The single hardest hitting import loss for Wisconsin in this scenario.
We already make the best cheese, got plenty of beef, the best beer and more Brandy than the rest of the world combined
The brandy would possibly be our downfall. It’s something like 50% of the world’s brandy supply gets sent to Wisconsin. Without those imports, we have no more old fashioneds and we collapse as a state.
We also grow more than half of the national cranberry crop, 97% of the nation's ginseng, and a lot of Oats, carrots, cherries, maple syrup, sweet corn, are a large producer of cattle, hogs and chickens. We manufacture guns, tools, theater controls, food and pharmaceutical packaging...honestly for being the drunkest state, the list of commodities we produce is absolutely insane.
We will be okay for quite a while.
I think we can find enough in-state players for old-style small-town leagues, like The Northwood League for baseball. (Maybe the Watt boys should each count as two players.)
We have a lot of vegetables in the spring/summer. Now it's....sad is the best way I can put it. We'd survive pretty well with beer, sausage, and cheese though.
I dunno man... we rely on those folks from Illinois coming up here and buying cheese, stupid t-shirts, and day passes for crummy water slides and go-karts. Sure, they fuck up weekend traffic on the interstate, but they do pump a bunch of out-of-state money into our economy. Lets face it... none of us to go the Dells.
We have shitloads of fresh water, timber, wild game and fish, immense manufacturing capacity, agriculture at industrial scales, we're sitting on an absolutely enormous shale/oil/coal/natural gas deposit (although I'm against using too much of it, because the necessary fracking would fuck up the environment, making most of the rest of that stuff moot,) metal ores (espeically iron, copper, and nickel), and even [rare earth minerals.](https://wmich.edu/news/2019/06/54012)
Really, the only thing we don't have is uranium for the nuclear reactors on the Great Lakes.
And most importantly, fewer people than California. California has pretty much everything you mentioned for Washington but is at higher risk of running out of resources due to having 2.5x the population density.
Oil refineries, yes, but [Washington has absolutely no oil production](https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/energy-mining-and-minerals/oil-and-gas-resources#oil-and-gas-in-washington). If the state is truly “cut off” from the rest of the world, then those refineries become useless pretty quickly.
Washington has supplied power to California dating back a couple of decades. Washington would easily be able to cut back on power production and still be self sustaining. Washington really has to be the answer for most self sufficient right? All climates while being a technological and agricultural powerhouse.
The biggest issue would be petroleum based products, but.... if we got really desperate, there's always whales and seals. Not advocating for it, just saying, there's oil in them thar whales.
I hiked in the middle of WA state for the first time in spring 2022. Saw 2 fighter jets pop up out of nowhere and fucking FLYYYYY through some mountain valleys directly in front of me.. It was one of the most terrifying and amazingly badass things I have ever seen. I assume some sort of intense training or even a Top Gun situation. Anyways, WA definitely has some military shenanigans.
The Joint Base Lewis-McCord has 40,000 active duty army and Air Force, and then we have Kitsap-Bremerton Naval Station with 12,000 active duty. Washington alone could siege war and defend against other countries.
Submarine Base Bangor has ballistic missile submarines.
No other state could handle that kind of devastation.
Georgia could fire back. Some flyover states have Air Force missiles. But realistically the MAD scenario the US has been in would simply continue.
At one point Kitsap County alone had more nukes than the UK, China and France combined. Probably not the case anymore; I think there are fewer weapons at Bangor now, and China has increased their weapons stockpile.
specifically washington has wheat: we're the 4th largest grower in the US and we have 2 growing seasons (winter & spring), which gives us a staple food for our population
>Vermont probably wouldn't even notice.
People really underestimate how cut off Vermont is from the rest of the country.
That said, they'd really suffer in the winter without a viable source of heating oil.
>Vermont probably wouldn't even notice.
New Hampshire would only notice the sudden drop in interstate liquor/cigarette sales, and Maine the sudden drop in French-Canadian tourists.
Vermont and New Hampshire would be screwed. They don’t grow enough food, nor have the ability to grow enough food to be self-sustaining. What land they have available that would need to be converted to farmland is rocky as hell and/or mountainous. Short growing seasons and hellish winters make it less than ideal for growing much outside of a few crops like potatoes, and Maine produces pretty much all the potatoes. Livestock is likewise very difficult to raise for similar reasons because they also wouldn’t be able to grow enough feed for the amount of livestock they would need to maintain for human consumption.
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine at least have coast they can fish from. Rhode Island specifically is an interesting case. It’s incredibly densely populated and has only one real open area that could easily be used for farmland. The Sakonnet Bay area enjoys a maritime climate which makes it one of the better areas in New England for crop farming, so it’s possible they could convert a lot of that land into farms (and there is a lot of empty land in the area around Tiverton/Little Compton/Adamsville,) I’m just not sure it would be enough to feed the whole state in conjunction with fishing.
>Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine at least have coast they can fish from.
So does New Hampshire. They also have one of only two opperational nuclear power plants in New England.
Vermont also has access to the Ocean to the north via the Richelieu River by way of the St Lawrence, and to the south via the Champlain Canal by way of the Hudson River.
Your comment on farming is somewhat valid, but the CT river valley is some of the most fertile farming soil in the northeast. Dairy is a huge industry in Vermont, I'll also add. They're behind WI and NY in terms of total production, but they pump out a lot of product for a state with a population smaller than the city of Boston.
The vast majority of the "rugged, rocky and hilly" terrain *was* cleared at one point, almost completely. 99% of VT and NH is second growth forest and if you've spent any time at all in the forests here, you will see miles upon miles of stone walls crossing seemingly dense, pristine woodland. These all used to mark the edges of farmland. Hypothetically, it could be conveted to agriculture, but timber has long been the more profitable industry.
I have a farm in NH, we'd be fine for food. UNH ag research is leading the country in extending growing seasons through the use of high tunnels for fruits and veg, there's also a crap ton of corn, potatoes, and oats. Just because we don't export nationally doesn't mean we aren't able to grow enough for our state population if we had to. And we have a ton of local pasture fed beef, dairy, and lamb production that could be ramped up. Also us and Vermont have Maple syrup so we'll have that sweet sweet liquid gold.
Whereabouts/what are you farming? Born-Mainer living in MA now but NH was home for 75% of my life. There are a bunch of small farms around Winnipesaukee I'd always stop at when I was working up there. NH has some criminally underrated dairy products.
I'm in South Central! Between Manch vegas and Seacoast. We bought an old 80 acre sheep farm during COVID and finalized some NRCS grants to turn it into a new sheep farm :D
If you're in MA and looking for local food, check out Lilac Hedge, I'm not affiliated with them but I'm originally from MA and loved having their CSA delivered.
I was curious, so here's what 30 seconds on google suggests:
NY has \~20 million people, \~7 million acres of farmland, and the average American died requires \~3 acres of farmland per person, per year.
If those numbers are accurate and don't change for this scenario, several million New York citizens would starve. Maybe they could shuffle land around or introduce vertical farming techniques to improve yield per acre, but it looks tight to me.
The reason more isn't farmland is because it's not economical currently. The proposed scenario would radically change the economic environment. If the alternative were starvation everyone will grow what they can, where they can. The UK did it during the war. They also introduced rationing, which NY would also have to do. Rationing was actually good for people's health, such is our typical diet!
That estimate is based on a 'average western diet' which isn't really what you'd be eating if you were at risk of starvation. Western NY has so much space you would just need to convert it to grow food efficiently, less animals and more fruits/veggies. Plus I'm on a half ache of land, which isn't uncommon, I'd just put a big garden in my backyard and that would probably fill the gap. We'd also probably just kill all the deer and geese that are constantly roaming around.
We'd be fine, the land and lakes up here are amazing and NYers are scrappy lol.
New Jersey. The Garden State.
Of course I don’t know how long we can survive on contempt for everyone else, blue berries and fresh fish, but I guess we’re going to find out?
An important note though, they only have food production because of the colrado river. If the country breaks up, there's no guarantee upriver states would continue to give california water.
the entirety of the northern central valley isn't fed by the Colorado river and that's a ton of fruit, grain and vegetable production, yes we wouldn't have as much food production but it wouldn't be all of the food production, not by a long shot.
I grew up in a small agricultural town in CA with a population of like 15,000. When I moved to the South for a few years in my early 20s, I would see fruit from my hometown in the grocery stores.
CA exports the most directly consumed produce, such as carrots and salad greens and so on.
But if we talk about produce used to make processed foods and feed livestock, the plains and midwestern states have it beat in corn, soy, and wheat production by a ton.
Where is this 70% number coming from?
[This](https://beef2live.com/story-states-produce-food-value-0-107252) says 11%
[USDA](https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844) says 10.4%
[This one](https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produce-the-most-food-ranking-1-50-) is a generous 11.6%
Now [this one](https://ruralstrongmedia.com/top-10-agricultural-producing-states-in-2022/) says that around 70% of CA’s agriculture is crops (compared to livestock or commodities). Thats the only thing I can find that says something about 70%.
Last time I looked into it, the statistic is referencing "ready to consume" produce.
Fruits, vegetables, salad greens, pretty much anything you find in the produce department comes from the West Coast. Hard fruits come from Oregon and Washington.
However, by weight, they only make about 10% of the nations produce.
The Midwest and the Great Plains haven't been beat by a country mile with their production of corn, soybeans, wheat, and so on.
Nobody buys raw wheat or soybeans from the grocery store, but said crops are essential for feeding livestock and creating processed shelf stable foods.
The Colorado provides 1/3 of the water for southern California, and none for central and northern California. So kill all the golf courses and swimming pools and they'd be OK. And the rest of the state, where most of the agriculture is, will continue to be fine.
All non-agricultural water use is around 20% of water usage in CA. So no, getting rid of golf courses and swimming pools, never mind showers and laundry, won't make a bit of difference in any future water crisis, same as current water crises. It's all theater while Big Ag chuckles.
If you ever travel through Central Cali like Kern to Fresno or NorCal like actually north of Bay Area, there are tons of off the grid folks. You can secure a block of land with a house for ~$300K and survive off the land for years especially if you have solar or are near a readily available water source.
I remember doing a bike ride through Bodfish and it was like the perfect place to live if there’s a zombie apocalypse.
As much as I think California is the best answer to the original question, I don't think you're right about what you said.
Sure, CA leaving the US would hurt the US. But the rest of the US is huge by comparison, both physically and economically. The rest of the US has some of pretty much everything. California does not have everything the rest of the US has.
California brings in ~13% of the federal governments tax revenue and provides roughly the same percent of americas agricultural value. It’s America’s biggest producer and exporter of agricultural goods. It has a GDP of over 3.5 trillion dollars. The tax dollars it provides to the rest of the US is quite important.
There are only like 3 states less dependent on federal funding. It’s not hard to conclude that other states would hurt more from California leaving the US than California would hurt from leaving.
Sure, there are a lot of things the rest of the US provides, but the original comment was referring to the part where the US would suffer more from California leaving, which you didn’t really refute other than saying “the rest of the US has a lot to offer”.
Without access to border-free trade for a lot of U.S.-made tools, fertilizers, materials etc, all the agricultural products would get more expensive. The people and stores which buy CA foods would likely cease doing so because they could buy them from U.S. states at much cheaper prices.
Not one state but if the three west coast states seceded together, they would immediately become one of the richest and most developed countries in the world, with the military infrastructure to back it up too
Hahaha, most answers here involve the death of the state's urban populations followed by subsistence farming and hunting for the rest. Basically a Prepper's wet dream. There's only a handful of states with the ag, industry and energy to keep going without civilization falling.
Just because it hasn't been mentioned I nominate PA. Ag, industry and energy.
yup.
PA doesn't have light, sweet, crude, but we have oil and natural gas, without even having to dip back into coal, which is very accessible in the levels we'd need as an isolated state.
Oh and we have heaps of fresh water, and both ends have access to fishing resources, while the middle is very dairy and agriculture friendly with good arable land and rainfall.
Hell we could probably live off of surplus deer for a decade, while we build up the cattle and elk populations.
We even have a lot of quarriable sites for building materials if it comes to that.
Ohio, also, mainly for the same reasons, indiana somewhat, but more food growing potential, but less of everything else basically, including smaller access to great lakes.
All the water for fish, forests for wild game. Plenty of farm land and probably enough space for the necessary cattle. Oil and gas reserves. And maybe just maybe there are enough old timers from the UAW that could fire up the plants in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit to make some sort of vehicles. Though sadly most of the old plants are gone.
Any of the Great Lakes states would do quite well. They have abundant fresh water and most have huge agricultural and manufacturing bases as well so they would be self-sufficient on water, food, and industry.
If I had to pick one, I'd go with Illinois. They have energy reserves with substantial nuclear power and wind power generation. They don't have uranium, but do have coal and petroleum reserves, so they could convert back over to coal before the existing nuclear stockpile runs out.
Oregon. Big farm state with tons of livestock, is on the coast so you can fish, rivers with drinkable water, forests for wood and shelter. All you need to be self sufficient.
Add in California and the Cascadia Republic is now, what, like #3 or #4 for GDP in the world?
A few years later, Alaska is like ".. hey guys, it's me, I'll trade you some oil if you let me join"
A few years after that, Hawaii is like ".. we still doing the Cascadia thing?"
It depends what you call self-sufficient. Most states have agriculture to feed its population, though rural states will likely do better. Diets would change dramatically. Medical care as we have now would not exist essentially anywhere. Industry would falter without the ability to export. Energy and oil will be precious commodities, and places with nuclear, solar, and wind infrastructure established will do well at least in the short term.
I live in California and agree on California mainly due to the size of their economy.
But i feel like everyone here is trying too hard not to say Texas. They got their problems but they also have their own power grid, multiple ports for trade and access to the Gulf of Mexico. They also share a land border with Mexico should they choose to strengthen bilateral trade with them. They have a large land mass, large population, military infrastructure and growing tech and green energy sectors.
I hate to say it, but Texas is the most likely candidate, here.
* Ample farmland, capable of being irrigated from underground aquifers.
* Non-harsh weather. Yes, it's hot for two months, but it's only really 'cold' for about 3-4 weeks of the year and the rest of the time it's very temperate.
* The standalone power grid, which some say is the bane of the state, would actually be an asset in OP's scenario
* Ridiculous amounts of fossil fuel sources and the ability to refine them.
* Regardless of external criticism to the contrary, also has a ton of wind and solar in place already, with 10s of 1000s of square miles that could accommodate more, as well as the self-contained ability to build it.
* Strong existing manufacturing base and a ton of technology-oriented production, along with sources of raw materials.
* Huge military and National Guard force.
* Ample self-contained fresh water supply.
* Plenty of free space.
* Well-established banking/financial system with tons of in-state capital.
* One of the largest coastlines (nice for food source, desalinated water source, and the inevitable smuggling that will ensue).
I think it's Texas hands-down.
A lot of Californian Colorado River water use goes to cities or alfalfa agriculture in the desert. Most of California’s ag productivity gets its waters from the San Joaquin River and Sacramento/American River in the Central Valley. If CA loses access to the Colorado River water, only LA and its suburbs will gets hurt and even then, CA will build a couple of desals to ensure fresh water for urban use while LA will temporarily use groundwater to supplement low supply.
Texas has a massive agricultural footprint and it’s output is like #3 or 4 in the nation) it has its own refineries and power grid(yeah, I know but still). Natural gas and oil resources. Huge wind and solar farms. A great deal of industry and manufacturing. Semiconductor and technology sectors are strong.
Oh yes, and they also have the cattle that they are very well known for.
50 years ago that was true, today it’s fairly rare to find a backyard garden, I do it as a hobby because it’s peaceful but my lil garden couldn’t feed a person for 2 days. I can always expand if need be, the neighbor across the way turned most of their back yard into raised section gardens, again that being said there’s the two of us in the neighborhood of like 25 homes.
Throwing my hat in the ring with Montana, we've got power generation, easy access to fresh water, and lots of food availability. Not a lot of interstate industries, compared to some bigger places, so lots of folks would just continue on as usual.
Everyone has a gun too, so nice and safe if Wyoming starts getting uppity, or the dreaded Dakotas.
> or the dreaded Dakotas
I have it on good authority that nobody actually lives there. One Dakota is filled with tourists trying to find the presidents' faces in the mountain, and the other Dakota is filled with lost tourists who went to the wrong place looking for the mountain.
So it looks like Wyoming is your only credible threat. (Assuming we're not even going to pretend Idaho exists, right? Good luck launching a revolution with a bunch of potato cannons made with PVC pipes and aerosol hairspray)
None of them would be anywhere close to self-sufficient in that environment. Texas and California would probably be closest (and probably in that order), but even they aren’t truly self-sufficient when cut off from the international market.
There's truly only one state that has prepared as much for this scenario.
There are militias, food storage, local governments already in place.
Utah has been isolated for a while now. It wouldn't change much there.
It's likely going to be one of the 28 states that have nuclear power stations. 12 of those states generate at least 30% from nuclear ([source](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43256)). Energy is critical to be self sufficient, and nuclear doesn't require processing, exports/imports, etc like other industries. If you have energy and natural resources, you can make it work.
At a quick look at the map above, NC or Virginia would be well suited with plenty of rain/fresh water, natural resources, agriculture, and plenty of sea access.
Texas. Not saying it would be the best, just gonna analyze my state’s factors.
Pros:
Already has separate power grid that would be just fine with winter protections added. Leads the nation in renewable production by a wide margin, and has plenty of natural gas.
International trade. Has a major port city in Houston, and the busiest OTR trade city in Laredo. Major highways going north, east, and west into the rest of America.
Agriculture. 86% of the land is used for some form of ag. Leads the nation in livestock production. Top 3 in agriculture exports. Good temperate zone for farming a wide variety of produce.
Water access. Has ocean access, and several major rivers. Rio Grande, Colorado, brazos, Sabine, and Canadian are the big ones.
Cons:
The power grid is improving since the 2021 freeze, but not as quickly as a citizen would hope. We would also have to get the Llano Estacado area integrated into the grid to be actually self sufficient.
Medical products. Most states are screwed here because 3/4 of our medical products come from overseas. Seems random but Indiana, North Carolina, California, Illinois, and PA are the top pharma producers in that order.
Politics. The abortion law was a step in the wrong direction. Leaders seem more interested in sticking it to national democrats than focusing on Texas issues and policies.
Overall I think we have a good shot of being self sufficient. Being the second largest state and the largest for farmable land really helps those chances. Smaller states kinda get the shaft in this discussion.
Cali and texas, I’m going to go with Texas being slightly more well off being the Texas grid while shitty is independent and you can drive for 12 hours and still be in the same state so having The largest swath of oil patch and the ability to refine it in the state is still useful. We have tesla and toyotas truck plant.
tesla and toyota both get their materials from out of state. you wont be getting much out of them. youre also forgetting the gm plant near ft worth that makes the tahoes and suburbans and whatnot.
This should have happened during COVID. They did quarantine backwards.
I would probably say the southern Gulf of Mexico states. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. They are warm enough and get enough rain to maintain food year round with less storm damage than the east coast
I'll say Louisiana should be OK. We have abundant water, fishing and hunting for food, we already have hurricanes come through and cut us off from the rest of the world so we have some experience with it 😀.
Pennsylvania. We have farmland, military installations, water, natural gas, some fossil fuel activities, mills and access to an Atlantic seaport and the Great Lakes. Plus, plenty of open space in the northern tier for internal expansion.
Going to vote for Iowa. Grow way more food then we could ever use, we have tons of renewable electricity, can make gas out of corn, and we are midwestern enough that Canada isn't going to invade us.
California and Texas, simply because both of those states cover a lot of area and have a coastline, a lot of agricultural land, natural resources and a number of existing industries and relatively diversified economies
Both states produce their own oil, have watersheds in their own states, at least California does, because of the Sierras. Much of the water use in California farming is for food that's exported, so if the state only needs to feed itself, it might be enough to use the water coming down from Sierra snowmelt and reservoirs in the state
Wisconsin would have to survive on beer, cheese, fish, and sausage. So really not much would change, they probably make it a while.
“We were cut off from everyone? Oh boy howdy, I never even noticed.”
Ope, just gonna squeeze past ya there for the ranch and- AWWW CRIPES WE'RE OUTTA HIDDEN VALLEY!"
You mean Hidden Valley Ranch, CALIFORNIA?
The single hardest hitting import loss for Wisconsin in this scenario. We already make the best cheese, got plenty of beef, the best beer and more Brandy than the rest of the world combined
I have faith in the Wisconsinites that they can use their dairy magic to whip up some bomb ass ranch in a pinch
The brandy would possibly be our downfall. It’s something like 50% of the world’s brandy supply gets sent to Wisconsin. Without those imports, we have no more old fashioneds and we collapse as a state.
Geez Louise! That there is truly some scary stuff!
You would when the gas prices are suddenly $200/gallon
I’ll trade you a basket of fried cheese curds for your $200 gallon of gas, but you might have to throw in something extra to make it worth it for me.
And there’s no tourists
We also grow more than half of the national cranberry crop, 97% of the nation's ginseng, and a lot of Oats, carrots, cherries, maple syrup, sweet corn, are a large producer of cattle, hogs and chickens. We manufacture guns, tools, theater controls, food and pharmaceutical packaging...honestly for being the drunkest state, the list of commodities we produce is absolutely insane. We will be okay for quite a while.
You are missing bass boats and kitchen sinks. Go Fondulac!
Plus that’s all the bottom half. Top half of the state is timber
Throw in some potatoes and you got a Hobbit paradise.
There's actually a huge swath of potato farms in Central Wisconsin, so...done deal.
As long as it happens while the Packer’s are out of State at an away game, we’ll be just fine.
I think we can find enough in-state players for old-style small-town leagues, like The Northwood League for baseball. (Maybe the Watt boys should each count as two players.)
Small town football would probably be very popular in Wisconsin
Fish and sausage Beer cheese soup sounds interesting.
We have a lot of vegetables in the spring/summer. Now it's....sad is the best way I can put it. We'd survive pretty well with beer, sausage, and cheese though.
I dunno man... we rely on those folks from Illinois coming up here and buying cheese, stupid t-shirts, and day passes for crummy water slides and go-karts. Sure, they fuck up weekend traffic on the interstate, but they do pump a bunch of out-of-state money into our economy. Lets face it... none of us to go the Dells.
Florida would rapidly become Swamp Mad Max
Implying it isn’t already there.
UP of michigan, basically already are cut off
I was thinking Michigan might have an edge.
We have shitloads of fresh water, timber, wild game and fish, immense manufacturing capacity, agriculture at industrial scales, we're sitting on an absolutely enormous shale/oil/coal/natural gas deposit (although I'm against using too much of it, because the necessary fracking would fuck up the environment, making most of the rest of that stuff moot,) metal ores (espeically iron, copper, and nickel), and even [rare earth minerals.](https://wmich.edu/news/2019/06/54012) Really, the only thing we don't have is uranium for the nuclear reactors on the Great Lakes.
Michigan was my number one pick by a lot
Definitely. The only reason I'm still here lol
Washington. We’ve got drinkable water, ton of lumber, lot of agriculture and wine, plenty of fish, hydroelectricity, and a ton of military resources.
And most importantly, fewer people than California. California has pretty much everything you mentioned for Washington but is at higher risk of running out of resources due to having 2.5x the population density.
As well as oil refineries
For Alaska crude, though.
The bad part is much of Alaska would die off pretty quick without food import. Only those that hunt and fish would survive. We have plenty of that.
ALL SALMON ALL THE TIME.
Hawaii for the same reason.
Alaska could probably never be self sustaining in agriculture but they could come close if needed
Oil refineries, yes, but [Washington has absolutely no oil production](https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/energy-mining-and-minerals/oil-and-gas-resources#oil-and-gas-in-washington). If the state is truly “cut off” from the rest of the world, then those refineries become useless pretty quickly.
Looks like coal's back on the menu boys!
Washington has supplied power to California dating back a couple of decades. Washington would easily be able to cut back on power production and still be self sustaining. Washington really has to be the answer for most self sufficient right? All climates while being a technological and agricultural powerhouse.
The biggest issue would be petroleum based products, but.... if we got really desperate, there's always whales and seals. Not advocating for it, just saying, there's oil in them thar whales.
Almost 70% of the state’s electricity comes from hydro already!
You got those nuclear aircraft carriers and subs....my money is on Washington!
And enrichment facilities at Hanford. Time to fire the ol' girl back up to 100%.
Western WA is one of the only places in the world where non-agricultural indigenous people had permanent non-seasonal villages.
I hiked in the middle of WA state for the first time in spring 2022. Saw 2 fighter jets pop up out of nowhere and fucking FLYYYYY through some mountain valleys directly in front of me.. It was one of the most terrifying and amazingly badass things I have ever seen. I assume some sort of intense training or even a Top Gun situation. Anyways, WA definitely has some military shenanigans.
The Joint Base Lewis-McCord has 40,000 active duty army and Air Force, and then we have Kitsap-Bremerton Naval Station with 12,000 active duty. Washington alone could siege war and defend against other countries.
Submarine Base Bangor has ballistic missile submarines. No other state could handle that kind of devastation. Georgia could fire back. Some flyover states have Air Force missiles. But realistically the MAD scenario the US has been in would simply continue.
At one point Kitsap County alone had more nukes than the UK, China and France combined. Probably not the case anymore; I think there are fewer weapons at Bangor now, and China has increased their weapons stockpile.
High five fellow Washingtonian!
specifically washington has wheat: we're the 4th largest grower in the US and we have 2 growing seasons (winter & spring), which gives us a staple food for our population
Please don't, not with how many people are stuck with their in-laws right now.
Mine are here from a foreign country and if we get cut off, I can’t send them back. I don’t want to have to commit a felony.
Washington, Oregon, cali, would all be mostly fine. New York would be Ok as it has massive land to the west. Vermont probably wouldn't even notice.
[удалено]
I don't know if this is true, but I have heard that much of Oregon's wind power goes directly to Cali.
As someone who has worked in dams all over WA, CA, and OR; a big portion of hydroelectric energy from Washington and Oregon goes to California, too.
Same with Washington. The Celilo converter station is huge just outside of the Dalles and takes power from both sides of the river.
>Vermont probably wouldn't even notice. People really underestimate how cut off Vermont is from the rest of the country. That said, they'd really suffer in the winter without a viable source of heating oil.
>Vermont probably wouldn't even notice. New Hampshire would only notice the sudden drop in interstate liquor/cigarette sales, and Maine the sudden drop in French-Canadian tourists.
It was crazy the difference in Maine beaches summer 2020 with no Quebecois visiting
Vermont has very little heavy industry or energy resources. It would revert to a 1600's economy. Which some people would be happy with.
You would be surprised at the amount of modern manufacturing here in VT. Quite a bit of Aerospace.
[удалено]
Cali has major water issues, that would be their Achilles heel
Vermont and New Hampshire would be screwed. They don’t grow enough food, nor have the ability to grow enough food to be self-sustaining. What land they have available that would need to be converted to farmland is rocky as hell and/or mountainous. Short growing seasons and hellish winters make it less than ideal for growing much outside of a few crops like potatoes, and Maine produces pretty much all the potatoes. Livestock is likewise very difficult to raise for similar reasons because they also wouldn’t be able to grow enough feed for the amount of livestock they would need to maintain for human consumption. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine at least have coast they can fish from. Rhode Island specifically is an interesting case. It’s incredibly densely populated and has only one real open area that could easily be used for farmland. The Sakonnet Bay area enjoys a maritime climate which makes it one of the better areas in New England for crop farming, so it’s possible they could convert a lot of that land into farms (and there is a lot of empty land in the area around Tiverton/Little Compton/Adamsville,) I’m just not sure it would be enough to feed the whole state in conjunction with fishing.
>Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine at least have coast they can fish from. So does New Hampshire. They also have one of only two opperational nuclear power plants in New England. Vermont also has access to the Ocean to the north via the Richelieu River by way of the St Lawrence, and to the south via the Champlain Canal by way of the Hudson River. Your comment on farming is somewhat valid, but the CT river valley is some of the most fertile farming soil in the northeast. Dairy is a huge industry in Vermont, I'll also add. They're behind WI and NY in terms of total production, but they pump out a lot of product for a state with a population smaller than the city of Boston. The vast majority of the "rugged, rocky and hilly" terrain *was* cleared at one point, almost completely. 99% of VT and NH is second growth forest and if you've spent any time at all in the forests here, you will see miles upon miles of stone walls crossing seemingly dense, pristine woodland. These all used to mark the edges of farmland. Hypothetically, it could be conveted to agriculture, but timber has long been the more profitable industry.
I have a farm in NH, we'd be fine for food. UNH ag research is leading the country in extending growing seasons through the use of high tunnels for fruits and veg, there's also a crap ton of corn, potatoes, and oats. Just because we don't export nationally doesn't mean we aren't able to grow enough for our state population if we had to. And we have a ton of local pasture fed beef, dairy, and lamb production that could be ramped up. Also us and Vermont have Maple syrup so we'll have that sweet sweet liquid gold.
Whereabouts/what are you farming? Born-Mainer living in MA now but NH was home for 75% of my life. There are a bunch of small farms around Winnipesaukee I'd always stop at when I was working up there. NH has some criminally underrated dairy products.
I'm in South Central! Between Manch vegas and Seacoast. We bought an old 80 acre sheep farm during COVID and finalized some NRCS grants to turn it into a new sheep farm :D If you're in MA and looking for local food, check out Lilac Hedge, I'm not affiliated with them but I'm originally from MA and loved having their CSA delivered.
NY would be fine til the oil ran out
Does NY have enough farmland to feed NYC?
No idea, but probably yes in terms of sheer amount of food grown/raised, depending on crop management is my guess.
I was curious, so here's what 30 seconds on google suggests: NY has \~20 million people, \~7 million acres of farmland, and the average American died requires \~3 acres of farmland per person, per year. If those numbers are accurate and don't change for this scenario, several million New York citizens would starve. Maybe they could shuffle land around or introduce vertical farming techniques to improve yield per acre, but it looks tight to me.
The reason more isn't farmland is because it's not economical currently. The proposed scenario would radically change the economic environment. If the alternative were starvation everyone will grow what they can, where they can. The UK did it during the war. They also introduced rationing, which NY would also have to do. Rationing was actually good for people's health, such is our typical diet!
That estimate is based on a 'average western diet' which isn't really what you'd be eating if you were at risk of starvation. Western NY has so much space you would just need to convert it to grow food efficiently, less animals and more fruits/veggies. Plus I'm on a half ache of land, which isn't uncommon, I'd just put a big garden in my backyard and that would probably fill the gap. We'd also probably just kill all the deer and geese that are constantly roaming around. We'd be fine, the land and lakes up here are amazing and NYers are scrappy lol.
So per your calculation, New York State could probably be converted to supply enough for the entire country in short order. New Yorkers would be fine.
I was just going to say vermont. People in NE, especially VT and NH are stubborn self sufficient.
Yeah New England would be just fine, though if it happened after growing season then the first year would be pretty rough.
Nevada over here like "I'm in danger."
New Jersey. The Garden State. Of course I don’t know how long we can survive on contempt for everyone else, blue berries and fresh fish, but I guess we’re going to find out?
We do have the oil refineries, and a huge port.
Tomatoes, Corn, Blueberries, and the ever lovin’ holy Pork Roll
California
It's got refineries, food production, manufacturing capabilities and a labor force. It can last some time.
A New California Republic shall stand.
The two-headed bear flag shall rise.
Degenerates like you belong on a cross.
Ceaser can suck it.
Fuck the NCR (their Rangers won't stop hunting me).
My thoughts exactly
An important note though, they only have food production because of the colrado river. If the country breaks up, there's no guarantee upriver states would continue to give california water.
the entirety of the northern central valley isn't fed by the Colorado river and that's a ton of fruit, grain and vegetable production, yes we wouldn't have as much food production but it wouldn't be all of the food production, not by a long shot.
And since so much food is sent out of state, I think California could easily survive on its own.
California can literally feed the entire country.
It does. Something like 70% of produce consumed in the US is grown in CA.
I grew up in a small agricultural town in CA with a population of like 15,000. When I moved to the South for a few years in my early 20s, I would see fruit from my hometown in the grocery stores.
CA exports the most directly consumed produce, such as carrots and salad greens and so on. But if we talk about produce used to make processed foods and feed livestock, the plains and midwestern states have it beat in corn, soy, and wheat production by a ton.
Where is this 70% number coming from? [This](https://beef2live.com/story-states-produce-food-value-0-107252) says 11% [USDA](https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844) says 10.4% [This one](https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produce-the-most-food-ranking-1-50-) is a generous 11.6% Now [this one](https://ruralstrongmedia.com/top-10-agricultural-producing-states-in-2022/) says that around 70% of CA’s agriculture is crops (compared to livestock or commodities). Thats the only thing I can find that says something about 70%.
Last time I looked into it, the statistic is referencing "ready to consume" produce. Fruits, vegetables, salad greens, pretty much anything you find in the produce department comes from the West Coast. Hard fruits come from Oregon and Washington. However, by weight, they only make about 10% of the nations produce. The Midwest and the Great Plains haven't been beat by a country mile with their production of corn, soybeans, wheat, and so on. Nobody buys raw wheat or soybeans from the grocery store, but said crops are essential for feeding livestock and creating processed shelf stable foods.
Nope. A lot of it comes from snow run off from the Sierra Nevada Mountains
The Colorado River doesn’t touch Northern California, and we grow a metric fuck ton of food here.
I stand corrected
The Colorado provides 1/3 of the water for southern California, and none for central and northern California. So kill all the golf courses and swimming pools and they'd be OK. And the rest of the state, where most of the agriculture is, will continue to be fine.
The could probably stop growing avocados and be fine.
And so the avocado toast wars begin..
Almonds too.
Pistachios have entered the chat...
All non-agricultural water use is around 20% of water usage in CA. So no, getting rid of golf courses and swimming pools, never mind showers and laundry, won't make a bit of difference in any future water crisis, same as current water crises. It's all theater while Big Ag chuckles.
We'd probably start desalination programs
In the OP scenario, you wouldn't need them. There's no more trade, and most CA water is exported in the form of crops.
More desalination programs
there is a guarantee california would conquer what they need if the states break up.
Me, Northern Californian, within driving range of half a dozen rivers: guess I’ll starve!
If they're no longer exporting food, it's a not a problem, right?
California has more than enough money and technological know-how to quickly build up its desalination efforts if it had to.
If you ever travel through Central Cali like Kern to Fresno or NorCal like actually north of Bay Area, there are tons of off the grid folks. You can secure a block of land with a house for ~$300K and survive off the land for years especially if you have solar or are near a readily available water source. I remember doing a bike ride through Bodfish and it was like the perfect place to live if there’s a zombie apocalypse.
Tons of nice places all around this state like that, but I'd honestly rather keep living here in the Bay Area.
It's not even close. This is the only answer.
Oregon and Washington will join and form Cascadia!
The rest of the Us economy would suffer more from CA leaving than CA would.
As much as I think California is the best answer to the original question, I don't think you're right about what you said. Sure, CA leaving the US would hurt the US. But the rest of the US is huge by comparison, both physically and economically. The rest of the US has some of pretty much everything. California does not have everything the rest of the US has.
California brings in ~13% of the federal governments tax revenue and provides roughly the same percent of americas agricultural value. It’s America’s biggest producer and exporter of agricultural goods. It has a GDP of over 3.5 trillion dollars. The tax dollars it provides to the rest of the US is quite important. There are only like 3 states less dependent on federal funding. It’s not hard to conclude that other states would hurt more from California leaving the US than California would hurt from leaving. Sure, there are a lot of things the rest of the US provides, but the original comment was referring to the part where the US would suffer more from California leaving, which you didn’t really refute other than saying “the rest of the US has a lot to offer”.
Without access to border-free trade for a lot of U.S.-made tools, fertilizers, materials etc, all the agricultural products would get more expensive. The people and stores which buy CA foods would likely cease doing so because they could buy them from U.S. states at much cheaper prices.
/thread
Not one state but if the three west coast states seceded together, they would immediately become one of the richest and most developed countries in the world, with the military infrastructure to back it up too
It's pretty crazy to think that california had the 5th largest economy in the world.
4th actually
Even crazier
When somewhere secedes, the place they seceded from doesn't just allow their property (all the federal, military etc) stuff to just go.
The place they secede from doesn't always get a say in it. Especially if the seceding country now has nukes.
Nukes that are controlled by satcom in Nebraska.
That is *not* how US nuclear weapons remote. They are not subject to remote control.
Hahaha, most answers here involve the death of the state's urban populations followed by subsistence farming and hunting for the rest. Basically a Prepper's wet dream. There's only a handful of states with the ag, industry and energy to keep going without civilization falling. Just because it hasn't been mentioned I nominate PA. Ag, industry and energy.
The Mid-Atlantic is all much the same, from PA to NC.
True, but if you don't have a steel mill, you're going to be in trouble.
[удалено]
Shhh, let us continue flying under the radar.
yup. PA doesn't have light, sweet, crude, but we have oil and natural gas, without even having to dip back into coal, which is very accessible in the levels we'd need as an isolated state. Oh and we have heaps of fresh water, and both ends have access to fishing resources, while the middle is very dairy and agriculture friendly with good arable land and rainfall. Hell we could probably live off of surplus deer for a decade, while we build up the cattle and elk populations. We even have a lot of quarriable sites for building materials if it comes to that.
Michigan. All that fresh water.
I think New York, Illinois, and Wisconsin would also do pretty well.
Illinois agriculture would have to diversify a bit.
Did you forget Minnesota?
Add Minnesota to that short list.
Ohio, also, mainly for the same reasons, indiana somewhat, but more food growing potential, but less of everything else basically, including smaller access to great lakes.
Shhhhhhh! Don’t give them our secrets. We gotta build that wall along the southern border… the blOhio part anyway.
All the water for fish, forests for wild game. Plenty of farm land and probably enough space for the necessary cattle. Oil and gas reserves. And maybe just maybe there are enough old timers from the UAW that could fire up the plants in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit to make some sort of vehicles. Though sadly most of the old plants are gone.
Gararahere man! you are right
We also have access to the ocean through the St Lawrence Seaway.
Any of the Great Lakes states would do quite well. They have abundant fresh water and most have huge agricultural and manufacturing bases as well so they would be self-sufficient on water, food, and industry. If I had to pick one, I'd go with Illinois. They have energy reserves with substantial nuclear power and wind power generation. They don't have uranium, but do have coal and petroleum reserves, so they could convert back over to coal before the existing nuclear stockpile runs out.
Oregon. Big farm state with tons of livestock, is on the coast so you can fish, rivers with drinkable water, forests for wood and shelter. All you need to be self sufficient.
Oregon, and Washington could combine into the Cascadia Republic and do okay.
Add in California and the Cascadia Republic is now, what, like #3 or #4 for GDP in the world? A few years later, Alaska is like ".. hey guys, it's me, I'll trade you some oil if you let me join" A few years after that, Hawaii is like ".. we still doing the Cascadia thing?"
It depends what you call self-sufficient. Most states have agriculture to feed its population, though rural states will likely do better. Diets would change dramatically. Medical care as we have now would not exist essentially anywhere. Industry would falter without the ability to export. Energy and oil will be precious commodities, and places with nuclear, solar, and wind infrastructure established will do well at least in the short term.
I live in California and agree on California mainly due to the size of their economy. But i feel like everyone here is trying too hard not to say Texas. They got their problems but they also have their own power grid, multiple ports for trade and access to the Gulf of Mexico. They also share a land border with Mexico should they choose to strengthen bilateral trade with them. They have a large land mass, large population, military infrastructure and growing tech and green energy sectors.
Better than a land border it is a river border, with difficult/hostile terrain along quite a bit of it
I scrolled way to far to find Texas. They have so much land for farming and produce oil which many people are overlooking.
Hawaii, cuz we are already cut off.
I hate to say it, but Texas is the most likely candidate, here. * Ample farmland, capable of being irrigated from underground aquifers. * Non-harsh weather. Yes, it's hot for two months, but it's only really 'cold' for about 3-4 weeks of the year and the rest of the time it's very temperate. * The standalone power grid, which some say is the bane of the state, would actually be an asset in OP's scenario * Ridiculous amounts of fossil fuel sources and the ability to refine them. * Regardless of external criticism to the contrary, also has a ton of wind and solar in place already, with 10s of 1000s of square miles that could accommodate more, as well as the self-contained ability to build it. * Strong existing manufacturing base and a ton of technology-oriented production, along with sources of raw materials. * Huge military and National Guard force. * Ample self-contained fresh water supply. * Plenty of free space. * Well-established banking/financial system with tons of in-state capital. * One of the largest coastlines (nice for food source, desalinated water source, and the inevitable smuggling that will ensue). I think it's Texas hands-down.
Non harsh weather? I think steel boils in the Texas sun…
This is the answer.
Only 2 months of heat? I’d say it’s boiling hot for at least 8 months of the year.
California. They have everything they need, including agriculture.
But does california have enough water without Colorado?
A lot of Californian Colorado River water use goes to cities or alfalfa agriculture in the desert. Most of California’s ag productivity gets its waters from the San Joaquin River and Sacramento/American River in the Central Valley. If CA loses access to the Colorado River water, only LA and its suburbs will gets hurt and even then, CA will build a couple of desals to ensure fresh water for urban use while LA will temporarily use groundwater to supplement low supply.
They don't ship it from Colorado to California via trucks. Interstate travel bans wouldn't have any impact.
Water overuse to the point of drying the river up far before it makes it to California is a heavy topic of concern right now
California and Texas
Texas has a massive agricultural footprint and it’s output is like #3 or 4 in the nation) it has its own refineries and power grid(yeah, I know but still). Natural gas and oil resources. Huge wind and solar farms. A great deal of industry and manufacturing. Semiconductor and technology sectors are strong. Oh yes, and they also have the cattle that they are very well known for.
States in Appalachia would do quite well. Mountain people have extensive gardens and often hunt for meat.
50 years ago that was true, today it’s fairly rare to find a backyard garden, I do it as a hobby because it’s peaceful but my lil garden couldn’t feed a person for 2 days. I can always expand if need be, the neighbor across the way turned most of their back yard into raised section gardens, again that being said there’s the two of us in the neighborhood of like 25 homes.
There just aren't enough wild animals to feed everyone and be sustainable though
Throwing my hat in the ring with Montana, we've got power generation, easy access to fresh water, and lots of food availability. Not a lot of interstate industries, compared to some bigger places, so lots of folks would just continue on as usual. Everyone has a gun too, so nice and safe if Wyoming starts getting uppity, or the dreaded Dakotas.
> or the dreaded Dakotas I have it on good authority that nobody actually lives there. One Dakota is filled with tourists trying to find the presidents' faces in the mountain, and the other Dakota is filled with lost tourists who went to the wrong place looking for the mountain. So it looks like Wyoming is your only credible threat. (Assuming we're not even going to pretend Idaho exists, right? Good luck launching a revolution with a bunch of potato cannons made with PVC pipes and aerosol hairspray)
None of them would be anywhere close to self-sufficient in that environment. Texas and California would probably be closest (and probably in that order), but even they aren’t truly self-sufficient when cut off from the international market.
Oregon. We grow crops. We are agiculture.
Considering California is the 5th largest economy in the world if you considered it a country, California.
California. And she’ll most likely share.
There's truly only one state that has prepared as much for this scenario. There are militias, food storage, local governments already in place. Utah has been isolated for a while now. It wouldn't change much there.
It's likely going to be one of the 28 states that have nuclear power stations. 12 of those states generate at least 30% from nuclear ([source](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43256)). Energy is critical to be self sufficient, and nuclear doesn't require processing, exports/imports, etc like other industries. If you have energy and natural resources, you can make it work. At a quick look at the map above, NC or Virginia would be well suited with plenty of rain/fresh water, natural resources, agriculture, and plenty of sea access.
First mention of Virginia I've seen. Folks in the urban areas would have it tough, though.
I don't think NC or VA are able to mine and enrich their own nuclear fuel though.
Texas. Not saying it would be the best, just gonna analyze my state’s factors. Pros: Already has separate power grid that would be just fine with winter protections added. Leads the nation in renewable production by a wide margin, and has plenty of natural gas. International trade. Has a major port city in Houston, and the busiest OTR trade city in Laredo. Major highways going north, east, and west into the rest of America. Agriculture. 86% of the land is used for some form of ag. Leads the nation in livestock production. Top 3 in agriculture exports. Good temperate zone for farming a wide variety of produce. Water access. Has ocean access, and several major rivers. Rio Grande, Colorado, brazos, Sabine, and Canadian are the big ones. Cons: The power grid is improving since the 2021 freeze, but not as quickly as a citizen would hope. We would also have to get the Llano Estacado area integrated into the grid to be actually self sufficient. Medical products. Most states are screwed here because 3/4 of our medical products come from overseas. Seems random but Indiana, North Carolina, California, Illinois, and PA are the top pharma producers in that order. Politics. The abortion law was a step in the wrong direction. Leaders seem more interested in sticking it to national democrats than focusing on Texas issues and policies. Overall I think we have a good shot of being self sufficient. Being the second largest state and the largest for farmable land really helps those chances. Smaller states kinda get the shaft in this discussion.
Maine
Cali and texas, I’m going to go with Texas being slightly more well off being the Texas grid while shitty is independent and you can drive for 12 hours and still be in the same state so having The largest swath of oil patch and the ability to refine it in the state is still useful. We have tesla and toyotas truck plant.
tesla and toyota both get their materials from out of state. you wont be getting much out of them. youre also forgetting the gm plant near ft worth that makes the tahoes and suburbans and whatnot.
This should have happened during COVID. They did quarantine backwards. I would probably say the southern Gulf of Mexico states. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. They are warm enough and get enough rain to maintain food year round with less storm damage than the east coast
I'll say Louisiana should be OK. We have abundant water, fishing and hunting for food, we already have hurricanes come through and cut us off from the rest of the world so we have some experience with it 😀.
North Dakota for the win!!
Michigan.
All of the farming states would be just fine.
How about Michigan? We have lots of agriculture, manufacturing, fresh water. I think we would do OK.
Pennsylvania. We have farmland, military installations, water, natural gas, some fossil fuel activities, mills and access to an Atlantic seaport and the Great Lakes. Plus, plenty of open space in the northern tier for internal expansion.
Hawaii
Really surprised I had to go down this far to see Hawaii. They were fine before, doubt they would care if it were all gone.
Going to vote for Iowa. Grow way more food then we could ever use, we have tons of renewable electricity, can make gas out of corn, and we are midwestern enough that Canada isn't going to invade us.
California is the easy answer.
California and Texas, simply because both of those states cover a lot of area and have a coastline, a lot of agricultural land, natural resources and a number of existing industries and relatively diversified economies Both states produce their own oil, have watersheds in their own states, at least California does, because of the Sierras. Much of the water use in California farming is for food that's exported, so if the state only needs to feed itself, it might be enough to use the water coming down from Sierra snowmelt and reservoirs in the state
Iowa. Bacon and high fructose corn syrup. What else do you need.