If every state of the USA declared war against each other, which would win?
I’m not sure if I really believe it, but since no one else here is making the case, I’ll name my home state.California.California is bordered by three states: Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona. Oregon and Nevada would have to be out of their minds to attack CA directly simply due to overwhelming numbers (as well as geographic barriers). Oregon troops would have to travel hundreds of miles just to reach Sacramento, and the Sierra Nevada gives a perfect defensive barrier against Nevada. Meanwhile, the border between Arizona and California is largely desert, and while Arizonans might be able to mount a significant first offensive, they’d get beaten back pretty quickly.While the other western states scramble to get organized, California could send troops as far as Canada and the Great Plains before it encountered an army large enough to stop it. This is ignoring military bases and military hardware (both of which CA has in abundance) and assuming that territorial gains are the goal of the war. If the goal is simply self-sufficiency, California could easily beat back attacks from other states given its strong natural borders, all while running a perfectly healthy economy off of agriculture and tech. It could also form a potential alliance with Mexico— the only other contestant for that not-insignificant prize would be Texas.In time, other states (especially Nevada) would be forced to give up resistance to California simply due to a need for resources. We practically upended the entire country’s food supply due to a measly drought— what will happen when we cut off those food supplies completely? Then there’s the fact that tax dollars levied from states with larger economies (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia) end up going to expenses in smaller states, making them even more vulnerable economically. While Texas would certainly be able to push for a military victory, California would win the economic war.
What are some slang terms used among police officers?
The most derogatory terms for the bad guys and citizens who are just pains in the rectum:A.H. = Adam Henry (A-dam H-enry) If you don’t get it…..sometimes you will hear it as “Jack Hole”…..now what starts with an “A” that ends with HOLE ?RICHARD CRANIUM= What starts with a “D” and is a nickname for Richard ? What is the non-medical layman’s term for the Cranium ? Do these clues HEAD you in the right direction ?
Does 1 litre of all liquids equate to a weight of 1 kilogram?
You asked: "Does 1 litre of all liquids equate to a weight of 1 kilogram?"There are already several (6 at the time) fairly good answers to your question here. Unfortunately most of them are fundamentally flawed, but that is not their fault. The problem is that they tried to answer your question exactly as you asked it. The question misleads most of the other answers, well intentioned as they are.You see, you asked a question about the relationship of 1 litre to 1 kilogram. Good question. But you asked about "weight", and a kilogram is NOT a measure of WEIGHT, it is a measure of "mass". Mass refers to how much of some substance of whatever substance you are considering. In effect the number of atoms. A litre is a measure of space, which, if that space contains ordinary water (not so heavily blended with salts that it would be called "sea water") if that water is at a temperature of 4 degrees on the Celsius scale of temperature. Water expands, taking up more space as the molecule bump into each other due to their higher energy level (energy of the heat). So a litre of water at 0 degrees Celsius is a little smaller than a liter of space, even though a litre of space is defined quite clearly as a kilogram of water, but ONLY if the water is at exactly 4 degrees Celsius.As already discussed a little bit above, temperature affects how dense a liquid will appear to be, and different liquids have different starting points of density because a different number of atoms would occupy the space defined as a litre. The substance Mercury, a slivery looking liquid, which actually LOOKS silvery because it is a liquid at room temperature, but it actually also metal like copper or tin or silver. At this high density the liquid metal would weight a great deal more than 1 kilogram if you had a whole liter of it. A liter of Mercury would amount to 13.53 kilograms (not 1 kilogram like water).Of course if you get things very, very hot, for example steel, you can met it into a liquid too . A litre worth of molten, liquid steel would also have a mass a great deal more than a litre of water. Now because it needs to be 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit to melt, it would be less dense than cold steel. Does that help you to understand the relationship between the volume measure of 1 liter, and the mass of 1 kilogram is 1 liter of water, but only if that is pure water and the water is at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius.I do hope that helps.Sincerely,Stafford "Doc" Williamson