Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's pretend DC gets nuked or just something terrible happens to it. Which of these five cities would you pick to be the new capital?
-Denver - A city truly in the center of the country, very safe from outside attacks and natural disasters.
-Chicago - Solidifying the city as the third largest, ensuring Houston doesn't surpass, while the government buildings go on the southside to revitalize it and we get a blend of a capital city and large stereotypical city with big buildings, and fairly safe in regards to geographic location.
-Oklahoma City - A city so unknown to the international community with so much potential if expanded there.
-Detroit - SO much space to expand in, help revitalize a decaying city, and making the city great once again with a new strong economy.
-St. Louis - More central and safely located city. Help revitalize the city's poor areas. Good culture location too. Midwest, meets south, east meets west (historically) and with one of the most famous waterways cutting next to the city.
Some criteria:
-Consider geographic location in relation to safety from international attacks
-If the city has enough room to accommodate the memorials and all the government buildings, and Smithsonian museums
-The city's economic might
-How international the city is
St. Louis is the easy winner here. It's perfect. Between the North and the South, between the East and the West. Very close to the U.S. center of population (Denver, while close to the geographic center, is not close to the center of population). Remember, when DC was chosen as the site of the capital, it was close to the nation's center of population.
St. Louis also wins in roominess (though Detroit would be a good pick here, too). As a city with a much smaller population than it once had, it's got the infrastructure but enough empty space to fill with monuments, new government buildings, etc.
I don't think "safety from international attacks" is particularly relevant -- if they're the capital, they all become equal targets. I mean, Denver's location next to the Rockies makes it harder to attack by land from the west, I guess, but this isn't 1940.
Other cities are better picks economically, but that's OK. The federal government becomes the economy. And none of the cities are that international except for possibly Chicago, which I think would be a poor choice for a variety of reasons.
Chicago has direct access to the Great Lakes, a strategic naval, transportation, and defensive advantage. It is an internationally known city. It's the railway hub of the US. It's dead flat, great for airport or air force base expansion. The city already has a large expanse of parks for memorials. The downtown business area has never gone downhill. Large subway system for bomb shelters.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Denver. It's got an airport big enough to serve Tokyo, lots of open space and land to build on, a robust economy and well educated populace, middle of the country, and it already has a number of federal operations located in the area.
OP on a roll the past few days with DC...now he wants the city wiped off the map...just joking with you man...anyways as stated this poll has been done before and I will give the same answer as last time...Denver has already been given that designation, its already been picked...backup Fed sites are located in that area
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.