If the U.S. Collapses, What Would Be The Future of Your State (and City)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know about that.

if the political upheaval is significant to dissolve the federal union, i can also see it splintering individual highly-divided states as well.

there's no way in hell downstate IL stays married to chicagoland in such a scenario.

and every single last man, woman, child, and even most pets are "locked and loaded" down there, so the corn farmers will call their own shot.

They might all be armed but I'm certain there are more government owned firearms in Chicagoland than in the rest of the state combined. Now, Illinois might decide they don't want to establish authority over downstate, but I doubt they'd have trouble doing so if they needed to do so.

Illinois is more lopsided in population distribution than Michigan, and I have no doubt that Michigan would move quickly to establish authority over the state territory. Michigan also has a deeper history with rightwing nutjob militias than Illinois, and I still don't think it would be much of an issue.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They might all be armed but I'm certain there are more government owned firearms in Chicagoland than in the rest of the state combined. Now, Illinois might decide they don't want to establish authority over downstate, but I doubt they'd have trouble doing so if they needed to do so.

Illinois is more lopsided in population distribution than Michigan, and I have no doubt that Michigan would move quickly to establish authority over the state territory. Michigan also has a deeper history with rightwing nutjob militias than Illinois, and I still don't think it would be much of an issue.

Those right wing nutjob militias in Michigan and their political allies have at times controlled the state’s politics.

Illinois would not just be contending with the citizens of downstate, but also any foreign entity which makes the territorial claim to that land (or which downstate citizens would prefer to become aligned with. Missouri and Indiana (or nations that comprise the land areas therein) may both make plays for portions of it. I doubt Chicago would want to get mired into a guerrilla style campaign against downstaters supported by foreign actors and would let downstaters do their own way. In that scenario, watching with glee as Missouri and Indiana fight over where to settle the border between them. Likely, that border would end up being the Mississippi river just as it is now.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Those right wing nutjob militias in Michigan and their political allies have at times controlled the state’s politics.

Illinois would not just be contending with the citizens of downstate, but also any foreign entity which makes the territorial claim to that land (or which downstate citizens would prefer to become aligned with. Missouri and Indiana (or nations that comprise the land areas therein) may both make plays for portions of it. I doubt Chicago would want to get mired into a guerrilla style campaign against downstaters supported by foreign actors and would let downstaters do their own way. In that scenario, watching with glee as Missouri and Indiana fight over where to settle the border between them. Likely, that border would end up being the Mississippi river just as it is now.

I would bank on Illinois (pop. 12.7 million) taking over Indiana (pop. 6.8 million) before I'd bank on Indiana forcibly seizing land from Illinois, lol. Not to mention both Indiana and Missouri both have urban centers that have politics more similar to Chicago than those states hinterlands.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Chef

In the medium turn Wisconsin would likely end up being partitioned between Illinois and Minnesota with the line going through the hills of the Driftless Area and the north woods. Greater Minnesota would likely get the northwest quarter, including Eau Claire while most ended up in greater Illinois with the border along the Mississippi being somewhere around La Crosse. In the long run much of the Midwest could end up like the Eurasian steppe with conquerors ranging from one end to the other. The only major geographic boundaries would be the Appalachian Mountains, Great Lakes, north woods and Driftless Area. Minnesota could use the Driftless to shield itself from the east but would be vulnerable from the south. Its best approach would be to form some sort of confederacy with the Dakotas and Iowa to try to create a powerful enough state between the Black Hills and the Driftless that it could protect itself from the south and east. We would also want to continue overland trade links to the Pacific via Montana, Idaho and the Pacific Northwest and would do whatever diplomacy was necessary for that.

The name of the game in most of the Midwest is protecting yourself from Illinois. Over time Illinois would probably absorb most of the Midwest due to Chicago's economic power and the lack of land barriers in the region. Minnesota probably has the best chance to resist this due to the fact that the land between the two is hilly and wooded and also due to the dynamism of the local economy and a culture with high social capital and equity (people tend to buy into and believe in the system).
.

Minnesota has one of the fewest active duty resident military (around 700), and the largest base therein employs about 200 people. Combine this with Minnesota’s fairly strong gun control, local culture that emphasizes personal safety without gun ownership, has eviscerated their local policing apparatus, and has one of the least prepared state guards, I think Minnesota is ripe to become a client state: too large to administrate yourself, and serves a useful purpose as a buffer between Canada and whatever interior countries are established (Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana are my guesses), so they leave it alone.

Iowa is only slightly better, as most of the same applies—private gun ownership is much more the norm there, gun control is much laxer, and policing institutions are more prepared. Iowa doesn’t have a truly major urban population center and would be strategically vulnerable to Missouri. The cultural similarities between the two are akin to Illinois and Wisconsin, and a merger would not be surprising.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would bank on Illinois (pop. 12.7 million) taking over Indiana (pop. 6.8 million) before I'd bank on Indiana forcibly seizing land from Illinois, lol. Not to mention both Indiana and Missouri both have urban centers that have politics more similar to Chicago than those states hinterlands.

I believe I may have been misunderstood.

Over the course of two posts, I articulated that I think Illinois would wage war to ensure Notre Dame’s inclusion (the place of education for its elite) in its territory. Indiana could support, from the outside rather than directly, guerilla warfare in downstate Illinois in retaliation for Illinois easily seizing its great lakes access. Once that long drawn out process in downstate Illinois is wrapped up, because all the while Indiana has been sitting on the sidelines saving its resources, they could easily sweep the southern third of Illinois using I-72 as a pierce and gain direct access to the Mississippi. Missouri, meanwhile, would likely gain control of the St. Louis hinterlands during this process.

There is enough animosity in Chicago against downstaters that I seriously don’t think they’d bother. There’s enough arable land in north Illinois and southern Wisconsin to support the population.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I believe I may have been misunderstood.

Over the course of two posts, I articulated that I think Illinois would wage war to ensure Notre Dame’s inclusion (the place of education for its elite) in its territory. Indiana could support, from the outside rather than directly, guerilla warfare in downstate Illinois in retaliation for Illinois easily seizing its great lakes access. Once that long drawn out process in downstate Illinois is wrapped up, because all the while Indiana has been sitting on the sidelines saving its resources, they could easily sweep the southern third of Illinois using I-72 as a pierce and gain direct access to the Mississippi. Missouri, meanwhile, would likely gain control of the St. Louis hinterlands during this process.

There is enough animosity in Chicago against downstaters that I seriously don’t think they’d bother. There’s enough arable land in north Illinois and southern Wisconsin to support the population.

Eh, even Guerilla warfare requires a lot of tactical talent, infrastructure and a large young population to overwhelm the occupiers.

That’s assuming the cities of St. Louis and Indianapolis and a lot of other midsize cities actually support their states instead of working out a deal with Chicago. It’s not realistic for Illinois to be the only state dealing with internal struggles while Indiana and Missouri just sit waiting on the sidelines.

That’s what happened in the Civil War for example when Union supporters in St. Louis ratted out rebel sympathizers. The city of Chicago by itself effortlessly raided significant armaments to prevent any organized assault.

Which would be the closest comparison to your scenario.

Edit: Though if the U.S. honestly collapsed, Canada would be first on the phone offering Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota admission to their country.

Because the southern portion of Illinois had been settled mainly by Southerners and its commerce was tied to the slave states, there was considerable fear that the people there would support secession. In what was surely the worst example of the Chicago-downstate rivalry that would ever mark Illinois politics, Chicago outfitted an expedition of 595 men, 46 horses, and 4 pieces of artillery to “capture” Cairo.

After occupying the city without a shot fired, the Chicagoans noticed that across the Mississippi in Missouri there was another potential rebel threat. This prompted James H. Stokes, who would later rise to the rank of general, to infiltrate a small group of volunteers who incognito entered St. Louis and under the very noses of armed rebel sympathizers took from the arsenal there 23,000 arms and 110,000 cartridges, not to mention a complete artillery battery. Cairo then went on to be the secure base from which Ulysses S. Grant waged his crucial campaign to crush the Deep South.5

[mhays]

Washington should do relatively well...lots of ocean access with multiple deepwater ports, bordering the stable Canada, diversified agriculture due to huge variety of climates, tons of hydro power, an economy built on stuff others need...

[JManc]

I would modify my car with machine guns and roam the wastelands searching for gas.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JManc

I would modify my car with machine guns and roam the wastelands searching for gas.

[pepper steak]

Originally Posted by McBane

America's divide is more rural-urban, which is not as easily divisible.

We figured this out like 10,000 years ago.

[SFBruin]

I think that Seattle would do fine.

The demographics might change though, and skew more indigenous if the US government weren't involved.

I could also see Washington getting annexed by Canada, if the people up north weren't so polite.

[wwmiv]

I seriously doubt that Canada would get involved in the manner of admitting new states, likely preferring to make alliances with new nations as it sees fit and play continental referee between new and competing nations.

Canada has pretty high barriers to entry, as Turks and Caicos realized after seriously considering it in the 1970s (with a history dating back to 1917). The constitution of 1982 requires that any new province follow the same procedure as a constitutional amendment: at least seven provincial parliaments comprising a majority of the population of the entire country. I am not sure Canada would be too keen on taking on any of the issues and geopolitical ramifications of absorbing former U.S. states, and you can almost guarantee that Quebec would not be among the provinces voting in favor of more English speakers. New Brunswick would be dicey, as language is somewhat of an issue there as well. Those two together represent 2 of the 10 provinces and 25% of the population. Any petitioning state would have to lose no more than one other state and would need to have the accession of Toronto, British Columbia, and Alberta.

Mexico, otoh, might be more likely to engage in direct conflict - whether as a first strike or in retaliation - with neighboring Texas (pushing the border to the Nueces River), New Mexico (recapturing it all), Arizona (Arizona gaining sea access), and California (Baja California territorial integrity).

[wwmiv]

From the other thread which generated this topic:

Originally Posted by lio45

You got me thinking… which US States have the least unnatural borders? After the incontestable #1 (Hawaii), of course.

Top candidates:

NJ: only one straight line (northeast border)

FL: two straight lines, but likely the lowest % of state perimeter that’s an arbitrary line

LA and AK: both these states have a lot of coastline because it’s far from straight; they might therefore beat FL on the % of perimeter metric.

Louisiana may actually remain roughly in its current form, as it is culturally distinct enough (and cohesively so) from all of the surrounding states with enough natural assets and defendable enough borders that the core of any future Louisiana would remain.

Alaska is one state which MIGHT have a plausible path to admittance to Canada as a province. Small enough to not fundamentally change Canadian politics, and strategically important in that it would give Canada access to the Bering Straight and unfettered access between its northern territories and the Pacific markets.

Florida would likely not last in its current format, and be limited to the peninsula only as Georgia might seek a gulf coastline pushing southward. Alabama and Mississippi might combine and seek a larger coastline as well.

New Jersey (or parts of it) would end up in a larger coalition of states no matter how things would shake out, whether that be a country encompassing all of the ACELA corridor, or multiple countries centered around one (or more) of the major metropolitan areas (D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, Providence, Hartford, Boston, Portland, etc.).

Imagine multiple countries, with boundaries at major rivers (with carvouts for certain populated areas, like Augusta, Harrisburg, Roanoke, etc.) lining the east coast:
• Georgia (south of the Savannah River, east of the Chattahoochee River, and south of the Appalachians)
• Carolina (between the Roanoke and Savannah Rivers, east of the Great Smokies)
• Virginia (between the Roanoke and Potomac Rivers, excepting the D.C. area, east of the Shenandoahs)
• Columbia (the D.C. metro area)
• Maryland (between the Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers south of (and excepting) PA Dutch County, also likely losing its panhandle)
• Delaware (the entire peninsula)
• Pennsylvania (between the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers, and all of Trenton and south Jersey, east of (and excepting) Dutch Country, as far north as to hold the Scranton area)
• New York (the metropolitan area and Hudson River Valley)
• New England (all of non-metro NYC New England)

Wouldn’t that be an awesome future?

(Hope you can sense the sarcasm)

[plinko]

Southern California would absolutely grab the Owens Valley, the Virgin, Colorado, Green, Salt, and Gila watersheds, Hoover Dam, Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant, and ideally all of Baja. That would include Las Vegas, Phoenix, Durango, Area 51, and Luke Air Force Base. Ideally Davis Monathan as well but then you would have to take Tucson, which has less value than Bakersfield.

[Chef]

I don't think a collapse triggered by our current political divide is likely. Trumpism seems played out. It is more likely to be ecological collapse and the inability of the central government to deal with cascading consequences of it. I think a climate change driven global dark ages scenario is probably the most likely in the long run.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Chef

I don't think a collapse triggered by our current political divide is likely. Trumpism seems played out. It is more likely to be ecological collapse and the inability of the central government to deal with cascading consequences of it. I think a climate change driven global dark ages scenario is probably the most likely in the long run.

I agree with this.

[pdxtex]

Oh my gosh. So total societal meltdown? Hmm urban leaders would try to maintain order in Portland but the city would fall to some kind of gang of hobo warlords or get partitioned out. The bridges would become fortified like Escape from New York. Progressives don't have guns and can't even negotiate within their own political sphere. It would be pandemonium. Im not sure how safe the countryside would be either. Id head to my father in laws house probably. Hes Japanese, mormon and a pseudo prepper. Has firearms, a generator and a 500 gallon fresh water tank. And horses! Good times.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by McBane

America's divide is more rural-urban, which is not as easily divisible. There are areas of the coasts that are redder than areas of the deep south.

I envision a system of city-states echoing the Bronze Age. New York, LA, Chicago, Denver, Houston, etc. all become self-sustaining societies, with enough foothold in the surrounding countryside for resources. The vast rural areas become terriory roving tribes of religious cults and militant individualists. Travel between city-states would be perilous, avoided save for official business (for which highly trained military bodyguards would accompany dignitaries) or cocksure mercenaries and vagabonds. In this scenario I will be Snake Plisken/Mad Max.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Chef

I don't think a collapse triggered by our current political divide is likely. Trumpism seems played out. It is more likely to be ecological collapse and the inability of the central government to deal with cascading consequences of it. I think a climate change driven global dark ages scenario is probably the most likely in the long run.

I think Trump did/does pose a test that we haven't seen since the Civil War. If we're past it now then it's only by luck that it wasn't exploited more. If he had been successful in convincing a state to send fake electors then we would've been in uncharted territory, and it had the potential to spark a crisis that spun out of control.

[Obadno]

The American equivalent of Armenia between Rome and Persia, constantly being fought over by Texas and California, sometimes independent, usually not. Always a pain in the ass to both constant low-grade insurgencies out of the mountains.