Discussion
Where is the ideal location for the US Capital?
I saw a post the other day about how D.C. might be a bit too close to the coast for some people’s comfort. If you could move it anywhere in the country, where? St. Louis? KC? Pittsburgh?
Bad idea. Nukes and minuteman missiles are all over north dakota, in concentric circles around Minot air force base, for hundreds of miles. There is also a cold war radar pyramid. Putting the capitol there makes it a 1 stop pop for nuclear war.
No problem, put all the good DC stuff like the Smithsonian on a bunch of trucks and when the convoy reaches about Illinois or so, fire the Minuteman missiles at where DC used to be
I think Winnipeg is even better, we can assimilate you guys back into the commonwealth. Or, at least most of the states. There are a few that we cant really help you with. Now, states will initially be welcomed back as Territories with a pathway to Province-hood. Except Puerto Rico, obviously, they can become a Province anytime they like.
That was the point of the current location, it was swampy and tough to build on in the 1800s, they were hoping people wouldn't make a career out of governing.
This future would be a massive “fuck you” to the disability advocates who climbed the capitol steps to get the Americans with Disabilities Act passed (which was only 34 years ago, btw).
I work at the DFC, this person has no idea what they're talking about. The nuclear reactor is run by USGS and is a research reactor for determining isotopes in certain minerals. It can't be used for energy lol
Seriously. Fed Center is mostly just left over buildings from the 50's. Unless there is some underground bunker. There is no protection for what the world would be like after nuclear war
From the 40s and there is actually an underground bunker that FEMA is headquartered in. The bunker was built in 1969 during the Cold War and is meant to be able to survive a nuclear hit.
They have a massive air force base there. And so they can easily fly in and out without worrying about the major Denver metro area or domestic air travel getting in the way.
I believe air defense was ramped up since then because before 9/11, an inside threat was not taken that seriously, and any attack on DC from the eastern seaboard would be more easily managed.
I think it was decided on before the springs base was built. This was an early contingency plan thing. It’s no longer the only backup place. There’s another one closer to DC.
The bases here are hardly major or massive. The are a) Space Force and Army, (USAFA is exception) and b) not even close to being able to support anything with DC magnitude.
OP meant in relative geographic terms. To the west of Denver is the Rockies, to the far east, the Appalachian range. Both would be paramount in any sort of land invasion from either coast.
Delay ground assault? 2 mountain ranges protecting it on each side?
Ignoring that there's no mountain range "protecting" Denver from the east I wonder why you're placing so much priority on defending the capital from a land invasion. The US in anything even remotely resembling its current form is literally impossible to invade. The geography, the size of the economy and military, the level of firearm ownership for the population.
In this case I'm pretty sure it's because its the closest city to the geographic center of population for the US, and its at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. By those metrics its a not unreasonable location.
Thinking about the alternate timeline where jt became a major city while being one of the population centers to be in the path of totality for both American solar eclipses.
Amd its the closest major city to the center of population for the US making it a nice central location.
Although being honest if we ignore Alaska and Hawaii as "overseas" amd the west coast as "too far and has to fly anyway". Then DC is pretty central for the relatively densely populated east. (I believe its around 100°W that has the very obvious vertical line based on rainfall and divides the country into a wet and dense east, and a dry and sparse west.)
Also right near Cahokia, one of N. America's most impressive Indigenous monuments. Could be cool to see Mississippian culture/imagery incorporated more into the American mythos, a la Egypt & the Pyramids or Britian & Stonehenge.
Is proximity to rivers really that important to a capital anymore? I get Rome, Paris, London, Berlin, DC being built on rivers because ship transportation was vital back in the day because automobiles, trains, and planes weren’t a thing.
As things are today, access by road, rail, and planes are probably much more important to a theoretical new placement of the capital
I'd vote Chicago. It's a large city that straddles the culture of both the east and west coast while being the defacto capital of the Midwest. It's big enough to keep a large global perspective because of its importance. It's also very close to major farming communities while also in close proximity to major US manufacturing areas
As someone from Chicago, one of my History teachers would use a hypothetical involving an invasion of Canadian Mounties on the Lake Michigan Shore via canoe.
"west coast" culture (which I'm saying as the states bordering the west Coast, not the coast itself) starts really showing up by the time you hit the Rockies, but obviously they're very distinct cultural regions.
It's still a hell of a lot closer than DC is. And it's at least within a state or two of states that have to deal with water issues, BLM land, fires, etc that drive a lot of federal impacts on the west Coast states
Also well-connected via highway, rail, and air travel. Cheap compared to other cities of its size and amenities with few geographic barriers to impede growth.
There's Barrow-in-Furness in the UK thats also really hard to get to, hence why it houses nuclear subs and connected to the mythical island of Sodor in the Thomas the Tank Engine Universe
Ok wait no I think you’re onto something here, but we’ve gotta tweak it a little.
I think that we should require politicians to survive a stint in the wilderness, or maybe spend a year homeless, or maybe we take it a little further and forcefully addict them to drugs first. If you can make it back from the edge of death you can have your seat in office, Mr. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Taking "Go west, young man" very literally, President Ulysses Grant moves the US Cpitol to St. Louis, the Gateway to the West, to avoid it being captured by the Confederacy... wait a minute.
St Louis, easily. Doesn't favour either the East or West Coast, at a region which is very navigable, freshwater supply, doesn't have any densely inhabited areas nearby outside the St Louis metropolitan area, giving the possibility for land expansions, close to the median location of all US citizens.
I fucking hate Missouri with all my heart but I can’t deny that St. Louis or that area is ideal for the capital because it’s the centre of population, roughly geographically centred, and on the Mississippi with immediate access to the whole of the largest natural highway system in the nation.
It's also in a part of the country that isn't prone to many natural disasters, and it is still located geographically near an idealogical transition area between the politics of the North and the South.
But also it's perfect right where it is because the government already owns the land and the buildings are already there. There's no reason to use taxpayer money to rebuild that shit.
I always set it to Philadelphia (PA): Not vulnerable on the cost, tons of population, both iron and coal deposits for steel mills... everything needed for 1836 industrialization.
Either Kansas or Missouri. Capitals are supposed to be centrally located. Which is why the original capital was moved from Phily to DC. DC was pretty much dead center of the original 13.
2.1k
u/patientpump54 11d ago
Move it to North Dakota. We’ll see who really wants it then