Think again, look how people were crying over the death of terrorists and imagin it happening right here in America. One kid gets caught in the crossfire and the president will be impeached for genocide.

You forgot Fort Sam.

Are you saying that the national guard is that weak?

"donar state" sure sounds a lot nicer to other states than saying its actually produces something.

And its the US parasites that would take a hit, not the US as a whole, that or the middle class because parasitism would not be eliminated.

Uh, NO, they STAY. Thats kinda the point, a major part of the US military is based in texas.

Texa is both an economic producer and a military power house, it is just a better state than the others, a cut beyond. Just like germany and england are miles beyond some of the lesser members of the EU. There is strength in unity, but there is also weakness in it, and right now the weakness is the horrible socialist in congress thretening to destroy us.

But who pays for the National Guard?  Do the states or does the federal government?  If it's the states then fine the national guard in Texas becomes the front lines of the texas militia.  I still doubt they would stand much of a chance against the entire US military and the other 49 states National Guard units.  Again even if they are the strongest military units they are severly outnumbered and they would have to concern themselves with possible invasions from Mexico as well as defending against the US military.  Fighting a war on two fronts when your outnumbered is a losing strategy.

Of course there would be massive impacts to the other 49 states, I don't deny that, I just don't think a Texan secession would last very long so the impact would be minimal.

Now if more states joined Texas then the entire story would change.

I never had any problem with the concept of one state (or province) separating from the rest of the country. I support Quebec's separation, and if Texas feels like it, then who is in their right to tell them what to do with their territory?

However, I have no idea how "american" separation is. Last time it happened, it ended badly.

Sure some of the states won't want to commit their national guard troops to the battle but the US Military forces don't need to approval of the states to go in, just an order from the president.  That alone would be an overwhelming force for Texas to handle.  Mexico may take the opportunity to take Texas back from the US or the drug cartels may move in and wreak havoc in Texas since the US federal government will no longer be patroling the Texan border.

And if more states join Texas I said that the entire scenario would change dramatically.  The more states that join the harder the fight will be but I still maintain that the US Military will be stronger than any force the seceding states could muster, unless a strong majority of the country joins Texas, but I just don't see that happening.

The President of the US and congress may not agree with this, especially since there is a fair amount of Federal land (ie military bases, etc) in Texas so it isn't wholly it's own territory.

And my assertion is that if it was just Texas the US military would be able to end the conflict with little bloodshed.  If more states joined in then it would end badly again and I'm not sure who would come out on top.

Aerotar,

   I think you are making things a little simplistic there. Are you proposing that Texas as an independant country have no education system, no road maintenence? How many retireees in Texas would vote for succession if they knew they would immediatly lose their social security? Even if they could shift all that revenue over to defense, they have to be able to buy the weapons from someone, and the largest arms dealer in the world is the good old USA, probably not going to be a willing supplier. Then there is sheer manpower, which they would face a severe disadvantage in. Sure some people would go to Texas because they want to be part of something cool and different, but just as many would get the hell out. The only hope they have, as someone stated before is if some other states come with them. The problem with that is simple, water. States contiguous to Texas, such as Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada are already desperate for water. The only reason these palces exsist is because of vast public works that supply the water they need from far far away. The USA could just shut down the flow of water from the Colorado river and they would have a crisis. I think its funny how people in places like Texas like to think of themselves as very independant folk, and they often deride people who "live of the government teet," but they often fail to realize that they are doing the same way, just not through welfare, but through military bases, government subsidized water and public universities. It sounds so much better and professional to work for Lockeed or Boeing then to say you are a career public servant for the IRS, but they are effectivly the same thing, both uspported with government dollars.

The President doesn't need a declaration of war to order the troops to do anything.  Bush didn't need congress to declare war on Iraq, he asked them as a courtesy and he said as much before we started the war in Iraq.  The President is the Commander in Cheif and doesn't need congress to order the troops to do anything.  Now congress funds the military so they could withdraw funding essentially stopping the action but as we have seen with Iraq that is unlikely because they would be seen as "not supporting the troops".

As for the Military not being able to enter a state without permission, there is a little thing called Martial Law.  No politician ever wants to use it because it is political suicide but if Texas were to secede from the union it would be the likely option to avoid the whole declaration of war thing and congress wouldn't have to recognize Texas as a separate country.

How would Texas pay for the land?  Their money is currently in US Dollars.  If the US wanted they could deny Texas the right to use US dollars for anything.  Texas would be basically broke overnight.

el-duderino

you make one major assumption, you assume that the "government" is a magical entity and not a collection of people. If the president declares "war" on texas tommorow and orders all federal troops to attack it, many will refuse, others will "defect" to texas,some will attemp to arrest the preisdent, units will be split apart as each individual SOLDIER, people who fight to protect their country, will each go to whichever "side" they feel is right. To imagine that a single unified "federal army", (many of which are texan or have relatives in texas or will violently oppose civil war) will attack texas is absurd.

I don't deny that some would defect to Texas or outright object to fighting.  But we are dealing with a hypothetical situation here so of course I'm making some assumptions about the outcome of a Texas secession.  I don't think the government is some magical entity but I also don't treat Texas as a magical entity either.

Sure some people would support Texas in their secession, but there would also be a very vocal group of people who would adamently oppose the secession claiming that Texas is betraying their country.  I'm not saying there wouldn't be any problems I'm merely stating that I don't think Texas, assuming it secedes alone, would stand a chance of lasting more than a month or two as its own country.  If nothing else all the US would have to do is cut Texas off from vital resources like food, water, etc.  All roads going into and out of Texas would be quickly shut down.  I just don't think Texas would last very long on its own even if it had some US supporters.

I think some underestimate the loyalty of Texans.