Which state would win a war between all 50?

K

Krgrecw

**NOT ACTUALLY RACIST
Good, hilarious read on this slow news weekend

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1tgte5/which_us_state_would_win_in_a_war_between_all_50/

[–]ThickSantorum 285 points 7 hours ago

Utah. They'd outbreed everyone else, and radicalize the Mormon church so any invasion would turn into a decades-long, bloody insurgency, with child soldiers and suicide attacks.

[–]nunchuckskillz 61 points 4 hours ago

I like this answer. Utah might not win outright but whoever tried to invade would regret that **** immediately. Utah by fanaticism.

[–]FlowStrong 1549 points 7 hours ago

NC. You could bomb it for a year solid and our infrastructure would be exactly the same.

[–]zillionpie 2553 points 10 hours ago

Alaska. It's so ****ing cold and far away no one would bother attacking them.

[–]THE_GR8_MIKE 794 points 8 hours ago

Hawaii is in the middle of an Ocean, too...

[–]Soyance 1123 points 7 hours ago

A couple bombs and Hawaii is out of the running.

[–]alienelement 882 points 5 hours ago

I'm torn between saying, "Yeah, that's what Japan thought," and, "Yeah, that's what we did to Japan."

[–]The_Mann_In_Black 329 points 9 hours ago*

Minnesota, many say Alaska is cold; but often times Minnesota is colder. Plus Minnesota is as gun crazy as any southern state. The ony real competition is michigan. I believe Minnesota also has missile silos.

[–]kylekornkven 386 points 7 hours ago

Minnesota would win if it came to the enemy invading. Especially in the winter. They would have to contend not only with General Winter, but also Colonel Confusing as **** Highway System and Admiral Goddamn Lakes Everywhere.

That may not have been as clever as it sounded in my head.
 
if i was a betting man

and i am

i would lay money on Texas first

then i would start spread it out

i know which states i love more than others after actually visiting all 50 but my bet in this scenario would start in Texas most likely
 
somewhat of an edit

i am just taking this question as the citizens of each state fighting each other

i didn't factor in each states national bases staying loyal to that state etc

just the private citizens
 
What about Alaska? Who'd have the balls to invade that? My money would be on texas too. How could it not be them.
 
There's a lot of factors. I think Texas would be rolled over pretty easily. It would be one of the tougher non-insane states. I think it's got to be Michigan or Minnesota though. Michigan has the most licensed hunters of any state in the US. Yes more than Texas. SO that's a lot of people who're used to hiding and shooting things from afar. Not to mention they have a whole city chock full of hiding spots since no ones in it.

Minnesota is a miserable place. I think invading Minnesota would be like a mini-march on Russia. Alaska aside from the getting there would be easy. Invade during the summer, almost all of the people like in a relatively small area. Hardest part about them and Hawaii is access. With Alaska you'd have to move from Washington, Oregon or California, or have Canada let you cross on land which I don't know if they would.

A state no one will probably mention is Pennsylvania. There are a few reasons why it would suck to be in a fight with pennsylvania. For starters, it's second or 3rd on registered hunters, they take that **** seriously there. Second it's a large state for the north east. YOu may be used to fast and furious fighting in NJ or Connecticut, then you move on to pennsylvania and it's a snooze fest.
 
Texas would offer all the illegal immigrants citizenship to fight for them.

They'd win based off of numbers.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Texas would offer all the illegal immigrants citizenship to fight for them.

They'd win based off of numbers.
Click to expand...

no kidding.

I would be wary of Illinois/Chicago. Letting all the crooked politicians and their personal armies lose on the nation could be scary. The gangs in the hood have more automatic weapons than you know what do with. A shotgun has no chance against an AK 47 (as long as you can shoot straight).

Plut driving up highway 57 in tanks, you would die of boredom first or hallucinate thinking you are seeing something after hours and hours of corn fields.
 
AerchAngel said:
no kidding.

I would be wary of Illinois/Chicago. Letting all the crooked politicians and their personal armies lose on the nation could be scary. The gangs in the hood have more automatic weapons than you know what do with. A shotgun has no chance against an AK 47 (as long as you can shoot straight).

Plut driving up highway 57 in tanks, you would die of boredom first or hallucinate thinking you are seeing something after hours and hours of corn fields.
Click to expand...

I disagree on the shotgun thing. 00 buck in a 3.5' mag would do cut you to shreds within 80 yards. AK's generally aren't as accurate for a combat weapon. GA has a lot of AR's plus night vision trying to control the hog problem. Plus, we have our fair share of pit bull handlin' gat toters as well.

Plus, GA women would probably want to get in on this as well.
 
Tapate50 said:
I disagree on the shotgun thing. 00 buck in a 3.5' mag would do cut you to shreds within 80 yards. AK's generally aren't as accurate for a combat weapon. GA has a lot of AR's plus night vision trying to control the hog problem. Plus, we have our fair share of pit bull handlin' gat toters as well.

Plus, GA women would probably want to get in on this as well.
Click to expand...

I am not saying an AK is a stronger weapon, shot guns are but you have to reload a lot to kill more humans than a single cartridge AK.
 
I would start in NJ, and invade north. Take out NYC and connecticut fast. Then on the other side go down into delaware. Maryland is a wild card in that scenario. Personally I think PA wouldn't be into invading. If they were I think they'd go to the more rural NY or lock into a battle with Ohio. They don't seem to like each other. If you are NJ and can lock up Deleware NYC and Connecticut you have a hell of a lot of ports for supply and troop runs. I'd also then take the battle to try to take over NH, VT, and Me cause if you have them it will take forever for someone to take you over. If you can take over most of the NE it's all about holding, Take out boston and the rest of NY then slowly work on MD and PA. I would personally if I was running this type of scenario is focus on the east of the Mississippi, if you can take that over you have your victory basically then you can strategically cross the mississippi
 
goldfly said:
after actually visiting all 50
Click to expand...

I'm envious; I still have these seven to go:

Alaska
Oregon
Idaho
Kansas
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Delaware

I have been to four of the ten Canadian provinces as well though—a parallel project of mine.
 
As for the thread's actual topic: Michigan's a good choice. Besides the ample and amply-armed population, there's a lot a lot of terrain in the upper LP and UP where headquarters could really be dug-in, while all the Great Lakes connections and adjoining waterways really give Michiganders a lot of vectors for invasion campaigns across the midwest, the northeast, and even down along the Mississippi once they'd taken Chicago (which they could probably do without direct violent intervention if they just greased the right palms and gears).

Fear the Mitten, I say.
 
I would think NJ, MD, or PA would annex delaware quickly. NJ takes Delaware and cuts PA from from Ocean. Rhode Island or Maine would be better examples of who cares.
 
Why annex that ugly, stretch of earth? Saw nothing remotely endearing about it. Now Maine is another story entirely - beautiful, lobster, scallops, timber, etc.
 
Michigan? Michigan would easily be defeated. Shaped like Florida. You can cut them off at the state line then push them back towards the lakes/ocean. Nowhere to run.
 
BedellBrave said:
Why annex that ugly, stretch of earth? Saw nothing remotely endearing about it. Now Maine is another story entirely - beautiful, lobster, scallops, timber, etc.
Click to expand...

Like I said. access to the Delaware River. NJ could cut off water supplies from one of it's biggest threats.
 
Krgrecw said:
Michigan? Michigan would easily be defeated. Shaped like Florida. You can cut them off at the state line then push them back towards the lakes/ocean. Nowhere to run.
Click to expand...

Then like the Russians when the weather changes to winter and it's cold and snowy they kick the piss out of you.

All states have no where to run, at some point you run out of border. Lets say they face an invasion from Ohio, they have so far that they can retreat then later mount a repelling attack. One of the issues facing Michigan is that they would have a potential supply issue if they're simultaneously invated by say Wisconsin and Ohio. But every state other than Maine, Hawaii and Alaska has that same potential problem.

The states I'd bet on the fastest wipe out though would be after poor little Rhode Island and Delaware, Missouri or Tennessee. Those states simply share too many borders. But then again in the end I'd bet my horse on the state with the most people. California, simply because you can argue anything else under the sun but the one with the most people to die sure has a hell of an advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top