Which state in the USA could survive alone the best?

[Missouri Republic]

California, Missouri, and all of the southern states

[Missouri Republic]

and Vermont

[AngloSaxonLand]

Texas definitly

[Khodoristan]

FLORAL PARK, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK STATE!!!! FOR THE FUCKING WIN, CUNTS!!!

[Frenca]

New Jersey, Washington, Connecticut, and Massachusetts might do well. South California- just break from North California and bye bye.

[Euroslavia]

FLORAL PARK, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK STATE!!!! FOR THE FUCKING WIN, CUNTS!!!

Knock it off with the language.

[Montanaa]

Montana.
More than 200 ICBM's in the state, near Malmstrom Air Force Base, so we have jet fighters too.
Most of the towns and cities have National Guard armory's with active personnel.
Plus, there are copper, gold, and silver mines in Western Montana along with cattle ranching, and wheat and corn farming in the eastern part. There's also an oil refinery in the east, along with a few big deposits of oil in the Northeast.
If all that fails, like, 80% of the population has hunting rifles and enough ammo for World War Three to go out and hunt animals and invading armies.

EDIT: Also, remembered, there's huge coal deposits in the mid-north part of the state. Plus there's new wind turbines being built in the east and Great Falls has a coal and hydro-power plants.

[Yenke-Bin]

Im thinking Hawaii. It was its own country once, and it seems to be doing pretty well. Well, in the sense that I never hear about any problems with it in the news.

[Muravyets]

I'd say New York state and Massachusetts are well set up to survive on their own. They both have major port cities and important business and education centers. They both have highly productive farming zones. Massachusetts has numerous power plants (hydro, coal and nuke) and is building off-shore wind-farms. New York has Niagra Falls power and Hudson River power, as well as nuke plants.

The other New England states might be too small and/or too poor to make it on their own, but if they seceded to join New York and/or Massachusetts, I think those two urban powerhouses, plus the farming and industrial potential of the rest of the region, and its good relations with Canada and connections to the UN, would make New England quite viable as a sovereign nation.

[Gauntleted Fist]

I'd say New York state and Massachusetts are well set up to survive on their own. They both have major port cities and important business and education centers. They both have highly productive farming zones. Massachusetts has numerous power plants (hydro, coal and nuke) and is building off-shore wind-farms. New York has Niagra Falls power and Hudson River power, as well as nuke plants.

If that's a good basis for survival, Alabama is well on its way to making it on its own.

Except for the off-shore wind farms, we have all of that. (Not by the same names, of course, but we have the same objects.)

[Muravyets]

I'd say New York state and Massachusetts are well set up to survive on their own. They both have major port cities and important business and education centers. They both have highly productive farming zones. Massachusetts has numerous power plants (hydro, coal and nuke) and is building off-shore wind-farms. New York has Niagra Falls power and Hudson River power, as well as nuke plants.

If that's a good basis for survival, Alabama is well on its way to making it on its own.

Except for the off-shore wind farms, we have all of that. (Not by the same names, of course, but we have the same objects.)

Well, I think it's a good basis for survival because it means that the states would not be dependent on outside sources for energy. They could produce a lot of their own food and have open access to trade with other nations. And they already have a more affluent, educated and skilled population base.

A poor, under-populated, mostly rural state like Vermont would have a harder time surviving by itself since it lacks tax revenue, a skilled workforce, and its own industry base. At least Vermont is connected to Canada, though I could easily see Vermont becoming a province of Canada if it were ever to secede from the US. But if Vermont were allied to New York, it would make a food-producing partner to industrialized/urbanized New York, and have a much better chance.

Poor, rural states not connected to a US border would have an even harder time making a go of independence.

[Serrland]

Illinois would have a pretty good shot, too. Good tourism money, lots of financial institutions, a strong industrial base, several top notch universities, a connection to the Great Lakes System (and by extension, the Atlantic), well developed commercial rail lines (in Greater Chicagoland). Downstate produces plenty of corn and beans, as well as dairy products in the NW part of the state. Importing/Exporting products wouldn't be a problem thanks to several key interstates crossing through the state, as well as two major airports (O'Hare and Midway). It also has a nuclear plant and several windmill power fields (I don't know what they're called).

[Dakini]

I think New York would fare pretty well. Probably a couple of places in New England as well, maybe. Illinois seems like it might do fine. Maybe some of the really empty places would do ok just because they don't have a lot of population to support.

Washington seems to have its act together as well.

I think Texas would do well until they run out of oil and ruin their environment as well as driving out anyone with a free thought in their head.

I think that pretty much the entire south east of the US would do poorly. Maybe Florida would get by. I'm not sure how California would fare.

[Schulner]

Wisconsin. Everyone from there makes it on there own already.

[Callisdrun]

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.

Have you ever even fucking been to California? You are aware that a huge amount of it is farmland, and it's something like the 6th largest economy in the world by itself, right?

It also pays more in taxes to the Federal Government than it gets back.

[You-Gi-Owe]

States with good seaports that don't have infamous debt/overspending problems: Washington, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersy.

I'm torn between Texas and Virginia.

[Straughn]

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.

AND military.
Oh, wait. That and all those other things are exactly why they'll never let us go.
And we'd never leave, since Uncle Ted fucked all the other states and taxpayers out of THEIR money for projects in our state. More that $2 tax money taken from fed for every $1 we ever contributed.
Yep, our state's full of hypocrites.
In an optimal scenario, though, you'd be right.

[United Russian State]

Alaska?

[Tahar Joblis]

Have you ever even fucking been to California? You are aware that a huge amount of it is farmland, and it's something like the 6th largest economy in the world by itself, right?

It also pays more in taxes to the Federal Government than it gets back.

Yes, but the state's finances are in even worse shape than that. The California state government seems pretty dysfunctional.

All told, I'd say California is in pretty good shape to make it on its own relative to most states, but I think native Californians underestimate how heavily reliant their state is on the rest of the country (and especially, how heavily reliant they are on the US currency and a constant flow of migrants from other states looking to strike it big in Cali, both of which would be seriously impacted in a secession scenario), and also how fragile their ecosystem is.

I will put in a vote for NC as a dark horse. Reasonably large state with a diversified economy, a coastline, a serious long-term investment in post-secondary education (second largest number of community colleges in the country, behind CA - not per capita, total number, eat that, TX and NY), and what is, from what I've seen in my travels thus far, a startlingly competent state government that can often balance a budget (as opposed to, say, CA), that's watched well enough that something as low-grade as a governor expensing too much at meals on a business trip (to the tune of thousands of dollars over the whole trip) is a horrible scandal that occupies the front page of major newspapers for weeks. Or even a several hundred dollar painting being bought improperly with state funds by an administrator. (As opposed to somewhere like NJ, where major corruption probes relating to millions of dollars seemed to barely attract notice.)

If you leave aside the civil war baggage, you'd be golden. I'd put NC somewhere around fifth place in secession-survivable states for long-term planning purposes - most likely behind Hawaii, New York, Texas, and California, but ahead of the rest of the Southeast, the inland states, and the rest of the smaller states.

Other states to watch would be Florida (size), Massachusetts (they already have a state health care system figured out), Oregon, and Washington.

Louisiana is a marvelous strategic position at the mouth of the Mississippi river, but is also home to a remarkably incompetent/corrupt tradition of state governance; Georgia I would put right behind NC in terms of their ability to make it alone, within the Southeastern states. The major differences? GA is run by a conservative Republican state government, doesn't have a comparable emphasis on post-secondary education, and a few other little niggling details like that.

[Parthenon]

Have you ever even fucking been to California? You are aware that a huge amount of it is farmland, and it's something like the 6th largest economy in the world by itself, right?

It also pays more in taxes to the Federal Government than it gets back.

Yes, but the state's finances are in even worse shape than that. The California state government seems pretty dysfunctional.

All told, I'd say California is in pretty good shape to make it on its own relative to most states, but I think native Californians underestimate how heavily reliant their state is on the rest of the country (and especially, how heavily reliant they are on the US currency and a constant flow of migrants from other states looking to strike it big in Cali, both of which would be seriously impacted in a secession scenario), and also how fragile their ecosystem is.

I will put in a vote for NC as a dark horse. Reasonably large state with a diversified economy, a coastline, a serious long-term investment in post-secondary education (second largest number of community colleges in the country, behind CA - not per capita, total number, eat that, TX and NY), and what is, from what I've seen in my travels thus far, a startlingly competent state government that can often balance a budget (as opposed to, say, CA), that's watched well enough that something as low-grade as a governor expensing too much at meals on a business trip (to the tune of thousands of dollars over the whole trip) is a horrible scandal that occupies the front page of major newspapers for weeks. Or even a several hundred dollar painting being bought improperly with state funds by an administrator. (As opposed to somewhere like NJ, where major corruption probes relating to millions of dollars seemed to barely attract notice.)

If you leave aside the civil war baggage, you'd be golden. I'd put NC somewhere around fifth place in secession-survivable states for long-term planning purposes - most likely behind Hawaii, New York, Texas, and California, but ahead of the rest of the Southeast, the inland states, and the rest of the smaller states.

Other states to watch would be Florida (size), Massachusetts (they already have a state health care system figured out), Oregon, and Washington; at worst, really, NC would be sitting around tenth place.

Louisiana is a marvelous strategic position at the mouth of the Mississippi river, but is also home to a remarkably incompetent/corrupt tradition of state governance; Georgia I would put right behind NC in terms of their ability to make it alone, within the Southeastern states. The major differences? GA is run by a conservative Republican state government, doesn't have a comparable emphasis on post-secondary education, and a few other little niggling details like that.

As a North Carolinian, I feel you have too much faith in our state government. However, economically, militarily, and structurally, we are good to go.

[Timhaukia]

California barely functions as part of the U.S. I don't think they'd do too hot on their own. Weren't they paying their workers in IOU's not too long ago? California needs to break off and fall into the pacific already

I think Texas or Alaska would have a pretty good chance.

Or maybe Nevada. They've got legal prostitution AND Las Vegas. What more do you need?

[Tahar Joblis]

As a North Carolinian, I feel you have too much faith in our state government. However, economically, militarily, and structurally, we are good to go.

As I was growing up in NC, I put little faith in NC's state government. Then I travelled a little more widely and started to pay attention to how other state governments [mal]functioned. My impression thus far is that NC's state government is, or at least has been, comparatively competent and non-corrupt, in the grand scheme of things.

[Lackadaisical2]

As a North Carolinian, I feel you have too much faith in our state government. However, economically, militarily, and structurally, we are good to go.

As I was growing up in NC, I put little faith in NC's state government. Then I travelled a little more widely and started to pay attention to how other state governments [mal]functioned. My impression thus far is that NC's state government is, or at least has been, comparatively competent and non-corrupt, in the grand scheme of things.

I hadn't even considered it in the running, but NC is a really nice place. I think most every state could survive on their own, however I tend to think Texas would do quite well on its own- they're one of the fastest growing states, it seems, especially in the arena of making new jobs.

Cali just seems too dysfunctional, going into debt all the time, otherwise, it'd be another good pick.

[Eternal Life with God]

Alaska? Or maybe Hawaii? Or Carlifornia?

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I'm picking Nevada. A lot of Californians move there. Mexicans, too. Must be a reason. Besides, who needs resources when you can hibernate in a casino, hook an IV up to a slot machine and forget how long you've been there?

Okay. Being more serious now. I think Hawaii would be it.