Top 10 Most Self-Sufficient States In the United States
What state do you think could keep themself together? Could it be Alaska, California, or any state?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, should participate and practice their civic duties if they are residents. If you're not, you're just envious. If you don't like it here, then leave to Texas or wherever you deem more free. I'm sure someone is waiting in line to take up your space from somewhere else.
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.
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 and 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.
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. However, Texas doesn't strike me as overflowing with fresh water or farms.
Here's the deal: Texas is the second largest state, with terrain that varies widely. Therefore, 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 Eastern countries 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 because Texans are generally able to be consumers of these businesses. Texas is a place of success. Though in the dense city populations it does tend to have a few Democrats, the majority of Texans are hardworking 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 background.
Large amount of renewable energy.
Gas pipeline.
Large agricultural production for population size.
Food production plants.
Large dairy production.
Cattle, swine, and poultry operations and processing plants.
Idaho has both mineral and food production as well as a tech industry and the potential for a manufacturing industry. With fourth-generation nuclear technology, we could be fully self-powered.
With Idaho's low population, it would be easy for them to grow enough food to survive.
Alaska is resource-rich, and its small population could lead to instant wealth. However, they shouldn't burn down all the glaciers.
Ohio has more major cities than any other state in the nation. Outside those cities, however, are vast sprawls of either woodland or fertile farmland. We also have well-established industrial and military centers (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 think it's because they won the national championship. My state.
I think North Dakota could survive, but what about the savages? North Dakota has tons of pipsqueaks that run around and mine oil.
Oil has been discovered there, and it's being mined as we speak.
Seattle, along with a high amount of food growth, contributes to self-sufficiency.
Is it possible that cheese exports could keep the state alive?
Without a doubt, Florida would definitely be one of the most self-sufficient states. Florida's agriculture 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 there are rich, untapped oil resources offshore. There is lots of timber, manpower, tourism, and solar energy. The list goes on.
Florida has the potential to produce more produce than California at a cheaper cost since it wouldn't need to run as much irrigation and can grow year-round. As for oil, we can drill for it offshore. 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 its citizens take their Second Amendment rights 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.
Vermont has a small population, yet they are extremely smart.
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.
Agriculture, mining, forestry, and snowmelt contribute significantly. Only severe droughts put self-sufficiency into doubt.
We have the beef, we have the wheat, we have the dams and aquifers, we have the weed, we have NORAD and all of its toys. 'Nough said.
Colorado has a smaller population. They could probably move into the mountains and live up there with their cattle. By moving their military up there, they could survive.
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. Its population isn't too large to be reliant on others for resources and isn't too small to lack in the production of products. It's also home to three of the USA's largest ports, as it controls the mouth of the nation's 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.
We've been doing pretty well the last several years. The economy is alright and we're slowly getting more recognition. Besides, if we can handle those rough winters, we're probably doing well.
I think the state could stay afloat but not thrive based on its tobacco and alcohol sales and trade. Tourism would play a key role in the state's sink-or-swim economy as well.
Arizona has plenty of food (one of the largest veggie producers), is a large copper producer, and 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 its share of the Colorado River, a vital resource for all Southwestern states.
If the states were to separate, Missouri would do just fine. We have an extensive agricultural base and enough access to the raw materials for our industry to prosper. As for oil...we'll steal it from Oklahoma and Arkansas.
With lots of farmland, transportation infrastructure, and access to international trade, Georgia would have a fighting chance to make it on its own.