Top Ten Most Self-Sufficient States In the United StatesWhat state do you think could keep themself together? Could it be Alaska, California, or any state?
The Top Ten
Here's The deal, Texas is the second largest state, with terrain which varies widely, so, there is a broad production of multiple different goods. Texas produces the most Oil in the US, and even at times outproduces Saudi Arabia and other middle east places known for Oil.
Texas has a state militia that could easily hold its own against other world superpowers, at least for a time. Texas also has the most impressive Law Enforcement branch (Texas Rangers) known to man.
Texas is a hot-spot for businesses, and innovation, partially due to low taxes, but also partially due to Texans generally being able to be consumers to these businesses. Texas is a place of success, and though in the dense city populations, it does tend to have a few Democrats, the majority of Texans are hard working citizens, not only loyal to Texas, but extremely proud of it.
Finally, I would like to mention that Texas was actually once its own Country, whereas Every other state does not have that ...more
I think that the biggest indicator here is how a state would do on it's own, and by that standard, Texas is the clear winner. As a nation it would have a massive and prosperous oil industry because of the Gulf of Mexico. It has the most well regulated state militia with an army and a navy. California comes in second here, but is still leagues behind.
Texas also has a very good economy, unlike California, which is drowning in debt. California would collapse economically soon after it's independence but Texas, with it's extremely loyal citizens and booming industry, would leap onto the international stage while California would struggle.
All else aside, Texas also has a great flag. Meaning I could actually see it as a country. Can you imagine Wyoming's flag being a country flag?
I'm not a Texan and California is a great state. But in the long run, California just wouldn't make the cut. Meanwhile, Texas would be thriving.
It is the second largest state! And depending on how many Californians move to Texas, Texas is close to becoming the most populated. It so big and #2 or #1 on a number of categories that it really deserves to become an independent nation once again! But to be honest, the whole country needs this state.
The 41st (George H.W. Bush) and 43rd (George W. Bush) Presidents were Raised in Texas. George H.W. Bush Died Here as well - Kambochia12
California is a great state and the most progressive, hence the most prosperous. As much as people complain about Democrats and high taxes, it's to SUPPORT the progressive mantra to keep growing and flourishing. Anyone who complains about our politics elsewhere and internally, participate and practice your civic duties if your resident. If you're not, you're just envious. If you don't like it here, then leave to Texas are wherever you deem more free. I'm sure someone is waiting in line to take up your space from somewhere else.
California produces the biggest percentage of America's produce. California leads the nation in energy, technology, and entertainment. If California were to strike out on its own California would see more upside than downside. While the rest of America would deal with price surges in fruits and vegetables, California would likely see an economic boom.
No. Just no, California takes massive amounts of aid from D.C., lacks renewable water, and has a far higher crime rate than average. The only thing California has to say for itself is that it produces the most food BY VALUE, not by quantity. And that's mostly because California is large. When building a pipe line from the Great Lakes to your state is considered a valid idea to get fresh water, you're not self sufficient.
I don't think California could stay alive with mostly Democrats they would not have to many weapons and with there large population I dougt they could survive
An extremely large population that would be hard to feed without imports and you never want to rely on imports for your sustenance
New York City is mainly dependent on New York State. Without the state, NYC would crumble into ruins. Oh, and New York is crap. Go to Massachusetts instead.
Home to one of the most developed cities in the world, it would be a prosperous place if the crisis of the US splitting were to happen. - Turkeyasylum
California and the West couldn't last a year without the water provided by the Great Lakes. Michigan has everything it needs in theory. It has plenty of fresh water. It has plenty of farms with plenty of variety (second only to California, but again, how is California going to water those crops without Michigan? ). It has the now-profitable Big Three car companies. It has the untapped goldmine of resources in the Upper Peninsula. Coal, lumber, oil, you name it is up in the UP. It has a strong tourism economy (so much so that they have a law saying public schools must start after Labor Day to encourage tourism). The only state that can compete with Michigan is Texas because they have lots of military bases and oil, whereas Michigan only has enough of those for itself. But again, Texas doesn't strike me as overflowing with fresh water nor farms.
Michigan is the most self sufficient it has the factories in Detroit the cherries in traverse city all the medical support you would need in Grand Rapids it's got the timber and wildlife in northern Michigan and has control over the Mackinaw bridge and to top all that it has plenty of farms all over the state and plenty of guns for protection against those who would try to steal from there riches so yeah Michigan is by far the most self sufficient!
Michigan grows more food then Colorado and Wyoming combined it also has control of the auto industry besides that it has tons of copper and coil in the UP and with Detroit coming back as a leading business city and with more wood than any other state really is it even a question who's the most self sufficient
Michigan has more oil underneath them the the whole state of Texas that the food and the auto industry could easily keep them alive
Idaho has both mineral and food production as well as a tech industry and the potential for a manufacturing industry. With 4th generation nuclear technology, we could be fully self powered.
Idaho has a low population it would be easy for them to grow enough food to survive
Why is Idaho on this list anyway?
Because Idaho is a heck of a lot more self sufficient than California. - BrideiMacBella
Idaho could go well on their own because of... spuds. - Turkeyasylum
Alaska is resource-rich, and its small population could lead to instant money. But, they shouldn't burn down all the glaciers. - Turkeyasylum
Ohio has more major cities than any other state in the nation. Outside those cities, however, is vast sprawls of either woodland or fertile farmland. We also have well-established industrial and military centres (even after the rust belt collapse), as well as some of the largest freshwater ports and Marinas in the world. Although the large population could be a challenge, the huge amount of farmland would easily be able to feed the entire population with a surplus. Go Bucks!
I like my home state but it's not in a good place if the borders with PA and IN close. Rationally, I had to vote for MI here. - bagel
I think that it's because they won the national championship. My state.
Ohio is the one better then Louisianan and and are extremely nice but they love to do the finger and pic their butts and noses sorry people in Ohio but you guys really do it
Seattle, as well as a high amount of food growth. - Turkeyasylum
Smoke weed everyday
We are self-sufficient we have all we need from food to water power to electricity we got it all.
Look, we got Walmart, lakes, diamonds, forests for days, deer, fish, and other wildlife, farms for animals and plants, I'd say we would do pretty well.
I live in arkansas
We have clean water!
I think North Dakota could survive but what about the savages? And North Dakota has tons of peep squeaks that run a round and mine oil...
Oil has been discovered there, and it's being mined as we speak. - Turkeyasylum
Without a doubt Florida would definitely be one of the most self sufficient states. Floridas agricultural is thriving year round because of the temperate climate along with the ocean to provide food. Fuel is not a problem in Florida because many cities are nuclear powered and the potential of rich untapped oil resources offshore. Lots of timber, manpower, tourism, solar energy the list goes on...
Access to water, plenty of land, 3rd most populated state, strong military.
Florida has the potential to produce more produce than that of california at a cheaper cost since it wouldn't need to run as much irrigation and we can grow year round. As for oil we can drill for it off shore and being nearly surrounded by water means that there is a booming fishing industry. florida is one of the leaders in tourism in the entire country and it's citizens take their 2nd amendment seriously so it would definitely be able to defend itself. the only problem I see would be a lack of mineral resources such as iron and coal.
Wisconsin is the dairy state by trading with Michigan for supplies they could stay alive with there low population
Is it possible cheese exports could keep the state alive? - Turkeyasylum
I make my own list scansin will be number one
Vermont has a small population, yet they are extremely smart. - Turkeyasylum
The absolute most sufficient state. A true Louisiana native can survive anything, anywhere and for any period of time. Don't get caught in the swamp after dark if you don't have any friends here. Most importantly we help each other, Lake Charles, La is the fastest growing city in the US and many nations are consulting this great state on methods, policies and procedures concerning rebuilding and resilience. Once revival hits us, there won't be any stopping us, God bless Louisiana.
Who said most powerful? This was the most self sufficient. If you want to talk warfare La sinks a couple of ships north of Baton Rouge in the Mississippi in October they cut the entire central portion of the country off from fresh fruits and vegetables from central and South America, heating oil, etc. As far as seeing bombings, radar sights can see thru rain. You can bomb all you want if you can't put in ground troops who cares blow the bridges and see what happens about getting in.
Louisiana has its foot in almost every industry from tech to agriculture, it's resource rich, and its population is just right in regards to self sustainability; that being, its population isn't too large to be reliant on others for resources and isn't too small to lack in production of products. It's also the home to 3 of the USA's largest ports, as it controls the mouth of the nations longest and perhaps most valuable river.
In regards to California and Texas they would be able to sustain themselves well for the beginning of the term; however, both states are prone to droughts and water shortages which could, in the long term, lead to famine as the states try to satisfy the needs of their large populations.
What idiot said Louisiana could survive there tiny they barely grow any food and who gives a crap about the river were in there 21st century not everything is shipped by ships not that I'm saying they could not find a way to become self sufficient but in no way would they be the most self sufficient state by far
With lots of farmland, transportation infrastructure and access to international trade, Georgia would have a fighting chance to make it on the outside.
I think the state could stay afloat but not thrive based off its tobacco and alcoholic sales and or trade. Tourism would play a key role in the states sunk or swim economy as well.
TVA Oak Ridge
Needs to be above Mississippi.
Pennsylvania > Massachusetts
Most towns within Pennsylvania are in fact self sufficient (thanks Amish)
Pennsylvania produces many natural resources to keep themselves running, including
>buckwheat, corn, and other vegetables
Pennsylvania has a good mix of urban areas, (western PA, around Pittsburgh and Erie, and Southeast PA, Philadelphia and Allentown) and rural (central PA) I’m pretty sure they’re on top of being “self sufficient”
Illinois has the 5th largest population in America, the 5th largest economy in America, and the 3rd largest city in America. They have the Farming capability of being their own nation. They are also on Lake Michigan, which gives them fresh water.
Virginia has a HUGE farming communities, 2 international trade hubs/ports, one of the best funded national guards, and many national/international cooperate headquarters. We also have an international airport. The taxes are fair and could be raised in the event of secession. If only providing food for ourselves, our farming, food manufacturing, and seafood industries could sustain us. We also have tons of untapped potential in coal energy and steel production. In reality, Virginia is as capable as any of the top states for self-sufficiency. We also do t have the mountains of debt that the top states do.
Virginia has a large and growing population, however, it isn't to large that it's not sustainable. It also has a strong national guard, a healthy rich population (in the north) and a managable homeless population that has been seeing a large decrease several steps ahead of the national average. It also has a large tourist and shipping sector along the coast, and one of the largest US navy bases in norfolk. Richmond, Fairfax, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Georgetown are all examples of how the state has built healthy communities. In addition it features a large agricultural industry to feed itself. As a small bonus it also has the mountains to the west which would act as a natural barrier to invasion.
It has large ports in Norfolk, strong agricultural, defense, and extraction industries, multiple nuclear power plants, and a large future in wind powe.
The Old Dominion
Arizona has plenty of food (one of the largest veggie producers), is a large copper producer, has a large retirement community. It also grows a significant amount of corn and cotton. It is very capable of being self sufficient. It also has it share of the Colorado river, a vital resource for all Southwestern states.
Arizona has a very small population I think it could survive
If the states were to separate, Missouri would do just fine. We have an extensive agriculture base, and enough access to the raw materials for our industry to prosper. As for oil...we'll steal it from Oklahoma and Arkansas.
Agriculture, mining, forestry, snowmelt, only severe droughts put self-sufficiency into doubt.
Colorado has a smaller population they could probably move into the mountains and live up there with there cattle and by moving there military up there they could survive
Possibly the ranches and gold could keep them alive
We have the beef, we have the wheat, we have the dams and aquifers, we have the weed, we have NORAD and all of it’s toys. ‘Nough said
I think with there low population they could catch fish and hunt dear to stay alive also the do grow a little food there
We were the first state to seccede from the union, and we didn't want A war
It's not a bad state! It's just needs desperate adaptation.
Just joking lol this states a hellhole
Been doing pretty damn good the last several years. Economy's alright and were slowly getting more recognition. Besides, if we can handle those rough winters, we're probably doing well.
We might not get noticed but we can still survive on our own
We practically survive on our own we don't need any tourists or much help either we do it our selfs up here