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.
Strategic depth is an international relations term that means the "distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants' industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production"
It's largely a military term for how a country's assets (people, economic hubs, military hub, cultural hubs) are distributed. For example, Canada has poor strategic depth, as its capital is close to the American border and 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. Further, a majority of Canadians live in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, with the rest being relatively sparse. From a military standpoint, Canada is in poor position.
Mexico, on the other hand, has great strategic depth, as its population centers are far inland, far from international borders, and its major cities (Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey) are all in different regions of the country.
The U.S. has perhaps the greatest strategic depth of any country in the world, with weak neighbors, two massive oceans on either side, a capital city separated from rival powers by vast distances, major regional hubs all throughout the landmass (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, Washington all have 5 million+ in their CSA, and are spread all throughout the country), economic specializations amongst cities (Atlanta/logistics, Boston/education, Chicago/agriculture and mercantile, Houston/energy, Los Angeles/entertainment, Miami/Latin business, New York/financial, Philadelphia/healthcare and chemicals, San Francisco/tech, Washington/government), and population largely dispersed (if still a bit concentrated East of the Mississippi).
Taking this concept to U.S. states, what state has the most strategic depth to you?
Criteria could include:
Capital city "far" from other state borders (aka Bismarck or Pierre)
Centralization of state capital (Dover, for example, which is very close to Maryland's borders, but geographically central nonetheless within Delaware)
Capital city/economic hub divergence (aka New York and Washington D.C. are separate cities)
Population spread: The population of the state is well distributed amongst its regions, cardinal directions, or county clusters.
Economic spread: economic activity isn't congregated in one city - aka Chicago - while the rest of the state suffers - aka Downstate
"Hinterlands": the state's borders are geographic extremes (forests, deserts, rivers, mountains, prairie) and present a clear break between that state and its neighbors)
Few "border" towns: the state doesn't have any major hubs near its borders.
The population clusters and economic hubs are hard to reach. A good example would be West Virginia, with Charleston smack dab in the middle of a state surrounded by mountains.
The state has few "wastelands" aka, vast swathes of land that generate no monetary value, economic activity, cultural cachet, political power or societal important. A good example would be Eastern Oregon.
No state will meet every criteria, but which has, overall, the best strategic depth?
From my perspective, here are some very good candidates:
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut (relative to its size)
Montana
New Mexico
Ohio (great population spread, central state capital, a major city in the NE, NW, SW, and C, only weakness is Cincinnati being so close to Kentucky)
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee (lots of border cities, but the state is very dispersed)
Texas
Virginia (other than the northern border, the state has clear "hinterlands" on its remaining borders)
Washington
Lowest strategic depth:
Illinois (Chicago dominates, and Chicago itself is near two state borders)
Kansas (capital - Topeka - and economic hub - Kansas City/Johnson County - are both near Missouri)
Minnesota (all major hubs - Duluth, Minneapolis, Moorhead, Rochester - are near state borders)
Missouri (both major cities are near borders, though its capital is in the perfect spot)
Nevada (both major cities are near borders + its capital, with the center being empty)
Rhode Island
Sioux Falls (for a big state, it has horrible depth with Sioux Falls near Iowa and Nebraska and Rapid City near Wyoming)
Wyoming (the capital being so close to Colorado is a huge weakness)
All in all, my choices are:
Most Strategic Depth: Ohio
Least Strategic Depth: Nevada
To visualize strategic depth, this would be perfect strategic depth:
I gave it to Ohio because, to me, it comes closest to meeting that chart. Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus are all three equally-weighted metros. Cleveland is the economic and industrial hub, Columbus is the political hub and Cincinnati is the corporate and financial hub.
In between are dozens of medium-sized cities and a few large metros (Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown). And between those medium-sized cities are smaller towns, many in counties that themselves exceed 50,000 people.
So we get this:
If Ohio's SE Appalachian border stretched all around, Ohio would win in a cakewalk to me.
Just FYI, (North)eastern Oregon actually has some of the most productive wheat crops in the country.
Yeah, I think your candidates are good, and the best ones are probably Ohio and Montana. Montana's cities are pretty spread out, none of them is really dominant, and none of them are close to other state borders. The state also brings in a lot of tourism considering its low population, definitely "cultural cachet" --- which I guess wouldn't matter in an invasion scenario, but then they'd have a huge amount of farmland to survive off of.
North Carolina is buffeted by the ocean and the mountains. The capital is about 60 miles from the state line and isn’t the first population center you’d come to if invading (Durham and Charlotte could be the cannon fodder such as it were in a battle with Virginia and SC). 18 counties have 150,000+ people, ranging over 300 miles apart. The central Piedmont has the biggest cities, but eastern NC has several million spread out in several metros ranging from Wilmington to Rocky Mount. There are no major cities near our borders either in neighboring states. No one is sneaking up on us, while SC wouldn’t know which way was up if Charlotte just marched through Carowinds on the way to Columbia.
Strategic depth is an international relations term that means the "distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants' industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production"
It's largely a military term for how a country's assets (people, economic hubs, military hub, cultural hubs) are distributed. For example, Canada has poor strategic depth, as its capital is close to the American border and 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. Further, a majority of Canadians live in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, with the rest being relatively sparse. From a military standpoint, Canada is in poor position.
Mexico, on the other hand, has great strategic depth, as its population centers are far inland, far from international borders, and its major cities (Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey) are all in different regions of the country.
The U.S. has perhaps the greatest strategic depth of any country in the world, with weak neighbors, two massive oceans on either side, a capital city separated from rival powers by vast distances, major regional hubs all throughout the landmass (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, Washington all have 5 million+ in their CSA, and are spread all throughout the country), economic specializations amongst cities (Atlanta/logistics, Boston/education, Chicago/agriculture and mercantile, Houston/energy, Los Angeles/entertainment, Miami/Latin business, New York/financial, Philadelphia/healthcare and chemicals, San Francisco/tech, Washington/government), and population largely dispersed (if still a bit concentrated East of the Mississippi).
Taking this concept to U.S. states, what state has the most strategic depth to you?
Criteria could include:
Capital city "far" from other state borders (aka Bismarck or Pierre)
Centralization of state capital (Dover, for example, which is very close to Maryland's borders, but geographically central nonetheless within Delaware)
Capital city/economic hub divergence (aka New York and Washington D.C. are separate cities)
Population spread: The population of the state is well distributed amongst its regions, cardinal directions, or county clusters.
Economic spread: economic activity isn't congregated in one city - aka Chicago - while the rest of the state suffers - aka Downstate
"Hinterlands": the state's borders are geographic extremes (forests, deserts, rivers, mountains, prairie) and present a clear break between that state and its neighbors)
Few "border" towns: the state doesn't have any major hubs near its borders.
The population clusters and economic hubs are hard to reach. A good example would be West Virginia, with Charleston smack dab in the middle of a state surrounded by mountains.
The state has few "wastelands" aka, vast swathes of land that generate no monetary value, economic activity, cultural cachet, political power or societal important. A good example would be Eastern Oregon.
No state will meet every criteria, but which has, overall, the best strategic depth?
From my perspective, here are some very good candidates:
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut (relative to its size)
Montana
New Mexico
Ohio (great population spread, central state capital, a major city in the NE, NW, SW, and C, only weakness is Cincinnati being so close to Kentucky)
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee (lots of border cities, but the state is very dispersed)
Texas
Virginia (other than the northern border, the state has clear "hinterlands" on its remaining borders)
Washington
Lowest strategic depth:
Illinois (Chicago dominates, and Chicago itself is near two state borders)
Kansas (capital - Topeka - and economic hub - Kansas City/Johnson County - are both near Missouri)
Minnesota (all major hubs - Duluth, Minneapolis, Moorhead, Rochester - are near state borders)
Missouri (both major cities are near borders, though its capital is in the perfect spot)
Nevada (both major cities are near borders + its capital, with the center being empty)
Rhode Island
Sioux Falls (for a big state, it has horrible depth with Sioux Falls near Iowa and Nebraska and Rapid City near Wyoming)
Wyoming (the capital being so close to Colorado is a huge weakness)
All in all, my choices are:
Most Strategic Depth: Ohio
Least Strategic Depth: Nevada
To visualize strategic depth, this would be perfect strategic depth:
I gave it to Ohio because, to me, it comes closest to meeting that chart. Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus are all three equally-weighted metros. Cleveland is the economic and industrial hub, Columbus is the political hub and Cincinnati is the corporate and financial hub.
In between are dozens of medium-sized cities and a few large metros (Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown). And between those medium-sized cities are smaller towns, many in counties that themselves exceed 50,000 people.
So we get this:
If Ohio's SE Appalachian border stretched all around, Ohio would win in a cakewalk to me.
Why SC or NM but no GA,FL,MD and any others?Maybe Im just not understanding the premise properly?
Why SC or NM but no GA,FL,MD and any others?Maybe Im just not understanding the premise properly?
#4. For SC to be geographically small it has nearly three metropolitan areas that are around 1 million in population. Greenville near the mountains, Columbia the capital in the middle of the state with Fort Jackson, and Charleston on the coast. GA has.....
#5. Atlanta which dominates the state and then Augusta which metro would probably be the fourth largest in SC.
#7. Savannah, Columbus, and Augusta (all of the next largest cities are all border towns)
#1. Tallahassee is not far from Alabama and Georgia at all.
#9. SCs coast is not a wasteland, Myrtle Beach, Charleston, Hilton Head Island, etc. whereas GA doesn’t generate much tourism from its tiny coast.
But I agree about FL. Beside the state capital situation it fits a lot of the criteria!
Last edited by sonofaque86; 11-24-2020 at 05:37 AM..
Indianapolis metro area is about 1/3 of the state's total population.
Indiana borders, Chicago, Louisville, and Cincinnati, however none of those areas have major cities on the Indiana side. Indiana's population is spread out evenly, South Bend in the north, Fort Wayne in North East, Munchies and Anderson in the east, Evansville in the south, Bloomington in the south west, Terre Haute in the west, Lafayette and Chicago communities in the north west.
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.
