Just to go to the other extreme, Wyoming would make a decent little third world country. Enough minerals and oil to export in trade for manufactured goods, an okay food production area in the south, Tax the hell out of those pasing on I-80, and most importantly, a whole shitload of Nuclear weapons. Plus the fact that no one would really notice if they did leave, or complain if they noticed.
Now see this is the fatal mistake of secession. If you tax the hell out of the I-80 passers through, they will just divert. And of course the USA would keep the nukes. On the other hand, the rest of the rational is compelling. Vive Wyoming!
Most of you are making the mistake that natural resources equals an ability to go independent. Horse feathers!
Singapore: any natural resources there?
Japan: 2nd largest economy in the world. None of it built on natural resources. Not even a decent agricultural base, for cryin’ out loud.
If your country is successful, the world will beat a path to your door to sell you the natural resources and the food that you need.
That said, given that NYC still has the money and the financial know-how, as well as a much larger manufacturing base, even at this late date, than most people would credit, NY state could easily go it alone.
The rest of NY has scattered pockets of manufacturing, lots of agriculture, and quite a bit of tourism; the state fair in Syracuse drew record crowds last year.
In terms of energy use, NY state is 50th per capita, so not having a source of energy built in is less of a problem there than anywhere else.
Then, NJ (where I live now) could go it alone selling NY whatever it couldn’t produce for itself (that wasn’t a natural resource, of course).
We may have a limited economy in some ways, but we also have the west coast base for the Nuke missile subs… so, COME ON, you pansies! We’ll kick your ASS!!!
When I was in elementary school in Arkansas, I used to hear teachers make the claim fairly often that Arkansas was the one state in the union that could be reasonably self-sufficient. The argument was that it had abundant water, lots of prime farmland capable of growing ample food of almost every type for both internal consumption and export, plenty of pasture land, lots of poultry farms, lots of timber, reserves of coal, petroleum, and natural gas as well as lots of hydroelectric power plants, veins of bauxite (the raw material for aluminum), lead, and other minerals, the only diamond mine in North America, several navigable rivers, and so on. Of course, the economies of the states were not nearly so tightly integrated thirty years ago – I have to wonder what would happen to Arkansas if WalMart, Tyson Foods, Dillards, TCBY, J.B. Hunt Trucking, ABF, American Freightways, Acxiom, and other Arkansas companies that’ve gone national suddenly found themselves in a seceded state.
As for Texas, they’d die of thirst. A lot of their water comes from the Oglalla acquifer, which lies mostly under Arkansas. Cut that off, and they’re toast – as evidenced by their ongoing efforts to get more rights to Arkansas water.
the answer is clearly Wisconsin. We have everything: water, very firtile soil, cattle, lumber, grain, iron for car making and dairy. Its clear that Wisconsin is the most self sufficent state!
Of course the question is moot now, because zombies.
Wisconsin: Self-sufficient for 12 years!
And Wisconsin’s national motto: Smell our dairy air!
Aw man,
I saw the OP was from Cervaise and I thought he was back
National viability has nothing to do with size, number of harbors or airports, size of the economy, etc. It has everything to do with the people’s moral and will. In general smaller and more uniform nation states are more likely to have the population’s support than larger and more diverse. Rhode Island could be perfectly viable if it had the Rhode Islanders support. It could set itself up as the Singapore of the American east cost. I think the US state most likely to survive as an independent nation would be the state that has the most uniform population, and a history and tradition to draw on and craft a national patriotism on.
I think Florida is often overlooked in these types of speculation. Huge agricultural base, tourism, light industry, and all the smuggling routes you could want.
Iron cars? Why am I picturing an automotive industry run by Buster Keaton?
That’s a papermill.
For a moment I thought Cervaise had come back.
Yeah, iron is in cars. Duh.
Wisconsin is the freaking bomb
Much as it irks me, I’d have to agree with Spoke (not because of Spoke, but because I’m also no big fan of Texas). As for California, it’s a contender, but unless you could get rid of the Californians and their current constitution it’s always going to be dysfunctional. Hell, they are having a hard time keeping their heads above water while being IN the Union. Water is a major issue as well, but it’s the weird ‘vote for everything, pay for nothing’ attitude and, frankly, the anti-business tax mindset and energy policies that would doom them without substantial change. Texas, on the other hand, is very business friendly (though water there would also be an issue) state, and assuming they kept the same attitude would be the same as an independent nation statelet.
I think both states COULD be independent nations, but Texas would be more successful at it.
What about Alaska?
large amounts of oil wealth
Strong independent spirit
Given its size and the isolation of its populace it is difficult for the federal government to exert much influence even now.
I bet there are parts of Alaska that wouldn’t even notice for a year or more if the federal government disappeared.
This comes from after. this thread started, but it is clear what California would put on its money:
I won’t be back.
Surely the most self-sufficient state is self sufficiency itself?
Most of the states that pride themselves on their “independent spirit” are in fact the most dependent on the federal government, with Alaska being the worst of all: Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia