Another American Civil War

[City of Norfolk]

Me and my friend are discussing this and his ignorance doesn't help, so I ask you, if the U.S. to be split like the map below, who would win?
Seeing that the south holds more Naval Ports however the North having more Army and Air force bases.


With Alaska going to the CSA and Hawaii to the to the USA.
don't worry about the cause, it just happened, I also wish to state that I don't believe the U.S. will fall into a civil war like this, but NSG, I need help in this argument!

Also, PLEASE DON'T BRING POLITICAL BS INTO THIS SUCH AS, "Why is California in the CSA? blah blah. Keep this tactical and a clean debate.

EDIT:
Updated Map.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

The answer is always "Canada."

[United States of PA]

North, albeit probably very closely. Most of the American ICBMs are based in the Dakota Plains and more than half of our SSN and SSBN Fleet at Groton and Bangor. While more CVN bases are in the South most likely a great deal of the Navy will side with the north. The North would also have a slight Population Advantage by my Estimates. In addition a great deal of the Steel and other similar Industries are in the North, plus a good amount of Manaufacturing. So overall i would give it to the north, but again South Could Win

[City of Norfolk]

You also have to take into account the fiercely patriotic southerners who would swell the ranks of the armies.

[Parthenon]

Pretty damn positive the CSA on that map has more army/military bases...

North Carolina alone has higher troop numbers than several of those northern states put together.

[Sudreich]

You know, instead of answering this question I make another one. Would the American allies (if they still have that) go to its rescue? Who would they side with?

My guess is they would, though unwillingly, only to stop the bloodshed. If the CSA manages to be politically as it was in the past, maybe they would support the USA. Now, if the CSA isn't, maybe they'd just watch the United States tear itself.

[Non Aligned States]

Pretty damn positive the CSA on that map has more army/military bases...

North Carolina alone has higher troop numbers than several of those northern states put together.

But does it have the airpower? Without air superiority, any concentration of ground troops are toast.

[Parthenon]

Pretty damn positive the CSA on that map has more army/military bases...

North Carolina alone has higher troop numbers than several of those northern states put together.

But does it have the airpower? Without air superiority, any concentration of ground troops are toast.

Absolutely, most of the training locations are located in the south as well...

The mission of the USAF Weapons School or United States Air Force Weapons School, is to teach graduate-level instructor courses, which provide the world's most advanced training in weapons and tactics employment to officers of the combat air forces. The USAF Weapons School, headquartered at Nellis Air Force Base, in Nevada with detachments at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, Hurlburt Field, Florida, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas,Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico and Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.


Naval Air Station Pensacola or NAS Pensacola (IATA: NPA, ICAO: KNPA, FAA LID: NPA), "The Cradle of Naval Aviation", is a United States Navy base located in Warrington, Florida, a community southwest of the Pensacola city limits. It is best known as the primary training base for all Navy, Marine and Coast Guard aviators and Naval Flight Officers, the advanced training base for most Naval Flight Officers, and as the home base for the United States Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron, the precision-flying team known as the Blue Angels.

and...

Nineteenth Air Force, with headquarters at Randolph AFB, Texas, conducts AETC's flying training.

[United States of PA]

You know, instead of answering this question I make another one. Would the American allies (if they still have that) go to its rescue? Who would they side with?

My guess is they would, though unwillingly, only to stop the bloodshed. If the CSA manages to be politically as it was in the past, maybe they would support the USA. Now, if the CSA isn't, maybe they'd just watch the United States tear itself.

NATO would actually be forced to assist the Established government, or the North, by the Charter of NATO. So i would still give the North the Advantage

[Parthenon]

You know, instead of answering this question I make another one. Would the American allies (if they still have that) go to its rescue? Who would they side with?

My guess is they would, though unwillingly, only to stop the bloodshed. If the CSA manages to be politically as it was in the past, maybe they would support the USA. Now, if the CSA isn't, maybe they'd just watch the United States tear itself.

NATO would actually be forced to assist the Established government, or the North, by the Charter of NATO. So i would still give the North the Advantage

Actually, by that map it appears that DC would be on the CSA side.

[United States of PA]

You know, instead of answering this question I make another one. Would the American allies (if they still have that) go to its rescue? Who would they side with?

My guess is they would, though unwillingly, only to stop the bloodshed. If the CSA manages to be politically as it was in the past, maybe they would support the USA. Now, if the CSA isn't, maybe they'd just watch the United States tear itself.

NATO would actually be forced to assist the Established government, or the North, by the Charter of NATO. So i would still give the North the Advantage

Actually, by that map it appears that DC would be on the CSA side.

NATO is obliged to Defend the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America. Doesnt matter which side of the line D.C. is one, NATO would still have to assist the USA, not the CSA, by Treaty Obligations, as you will not Find the CSA as a signer on the NATO Charter.

[Sudreich]

Split as that map is, I think the legality of which state is the successor to the United States is at question, therefore the NATO countries would have to choose which side is legitimate and join it in the fight. So it would depend on the political circunstances of the split.

[Ideam]

South... not counting allies. 1st reason California and the other leftist states are a bunch of pussies who would try to talk their way out.
2 people in the south would join more readily
3 people in the south have more guns
4 If a nuke hit a big city in the north it would be more devastating (Manhattan and other states)

However North probably has nukes and tech..

[United States of PA]

Split as that map is, I think the legality of which state is the successor to the United States is at question, therefore the NATO countries would have to choose which side is legitimate and join it in the fight. So it would depend on the political circunstances of the split.

It would be similar to the Actual America Civil War, most of the world would contiue to recognize the North and not the South, meaning that if NATO was to get involved, which Britain as the least would, it would be for the North. The North would continue to be recognized by most of the world especially Western Europe, so Politically at least for Western Europe the North would generally be accepted as the True Successor.

[Parthenon]

Split as that map is, I think the legality of which state is the successor to the United States is at question, therefore the NATO countries would have to choose which side is legitimate and join it in the fight. So it would depend on the political circunstances of the split.

It would be similar to the Actual America Civil War, most of the world would contiue to recognize the North and not the South, meaning that if NATO was to get involved, which Britain as the least would, it would be for the North. The North would continue to be recognized by most of the world especially Western Europe, so Politically at least for Western Europe the North would generally be accepted as the True Successor.

No, no, no. There is nothing that makes the "North" official. You are going under the assumption that the south would be seceding again which is not stated in the scenario. For all we know the North could be the seceding party.

[Valanora]

Nineteenth Air Force, with headquarters at Randolph AFB, Texas, conducts AETC's flying training.

Yeah, every couple of days we see them doing flying sessions over the city, always four jets at a time. Pretty damn cool stuff, plus every hour, there is at least two of those huge Army Air Cargo planes that go right over my house (I live in San Antonio).

[City of Norfolk]

well if Allies did get involved, I can see the North winning, if no allies, its still open.

Also, I do not think nukes would be used in a civil war in america, unless of course ultra radical elements got hold of them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Long Island I think would side with the secessionists. If a Civil War does start, I am walking South to fight with the South!

Rather bold to openly declare your willingness to commit treason.

In any case, it wouldn't split like that map. No way in hell California would go with the traitors if they were all a bunch of Conservative states.

[Sudreich]

Split as that map is, I think the legality of which state is the successor to the United States is at question, therefore the NATO countries would have to choose which side is legitimate and join it in the fight. So it would depend on the political circunstances of the split.

It would be similar to the Actual America Civil War, most of the world would contiue to recognize the North and not the South, meaning that if NATO was to get involved, which Britain as the least would, it would be for the North. The North would continue to be recognized by most of the world especially Western Europe, so Politically at least for Western Europe the North would generally be accepted as the True Successor.

You can't know that unless we know the political context of the split. Just because one's named United States and the other Confederate it doesn't mean that the Northern one is legitimate.

Suppose that somehow the North jumped off due to not standing, say, another mandate by George W. Bush's son (the third in the family). Let's suppose that the election was legitimate, but even still the northern states didn't accept it and revoked it. I'm sure NATO would see the South as legitimate in that case. You can't rule it out without knowing how it happened.

[United States of PA]

Split as that map is, I think the legality of which state is the successor to the United States is at question, therefore the NATO countries would have to choose which side is legitimate and join it in the fight. So it would depend on the political circunstances of the split.

It would be similar to the Actual America Civil War, most of the world would contiue to recognize the North and not the South, meaning that if NATO was to get involved, which Britain as the least would, it would be for the North. The North would continue to be recognized by most of the world especially Western Europe, so Politically at least for Western Europe the North would generally be accepted as the True Successor.

No, no, no. There is nothing that makes the "North" official. You are going under the assumption that the south would be seceding again which is not stated in the scenario. For all we know the North could be the seceding party.

True. But i he said CSA for the Southern Side, which should imply, at least to me, that the south is Seceding again. But i may be wrong on that. Im gonna wait for the OP to state exactly what he had in mind for the reason this happened before i make another assumption.

[Parthenon]

Long Island I think would side with the secessionists. If a Civil War does start, I am walking South to fight with the South!

Rather bold to openly declare your willingness to commit treason.

In any case, it wouldn't split like that map. No way in hell California would go with the traitors if they were all a bunch of Conservative states.

For fuck sakes. READ THE DAMN SCENARIO BEFORE POSTING.

Nothing has been stated in regards to who the hell is seceding. Quit making up nonsensical claims that the south is a bunch of traitors.

[Sudreich]

True. But i he said CSA for the Southern Side, which should imply, at least to me, that the south is Seceding again. But i may be wrong on that. Im gonna wait for the OP to state exactly what he had in mind for the reason this happened before i make another assumption.

Yes, we clearly need more data before assuming anything.

[City of Norfolk]

Well, just make up your own... I can't really see any reason of a split right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nothing has been stated in regards to who the hell is seceding. Quit making up nonsensical claims that the south is a bunch of traitors.

Well, they were last time.

Though, the scenario is somewhat vague and unclear. The OP should have clarified, perhaps.

[Sudreich]

Then either side can receive allied help depending on the circunstances so any answer can be right.