It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In a post SHTF world where the USA cease to exist which state government is more likely to survive?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
A little background: There was a book series called the Emberverse by SM stirling where in an alternate 1998 Earth, there was a mysterious event called "the Change" where electricity suddenly disappear for no apparent reason. The result was horrendous. With the loss electricity the world descended to anarchy and many governments collapsed while many people who lived in urban areas starved to death due to the truck not delivering food anymore to the cities. Meanwhile many warlords came and form their own fiefdoms while those who survive the initial chaos either band together to form their own nations or became cannibals.

Many years later new nations arise from the former United States. Many of them are fiefdoms run by warlords while Utah and Montana was run by a theocracy. In some places, it was occupied by nomadic peoples, ranchers and communities that survived the initial chaos.

However, one state government was able to survive and maintain control of its home state.

The state is Iowa.

Iowa as able to survive TEOWAKI due to the following:

During the initial chaos, the governor of Iowa shut down the bridges in the Mississippi to prevent starving refugees from Illinois from coming in.

Due to its vast fertile farmland and low population density, it was able to survive the initial chaos.

As a result, it was able to retain its state government and identity in a world dominated by theocracies and fiefdoms in post SHTF America.

So ATS, what's your opinion?

Iowans feel free to comment on this as well. After all, I would like to hear your input since Iowa sounds like a safe place to live. In fact I might consider moving to Iowa.
edit on 1-8-2015 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I read some of those books and lost interest.
But Hawaii would do to its isolation and maybe Alaska.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

But wouldn't some places in Hawaii like Oahu experience a massive die out? That's what happened in the books.

I agree Alaska should survive the initial chaos.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Those 2 would be some of the first to fall. Due to climate and isolation, they import just about everything. Some of the folks who live off the land in Alaska may do quite well, as they are used to surviving on their own, but the bigger cities are doomed.

I think some of the more rural/farming states will be better suited to surviving a SHTF scenario, but places like New York and especially California are done. Yes, California may have the climate, but there are also millions in the cities who wouldn't know a tomato plant from a dandelion. Big cities will go up in flames, gangs taking over and claiming territories, killing anyone who tries to cross without their permission. We in the small towns will be ok, till the starving masses from those cities come looking for food and to get away from all the violence.
edit on 1-8-2015 by DAVID64 because: add



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal


Well the book had Christians turning to Wicca in droves too so I would take the book for what it is, fiction.
I'm sure the initial die off would be massive but some civilization would survive as long as they had some strong leadership.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

What about Mountain towns such as Big Bear, Lake Tahoe and Mammoth Lakes?

With them being surrounded by mountains, I'm pretty sure they could just cut themselves off by shutting down the roads going in and out. Many of them have lakes and wildlife that could allow them survive on their own.


edit on 1-8-2015 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

Saw an article not too long ago on this. The author was speculating that the US would seperate into 5 territories and join Canada, Mexico, China, England, and one other country. Though would simply be workers for the countries they joined with no citizenship status . Neat question



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
A little background: There was a book series called the Emberverse by SM stirling where in an alternate 1998 Earth, there was a mysterious event called "the Change" where electricity suddenly disappear for no apparent reason. The result was horrendous. With the loss electricity the world descended to anarchy and many governments collapsed while many people who lived in urban areas starved to death due to the truck not delivering food anymore to the cities. Meanwhile many warlords came and form their own fiefdoms while those who survive the initial chaos either band together to form their own nations or became cannibals.

Many years later new nations arise from the former United States. Many of them are fiefdoms run by warlords while Utah and Montana was run by a theocracy. In some places, it was occupied by nomadic peoples, ranchers and communities that survived the initial chaos.

However, one state government was able to survive and maintain control of its home state.

The state is Iowa.

Iowa as able to survive TEOWAKI due to the following:

During the initial chaos, the governor of Iowa shut down the bridges in the Mississippi to prevent starving refugees from Illinois from coming in.

Due to its vast fertile farmland and low population density, it was able to survive the initial chaos.

As a result, it was able to retain its state government and identity in a world dominated by theocracies and fiefdoms in post SHTF America.

So ATS, what's your opinion?

Iowans feel free to comment on this as well. After all, I would like to hear your input since Iowa sounds like a safe place to live. In fact I might consider moving to Iowa.


Indiana Kentucky Tennessee and Texas.

Because all have some things in common.

Large rural populations, the means to be self reliant, texas as a stand alone, indiana Kentucky and Tennessee together, a large population of hunters and other gun owners, and country folks know how to band together when times get rough.

There may be a few others, but the rest of you guys are screwed.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Lol...shout out from a Tennessean. Funny. Maybe all will be good and no shtf scenario hits



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Lol...shout out from a Tennessean. Funny. Maybe all will be good and no shtf scenario hits



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Texas. they have oil and beef and a fair amount of farm land.
and they've already been an independent country.

there's a bunch that would like to secede right now



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I think the midwest would do best. Any large city will be doomed.

Farmland is the lifeline on this country and a lot of people forget where that food in the grocery store comes from.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
I think the midwest would do best. Any large city will be doomed.

Farmland is the lifeline on this country and a lot of people forget where that food in the grocery store comes from.


I agree, as I sit here writing this I am looking out at a sea of corn and soybeans, that is why the US Midwest feeds the entire world.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I'm sorry but closing bridges would do nothing to stop hordes of starving people from crossing a river.

My belief is that if it all came crashing down, the number of good reasonable people wouldn't change, nor would the desire to bring back the old days. So, while there will be pockets of chaos(we deal with those now (parts of Detroit, Huston, Dallas, LA, Etc.) by avoidance) for the most part good people will work hard, rebuild, and defend each other, and in the end good will prevail.

I am an optimist, and a generally kind peaceful person, but that should never be mistaken for weakness. There are many more just like me. We will weather our floods and stand stronger after.

I'm still sticking with Texas, because I know Texans.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: DAVID64

What about Mountain towns such as Big Bear, Lake Tahoe and Mammoth Lakes?

With them being surrounded by mountains, I'm pretty sure they could just cut themselves off by shutting down the roads going in and out. Many of them have lakes and wildlife that could allow them survive on their own.



Exactly. Me thinks David64 doesn't understand that California is a huge state with expansive rural areas rich in resources that are far away from any population center. The majority of Ca is condensed to very small areas of land. The large amount of land north of Sacramento and most of the land directly eat of Sacramento would fair very well.

Montanas biggest issue would be their serious lack of on the eastern 3/4 of the state. They also have a very short growing season and not to much in the way of rivers and lakes in the eastern half of the state. They would do well hunting as long as they were conservative about it.

Utah would fair well due to the 1 year of food well and all the survivalist/prepper stores. Water would be the biggest challenge. Huge lake but the water is saltier than the ocean. There is also a lack of natural resources that comes with having large forests.

Oregon would fair well and so would much of Washington outside of Seattle.

I would worry about the lack of Forrest area in the Midwest as people are going to have to heavily rely on trees for heat.

The east coast is screwed due to population numbers.

Honestly my bet is on Oregon.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Would have to go with "Cascadia"/Pacific NW. The more interior region(inside of the Cascades continuing down through Utah) is regarded as one of the safest areas to live. Actually if the fault goes, as more and more projected, there might be a test for survival of the region soon enough. Of course though, an obliterated infrastructure to the main center of the region, it's sure to be a lot worse than a non natural disaster SHTF scenario.

For the OP in particular asking about Iowa. Am not seeing Iowa as listed as safe anywhere. Would assume due to the tornado alley and history of drought to the area as main concerns.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
This is a Marine's interpretation...www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Would have to go with "Cascadia"/Pacific NW. The more interior region(inside of the Cascades continuing down through Utah) is regarded as one of the safest areas to live. Actually if the fault goes, as more and more projected, there might be a test for survival of the region soon enough. Of course though, an obliterated infrastructure to the main center of the region, it's sure to be a lot worse than a non natural disaster SHTF scenario.



I second your suggestion of Cascadia. Already have a flag, a mayors council and a bunch of other things. I saw a flyer for a CascadiaNow.org... meeting recently and I know that it made a Time Magazine Top 10 list of Aspiring Nations.)
edit on 1-8-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
obviously the most liberal governments and states would survive because they like the Tax and spend thing. conservative states would be living in the stone age because they wouldn`t have any money to build or maintain roads or any other public service, it would be every man for himself in those states.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Perhaps our area could slip out of the control of Frankfort (KY) and become the Jackson Purchase again, with boundaries based on the region, not arbitrary lines drawn on paper.
We're heavily rural and community oriented so I have a lot of confidence that we would survive and rebuild quite nicely.
Our biggest regional disaster was the IceMare of '09. It left two counties without electricity for over a week and thousands without power for up to three weeks.
We saw an amazing community effort without any real, actual help from Frankfort or Washington. The "suits" showed up in the Spring to brag about how well everything had been handled and seemed to be attempting to convince people that they really were necessary. Local government handled all of it---all the parts that mattered to the people.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join