The article gives the advantage to States with high populations, the extent of military installations in the State, seaports, energy resources, and food growing capabilities. That makes sense to a degree but it is far more complex than that given the inter-dependencies between States and as 74 points out, rural areas have very different interests and cultures than do urban areas. Cooperation on the part of rural areas is anything but assured, and that’s where the food comes from, and for many of the major cities, it is where their water comes from too. The urban areas need the cooperation of the rural areas far more than the rural areas need anything from the urban areas.
I wonder if the Feds or the Military has ever done a real analysis of what a break up might look like. The perfunctory analyses and conjecture such as in the article and the ensuing comments do not peel away enough layers to constitute a real analysis.