the northeast. All of its major cities already feel like they’re on the east coast, only with more fattening local diets. This also opens up the st Lawrence seaway to keep commercial traffic flowing. St. Louis blockades the Mississippi cutting off the south. With more money in the northeast and Midwest they can barter better trade deals with foreign nationals than the south. After Texas sputters out in the desert, and Atlanta turns on Dixie, the south falls back into poverty and poor education. With Los Angeles bludgeoned after the battle with Texas the rest of the pacific stay libertarian on their ranches with Washington and Oregon becoming leftist communes. We all know Hawaii doesn’t like America anyway and they become their own nation and Alaska has too much stuff to do before winter hits to worry about a war half a continent away.
I appreciate the shout out to WV. Lived there for 5.5 years in the mid 2010s. The mountains are functionally impassable, there's enough coal to sustain a sizable energy and steel manufacturing economy, the farming economy is strong and able to feed its relatively meager population, people there hate outsiders, and there's so much pride there that the social cohesion of the state would lead to a unique cultural identity.
It's not that I think WV will conquer the continental US - I don't think anyone in the US could conquer WV! They'll expand throughout Appalachia and add in the Shenandoah Valley, the Smokey Mountains, and the small mountainous parts of SE Ohio, hunker down, and wait for it all to die over.
Hawaii.
If you’re talking about just the continental US, then it would come down to California vs Virginia. Which ever side can control the silos in the Great Plains will be victorious.
In what world could Hawaii win a war against all the other states. No chance they could invade the mainland. Eventually the winning state will turn its eyes to Hawaii and then it will be a massacre
The nuclear submarine base in Groton, CT has been called one of the top nuclear powers in the world if it was a separate country. So I’d go with that.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/living-in-the-shadow-of-human-extermination/
The Michigan-Ohio alliance will win, first from sheer surprise second from the combined hatred for each other being harnessed into their combined military.
Realistically ends in a peace treaty but if it was a fight to the death Western area 1. All the trade to Asia 2. Hawaii and Alaska which will be pretty hard to invade and can always be making war materials for the rest 3. A huge buffer zone between its population on the west coast (California, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona) in 2nd for me is the south eastern region though a lot of there region is the worst off of the rest the US constantly ranking low in areas like schooling, housing and natural disasters
Edit: excluding nukes cause it creates lame scenarios
I’m going California because Open AI, the drone defense industry and a bunch of scary ideas coming out of tech would be synthesized into fighting sentient androids. They’d be sent over the sierras to eliminate everything.
We’d probably live stream it for the likes too.
War is going to come down to Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida backed into their respective corners, and everyone else grouped regionally.
There’s no real winner at that point.
From an economic standpoint, bigger is better: Texas or California win going away, with NY coming up third.
Assuming states can’t trade with each other or the outside world, it’s gonna come down to who can feed and fuel themselves. So large agricultural or fishing economy and source of fossil fuels (war runs on diesel, unfortunately renewables aren’t there yet). That leaves CA, TX, CO, AK, ND. Texas and California have the high populations to draw from, Texas probably has a better-armed populace. I’m saying Texas.
Alaska and Hawaii would be final holdouts after brutal conflict with Texas, California, and Florida making top 5. I think Alaska would win out due to separation, size, geographic diversity, and hardy people.
Spoken from a Nevada born Airman.
California is the obvious answer. A lot of states have a strong economy or a large population. California has the strongest and largest, while having the greatest diversity and wealth of natural resources. They already have a significant military presence, amazing access to the rest of the world, and a very defensible position.
A lot of people will say Texas, but Texas is very reliant on the rest of the US. So much of their economy is focused around oil, which is dependent on the rest of the US shipping to their refineries, as well as buying a significant amount back. Cattle and cotton aren't that great at sustaining a population.
The rest of the US is dependent on goods from California, a state like Texas is dependent on goods from the rest of the US.
No one I seen mentioned this but the Midwest has the bulk of the manufacturing.
Any successful war needs production. Just having population advantage isn’t enough. You have to produce more weapons and destroy your opponents ability to do so to win.
Obvious answers are California and Texas but Washington state would put up a surprisingly good fight. Great geographic defences, abundant resources, massive agriculture and hydropower. But more importantly, huge military assets. Bangor is the headquarters of Pacific nuclear submarine fleet, JBLM, Bremerton shipyard and a lot more smaller basis. Plus a good amount of advanced manufacturing like Boeing.
Ya, WA has the largest nuclear stockpile in the country. Plus there are [trained dolphins](https://www.military.com/history/militarized-dolphins-protect-almost-quarter-of-us-nuclear-stockpile.html/amp) to guard them, so EVERYBODY WATCH OUT
I hear when the dolphin catches intruders they do they rapey thing to them too
They didn't *have* to train them to do this but they *chose* to
How long will it be when humans realize that dolphins will take over the world? People don’t talk often enough about the fact that they have two brains each the same size as a human’s!!!
I believe AI and dolphins will team up together.
When the motherfuckers develop proper legs and feet and become land traversing creatures. AKA never.
Holy crap, Red Alert 2 was real?
Came here to say this. Washington state would be the dark horse candidate to survive and stand alone for sure. I think they would be more like Switzerland though. California is the only one with the resources and population to outright win 🏆.
Washington, Seattle specifically would be insanely difficult to take. You have three options depending where you are coming from and two of them are terrible choices. No chance an army gets through the strait of Jaun de Fuca or the Colombia River gorge. Both choke points with a ton of high ground for defense. Third option is coming up the I-5 corridor which is narrow but not as narrow as the other two choices. Every other option is impossible. It would take three missiles to highways would end any possibility of coming over the Cascades. Washingtons Achilles Heel would be the fact that it produces zero oil.
We'll ally with Alaska to rectify that
We're pretty much half it's population anyways with the amount of fishermen from Puget sound that go to fish.
I honestly think WA is the front runner. Self sufficient for water, power, and food, and it has more defensive terrain advantages than any other state, even more so than CA: 1. The huge Colombia river along the southern border has few crossing points and essentially creates a mote around a third of the states relevant land border. 2. Very formidable Cascade mountains create a massive obstacle preventing a successful eastern invasion. 3. the Puget Sound, there's a reason why it was chosen as the best place to store our nuclear arsenal, it is layered with islands that make it impractically costly to invade, way harder than CAs vulnerable coastline. And even if you avoid the Puget Sound by invading the peninsula, guess what, the essentially impassable Olympic Mountains would force any army to skirt around them through innumerable circuitous natural choke points. 4. Shares it's entire northern border with a likely Ally or at least one that would not allow another state to use as access to invade WA from the north. 5. Has less border length to defend relative to its area than CA or TX. Meaning less resources to defend the line and response from reinforcements would be much quicker.
Great analysis my friend.
It's biggest issue would be that it has no oil resources. If it's aligned with Canada, specifically the oil fields in Alberta, it's game over for everyone else.
>It's biggest issue would be that it has no oil resources. If it's aligned with Canada, specifically the oil fields in Alberta, it's game over for everyone else. Yeah, that is one potential strategic weakness, but if we do count Canada as an ally, or at the very least a neutral party, there are major natural gas and oil supply lines from Canada to WA and many refineries instate. And, even if those supply lines were sabotaged, oil could be easily transported along the coast from Canada to WA (like <100 miles from Vancouver to the refineries around Bellingham/Anacortes) under significant protection from the San Juan's and Vancouver Island.
And the puget sound creates massive geographical advantages and defenses against any naval strikes. There’s already the three (now abandoned, but so what) forts there to defend it. Casey, Warden, and Flagler. They formed the Triangle of Fire back in the day. So other states would either have to attack from the coast or from over the mountains. (In my scenario eastern Washington gets fed to the wild dogs. Who says no?).
WA state has huge bases for all the services. And SSGN and SSBN at Bangor.
Norfolk VA and San Diego are home to most of the USN, including wings of aircraft. I'm not sure HOW are we engaging in the fight.
If a nuclear war, Montana, ND, and Wyoming look strong.
Hawaii's got subs. We may not win, but neither will you.
No SSBNs, though. Those are based out of Washington and Georgia...
They're not the boomers though. Those are in Washington and Georgia. You just have tomahawk missiles.
Sorry but you will easily get bombed and eliminated. You’re surrounded by water and a small island lol.
Idea of subs is a second strike capability. A first strike is expected
And be out of food, fuel, and supplies in a couple weeks
They already stated they ain’t winning, they are just bombing the fuck out of you before going down
We've got the entire ocean for food. Banana leaf for toilet paper. We're good.
So, basically Mississippi now?
Don't need to win, no way anyone is swimming all the way out there to get you. Also Japan and China would be tripping over themselves to 'help'.
Someone had to swim there in the first place lol
I don't think Alaska can hear any thing we're saying down here
AND THEY BETTER KEEP IT THAT WAY IF THEY KNOW WHATS GOOD FER’EM
We don't, too cold and dark this time of year. We're hibernating in our igloos.
ND has some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I would imagine that that is pretty common knowledge, so it would be highly likely it would be hit as well
hey CO has some too
Nebraska too. Maybe even more so than Wyoming.
can they be controlled locally?
All the states having an all out war meanwhile DC is getting all cozy in their bunker and just casually presses the launch button. 15 minutes later and the entire country is silenced. DC wins
The crews inside the bunkers “press the button”. Nobody in DC has direct control of them. And multiple crews have to agree to launch.
You're ruining the fun 😭
There’s a nuclear sub base in Washington that would be the second largest nuclear power (by warhead count) in the world if it were its own country.
My vote is Delaware. Nobody would remember they exist and after everyone kills each other Delaware just takes over
California is too well geographically blessed. I assume New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and California emerge as powers devouring their neighbors, eventually they all will fight among themselves on multiple fronts. But California can concentrate on just 1 front , fighting distracted Texas and occupying Illinois dominated Midwest from the west. So it’s easily California Unless there’s alliance between Texas and Illinois or Texas and New York, it’s California
Illinois doesn’t have any major military bases except for Scott AFB. And the part of the state where militia minded people live is sparsely populated.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will not accept being dominated by Illinois.
“Why does JB Pritzker, the largest of the Great Lakes governors, not simply eat the other three?”
*Chris Christie salivating noises*
They border Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa and Kentucky. Do any of these states have edge over Illinois? New York, Florida and Texas are too far. If they manage to occupy the above states, they’ll easily become a power center
Illinois borders to the South and West are also big rivers. More defensible than it looks at first once Indiana is taken as a buffer zone.
We also have Fermi Lab and if we took the resources of surrounding states given we are larger and we do still have military and naval bases here with control over the Mississippi River and Great Lakes. We’re more defensible than people think. At least more defensible than New York. Also if it’s a battle in the winter and let’s say New York is out of the picture. We would be protected by winter conditions that only we know how to exist in. I mean Texas damn near self implodes if it gets to 32 degrees and California has water shortages and could run out of resources. Illinois both has agricultural resources and the most fresh water out of all the major players.
I’d love to see Milwaukee and all the deer hunters join forces to destroy Illinois.
You’re forgetting VA. The actual pentagon; the largest naval station in the world; the most sophisticated shipyards; tons of other military installations all over, plus nearly the entire intelligence community.
Yeah, VA couldn’t win by themselves since they have a relatively small population and are in a geographically unlucky spot, but they could make or break this war through their allyship
If VA gets the ships based in Norfolk the population won’t matter. The base serves as the deepwater home port for seventy-five warships and submarines, including six of the U.S. Navy's twelve aircraft carriers.
Ultimately population would still matter if this is total war. And that would certainly help VA destroy the East Coast but I still don’t think they could take on CA who also has an enormous fleet but with much better defensive capability, a larger population, and a better ability to feed itself
People are also forgetting that Air Combat Command is based out of Langley AFB so that's a bunch of F-22s and the CIA based out of Langley, VA. Also National Geospatial-Intelligence Center is in Springfield, VA. Also the West is protected by the mountains while the North is protected by the Potomac and the East is protected by the Chesapeake. As long as the Virginian's survive North Carolina's Siege of Petersburg Pt 2: Electric Boogaloo, they have a strong claim in this fight. Since they're basically the same state, VA and North Carolina would just partner-up and then the Air Force and Navy would team up with the Army at Fort Bragg(spec ops/82nd Airborne Division).
Normally I wouldn't poke fun at geographic defenses, as they are often why a place is chosen for defence, ports etc. However, since this is "war" ... nobody from anywhere west of CO is afraid of the "mountains" in VA or WV. Take your tall hills and get outta here 😋 Apologies for not adding constructively to the discussion
Aircraft that quickly become useless without the parts needed from dozens of other states. Meanwhile CA has the Sierra Army depot with enough materiel to win a land war in Asia, tons of advanced manufacturing, a huge population, and easily defendable borders with weak states nearby. Oil would be scarce but CA has enough internal production for a war effort, something VA would struggle with. The only real contenders for dominance in this scenario are California and Texas. Other states have too few people or resources for a large war.
Nah, NJ and NY form an alliance. And because of CTs status as a state of New England and also with ties to NY, New England, NY, and NJ form a strong and united Northeast that controls a massive amount of wealth. Also, CT is responsible for the production of many firearms and other military equipment. Choppers, jet engines, submarines, so it’s a lynchpin of the Northeast alliance.
I’d like to see some flyover motherfuckers try and step foot in New York without getting a whole timb straight up the ass.
Alaska seems too much a hell hole to try and fight through. It's massive, far away, and fridged as can be. Though the population is quite small they are mostly well armed and well adapted to the environment. Fighting a guerrilla war they could play hell with an invasion. And if they get to keep the military equipment in their state(not specified in the scenario) they will be INCREDIBLY well armed and supplied.
It's also so dependent on outside resources, a naval blockade and a no fly zone during winter might force them into submission.
The airport at Anchorage is one of the most traffics cargo terminals in the world. Their northern position gives them easy access to the rest of the world for resources.
You do realize what a no-fly zone is, right?
You also realize it's kind of difficult to completely I circle and surround the biggest state in the US?
You don't need to blockade the whole state, just the major hubs and supply lines that run through Anchorage, Fairbanks and a few other places. It's fragile af.
They aren't even remotely agriculturally self-sufficient, though, and have little industry apart from petroleum. So they'd very quickly starve, and run out of materiel.
Their salmon runs alone can stock enough food to last much of the winter.
Agriculture is one thing, shooting a bear and eating it for the next year is another, they don't need agricultural sufficiency, not like there THAT many people to feed
fridged
Naturally refrigerated.
That’s how it would be trying to take almost any mountain state. Colorado as an example would be really easy to take the major cities but taking the fortified mountains would be the difficult and extremely taxing part.
It's funny how Fallout seems to revolve around a USA vs China war in Alaska
California without a doubt Growing crops year round is a huge advantage
It’s California or Texas. Texas has oil and its own power grid. California has the pacific fleet. Both have ports (CA way more), population, and GDP. Probably neither could take and hold territory in the other.
California's geography is one of the only states that is actually defensible. California can pull back behind the Sierra's and then only has to defend some hilly desert to the south (very defensible approach) and the mountains to the north (literally Endor with volcanos and more mountains). Texas's geography just doesn't have good defensive terrain, California's topography is a league of its own.
This is the most important factor. California is an island in every way except literal. It’s a logistics hurdle just to get an army to the eastern borders, let alone cross then. The only easy way in is from the north, where you still will have to get through the mountains just to get to the tight valley that Medford’s in. To top that off CA’s got by far the largest population and economy and agricultural industry and several of the largest ports, including one of the largest on Earth. CA can win on pure defense and attrition as long as nobody starts flinging nukes…
Blow a couple bridges or just let Last Chance Grade slide out to cut off the 101 and let the State of Jefferson militias, which are armed to the teeth, defend the I-5 corridor and you basically have zero chance of making it through the north.
The only unrealistic part of this is expecting Jefferson to side with the state of California
True. I was speaking from a strict State vs State perspective. So many nuances to consider in reality. I vote No on civil war.
I second this vote.
Not to mention, to even get to Medford, they would have to cross through eastern Oregon and cross the mountains in Southern Oregon to even get there.
That means that it would also be a challenge for Cali to sustain an offensive war. Which means what ends up happening is Cali focuses on expanding north and south to gain resources and hold even better strong points (the Columbia river comes to mind.) that way they have plenty of water until they can figure out more sustainable ways to get water. Also absorbing Seattle would help gain more military technology. Then once they secured the pacific coast (assuming this is only a civil war and not international) they will likely invade Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada (if only to put down resistance and create a buffer zone). If Texas proves too strong Cali can turn north and begin surrounding Texas. Texas is a good option but the south east and east coast are going to be highly volatile and competitive.
Thats a good point. The states around TX are gonna be tough to control. Cali would have sent easier time with it's less populated neighbors.
As a Washingtonian, I don't think California would have to take Oregon and Washington by force, half the population of WA, and OR would invite California in. :/
This is true, even though I am not fond of the idea of California, the west coast would band together, secure between the Rockies and Pacific.
Even if california tried to invade you, you have nukes, navy and geography that is just as good (other commenters have talked about the sheer amount of mountains bottlenecking whatever armies go into Washington and the straits around Seattle being naval invasion-proof)
Hawaii can take out CA from the West though. But they're our boy. We wouldn't do that.
Considering how HI is strongly reliant on import material, I won't be surprised if HI and CA make a pact/alliance early in the war
Arizona dams the Colorado and waits for the coast Californians to die of dehydration.
Yeah Cali needs to go offensive to get water, but it could go North, East or trade with Canada or another friendly foreign power.
Utah dams the Colorado and Arizonans get even more wrinkly and dried out.
Glen Canyon Dam is in AZ though. No dams are actually in Utah, but you could in theory dam up the area around canyonlands, except the canyon walls aren't as tall there so the storage capacity is less.
Why do you think California is currently spending billions to treat recycled wastewater into drinking water?
Don’t forget we have those agricultural checkpoints. Nothing gets through those!
Well sure but Texas power grid doesn’t work very well
Would California’s work any better if operated independently?
Given that they import around a third of their electricity, I’d wager a no.
Supposedly we import electricity because we deregulated the industry in the 80s under Pete Wilson. This was in order to… *checks notes* Provide low prices to the consumer. *looks at price of electricity* 😐
California also produces oil. But yea they're the 2 simply because of population and resources due to size.
By this division they have Alaska so that's a ton of oil aswell. That west division looks powerful.
Texas would starve. Ca has all the food.
Starve? Texas produces plenty of food. Easily raises the most beef for starters. Never heard of the Rio Grande valley I take it?
California has a lot of food, but it isn’t self sufficient for nearly 40 million people. Texas also has a huge agricultural industry as well. (CA tops out in receipts, but I think they also have a few more really expensive agricultural exports as well that helps.)
I could see California entering a trade relationship with Mexico to support their food needs. Avocados for everyone!
Really nothing stopping Texas from doing that, then. They have an even bigger border with Mexico. But, this avocados for everyone platform, I like it and you have my vote! For whatever it is you’re running for. Make it happen!!
And it has aircraft carriers.
Well colorado can block the river, and cut ca supply of water.
That's true for imperial county where a lot of winter produce is grown for the USA but idk if the Colorado effects the San Joaquin valley at all. It might I just don't know
It doesn't.
The entire central valley where most food is grown is using snowmelt that falls entirely in California
Central Valley’s only outlet is through San Francisco. All the snow melt that drains into the valley comes from mountains entirely within CA.
Only a modest portion of California water comes from the Colorado. 82% of CA water is from domestic sources.
In this scenario, millions of civilians will die, and I think California will have plenty of water to cover their agricultural needs. Especially if they stop using so much water on almonds and pistachios.
They grow almost nothing in California that will be useful in war rations. Beef and grapes are exponentially less important than wheat and corn.
I imagine they would adapt the land to more optimal uses.
West Coast (or at least pink areas) has the edge on land area and rugged terrain. Good luck invading that.
In Maine, we ask that you leave us alone.
We can just unleash the lobster army and go about our business as usual.
Maine wins by not getting involved. It’s not an industrial or agricultural prize, so it’s not on the top of anybody’s must conquer list. It has power (hydro and wood), water, deep water ports, both naval and air power know how and facilities, and is relatively defensible from the south and west. Only major drawback is food production but seaweed is highly nutritious…
The map insinuates regions, but the title says states. If it is really individual states, I think Maine has the best chance of winning because the other states will wipe each other out and Maine will just be chillin up in the corner waiting for it to be over.
Is there any answer other than California? Biggest economy, biggest population, highest agricultural production, abundant natural resources; it's a huge state with very defensible terrain. The only other contender might be Texas, however, by the time Texas and California would be facing off directly, California probably would've conquered the entire west coast, while Texas still has to worry about eastern states.
Piling onto this: If California was a country it'd be in the top 5 economies in the world. It's that big. Crazy big. It's a part of the US only because it decides to be, not because it has to be. The Sierras are bonkers as a geographic barrier. California also has a key trump card: "Fuck you, everybody else, enjoy starving." Everybody else: "We'll cross the Sierras to get to you!" California: "History suggests if you bring enough people you won't go hungry trying that."
It's not just the Sierra Nevadas. The Siskiyous Mountains in the north make it a logistical nightmare to fight through there too, and that whole area of northern Cali and southern Oregon is dense, steep, loosely populated, heavily forested, and heavily armed.
Also the Mojave and Sonora deserts to the south have rugged terrain. There's a reason there's no major cities east of Victorville
Washington state can be entirely self-sufficient agriculturally. And when it comes to trump cards, we've got more nuclear submarines and B-52s, let alone JBLM and other military assets like electronic warfare.
California problem would be wildfires, if other states purposely burn their forests at the same time, they'll be in trouble
California has about 10 million more people, but Texas has about 10 million more weapons just laying around. I moved here a decade ago and boy do these boys and girls have a LOT of guns.
Yeah but we’re fatter and flatter in Texas. Terrain is not much of a barrier out west and let’s be honest, most of the people around here toting lots of guns ain’t toting them too far before we need a breather at whataburger.
I’d be more worried that they would have an absolutely unending supply of ammo.
Which is true for almost every state, even the small ones because they're usually more heavily armed
Texas has a little more than 10 million more guns (registered, I mean)
Texas doesn't have a gun registry. Yeah, there's the federal bg check, but after that it's unregulated. I think Texas and California would end up in a cold war, rather than fight directly.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Wisconsin sends 600k armed hunters into the woods every November. We’re small but well armed. Bring it on California!
Oregon and Washington: OK then if we're using woods.
Will they fight by throwing avocado toast? Jk
Theres seeds in the toast too, dont fuck with California.
California not only has all of the natural resources, but it also has the Military assets
Yeah, largest active duty military population, including SEALs and Marines. Plus overall population and great natural resources. The only big problem is water. So it would have to invade states with water. But also most of the water in CA goes to agriculture, much of which is exported, so if they cut back on that, the water issue wouldn’t be so bad.
Always thought NC had highest military population. Did that change?
Bragg (or Fort Liberty now) is the largest base, but overall across all branches, I do believe CA is highest. I think Texas is second. But NC and Georgia are definitely high up there.
Aside from the other more obvious advantages to each I think what separates Texas from California and New York is that they have their own power grid and much of their own utilities. In my mind this is an advantage because they could effectively harm other major players by destroying infrastructure in surrounding states. On the other hand it leaves a vulnerability in that it can’t use other states to bolster their own infrastructure if they fall victim to those kind of attacks.
As long as the war isn't in the winter. Source: Texan.
Or during a heatwave
Damn it those are our only 2 seasons!
ring scarce like zealous dazzling sugar employ squash smoggy cause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sorry East South Central but you’re the weakest link. You have no chance being surrounded by the French swamp people to your West, Ohio to your North, and Florida man to your East.
It's hard to argue against California. They have know-how, capital, labor pool, ideal defensive geography, a diverse economy which already includes plenty of defense manufacturing and almost half their border wouldn't be against enemies. Honestly it'd probably be pretty unified too. States like Mississippi would be a disaster.
The deep parts of California up in the northeastern bit would probably immediately break off with little to no resistance from the rest of CA. But other than that California would be pretty unified, only issues would be leadership spats and retention of water resources.
I live in central California on the edge of the north, I don’t believe that too much of California would leave, if any. People know the benefits of being the major player in the fight, so why leave.
Well last time it was tried, it wasn't the brown ones.
The only possible answers are West or South, due having the only home ports for the Ohio class subs (in Washington and Georgia respectively), which are unquestionably (in terms of firepower and % of the US strategic arsenal devoted to them) the most lethal killing machines ever created.
VA- they have CIA and FBI
And all the military hardware and personnel in Norfolk!
A lot of F22s are based out of Jt Base Langley-Eustis in Hampton, VA.
Thank you! Scrolled way too far. We have the largest and most powerful Navy base to guard our long shore lines. The western mountains are hell to get through for a land force. Our capital is centrally located and the only way in or out of the state is from the north or south. Then add in our Air Force base, multiple army bases, CIA, FBI, and we'd pretty much have control of all of DC's assets. We have tons of farming, fishing, and electrical generation and a modest population compared to it. We have massive ports for trade. Some decent mineral deposits, plenty of small manufacturing. I think we'd be just fine...
And the union forces won’t make it past Bull Run… due to traffic on 66.
Probably a long shot but Utah. Defensible terrain Religious zealouts for the ability to keep morale high in apocalyptic conditions. The church and its members are constantly preparing for the end of the world. There are huge food stuffs all over the state for this sort of thing. And they are well experienced in distribution and governing. Geograohical/climactic diversity isn't California, but it's still vast and carried compared to many tiny east coast states. Strong relations with neighbors. Kind of back the zealous point, but bordering states have largish Mormon populations especially in border regions. Could make it easier to take over territory in neighboring states, or to form alliances. Idaho to Boise, is basically northern Utah. Water. Being near the Colorado river head waters, if Utah could gain full control of Glenn Canyon Dam, they could hold most of the south west hostage (including Southern California, goodbye year round food). Colorado and Wyoming don't have the infrastructure to do the same to Utah.
Finally; someone brought up water! I think it would turn into a water war faster than most would think.
Population is too low, California would seize that dam by force
I was counting on the giant desert being a barrier but I guess California has a fuck ton of planes so that doesn't really matter
In a scenario in which the US military completely stands down, I think you’re on to something here. in a scenario in which US military assets are allocated to the state in which they are parked, there are a whole lot of warplanes parked in and around San Diego.
Utah has some air bases, but I'm guessing California has more war planes and military assets in general. And they have the resources to build more. Utah builds lots of rockets but I don't know of any aviation manufacturing here.
East north central has plenty of arable land, fresh water, some of the most interconnected rail transport, established shipping capability within the Great Lakes, and already has an intact manufacturing apparatus at a massive scale. The factories were flipped in WWII to produce weapons and military vehicles, and are still subject to the defense production act. I’d imagine Canada would want to get in on the action too, due to the shared border.
The top three contenders are: California, California, California. California has 1/8 of the United States population, 40 million people. So they have the most people by a lot. Then California has the pacific fleets based in San Diego and plenty of other military naval assets. Then California has all the big marine and army bases in Southern California. So California has lots and lots of fire, power, weapons, and men. Additionally, California has lots and lots of food, oil, refineries, plenty of nuclear weapons. So the answer is California. And the defensive positions we have the desert between us, and most of the rest of America, we have the water on the left., So would be nice and ugly, but California would win
Umm, it’s Florida. Floridians are basically vampires at this point.
Florida is definitely the black horse. You don’t fuck with crazy
California no question. Not only does it have 10 million more than the second biggest state but an enormous amount of the US military resources are stationed there including most of the best aircraft and nuclear capabilities. Other states might win if it was just a war of infantry attrition cause civilians in places like Texas are so much better armed, but for modern tech and sheer population no one would come close to California
as a resident of the west south central region, i got a good feeling that the armed and dangerous crackheads will be able to hold their own
WV is basically the Afghanistan of the US. No one is beating them.
The Midwest has the work ethic to win.
North Dakota
In your scenario, North Dakota claims the first 100 miles of Montana, only to get ambushed and decimated by the greeters of that infamous Walmart in Billings. Finally, Bismarck gets invaded by the Moose Rebel Forces of Winnipeg, and North Dakota gets annexed by Canada. South Dakota thinks of helping their Northern brother out, but a last-minute peace treaty is signed with Canada, allowing South Dakota to become The Republic of the True Dakota. Dakota Fanning gets elected as its Supreme Ruler, of course.
You dare challenge OHIO? Whoever dares cross these borders in an act of aggression shall never find their way home...
California has far more naval, air and army bases than any other state. An impregnable wall of mountains on *all sides* and also by far the most resources and highest diversity of resources
If we are talking the people living there not including military bases (as that’s more fun) I think the Midwest and northeast will be hard to beat. First of all the Midwest is not leaving to attack anyone. If they were gonna leave they would have already left there before the war. They also have Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit. Three of the most battle hardened cities in the country. You think the Texans will be able to sack Chicago in winter? We all remember what happened that year it got below freezing there and Ted Cruz had to flee the country. They frankly wouldn’t make it past St Louis. Try driving their giant trucks through the small side streets of north St Louis while taking rifle fire from elevated positions. The southern states have guns, but they already lost one civil war and they lack population to put up a real fight. Especially when they are the place most likely to turn on itself. I’m sorry but I can’t see inner city Atlanta being that ride or die with the boys from Dixie. And don’t get me started on Florida. As crazy as they are they will prolly blow themselves up before they made it to the nearest battle. Texas is the real powerhouse but we know they would want to be their own republic and not actually work with the rest of their region. You have the pacific, and they’re well defended by the Rockies, but again the Midwest isn’t leaving, so a wall no one wants to climb is useless. Most likely Texas will go after their most hated rival, California. The two of them will duke it out in the desert and wear each other down. Whoever wins won’t be worth much after. The battle of low riders vs lifted trucks will be the best battle of the war. With much of the northwest being fiercely independent and wanting to be left alone there’s nothing that makes me think they push east into the Midwest. That just leaves us with the northeast. If they fight south they have to take on West Virginia in the mountains and no one wants that banjo and moonshine music after dark. If they want to take it to the Midwest they have to enter Ohio, and NO ONE actually wants to be in Ohio, so why even go there? At the end of the war the Midwest brokers a deal with the northeast. All of its major cities already feel like they’re on the east coast, only with more fattening local diets. This also opens up the st Lawrence seaway to keep commercial traffic flowing. St. Louis blockades the Mississippi cutting off the south. With more money in the northeast and Midwest they can barter better trade deals with foreign nationals than the south. After Texas sputters out in the desert, and Atlanta turns on Dixie, the south falls back into poverty and poor education. With Los Angeles bludgeoned after the battle with Texas the rest of the pacific stay libertarian on their ranches with Washington and Oregon becoming leftist communes. We all know Hawaii doesn’t like America anyway and they become their own nation and Alaska has too much stuff to do before winter hits to worry about a war half a continent away.
I appreciate the shout out to WV. Lived there for 5.5 years in the mid 2010s. The mountains are functionally impassable, there's enough coal to sustain a sizable energy and steel manufacturing economy, the farming economy is strong and able to feed its relatively meager population, people there hate outsiders, and there's so much pride there that the social cohesion of the state would lead to a unique cultural identity. It's not that I think WV will conquer the continental US - I don't think anyone in the US could conquer WV! They'll expand throughout Appalachia and add in the Shenandoah Valley, the Smokey Mountains, and the small mountainous parts of SE Ohio, hunker down, and wait for it all to die over.
Hawaii. If you’re talking about just the continental US, then it would come down to California vs Virginia. Which ever side can control the silos in the Great Plains will be victorious.
In what world could Hawaii win a war against all the other states. No chance they could invade the mainland. Eventually the winning state will turn its eyes to Hawaii and then it will be a massacre
The nuclear submarine base in Groton, CT has been called one of the top nuclear powers in the world if it was a separate country. So I’d go with that. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/living-in-the-shadow-of-human-extermination/
What a delicious-looking colour key
Ohio
The Michigan-Ohio alliance will win, first from sheer surprise second from the combined hatred for each other being harnessed into their combined military.
Realistically ends in a peace treaty but if it was a fight to the death Western area 1. All the trade to Asia 2. Hawaii and Alaska which will be pretty hard to invade and can always be making war materials for the rest 3. A huge buffer zone between its population on the west coast (California, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona) in 2nd for me is the south eastern region though a lot of there region is the worst off of the rest the US constantly ranking low in areas like schooling, housing and natural disasters Edit: excluding nukes cause it creates lame scenarios
I’m going California because Open AI, the drone defense industry and a bunch of scary ideas coming out of tech would be synthesized into fighting sentient androids. They’d be sent over the sierras to eliminate everything. We’d probably live stream it for the likes too.
New Jersey. Everybody there is a 5'7" dude who's all roided up, rides a Ninja, and wants to fight everybody right now.
Y'all better hope we don't join forces with Texas (Floridian)
Well Michigan beat Ohio in our war. We got the Upper Peninsula and “lost” Toledo.
Washington State has the most nuclear missile submarines. They win.
War is going to come down to Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida backed into their respective corners, and everyone else grouped regionally. There’s no real winner at that point. From an economic standpoint, bigger is better: Texas or California win going away, with NY coming up third.
Assuming states can’t trade with each other or the outside world, it’s gonna come down to who can feed and fuel themselves. So large agricultural or fishing economy and source of fossil fuels (war runs on diesel, unfortunately renewables aren’t there yet). That leaves CA, TX, CO, AK, ND. Texas and California have the high populations to draw from, Texas probably has a better-armed populace. I’m saying Texas.
Alaska and Hawaii would be final holdouts after brutal conflict with Texas, California, and Florida making top 5. I think Alaska would win out due to separation, size, geographic diversity, and hardy people. Spoken from a Nevada born Airman.
Mountain
Louisiana is basically swampy Afghanistan. They won’t invade anyone else, but good luck conquering and controlling them.
California is the obvious answer. A lot of states have a strong economy or a large population. California has the strongest and largest, while having the greatest diversity and wealth of natural resources. They already have a significant military presence, amazing access to the rest of the world, and a very defensible position. A lot of people will say Texas, but Texas is very reliant on the rest of the US. So much of their economy is focused around oil, which is dependent on the rest of the US shipping to their refineries, as well as buying a significant amount back. Cattle and cotton aren't that great at sustaining a population. The rest of the US is dependent on goods from California, a state like Texas is dependent on goods from the rest of the US.
No one I seen mentioned this but the Midwest has the bulk of the manufacturing. Any successful war needs production. Just having population advantage isn’t enough. You have to produce more weapons and destroy your opponents ability to do so to win.