Which Iowa border state would you be most afraid of in a state vs state civil war?
- Thread starter JM4CY
- Start date
What, you mean Mt Everest isn't in the Northwestern corner of the state?
It's probably Minnesota or Illinois due to population size.. Wildcard is Wisconsin due to alcohol consumption
Minnesota: Minnesota has a lot of the same advantages that Wisconsin does over Iowa, but shares a longer border. Southern Minnesota and Northern Iowa are basically the same thing, mostly dotted with small to medium sized towns. I think Minnesota would focus their attention more towards Wisconsin, with the Twin Cities being so close to Wisconsin and their general rivalry in everything. Due to this, Iowa could hold firm or push slightly north into Southern Minnesota. I have a hard time seeing a big conflict between Iowa and Minnesota breaking out.
Wisconsin: Small border to protect that is completely fortified by a good sized river. They would have trouble invading Iowa. They do have a solid population advantage, have acclimated to colder weather, and have lots of forest land to hide in. An Iowa invasion would be difficult due to those factors, plus the fact that their large population centers are spread out and a decent ways from the Iowa border so no surprise attack would be easy to accomplish. I see a border standstill here.
Illinois: The problem with Illinois in this scenario, is they would probably have an internal war before war with other states. Chicagoland vs most of the rest of the state. They could cannibalize themselves weakening their ability to fight other states. They do hold a significant population advantage, but again, that is mostly the Chicagoland area which is a good distance from the Iowa border. If they did break out into an internal war, Iowa could quickly capitalize and align with the rest of the state to combine forces to fight Chicagoland and create a standstill blockading Chicagoland in. If that didn't occur, the situation is different. Again, large disparity in population, however, the shared border is a large river that could cause issues for an invasion by either side. I see a standstill of some sort occurring here.
Missouri: Missouri is a state that shares a large border with Iowa with no natural impediments preventing an easy attack. They also have a significant population advantage. Their population is spread out making an Iowa attack tricky because too many resources focused to one side opens the other up for attack. Or Missouri could blitzkrieg fully across the border in an attempt to overwhelm Iowa. As noted by others, they also have multiple military bases within state borders along with the 'hillbilly' type. Their varied terrain is also an advance for their defenses, where Iowa is more open from a terrain standpoint. These factors would all present a significant challenge to Iowa. I do believe Missouri would initially focus their attacks on quickly overwhelming Kansas due to their shared hatred for each other, but with the advantaged Missouri holds I don't forsee the Kansas defences holding long, allowing Missouri to fairly quickly overwhelming them and then being able to focus elsewhere.
Nebraska: Nebraska is set up well to make a quick attack on Iowa, with the vast majority of their population near the Iowa border. The shared border is also fairly large, so there would be ample areas of opportunity. However, If Iowa could withstand the initial surges, most likely in the Omaha/CB area, then the rest of Nebraska is ripe for the taking. The biggest challenge would be the AF base in Omaha and if Iowa could neutralize it quickly enough before Nebraska mobilized it for offensive purposes.
South Dakota: Small shared border with them that could be relatively easy to protect plus a small population - not worried about them. Iowa could either build a strong fortification to secure the border or if getting more ambitious, make a strong push to take Sioux Falls and the rest of the state would fall fairly quickly.
Based on all these factors, Missouri is state to be most afraid of in a state vs state civil war.
Wisconsin: Small border to protect that is completely fortified by a good sized river. They would have trouble invading Iowa. They do have a solid population advantage, have acclimated to colder weather, and have lots of forest land to hide in. An Iowa invasion would be difficult due to those factors, plus the fact that their large population centers are spread out and a decent ways from the Iowa border so no surprise attack would be easy to accomplish. I see a border standstill here.
Illinois: The problem with Illinois in this scenario, is they would probably have an internal war before war with other states. Chicagoland vs most of the rest of the state. They could cannibalize themselves weakening their ability to fight other states. They do hold a significant population advantage, but again, that is mostly the Chicagoland area which is a good distance from the Iowa border. If they did break out into an internal war, Iowa could quickly capitalize and align with the rest of the state to combine forces to fight Chicagoland and create a standstill blockading Chicagoland in. If that didn't occur, the situation is different. Again, large disparity in population, however, the shared border is a large river that could cause issues for an invasion by either side. I see a standstill of some sort occurring here.
Missouri: Missouri is a state that shares a large border with Iowa with no natural impediments preventing an easy attack. They also have a significant population advantage. Their population is spread out making an Iowa attack tricky because too many resources focused to one side opens the other up for attack. Or Missouri could blitzkrieg fully across the border in an attempt to overwhelm Iowa. As noted by others, they also have multiple military bases within state borders along with the 'hillbilly' type. Their varied terrain is also an advance for their defenses, where Iowa is more open from a terrain standpoint. These factors would all present a significant challenge to Iowa. I do believe Missouri would initially focus their attacks on quickly overwhelming Kansas due to their shared hatred for each other, but with the advantaged Missouri holds I don't forsee the Kansas defences holding long, allowing Missouri to fairly quickly overwhelming them and then being able to focus elsewhere.
Nebraska: Nebraska is set up well to make a quick attack on Iowa, with the vast majority of their population near the Iowa border. The shared border is also fairly large, so there would be ample areas of opportunity. However, If Iowa could withstand the initial surges, most likely in the Omaha/CB area, then the rest of Nebraska is ripe for the taking. The biggest challenge would be the AF base in Omaha and if Iowa could neutralize it quickly enough before Nebraska mobilized it for offensive purposes.
South Dakota: Small shared border with them that could be relatively easy to protect plus a small population - not worried about them. Iowa could either build a strong fortification to secure the border or if getting more ambitious, make a strong push to take Sioux Falls and the rest of the state would fall fairly quickly.
Based on all these factors, Missouri is state to be most afraid of in a state vs state civil war.
Illinois would have the strongest economic engine and biggest warchest, but Nebraska/SD would be the most likely to engage in crazy acts of terror even though they’d have the smallest army and warchest.
Or maybe those are just the four states where I actually lived.
Or maybe those are just the four states where I actually lived.
If we are worried about military bases.. I fear Nebraska the most as that is home to Offutt AFB (STRATCOM). Here is why STRATCOM matters:
Offutt AFB could turn the entire globe into glass with a couple pushes of buttons
The Illinois Civil War would be easy to ignite. Anything south of I-80 and west of Aurora is basically Kentucky
Lob in some disinformation and the Kentucky battle flag would be everywhere. I see enough 3%ers **** in the metro.
Illinois is impotent in this fight.
Missouri. Missouri is the answer
Edit: the wildcard is if Missouri attacks SE Iowa first. Seeing Keokuk, Ft. Madison, Burlington, etc could make them realize there's not much to fight for
Last edited:
I thought that originally, but they are all in Chicago. They'd have to come all the way over to Iowa. It's a long, boring trip. MO has a lot of red neck crazy folks. But those are the top too in my opinion.
Minnesota is wack-a-doodle on so many levels. Trust me I live here... for now. Steer clear.
Love the analysis. Reminiscent of Mike Leach.
While I laughed at its length and detail, I completely respect the depth of thought that went into this post as this is exactly why I started this thread.
I grew up close to the border. There might be some clear way that Minnesota should either attack or defend, but then they will end up doing the opposite for some asinine reason they thought up and then be totally comfortable with it going to hell right in front of them.
@Al_4_State will back me up on this.
My future kids in 2040 after eeking out a win at the Battle of the Quad Cities
"We won the battle, but lost Whitey's and Happy Joe's in the process. They've taken Paula Sands hostage. It feels like there were no winners"
If we're strictly talking about a land war and not including Nebraska's ability to kill all life in general, the time of the year would affect my answer slightly.
During the winter months, Minnesota children would playfully assemble by the border for a seemingly lighthearted snowball war with our northern counties. Meanwhile a formidable machine-gun-mounted snowmobile brigade flanks us from Nebraska.
During the winter months, Minnesota children would playfully assemble by the border for a seemingly lighthearted snowball war with our northern counties. Meanwhile a formidable machine-gun-mounted snowmobile brigade flanks us from Nebraska.
