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.
I'm curious to see how this plays out so I am not digging for anything beyond a question that lingers in my mind..
If for some reason the United States were forced to give either the mountain states of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Idaho to Mexico or Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and the Dakotas to Canada.
Cities within these states include:
Mountain:
Pheonix, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Albuerque, NM
Santa Fe, NM
Las Vegas, NV
Reno, NV
Salt Lake City, UT
St George, UT
Boise, ID
Plains:
Kansas City, KS-MO
Wichita, KS
Topeka, KS
Omaha, NE-IA
Lincoln, NE
Des Moines/Ames, IA
Cedar Rapids, IA
Quad cities, IA
Iowa City, IA
Oklahoma City, OK
Tulsa, OK
Sioux Falls, SD
Rapid City, SD
Fargo, ND
I don't believe Canada has any intention of invading and occupying the Plains/Midwesstern states mentioned or Rocky Mountain region in the near future. But I understand they do have their eyes and designs on northern New England and possibly Michigan. LOL
I'm curious as to why Colorado, Wyoming and Montana aren't thought of as mountain states. Canada would have a difficult time connecting all their new territory through the narrow "panhandle" of Idaho. I also am curious as to why Kansas City, MO ends up being transferred along with the state of Kansas while Missouri isn't part of the deal.
The plains states are rich in grains whereas the mountain states offer minerals. Idaho and Arizona both offer quite a bit of agriculture as well, though not grains. The dakotas offer minerals, too, though, as well as some in Oklahoma.
Ordinarily I would say that the Mountain states are far more valuable than the Plains states, except for the fact that half the mountain states aren't included in the deal (Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana). On the other hand, I think we tend to overproduce grains and then later look for a way to rid ourselves of the surplus (usually by food aid donations to other countries), so I tend to value the minerals more. Plus, while the great plains is productive, there is other land in the remainder of the midwest that could be converted to cereal production if needed. Plus, there is a water problem in that the sources of water for the western great plains are all in the rockies, which is now severed from the plains states.
I'm curious as to why Colorado, Wyoming and Montana aren't thought of as mountain states. Canada would have a difficult time connecting all their new territory through the narrow "panhandle" of Idaho. I also am curious as to why Kansas City, MO ends up being transferred along with the state of Kansas while Missouri isn't part of the deal.
The plains states are rich in grains whereas the mountain states offer minerals. Idaho and Arizona both offer quite a bit of agriculture as well, though not grains. The dakotas offer minerals, too, though, as well as some in Oklahoma.
Ordinarily I would say that the Mountain states are far more valuable than the Plains states, except for the fact that half the mountain states aren't included in the deal (Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana). On the other hand, I think we tend to overproduce grains and then later look for a way to rid ourselves of the surplus (usually by food aid donations to other countries), so I tend to value the minerals more. Plus, while the great plains is productive, there is other land in the remainder of the midwest that could be converted to cereal production if needed. Plus, there is a water problem in that the sources of water for the western great plains are all in the rockies, which is now severed from the plains states.
Canada would have a hard time connecting with these mountain states which is why I affiliated them with Mexico and the plains with canada.
Also, I did not include Colorado nor Montana as they are both a mountain and a plains state and adding Wyoming without montana or Colorado appeared to be gerrymandering more than anything. You simply cannot choose everybody or I would have added Minnesota, Missouri and Texas to the great plains states. I chose the states that had the most significant portion of the land represented in these regions.
Also note the region within the mountain states is so vast that the area I selected within this range is still larger in land 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.
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.
