Which state in the USA could survive alone the best?

[Vandengaarde]

Which state do you think could last the longest using its own industrial power, funding, and land?

One of my guesses would be Washington state, because they are connected to the ocean, do fairly well in times of economic trouble, and have good business and education.

I would say the least likely is California, as they go bankrupt quite a bit, have terrible education, and their oceans wouldn't supply much food.


Remember, this is if they COULDN'T get funding from outside land. This is a secession scenario, assuming the U.S. or someone else didn't stop the secession.

[Maurepas]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

[Greater Tezdrian]

Which state do you think could last the longest using its own industrial power, funding, and land?

One of my guesses would be Washington state, because they are connected to the ocean, do fairly well in times of economic trouble, and have good business and education.

I would say the least likely is California, as they go bankrupt quite a bit, have terrible education, and their oceans wouldn't supply much food.


Remember, this is if they COULDN'T get funding from outside land. This is a secession scenario, assuming the U.S. or someone else didn't stop the secession.

I agree with Washington State. It's beautiful there.

[Bavin]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

^ This. Throw in New York as well.

[Wilgrove]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

This is most likely.

[Vandengaarde]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

Those two states probably have the worst education of any states. You can't keep up your economy when gangs ravage your cities and you can't import workers from other places. They would fall to gangs and merely be a halfway point for Mexican druglords.

[Pyara]

Washington prolly..... california depends alot on the other 49. majority of americans migrate there so theyd all prolly return to the USA if tht secession happens....

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Britain. Oh sorry I keep forgetting that's not a state.

Defo Utah.

[Ashmoria]

california.

[Angleter]

Delaware could become a tax haven principality. Same for Rhode Island.

[Unilisia]

Alaska. Largest state, has the most untapped natural resources, Palin is FINALLY gone (thus maybe a better government there), and it has the most room for development of population/land, etcetera.

[Vandengaarde]

Delaware could become a tax haven principality. Same for Rhode Island.

Rhode Island: Luxembourg of the Americas?

[Milks Empire]

New York has a lot of business headquarters in it. How long that would last isn't something I could tell you, but I'm just throwing that out there.

[Lord Tothe]

Minnesota or Wisconsin, maybe. They have agriculture and industry, along with access to the great Lakes system and (for MN) the Mississippi.

[Maurepas]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

Those two states probably have the worst education of any states. You can't keep up your economy when gangs ravage your cities and you can't import workers from other places. They would fall to gangs and merely be a halfway point for Mexican druglords.

Meh, that part is rather irrelevant really, Russia does fine, for example...

The real trick is they have large enough GDPs to compete in the Global Market on their own...

[Tubbsalot]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

Those two states probably have the worst education of any states. You can't keep up your economy when gangs ravage your cities and you can't import workers from other places. They would fall to gangs and merely be a halfway point for Mexican druglords.

Really? Because they seem to be doing okay right now despite that.

[Vandengaarde]

Alaska. Largest state, has the most untapped natural resources, Palin is FINALLY gone (thus maybe a better government there), and it has the most room for development of population/land, etcetera.

I forgot about Alaska. The bad thing for them is that were they to take the oil from the ground there, they lose wildlife and maybe lumber. Therefore, they would make a lot in lumber, then they may still lose hundreds of animals. They have a lot of fish, but mostly on the coast. The largest problem also is, it would be hard to sustain a large population off of fish and lumber.

[New Amerik]

I would California.... but only if NorCal broke away from SoCal . Northern California could probably do fine. Southern California would go terribly, terribly wrong.

[Chrobalta]

Michigan, we have a manufacturing sector that would be revitalized if we were independent and had to start supplying for ourselves. We also have the great lakes surrounding us, an absolutely vital resource. We also have a fairly large agricultural sector. The St. Lawrence seaway would allow us continued access to the outside world as well.

[Vandengaarde]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

Those two states probably have the worst education of any states. You can't keep up your economy when gangs ravage your cities and you can't import workers from other places. They would fall to gangs and merely be a halfway point for Mexican druglords.

Really? Because they seem to be doing okay right now despite that.

That's because a lot of businesses moved their headquarters there, and they have nice colleges that attract people from other states. But once you've closed down the borders, those people aren't coming anymore. The businesses locked up in the state would lose money quickly, because they lose market and California has a bad economy, which, by the way, only stays afloat because of government money from D.C.

Texas's gangs are starting to mix with the Mexican ones that are moving northward.

[Cradled Squads]

Which state do you think could last the longest using its own industrial power, funding, and land?

One of my guesses would be Washington state, because they are connected to the ocean, do fairly well in times of economic trouble, and have good business and education.

I would say the least likely is California, as they go bankrupt quite a bit, have terrible education, and their oceans wouldn't supply much food.


Remember, this is if they COULDN'T get funding from outside land. This is a secession scenario, assuming the U.S. or someone else didn't stop the secession.

In the northwest, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington State, Oregon, Northern California (Siskiyou/Six Rivers/Mountains such as where Mount Shasta is located), in the north, any state sharing a border with Canada, and in the East, South and Southcentral, areas which have mountains or which are on the eastern Gulf Coast.

I do NOT recommend you eat any fish on the Northern or Western Gulf of Mexico unless you go at least 70 miles offshore first. WAY too many chem and petroleum plants along those shores.

[Freidlichen]

Connecticut would probably do fine.

[Khorata]

Washington D.C. if it is a state. Why? The President lives in the White House! A real state by itself, North Dakota because of agriculture and is close to a province where it is to draw but hard to spell. The worst will be unknown.

[Maurepas]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

Those two states probably have the worst education of any states. You can't keep up your economy when gangs ravage your cities and you can't import workers from other places. They would fall to gangs and merely be a halfway point for Mexican druglords.

Really? Because they seem to be doing okay right now despite that.

That's because a lot of businesses moved their headquarters there, and they have nice colleges that attract people from other states. But once you've closed down the borders, those people aren't coming anymore. The businesses locked up in the state would lose money quickly, because they lose market and California has a bad economy, which, by the way, only stays afloat because of government money from D.C.

Texas's gangs are starting to mix with the Mexican ones that are moving northward.

Why would they close down the border? I wouldnt see the need, and it would be kind of a dumb move...

[Vandengaarde]

Which state do you think could last the longest using its own industrial power, funding, and land?

One of my guesses would be Washington state, because they are connected to the ocean, do fairly well in times of economic trouble, and have good business and education.

I would say the least likely is California, as they go bankrupt quite a bit, have terrible education, and their oceans wouldn't supply much food.


Remember, this is if they COULDN'T get funding from outside land. This is a secession scenario, assuming the U.S. or someone else didn't stop the secession.

In the northwest, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington State, Oregon, Northern California (Siskiyou/Six Rivers/Mountains such as where Mount Shasta is located), in the north, any state sharing a border with Canada, and in the East, South and Southcentral, areas which have mountains or which are on the eastern Gulf Coast.

I do NOT recommend you eat any fish on the Northern or Western Gulf of Mexico unless you go at least 70 miles offshore first. WAY too many chem and petroleum plants along those shores.

Idaho I could see doing very well on its own. They have a large supply of vegetation, and their education isn't terrible. They could up farm production and be a very healthy place to live.