>>368
This shit again?
Look, dude. Texas has the military might that it might survive if its infrastructure isn't bombed to shit immediately after secession, and assuming all of its soldiers came home. That being said, Texas is largely plains with small population centers which can easily be targeted. You don't have that much in the way of mountains, rivers, or any other sort of natural barrier.
It would be in the best interests of Texas to join in a non-aggression pact (if not a flat-out alliance) with the South in order to survive an initial war against the North-East and Southern California.
If you rangerfags want Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada, you're welcome to have it, but New Mexico is remaining a satellite nation for us Midwestern Coloradans.
And quite frankly, the great plains would likely side with the South in any sort of conflict unless Cascadia becomes a thing (in which case we'd probably side with them).
We'd probably form a coalition with the Dakotas, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas, and Utah to form one of the richest and high-tech areas of the US outside of silicone valley, and said coalition would probably side with the South because we're very Libertarian-leaning and happen to hate the federal government.