Also who's your pick for winner of the arbitrary 4-way american civil war? Personally I'm hoping for the West, but I'm worried Northeast might sneak victory in when nobody's looking
West has the economy and the defensive geography. It is impossible for them to lose.
the west will balkanize further thos.. it is to diverse .. the desert plateus , the Fjords and giant trees around seattle , california stealing all their water.. Theocracies versus technocracy.. also oregon , maybe somethig about oregon is also special.
I mean yeah the faction is fictional and unlikely but the question is based on if the factions were the above image. West has the strongest geography going for them.
But not as far as shipping. The great lakes facilitated a lot of expansion.
I'd actually argue against this. They have the west coast sure, but their territory is split down the middle by the largest mountain range in the US and deserts. It will be a massive pain in the ass trying to get supplies and troops from the west coast to the interior, especially since I don't think the west has air superiority in this hypothetical scenario.
E) Unless The West has control of the US's Pacific territories, which I don't see why they wouldn't strike out for independence in this situation.
E2) In a prospective conflict, I actually think the west would get pushed back to the rockies by the south/midwest and basically become a merchant republic based out of california with strong ties to China and everybody more or less leaving them alone because at that point it'd be more trouble than it's worth having to sail ships through Panama or whatever.
It's the mountains that I consider to be the thing that makes them so much more defensible than the other factions. They're the faction that is least defeatable at the least.
Is the interior particularly important in the event of a war? Big empty space. As long as what they need to maintain the war effort is placed in more defensive locations it's actually not important territory.
They're the faction that is least defeatable at the least.
This I totally agree with, at a certain point it would just be too much of a pain in the ass to deal with them, hence why I think they'll end up just being a neoliberal hellhole confined to the California valley.
Is the interior particularly important in the event of a war? Big empty space. As long as what they need to maintain the war effort is placed in more defensive locations it's actually not important territory.
Not really aside from fresh water (there is a separate water table east of the Rockies see image below), air bases, and nuclear silos. There's arable land as well but I don't think that's as important considering the breakup. The most important factor probably being the Nuke silos, and aquifer which will get more important as time goes on.
Aquifer and Climate maps of US
Show
Show
not to mention political legitmancy as the central power, control of the militarys assets and the big red button.
whoever could maintain a blockade of the others ports probably.
if I were running one of the breakaway nations, I would try to form a coalition with another one over mutual disdain for texas. decapitate it's leadership, demobilize it's law enforcement, and create a colony on it with displaced people from other areas. heavily arm them and direct them to land / resource / infrastructure grab everything.
with any luck, everybody will be so focused on that shit show, they won't notice that I have used all the gold to build a giant Colossus of myself that shoots flames and lightning bolts.
checkmate.
whoever could maintain a blockade of the others ports probably.
the fate of the midwest rests on whether canada can help us keep the st lawrence seaway open
The mississippi is a lost cause pretty much
I worked at a hotel bar across from a convention center, every group loved talking about how much they could drink, that you'd never seen anyone drink like they could. All these different types of salespeople, annoying for sure. Yeah, I'm sure agricultural equipment sales folks are the best drinkers bud. They were so proud of it, but any dive will have drunker and more entertaining people. Easy to get a rise out of them by saying how much more another group the week earlier had drank.
Anyway, alcoholism is a problem and probably not the victory they're looking for, otherwise this is Utah's game to lose.
Midwest
Under that veil of Minnesota nice beats the heart of some of the most vicious and demonic creatures known to God
NE and West would be the only real contenders as a matter of economic power.
My bet is NE because they would be able to bribe or coerce the midwest into sharing Great lakes water, at which point the clock on the West running out of potable water would be the driving factor behind their surrender.
West>south>midwest>northeast
West is obviously strongest but northeast is literally the smallest in land and population. None of these regions would lack in water, just bad policies, bad infrastructure, them not sharing water wouldn’t even be a factor. There are places on earth where wars have been fought over water, America probably won’t be one of them unless we are talking tens of thousands of years into the future and by then water probably won’t be the biggest concern climate change wise.
America probably won’t be one of them unless we are talking tens of thousands of years into the future and by then water probably won’t be the biggest concern climate change wise
read cadillac desert lol (but i don't think western water would be a deciding factor in <decade long war)
Southerners may have a lot of guns, but they have no where to train for war except indoor gun ranges. Whereas western blue states have a ton of public land, but most of the people there absolutely despise guns despite wanting the police and military to arrest every republican
Show
I mean, historically most civil wars didn’t involve civilians training ahead of time. But most countries that had civil wars in the modern day weren’t as rich and privileged as Americans. A modern day american civil war will look less like Yugolavia and more like the Roof Koreans in the LA Riots - that is, a bunch of assholes shooting each other because they lack the communication and proper training (despite their ebic skills in the korean war). The exception being the mall cops that actually have time and money to “train” in the woods all day with their militias.
Seeing that map reminds me of a post I read some time ago about a "libertararian" who moved from California to Texas to scape the "oppressive" state government to a land of free, just to find out there were no public parks where to camp, and that that was his favorite hobbie and now they "understood" why some government is needed and was thinking on going back to California.
Southerners may have a lot of guns, but they have no where to train for war except indoor gun ranges.
As if the problem is gun handling and not the fact the average chud couldn't run for 2 miles without having a heart attack. Seriously I would not expect the average American to go through a civil war scenario without clogging up hospitals with all sorts of heart problems and general consequences of an extremely sedentary lifestyle.
Maybe you saw the recent pictures of those old Ukrainian soldiers? People dunk on them looking like tired/out of shape but imo they are probably in better physical condition than like half of these chuds.
The South would try invading the Midwest, but end up dying from all the industrial carcinogens that Midwesterners have adapted to. Like the wildlife around Chernobyl.
Well with the west and the south splitting most of the nuke supply and the Midwest being capable of thriving in nuclear winter, it's really anyone's game. The northeast is no longer the manufactory hub it once was. Ultimately though, I think the west is set up to take home the victory with critical support and materials from China. Can't really get that anywhere else too readily.
The Midwest would have quite a few nukes. North Dakota and Kansas holds a large fraction of them.
https://nuclearforces.org/country-profiles/united-states
Plus the West would have most of it's critical infrastructure far away from the border. Much easier to protect your heavy industry when it's 1500 miles away from the fighting. The South and Midwest have relatively vulnerable infrastructure not far from their borders, easy distance to target without having to refuel and less time to intercept any missiles.
Gonna sneak in and burn down the white house again while you are all fighting
midwest is expected to be expansionist as it needs to secure its in / export routes by taking New Orleans and securing the St Lorance river? (warm water ports)
Americans please explain to me why the midwest is called the midwest. It’s kinda in the middle, but it’s really not the west?? Why not call it the midnorth? Or northern mid?
From the perspective of an 18th century European colonist, that territory is the "middle" of a great expanse of land to the west.
