American Warring States period

[T.Lex]

Here's what would happen if every US state declared war on each other

These are the accounts of the Second American Civil War, also known as the Wars of Reunification and the American Warring States Period.
After the breakup many wondered which states would come out in control of the power void created by the dissolution of the United States. There were many with little chance against several of the larger more powerful states. The states in possession of a large population, predisposition for military bases and a population open to the idea of warfare fared the best. In the long term we would look to states with self-sufficiency and long term military capabilities.

Interesting intellectual exercise.

For Indiana, they basically have us coming under the control of Illinois. Clearly, the people putting his together haven't spent much time around here. IMHO, it would either be the other way around, or downstate Illinois and Indiana would get together to wall off Chicago.

Under no circumstances would an Illinois government, as currently constituted, be allowed to exercise dominion over the Hoosier state.

 

[96firephoenix]

They have IN, MI and WI under the rule of IL?

 

[T.Lex]

They have IN, MI and WI under the rule of IL?

Well, that's ambiguous. I think it just means that these states joined together. If it is more like the latter, I could believe it. I think there's a commonality of character in the upper midwest that would come through.

The "reality" is, though, that the state borders would probably become a bit meaningless. Things like rivers and such would provide natural borders, but the flatland borders would become nebulous.

 

[chipbennett]

1. This might be a very good prequel to the Hunger Games trilogy, in explaining the formation of Panem.

2. In reality, I don't see how the States would every fight each other in such fashion. The people with the guns are mostly rural, conservative, and likely pro-states-rights more than anything else. Unless there were some imperialistic states that had the statist manpower to act, I would envision that most states would simply devolve to home rule, and we would essentially be once again a nation - disunited - of 50 sovereign states. The economic collapse of the largest metropolitan (i.e. liberal/statist) areas, due to the loss of federal redistribution of wealth, would only further exasperate imperialist notions. In the "Two Americas", rural America would win, hands down.

 

[T.Lex]

In reality, I don't see how the States would every fight each other in such fashion.

I don't really disagree with your points, but have an idea about this. It gets back to the old fashioned reason - resources. First, I think cities would be deserted because it would be too difficult to move the necessary goods to them. Then, people would leave those areas to where the basic resources are - like you say, the more rural areas.

Eventually, those areas would be stressed and people would start fighting over the existing resources and looking to expand. Some part of that barter trade would work, but not all. Where it didn't work, battles would be fought.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't really disagree with your points, but have an idea about this. It gets back to the old fashioned reason - resources. First, I think cities would be deserted because it would be too difficult to move the necessary goods to them. Then, people would leave those areas to where the basic resources are - like you say, the more rural areas.

Eventually, those areas would be stressed and people would start fighting over the existing resources and looking to expand. Some part of that barter trade would work, but not all. Where it didn't work, battles would be fought.

True, but I would see them more as border skirmishes, not as full-out war. There would be no incentive to mobilize, and nobody to organize that mobilization.

You might find the power-hungry types try, or even gangs. But they would be overwhelmed by the law-abiding, who will want nothing more than to continue living their lives with as much normalcy as possible. (Oh, and who happen to be armed at a rate of more than one firearm per capita...) The people capable of using the war machinery are, by a vast majority, not going to go along with coup attempts, or join in with the power-hungry. I could see small-scale, localized battles, and a period of unrest. I just don't see how it could be sustained.

Whatever is left of state governments may very well attempt to band together, for economic stability and security. So, you may see the regional unification. I just don't see how battles/warfare would every play out on that level.

 

[BogWalker]

I don't see a "warring states" period. Frankly I don't see state government or state loyalty being that strong to allow them to withstand a federal collapse. I see a period of decades where borders are meaningless and the whole country starts to look like Mogadishu circa-1991.

 

[Methane Herder]

Nope. They completely ignored the world's third and fourth largest nuclear powers. North Dakota & Wyoming.
MH

 

[Blackhawk2001]

They also neglected to factor in that Indiana has the fourth largest National Guard contingent in the States. Granted, not all Guard units are IN Indiana, but enough combat and support units are present that even Kentucky/Tennessee (whichever side Ft. Campbell decided to join) would have a hard time with us. I don't see any particular reason why any Midwestern states would war with each other; the states would be more likely to form compacts of mutual support and interest.

 

[Loco179]

I think the large Dem cities would be isolated and left to rot.