# The 50 states after the dissolution of the USA. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2008, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592 "2008-09-21T22:10:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/21 "2008-09-22T01:21:03Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > How many tax havens does the world really need? From the Wikipedia article:_Despite its limited natural resources, Liechtenstein is one of the few countries in the world with more registered companies than citizens; it has developed into a prosperous, highly industrialized, free-enterprise economy, and boasts a financial service sector as well as a living standard which compares favourably to those of the urban areas of Liechtenstein’s large European neighbours. Relatively low business taxes—the maximum tax rate is 18%—as well as easy Rules of Incorporation have induced about 73,700 holding (or so-called ‘letter box’) companies to establish nominal offices in Liechtenstein. Such processes provide about 30% of Liechtenstein’s state revenue. Liechtenstein also generates revenue from the establishment of stiftungs (“foundations”), which are financial entities created to increase the privacy of nonresident foreigners’ financial holdings. The foundation is registered in the name of a Liechtensteiner, often a lawyer._ > > Liechtenstein doesn’t even maintain its own diplomatic relations or mint and print its own currency, and its government is smaller than the PTA board of a large school. For all practical purposes it is a small semi-independent protectorate of Switzerland. Next you’ll be bringing up the Principality of Monaco and the Most Serene Republic of San Marino as examples of successful independent nations. > > Stranger At 505k population, Wyoming would rank 162 of 206 nations…errr, 212 of 256 I guess. Most of those lower on the list are islands, I’ll grant, but still that’s over 40 countries. There’s a defense treaty postulated, so the only real question is whether there’s sufficient economic activity in Wyoming for it to pick up the tab for govt services currently provided by the feds. I really can’t fathom why anyone would think that any US state wouldn’t continue on approximately the same as before, albeit a little richer or poorer. Unless, I guess, we’re imagining that there are significant barriers to inter-state trade in this new Un-united States. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/22 "2008-09-22T01:33:28Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > How many tax havens does the world really need? > > \ > > Liechtenstein doesn’t even maintain its own diplomatic relations or mint and print its own currency, and its government is smaller than the PTA board of a large school. For all practical purposes it is a small semi-independent protectorate of Switzerland. Next you’ll be bringing up the Principality of Monaco and the Most Serene Republic of San Marino as examples of successful independent nations. > > Stranger What do places like Czech Rep., Austria, or Hungary have that places like Utah, Missouri, and Ohio don’t have? How about Bulgaria vs. S. Carolina, for example? ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/23 "2008-09-22T01:43:41Z")
At this point in history, frankly, the Europeans seem to show a lot more sense than Americans do. I’m concerned that we’d end up with a lot of small brush wars over tariffs and the like. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/24 "2008-09-22T01:44:44Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > We have a lot of people here in the US who are very big on their own brand of religion, and seriously into owning guns. In today’s world, a lot of civilian nuts with guns can make a decent civil war, but if they tried to invade another country they’d be chopped to peices by an organized military one twentieth their number. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/25 "2008-09-22T01:48:49Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > In today’s world, a lot of civilian nuts with guns can make a decent civil war, but if they tried to invade another country they’d be chopped to peices by an organized military one twentieth their number. Guerillo and terror tactics can be very effective. The military could drive them back assuming they were not supported by local populations. It’s not a given that this would be the case. Rural areas in particular would be susceptible, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/26 "2008-09-22T01:50:46Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > What do places like Czech Rep., Austria, or Hungary have that places like Utah, Missouri, and Ohio don’t have? > > How about Bulgaria vs. S. Carolina, for example? The states you list above all have substantial agricultural holdings; Missouri has a not insignificant manufacturing base (at least, compared to other states), and Utah has several facilities that are pretty much critical to the current defense establishment. Ohio used to be a big producer of steel, and has a substantial manufacturing base as well. I suspect all of these states could function at least marginally as semi-autonomous members of an economic and political collective in a status quo economic context. If the assumption is that this dissolution would create an economic and defense establishment that is functionally equivalent to the current Union…well, I guess that there isn’t really much change. But an implicit assumption here should be that this isn’t the case, that states will be free to act strictly in their own interests. There is also the issue of taxation; all the services (many of them, admittedly questionable) that are provided at the federal level would now either need to be coordinated at the state level, performed by some kind of interstate bureaucracy, or done by private contractors who essentially bill each state for work done. As much as State’s Rights and dogmatic Libertarians would like to believe that this is the ultimate in desirable free market capitalism, I would see huge problems. It also means that the states would no longer negotiate with other nations as a unified body, vastly lessening the influence of the union. One major problem that would be looming is water rights: right now states like Arizona and California are using a lion’s share of irreplaceable fossil water. Right now the issue is dictated and adjudicated at the federal level by the US Federal Courts. Ditto with other interstate contentions. Since you’ve eliminated the federal court system, who bells the cat? The implications of dissolving the Union go far beyond any individual state being able to provide or trade for its own needs. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/27 "2008-09-22T01:57:05Z")
North Dakota would become the third most powerful country in the world, militarily. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/28 "2008-09-22T02:02:45Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The states you list above all have substantial agricultural holdings; Missouri has a not insignificant manufacturing base (at least, compared to other states), and Utah has several facilities that are pretty much critical to the current defense establishment. Ohio used to be a big producer of steel, and has a substantial manufacturing base as well. I suspect all of these states could function at least marginally as semi-autonomous members of an economic and political collective in a status quo economic context. > > If the assumption is that this dissolution would create an economic and defense establishment that is functionally equivalent to the current Union…well, I guess that there isn’t really much change. But an implicit assumption here should be that this isn’t the case, that states will be free to act strictly in their own interests. There is also the issue of taxation; all the services (many of them, admittedly questionable) that are provided at the federal level would now either need to be coordinated at the state level, performed by some kind of interstate bureaucracy, or done by private contractors who essentially bill each state for work done. As much as State’s Rights and dogmatic Libertarians would like to believe that this is the ultimate in desirable free market capitalism, I would see huge problems. It also means that the states would no longer negotiate with other nations as a unified body, vastly lessening the influence of the union. > > One major problem that would be looming is water rights: right now states like Arizona and California are using a lion’s share of irreplaceable fossil water. Right now the issue is dictated and adjudicated at the federal level by the US Federal Courts. Ditto with other interstate contentions. Since you’ve eliminated the federal court system, who bells the cat? The implications of dissolving the Union go far beyond any individual state being able to provide or trade for its own needs. > > Stranger Holy Christmas, you’re quite right. I think we’d end up forming into four to six regions of politically like-minded states. Some state borders would adjust and some people would move. People would have to keep their heads and not get pissed off, and I’m not sure how good we are at that. I’m still concerned about tariff-based or religion based conflicts, but with bigger states, it’s less likely. ETA: So let’s divvy her up. Do you think the rust belt would go with the blue North East? ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/29 "2008-09-22T02:11:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > North Dakota would become the third most powerful country in the world, militarily. Is that where the silos are? ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/30 "2008-09-22T02:15:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > North Dakota would become the third most powerful country in the world, militarily. No cite, but I have heard that is the case with Washington State, especially the Bremerton area. With the ship yards, etc. But this is only what someone who worked there mentioned to me, so no cite. But he said that Kitsap County where Bremerton is located would be the third most powerful country in the world if it seceeded from the union. Will need to see if I can track that info down. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/31 "2008-09-22T02:23:14Z")
> [@Hakuna\_Matata](#): > > No cite, but I have heard that is the case with Washington State, especially the Bremerton area. With the ship yards, etc. But this is only what someone who worked there mentioned to me, so no cite. But he said that Kitsap County where Bremerton is located would be the third most powerful country in the world if it seceeded from the union. Will need to see if I can track that info down. It’s what I always used to hear about ND when I lived there. My dad served as an officer at the missile wing at Grand Forks AFB when I was a kid, and it was popular lore on the base that “if ND seceeded from the union, it would become the third most powerful country in the world” (because of all the silos there). But maybe it’s something that gets said in more than one place. Supposedly ND is also one of the first places that would get nuked in a hot war with Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/32 "2008-09-22T02:50:12Z")
THis works best as about 8 countries: Goddamn Libruls: ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, Southeastern NY, NJ, MA, DE, Eastern PA, Washington DC, northern VA. The Rust Belt: OH, MI, IN, IL, the rest of NY and PA. Appalachia: THe rest of VA, WV, Western NC, KY, TN Dixie: Eastern NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, southern MO. Heartland: MN, WI, IA, Northern MO, ND, SD, NE, KS Oil, Guns n’ God: TX, OK Natural Wonder: MT, ID, WY, UT, CO, NM, AZ, maybe NV. The Far Left: CA, WA, OR, maybe NV. Sorry about sticking NM and CO in when they’d probably prefer to be with CA, but unless they can agree to switch places with AZ and UT, there’s not much I can do about it. I think NV would have to have a referendum. Tell me what’s wrong with it, because I’m sure there are lots of things. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/33 "2008-09-22T03:00:35Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > I think the blue states in the northeast would probably form into a union of sorts. There’s more agriculture than you probably realize there. We’d have very friendly relations with the west coast. We’d also be a financial mecca. I dunno. I’d imagine that an independent New York State would be much like the United Kingdom circa 1990: a dominant, influential and affluent world city, and a bunch of struggling, gritty, post-industrial burghs. Upstate New York would be the equivalent of The North in the UK. One thing about Upstate New York, though: it’s loaded with colleges and universities. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/34 "2008-09-22T03:10:08Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > I dunno. I’d imagine that an independent New York State would be much like the United Kingdom circa 1990: a dominant, influential and affluent world city, and a bunch of struggling, gritty, post-industrial burghs. Upstate New York would be the equivalent of The North in the UK. > > One thing about Upstate New York, though: it’s loaded with colleges and universities. Well, that’s why I split New York between the Goddam Libruls and the Rust Belt in my immediately prior post. But I think those two nation states would be pretty close allies, even though their personal ideologies wouldn’t be perfectly compatible. My first take on this had the Rust Belt combined with the Goddam Libruls, and Appalachia combined with Dixie. But when I got to the midwest, I realized I was just lumping in too diverse groups that I didn’t know enough about (and I probably still did), and I had to split it out further. The larger each nation state, the better, I think - the more self-sufficient, and the less likely to start warring among each other over stupid stuff. But eight didn’t seem that much Balkanization, especially since a number of them do seem to fall into natural alliances. ETA: I’m pretty sure each nation state has a comfortable share of fine colleges and good armories of National Guard. But they don’t all have ND’s share of nuclear silos or other large-scale military assets. Those, I think, would have to be negotiated or something before the union was peacefully dissolved. I personally woud not be comfortable with the lion’s share of the U.S nuclear arsenal in the control of a single low-population state. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/35 "2008-09-22T05:00:39Z")
While ou’re divvying states up amongst your regions there are a few things you might want to consider: Ohio probably should be split up with Northern Ohio in the Rust belt, Southern Ohio in Appalachia. Similarly, while Chicago has a lot of cultural and economic connections with a lot of the other, mostly liberal, large city-dominated portions of the Rust belt, southern Illinois is certainly much more similar to the neighboring ‘Heartland’. That also probably goes for Indiana outside of Gary and Wisconsin outside of the Milwaukee/Racine area. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/36 "2008-09-22T05:02:20Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > THis works best as about 8 countries: > > Goddamn Libruls: ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, Southeastern NY, NJ, MA, DE, Eastern PA, Washington DC, northern VA. > > The Rust Belt: OH, MI, IN, IL, the rest of NY and PA. > > Appalachia: THe rest of VA, WV, Western NC, KY, TN > > Dixie: Eastern NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, southern MO. > > Heartland: MN, WI, IA, Northern MO, ND, SD, NE, KS > > Oil, Guns n’ God: TX, OK > > Natural Wonder: MT, ID, WY, UT, CO, NM, AZ, maybe NV. > > The Far Left: CA, WA, OR, maybe NV. > > Sorry about sticking NM and CO in when they’d probably prefer to be with CA, but unless they can agree to switch places with AZ and UT, there’s not much I can do about it. > > I think NV would have to have a referendum. > > Tell me what’s wrong with it, because I’m sure there are lots of things. Michigan would join Canada. We’d need universal health care to pay for lots of tetnis shots so we don’t get lock jaw from all that rust. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/37 "2008-09-22T05:24:19Z")
Oh, and Central and Southeastern Virginia aren’t very Appalachian. Might want to split NoVa, Western Virginia, and the Rest of Virginia between the Lib’ruls, Appalachia and Dixie. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/38 "2008-09-22T10:52:27Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > THis works best as about 8 countries: > > Goddamn Libruls: ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, Southeastern NY, NJ, MA, DE, Eastern PA, Washington DC, northern VA. > > The Rust Belt: OH, MI, IN, IL, the rest of NY and PA. > > Appalachia: THe rest of VA, WV, Western NC, KY, TN > > Dixie: Eastern NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, southern MO. > > Heartland: MN, WI, IA, Northern MO, ND, SD, NE, KS > > Oil, Guns n’ God: TX, OK > > Natural Wonder: MT, ID, WY, UT, CO, NM, AZ, maybe NV. > > The Far Left: CA, WA, OR, maybe NV. Where the hell is Delaware? By the way guys, back to the OP: who will be better off without the union (compared to the other states, not to the current situation)? And I need to know what’s going to happen to Fl and PR. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/39 "2008-09-22T13:08:46Z")
> [@RyJae](#): > > Going by Gross State Product, California and Texas would be okay by there own GDP. While Vermont and North Dakota would be dirt poor countries. Is that adjusted per capita? ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592/40 "2008-09-22T13:17:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is that adjusted per capita? I don’t think it is, the federal funding does though. The wiki I read was this one > **[List of U.S. states and territories by GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_(nominal))** > > This is a list of U.S. states and territories by gross domestic product (GDP). This article presents the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and their nominal GDP at current prices. > The data source for the list is the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in 2025. The BEA defined GDP by state as "the sum of value added from all industries in the state." and the per capita one is this one, which does change the layout. > **[List of U.S. states and territories by GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal))** > > This is a list of U.S. states and territories by gross domestic product (GDP). This article presents the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and their nominal GDP at current prices. > The data source for the list is the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in 2025. The BEA defined GDP by state as "the sum of value added from all industries in the state." > [@](#): > > 1 District of Columbia 124,363 > 2 Delaware 59,288 > 3 Connecticut 50,332 > 4 Massachusetts 46,721 > 5 New York 46,617 > 6 New Jersey 44,885 > 7 Alaska 43,748 > 8 Colorado 41,798 > 9 Virginia 41,702 > 10 California 41,663 > 11 Minnesota 41,295 > 12 Nevada 39,813 > 13 Washington 39,616 > 14 Illinois 39,514 > 15 Maryland 39,161 > 16 Wyoming 39,130 > 17 Hawaii 38,083 > 18 New Hampshire 37,666 > 19 Oregon 37,633 > 20 Texas 36,920 > 21 North Carolina 36,489 > 22 Nebraska 36,441 > 23 Rhode Island 36,292 > 24 South Dakota 35,842 > 25 Iowa 35,662 > 26 Wisconsin 35,390 > 27 Georgia 35,362 > 28 Pennsylvania 34,828 > 29 Ohio 34,609 > 30 Vermont 34,472 > 31 North Dakota 34,446 > 32 Tennessee 34,321 > 33 Kansas 34,242 > 34 Indiana 34,058 > 35 Florida 33,718 > 36 Michigan 33,468 > 37 Arizona 33,441 > 38 Missouri 33,297 > 39 Louisiana 32,923 > 40 Utah 32,357 > 41 New Mexico 31,986 > 42 Idaho 30,896 > 43 Maine 30,305 > 44 Kentucky 29,842 > 45 Alabama 29,697 > 46 South Carolina 29,642 > 47 Oklahoma 29,545 > 48 Montana 27,942 > 49 Arkansas 27,875 > 50 West Virginia 24,748 > 51 Mississippi 24,062 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-states-after-the-dissolution-of-the-usa/464592.md?page=3)