I’m pretty sure that in such a situation you’d end up with multiple successor states. The “Red” and “Blue” states are not only not neatly divided geographically, but are themselves a mishmash of red and blue territories. There’d probably be a lot of violence as they sorted themselves out.
I expect there’s no way to really predict where any capitals end up, although I suspect they’d be relatively obscure places as the more famous cities are destroyed in the fighting.
The Right is a minority, and only “won” because the system is heavily rigged to favor them with gerrymandering, voter suppression, the electoral college and so forth. In some hypothetical civil war the other side would have a major advantage in numbers and industry.
Meh. On the other hand, the ones who hate the idea of America and her stated ideals and values are the ones who should make themselves scarce (that’s the red staters).
And that applies to the HoR as well, it would have been blue for a while it it wasn’t for gerrymandering. The Senate seats don’t reflect overall popular vote.
Which means nothing. A real conflict would be decided by organization, logistics, and military hardware; not mobs with small arms. A bunch of “red state” gun nuts would get slaughtered out of hand by even some Third World military in a real fight, despite their fantasies about fighting the Evil Government with rifles and pistols.
First of all, conservatives *outnumber *liberals by 11 percent.
Secondly, right-wingers are more likely to have guns (gun ownership is highest in conservative states), people who are gun-shop owners, gunsmiths, or gun manufacturers are probably more likely than not conservative, more likely to be represented in the armaments industry (you can’t just learn how to build an AMRAAM missile in one day,) Lockheed Martin’s fighter assembly line is in Texas, Boeing’s F-15/F-18 line is in Missouri, military veterans/reservists/active personnel are often conservative, the nuclear-weapons assembly facilities at Pantex are in Texas, the Minuteman nuclear-tipped ICBMs are in the Dakotas (red states,) 27 out of 33 Air Combat Command bases in the contiguous forty-eight states are located in red states, and so forth.
Heh, you know why all those bases and such are in those states? It’s a wealth transfer from the blue states to the red. Once your finances are cut off, who are you going to get to actually build and maintain that equipment?
Besides we’ve seen how you guys wage wars, fairly incompetently.
We’ll just use take a pop-gun and a bit of duct tape to meet you in the battlefield, we’ll be good.
Unless you really plan on using nukes in this scuffle, in which case, have you seen a map recently? The red states are actually pretty close to the blue.
Sure, you can *buy *one in a few minutes. But can you become proficient in a few minutes? Operating a gun isn’t as easy as using a point-and-shoot camera.
That’s like telling a gunman standing just 3 feet away, “You don’t dare shoot me because some of my flesh and blood will splatter onto you, and I’m HIV-infected.”
Whatever harm the red states could incur by nuking blue cities and getting some radioactive fallout as a result is dwarfed by the harm the blue cities would suffer from being nuked.
Can we stop with the partisan bickering and assume the split proceeded 100% amicably and focus on the question at hand which is where the new capital would be?
This thread is just a far-fetched hypothetical but as a practical matter, choosing a city that is already a state capital makes some sense just because it already has the governmental infrastructure in place. So Austin would be a good bet.
