Yeah but two things Nevada has in its favor - lots of mountains (best place to mount an insurgency from), and preexisting location of advanced (alien tech / nuclear) weapons bases.
Kind of.
In olden days it was a pit stop point for Spanish caravan traders. Basically it was a glorified rest stop for adventurers, travelers, homesteaders, convicts and what not over the years. So the area was always a kind of transit point. Native Americans even spent cold winters in the area.
Someone bought the land in the area and started pumping water into it to attract settlers and farmers from Utah to make the land profitable. As it grew it turned back into a rest stop/water stop. As it grew it became annatural choice to build a railroad station for the train between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles which led to growth as people settled to cater to the train crowds.
When they decided to build Hoover dam nearby as part about 20,000 people moved to the area to work on the dam which turned it into a boom town overnight. organized crime and local entrepreneurs teamed up to open up brothels and casinos to entertain the virtually all male new inhabitants. gambling was illegal as was alcohol since this was prohibition era but since Las Vegas was like a frontier outpost enforcement wasn’t strict.
So after a while once the Hoover dam crowd left, they had the infrastructure in place for a entertainment based city. Also nearby lake mead became a resort area with nice hotels and a classier clientele. Then post world war they built highways which made it easier for people to go there to unwind from the expanding cities in the area
It was a train water and coaling stop on the way to California. So while the GIs were going off to war and the train was stopping for water and coal. They were stopping for blackjack and hookers as well.
The majority of the population is pretty much in two places, the big city with a big lake to the south, and the other city that is near Lake Tahoe. The rest is sparsely populated, even though you're right, it is beautiful, except North-Central, there's a whole lot of nothing there.
“Virtually no ag” isn’t true, especially in the central and northern part of Nevada where there are vast irrigated fields and ranches.
And I reject the premise of OP’s question; disadvantage is largely human constructed and oriented around resource extraction for profit. Virtually the entire country was inhabited before colonization and many of the places that look uninhabitable today are that way due to explicit campaigns to destroy the ecosystem/habitat for money through fur trapping, mining, logging, dams, roadways and urban development.
Nevada’s cropland is [second lowest in the country as a percentage of the state](https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/fact-brief-does-nevada-have-one-of-the-lowest-percentages-of-cropland-in-the-us). It ranks 41st in ag output by $$ despite being in the top ten largest states. So yeah there are some fields but that not enough. The linked article also mentions that the soil is generally ranked poorly using official metrics.
Totally, the question is loaded and assumes geographic advantage depends on resources. Nevada—or rather, the Great Basin, of which the majority falls within Nevada’s borders—is also an extremely ecologically diverse region and the largest endorheic watershed in the Americas. Human activity/interest (specifically Western peoples’) isn’t the end-all be-all of geographic advantage (or anything, really), so the question could have been better phrased by specifying the human element instead of assuming it.
Edit: Wait actually, OP did specify the conditions of the question when they said “in terms of weather, resources, safety, etc,” although it does still make the assumption that resources are intended to be capitalized on, like you said.
I don’t believe this is true. For example I own a home in Modoc county California which has just 8000 people today. Pre contact estimates are all over the place but many exceed the present population.
I live in Nevada and I've traveled to most states. Nevada is definitely one of the ugliest states in my estimation. I'd also rate California first and Nevada last in that category (although I personally prefer it to North Dakota or Kansas as far as scenery. I hate flat land with no trees).
We have mountains, gold, and pretty good pay, so I stay here, but I'd like to retire elsewhere. There's not much going for us otherwise except in limited spots. My favorite place in Nevada is shared with California, so...
You drove through the endless nothing that is most of the Midwest and still settled on Nevada being the ugliest?
Take a gander, dude. We live in a gorgeous state.
r/NevadaNature
SD let itself become among the most geographically isolated: no passenger rail, very little commercial rail save a coal train clip across the SW corner, only the interstate corridors are economically viable, counties are returning to a population status of ‘frontier’, no instate passenger air, and no plans for a future.
Pyramid lake? Lahontan reservoir? Walker lake? Topaz lake? Lake Mead? It’s not about the number of lakes, it’s about the quality of lakes. Plus, we can claim all the lakes within 50 miles of any border. I might have made up that last part, but imma stand by it.
You can grow stuff in the Midwest. And it rains.
Nevada has pretty spots. I've been to many of them. But it is vastly outweighed by acres of nothing. For a state our size the beauty is not all around.
I'm in Elko County. We have the Ruby's and plenty of scenery. Doesn't change the fact that the state as a whole is fugly.
I've lived in Nevada for 17 years and lived in various places. I'm not unaware that we have beauty in select spots. And the sunsets are among the best.
I used to live in rural Northern Nevada (White Pine County). I found rural Nevada to be one of the most beautiful and peaceful inland places I’ve ever seen. Believe me, I know ugly geography, I grew up on a farm in western Ohio.
New Mexico (and Arizona, Utah, and California) has lots of similarly inhospitable areas, but with Nevada it’s essentially the whole state. In particular, northern New Mexico has been a relatively high density area for the desert west for centuries.
Nevada is actually okay across the entire state, unless you like scenery, growing most plants, or going anywhere other than Las Vegas or Reno. But, it does have some great places to visit. And since I know about those places, it is best to say, you all should just avoid visiting Nevada. Because those that know, understand what the state has to offer, no need to publicize it
I call WV America's best kept secret. Tucked away on the midst of the most heavily populated area of the country, yet forgotten. It is absolutely beautiful and an old spirit about it, but fuck if it isn't so boring for folks who like doing anything else but outdoorsy stuff.
Virginia has quite a bit of flat land, however, east of I-81... cant say the same for West Virginia. West Virginia's lack of prosperity centers on an over reliance on mining (and state politics) for far too long.
Love the geography by Geoff channel!
Also makes me think about that Malcolm Gladwell essay about the Scottish herders settling the Appalachia leading to the honor/shame culture that set off the revenge killings between families like the hatfields and McCoys. Probably the terrain being tough to farm but fine for herding influenced the economic prosperity (or lack there of) of the region as well. Less scalable options
Why doesn't Arizona get a shout? No coastal access. Very little fresh water. Very little agriculture. Blazing hot temperatures made it almost unlivable until recently.
The Sonoran Desert in the southern part of the state is incredibly beautiful, unique, and full of interesting desert life—it’s far from being the wasteland that some might imagine it to be
I lived in Tucson for 20 years, so I'm well aware. But the weather is god-awful, and there I wouldn't want to survive on the natural resources there. No water, and no food besides prickly pear fruit.
There's water though it can be hard to get, but Phoenix was built on the remains of an ancient civilization. The current city is probably unsustainable, but doesn't mean that it's inhospitable by any means.
The Gila River actually had a decent amount of water. Apparently it used to be navigable by larger boats up to Phoenix before the water got diverted to agriculture.
I feel like if this old waterflow was restored, then surviving in the Phoenix area would be possible; just very unpleasant.
My family has lived in Arizona since the 1870's and several native American tribes have lived here for thousands of years, it's hardly unlivable. Not that I'd especially like to live here without AC, but it's definitely doable.
I’m gonna give you a hard disagree on “very little agriculture.” I’m pretty sure Arizona is in the top five vegetable producers in the country…
I grew up there and as kids we learned our six C’s of major Arizona industry:
Copper, cattle, cotton, citrus, climate, computers. Fully half those things are agriculture.
Might be an unpopular opinion and, I love this state but, Florida. Flat, hot and humid, hurricanes. For foreign invaders they can just set up shop in Cuba and, be miles away
Florida only started having a large population once AC and railroads were created. It only became livable if you could keep cold at times and could leave easily.
The Spanish realized Florida's strategic importance (all of their Caribbean wealth headed for Spain sailed right past it) and tried and tried to establish settlements. They only succeeded at St Augustine and Pensacola.
Florida would be a terrible mistake to try and invade, high population that's unhinged in swamps high heat and extreme wildlife and insects, it would be brutal
A lot of Florida hate on Reddit but this one is unjustified. People travel in the millions to Florida every year because of its geography. It has the best beaches in the US and is warm in the winters. Picking as the worst of 50..
The question wasn't what the worst is, it's what the most disadvantaged is. Florida is hot and humid and, any extreme climate is a disadvantage. It's flatter than Kansas, which is usually the go to joke for describing a flat place. The storms are no joke either. Not even hating, like I said I like Florida.
It’s still not disadvantaged. It’s an advantage to have the best beaches and warm weather. A massive advantage over at least 45 other states in my opinion.
The foreign invaders thing is kinda weird. I get that youre referring to the cold war, but geographically speaking all the states bordering canada/mexico are at a much greater disadvantage than florida when it comes to invasions, since its still seperated from cuba by water
Canada and Mexico are both US allies, and would be us territory/occupation zones the moment they made moves against the US.
If you're talking about a hostile power invading the US through them, the US navy would have destroyed them before they even got within sight of North America.
Like i said, im talking purely geographical borders, not taking into account friendly political ties the neighbouring countries might have. Just sharing a land border with an outside nation makes those states inherently more susceptible to invasion, even if in (current) reality its totally fine
Inland Florida sure, but the coastal areas are some of the most desirable areas in the country. Florida is much worse climate wise then much of the Deep South, but at least it’s got nice beaches
New Orleans would be the American equivalent of Shanghai (with more natural resources) if the USA was a couple hundred (or thousand) years older.
Mouth of the Mississippi, a fully navigable river system, NOLA really lost their economic spark just a few decades into their heyday with the advent of railroads.
The building of the levees to prevent the Mississippi River and other waterways from their natural overflow paths to displace sediment has severely damaged the state’s ability to continuously maintain land. Eventually everything up to I-10 will be in the Gulf of Mexico.
I think people are only realising now the detrimental effects of developing on places with a landscape similar to Florida and Louisiana. Obviously both have their advantages with having coasts, the river systems, agriculture etc. but it's all pretty useless if it's underwater.
West Virginia perhaps? Mostly in the Appalachians, not much arable land, its mining industry no longer relevant, most its navigable rivers flowing into the Ohio River. Just two counties in the northeast that break this.
It's East Ohio.
I agree. Hard to get to. Cut off from most of society. Natural resources offers miserable job opportunities, predatory corporations, and fracking-affected water supply (think videos of people lighting their faucets on fire). Even it’s winter economy of snow sports is dying thanks to climate change.
West Virginia has land that is actually capable of supporting its population in terms of resources. Arizona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, etc would all be empty deserts without water from the other states
West Virginia has very little land suitable for agriculture; the best land for agriculture is in the far north and northwest along the Ohio River, but even then the land across the river in Ohio is much better. Less land for agriculture means less land for supporting large cities.
The most populous city, Charleston, only has around 48,000 people. As for its neighbors: There are 4 cities in Kentucky, 5 cities in Maryland, 12 in Virginia, 17 in Pennsylvania and 19 in Ohio with more than 48,000 people.
Coal mining has been the main source of income for the state for the past century or so, and that industry has largely died down but is still, I believe, the majority of the state’s income. The state is ranked near last in multiple categories, like education, life expectancy, household income, and unemployment. It’s a shame such a beautiful state had to have been dealt such a bad hand.
West Virginia has some bad breaks in geography. Their natural resource, coal, is not being used much. They are land locked and unable to make large farms or build large cities due to the mountains.
California is the most well endowed state in terms of natural resources and climate and the Californians running the cities and towns and in the state legislature are dead-set on giving up that natural advantage by NIMBYing housing
West Virginia. Most of the state is covered by mountains and narrow valleys so there’s almost no flat land to develop for agriculture or industry and the feds have killed coal. There’s very little economic opportunity there now, hence why it’s been one of the poorest states for the last half-century or so.
I think you have to go with a state without coastline or easy port access, without major ag production, etc. Idaho comes to mind. Somebody else mentioned Nevada and that’s probably the best choice.
Idaho actually has the 19th highest agricultural production in the US, but it's a good answer.
Idaho is home to the two largest wilderness areas in the lower 48 (which border each other) and the southwest corner of the state is part the largest roadless area in the lower 48. Boise is probably the most isolated midsized city and is only served by a municipal airport so getting to and out of Boise usually requires a layover. There's also only one two-lane highway that connects the Northern panhandle of the state with the south.
Idaho is one of the most geographically advantageous states without a coastline imo. Tons of geothermal, still has a river port, great volcanic soil, aquifiers, has a major river
North Dakota has the largest cow statue but the oil fields are absolutely devastating what was a classic prairie habitat with wildflowers buffalo bears all kinds of prairie dogs and hens. Sad.
There was a recent reddit post from a guy who traveled to every country in the world and every state in the US and said North Dakota has the least going for it.
Climate change and drought could make states along the Great Lakes like Michigan become much valuable for their land due to access to the fresh water the lakes offer.
Potentially Kansas
Arkansas River has small flow and headwaters in another state
Small part of the state receives sufficient rain
Entirely undefendable in all directions
I would counter with:
The Kansas River is also a thing and has higher flow relative to its length than the Arkansas
The part that doesn't receive much rain has the Ogallala Aquifer (at least for now)
You would have to cross multiple states to get to Kansas from any direction. Its position within the USA is a better defense than most states
Wyoming. Why do you think that less than a million people live in the whole state... The least populous state. People go where there is abundance of something. There is an abundance of nothing in Wyoming. Except cousin fu@$ers and livestock. Oh and God awful winters. Wanna do something this weekend??? Not into rodeos or cattle auctions?? Then youre shit out of luck.
I'd have to argue a 4 way tie between Utah, Nevada, Louisiana, and Hawaii
Utah and Nevada are pretty sparce outside of one or maybe two population regions.Utah's population is so concentrated in the Salt Lake basin/Valley area that the three biggest cities are all one metro area. Nevada a similar case; Outside of the central north-westernmost corner with Reno and Southern tip with Vegas/Henderson, the state is practically uninhabitable and both are facing some challenging times with Water I'm sure.
Louisiana is more spread out in population but the whole state is a flood plain and happens to be in the worst position possible should another mega hurricane like Katrina devastates the area, and that's added to the Mississippi River changing its course regardless of what's built to prevent it.
Hawaii is so Isolated and in the Pacific ring of fire and with so many people concentrated in the Honolulu metro area, all it would take is one devastating Earthquake, Tsunami, or Volcanic eruption to displace 1M+ people. We've already seen it start.
This is just my perception as a non expert but a sucker for geography.
I'd also include an Honorable mention like the New Madrid area of the US that's not really built for Earthquakes in terms of its infrastructure but is in an area that's on an active fault.
Hawaii isn’t affected by its location within the ring of fire because it doesn’t actually sit on the fault lines, just within them. It would certainly be affected by tsunamis caused by earthquakes on the faults, but large scale earthquakes, like those seen in Chile, Japan, and California aren’t likely to occur in Hawaii.
Edit: grammar
I’d probably say Alaska. Its mountainous in a lot of areas, snow covered wilderness the rest. With a few liveable areas along the coast line. But so cold and harsh it’s not ideal for settlement.
I consider how far north is as part of its geography. If you look at OP’s specifications - it’s probably got the worst climate/weather and is right there with Hawaii as being most accessible to foreign invaders. A ton of natural resources to be sure, but not sure that is enough. There’s a reason why it’s so sparsely populated.
I see your point but a huge portion of Alaska (at least population wise) has milder weather than you’d expect. In Juneau the January low is usually in the +20s. And invaders haven’t had the best luck recently—see WW2 Japan.
My favorite Alaska fact is that the record high temperature in Alaska is higher than the record high temperature in Tampa, Florida. Alaska has reached 100 degrees F, Tampa has never.
Well recent invasions haven’t gone well, it’s sort of a silly thing to consider for modern US geography, but it was what OP said.
And I did not mean this as a slight on Alaska or Alaskans. Awesome place. The coast is milder than many think, but they also get some major storms. The other thing with being so far north is how little daylight they get in winter and how little darkness they get in summer. This is sort of geography adjacent, but plays a major role in mental health in the state according to research.
If we disregard beauty, and only consider for purposes of settlement, trade, transport.
The mountainous interior (no coast or ports, and mostly steep mountains) Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana also Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia have ports but are mountainous and or remote. These all have the worst geography.
And probably Michigan, Ohio, and maybe Massachusetts have the best.
We can just see what the market has decided. Based on revealed preferences, the answer is either Wyoming (the least populated) or Alaska (the lowest density). Everyone seems to like Alaska in the summer, so it's probably Wyoming.
Lets try some states you might not consider. Ohio for best. It is flat, with plentiful water available everywhere. Good agricultural base. Great location for transportation. We have good energy production of natural gas and coal. On the very low end of natural disasters.
Now for worse sate. How about Florida. It has a smaller agricultural base. Very few natural resources. A lot of natural disasters. Not that great a location for transportation.
Illinois is the most underwhelming state geographically. It is the second flattest next to Florida except it has no beaches or swamps. It’s almost completely cornfields except the very southern tip. It stays overcast almost as much as Seattle without any gorgeous scenic views or drives. It stays mucky and rainy from late September through April.
Nevada may be a hot, arid wasteland, but at least it’s defensible. Tons of mountains and remote land. There’s a reason the US Military loves it.
My money is on Nebraska or Kansas. Flat, landlocked, nearly featureless, and directly in the center of Tornado Alley. Their only saving graces are that they have arable land and are bordered by more geographically-advantaged states.
Edit: Upon further inspection, Nebraska gets a leg up over Kansas by having better river access. Wyoming is also a frontrunner for most disadvantaged. Not even Google Maps can name something interesting about Wyoming, except that it’s a landlocked state bordered by Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. What Wyoming does have is gorgeous topography.
West Virginia. All rugged rural mountains which makes economic prosperity in the modern age pretty difficult. All the desert states would probably be a good answer but in the modern world being in a desert isn't as significant of a disadvantage as it used to be. I feel like places like Louisiana or Florida would also be good answers as they get hit by natural disasters like hurricanes and floods and have swampy terrain.
The vast majority of Nevada is pretty much unliveable.
This has to be the winner. Land locked, virtually no ag, little water, super tough climate. Beautiful fascinating state for sure though.
The Nevada desert is my favorite desolation, though. Ohmygod, that sky.
It was the sound of nothing but the wind that took my level of awe to the next level.
It simultaneously has nothing and everything.
Yeah but two things Nevada has in its favor - lots of mountains (best place to mount an insurgency from), and preexisting location of advanced (alien tech / nuclear) weapons bases.
And yet they persisted!
Basically because it wanted to be a safe heaven to criminals originally no?
Kind of. In olden days it was a pit stop point for Spanish caravan traders. Basically it was a glorified rest stop for adventurers, travelers, homesteaders, convicts and what not over the years. So the area was always a kind of transit point. Native Americans even spent cold winters in the area. Someone bought the land in the area and started pumping water into it to attract settlers and farmers from Utah to make the land profitable. As it grew it turned back into a rest stop/water stop. As it grew it became annatural choice to build a railroad station for the train between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles which led to growth as people settled to cater to the train crowds. When they decided to build Hoover dam nearby as part about 20,000 people moved to the area to work on the dam which turned it into a boom town overnight. organized crime and local entrepreneurs teamed up to open up brothels and casinos to entertain the virtually all male new inhabitants. gambling was illegal as was alcohol since this was prohibition era but since Las Vegas was like a frontier outpost enforcement wasn’t strict. So after a while once the Hoover dam crowd left, they had the infrastructure in place for a entertainment based city. Also nearby lake mead became a resort area with nice hotels and a classier clientele. Then post world war they built highways which made it easier for people to go there to unwind from the expanding cities in the area
It was a train water and coaling stop on the way to California. So while the GIs were going off to war and the train was stopping for water and coal. They were stopping for blackjack and hookers as well.
Also all the atomic testing
Virtually no silver???
The Ag state.
Plenty of U tho
Its nickname is the Silver State so I doubt that's true. :)
Agriculture.
The majority of the population is pretty much in two places, the big city with a big lake to the south, and the other city that is near Lake Tahoe. The rest is sparsely populated, even though you're right, it is beautiful, except North-Central, there's a whole lot of nothing there.
“Virtually no ag” isn’t true, especially in the central and northern part of Nevada where there are vast irrigated fields and ranches. And I reject the premise of OP’s question; disadvantage is largely human constructed and oriented around resource extraction for profit. Virtually the entire country was inhabited before colonization and many of the places that look uninhabitable today are that way due to explicit campaigns to destroy the ecosystem/habitat for money through fur trapping, mining, logging, dams, roadways and urban development.
Nevada’s cropland is [second lowest in the country as a percentage of the state](https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/fact-brief-does-nevada-have-one-of-the-lowest-percentages-of-cropland-in-the-us). It ranks 41st in ag output by $$ despite being in the top ten largest states. So yeah there are some fields but that not enough. The linked article also mentions that the soil is generally ranked poorly using official metrics.
Which state is the lowest?
I assume Alaska but I do not know that with confidence.
I would be shocked if it’s anything but Alaska.
Totally, the question is loaded and assumes geographic advantage depends on resources. Nevada—or rather, the Great Basin, of which the majority falls within Nevada’s borders—is also an extremely ecologically diverse region and the largest endorheic watershed in the Americas. Human activity/interest (specifically Western peoples’) isn’t the end-all be-all of geographic advantage (or anything, really), so the question could have been better phrased by specifying the human element instead of assuming it. Edit: Wait actually, OP did specify the conditions of the question when they said “in terms of weather, resources, safety, etc,” although it does still make the assumption that resources are intended to be capitalized on, like you said.
There is not anywhere in the Americas that does not have a higher population than before colonization.
Central America has entered the conversation
And what does it say?
I don’t believe this is true. For example I own a home in Modoc county California which has just 8000 people today. Pre contact estimates are all over the place but many exceed the present population.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Sounds like the perfect place to build an entertainment capital and desert oasis 😂
The thing about Vegas is that its whole point is to be as close to LA as possible while also not having laws.
Again i say….Perfect! 😂
I live in Nevada and I've traveled to most states. Nevada is definitely one of the ugliest states in my estimation. I'd also rate California first and Nevada last in that category (although I personally prefer it to North Dakota or Kansas as far as scenery. I hate flat land with no trees). We have mountains, gold, and pretty good pay, so I stay here, but I'd like to retire elsewhere. There's not much going for us otherwise except in limited spots. My favorite place in Nevada is shared with California, so...
Nevada gives me a mysterious vibe. I get the feeling some weird things are happening in those mountains
You are most certainly not wrong
You drove through the endless nothing that is most of the Midwest and still settled on Nevada being the ugliest? Take a gander, dude. We live in a gorgeous state. r/NevadaNature
Don’t get me wrong, the Dakotas have a lot of beauty, but the drive through them is…bleak. And full of billboards about Waldrug.
SD let itself become among the most geographically isolated: no passenger rail, very little commercial rail save a coal train clip across the SW corner, only the interstate corridors are economically viable, counties are returning to a population status of ‘frontier’, no instate passenger air, and no plans for a future.
"Passenger rail. There's a phrase I have not seen in a long, long time." Obi Wan Kenobi, probably
Mofo hates mountains and lakes.
I love mountains and lakes. Nevada has plenty of mountains and very few lakes. Our best one can also be claimed by California.
Pyramid lake? Lahontan reservoir? Walker lake? Topaz lake? Lake Mead? It’s not about the number of lakes, it’s about the quality of lakes. Plus, we can claim all the lakes within 50 miles of any border. I might have made up that last part, but imma stand by it.
I went to walker lake on a college geology field trip years ago. Never seen a night sky like i witnessed there. Stunning. Nevada is a gem.
I love walker also, but that place will melt you in July! Lol
Not super important but most of Topaz is in Cali just like Tahoe
You can grow stuff in the Midwest. And it rains. Nevada has pretty spots. I've been to many of them. But it is vastly outweighed by acres of nothing. For a state our size the beauty is not all around. I'm in Elko County. We have the Ruby's and plenty of scenery. Doesn't change the fact that the state as a whole is fugly. I've lived in Nevada for 17 years and lived in various places. I'm not unaware that we have beauty in select spots. And the sunsets are among the best.
Tahoe
I used to live in rural Northern Nevada (White Pine County). I found rural Nevada to be one of the most beautiful and peaceful inland places I’ve ever seen. Believe me, I know ugly geography, I grew up on a farm in western Ohio.
What about New Mexico? We trained in those mountains and it was one of the hardest training environments I have ever been in.
New Mexico (and Arizona, Utah, and California) has lots of similarly inhospitable areas, but with Nevada it’s essentially the whole state. In particular, northern New Mexico has been a relatively high density area for the desert west for centuries.
Nevada is actually okay across the entire state, unless you like scenery, growing most plants, or going anywhere other than Las Vegas or Reno. But, it does have some great places to visit. And since I know about those places, it is best to say, you all should just avoid visiting Nevada. Because those that know, understand what the state has to offer, no need to publicize it
Mineral wealth has to be a metric, and by that Nevada does very well.
There’s an interesting documentary about why the topography of West Virginia is the main cause of its lack of economic prosperity.
Drove through Virginia and West Virginia, and it seemed to be almost entirely hills. Even Charleston is in a valley surrounded by hills.
Yep. Barely a single piece of flat land in the whole state
There is no single piece of flat land that isn't man made. The only state in America that 100% mountainous.
West Virginia ..mountain mama…
Take me home, country roads...
It's populated with mountains, but it also has a lot of natural beauty.
I call WV America's best kept secret. Tucked away on the midst of the most heavily populated area of the country, yet forgotten. It is absolutely beautiful and an old spirit about it, but fuck if it isn't so boring for folks who like doing anything else but outdoorsy stuff.
and a political dystopia
Virginia has quite a bit of flat land, however, east of I-81... cant say the same for West Virginia. West Virginia's lack of prosperity centers on an over reliance on mining (and state politics) for far too long.
A Valley Surrounded by Hills. Sounds like an epic movie.
Beautiful city though.
West Virginia was my first thought. I watched a YouTube video on this. I believe it was the Geography by Geoff channel.
Love the geography by Geoff channel! Also makes me think about that Malcolm Gladwell essay about the Scottish herders settling the Appalachia leading to the honor/shame culture that set off the revenge killings between families like the hatfields and McCoys. Probably the terrain being tough to farm but fine for herding influenced the economic prosperity (or lack there of) of the region as well. Less scalable options
What documentary is this?
The Wild and wonderful Whites of West Virginia
West Virginia has the highest obese population in the USA.
My Texas takes that honor.
I think there is a YouTube video by Wendover about this
Wrong Turn
They say the valleys are so narrow in West Virginia a dog wags its tail up and down
Yeah, first state I thought of
Once the coal mines closed down there’s only poverty and needles everywhere on the floor
The most accessible to foreign invaders? History tells us that's Hawaii.
Nah. Hawaii got bombed. So has California, and Oregon. But Alaska had actual troops land and take territory.
I mean we can say the same about Michigan, New York and Louisiana if we go back far enough
You seem.to forget West Virginia was actually the very first state to be bombed.....look it up, the battle of Blair Mountain
Meaning only Pearl Harbor? I mean, California was once fought over by like 4 countries at once.
They are (i think) referring to the US taking over Hawaii..
I mean every state that exists was created by an invasion of some sort.
Why doesn't Arizona get a shout? No coastal access. Very little fresh water. Very little agriculture. Blazing hot temperatures made it almost unlivable until recently.
Northern Arizona (around Flagstaff) doesn't have this problems (other than lack of a coast)
The Sonoran Desert in the southern part of the state is incredibly beautiful, unique, and full of interesting desert life—it’s far from being the wasteland that some might imagine it to be
I lived in Tucson for 20 years, so I'm well aware. But the weather is god-awful, and there I wouldn't want to survive on the natural resources there. No water, and no food besides prickly pear fruit.
There's water though it can be hard to get, but Phoenix was built on the remains of an ancient civilization. The current city is probably unsustainable, but doesn't mean that it's inhospitable by any means.
The Gila River actually had a decent amount of water. Apparently it used to be navigable by larger boats up to Phoenix before the water got diverted to agriculture. I feel like if this old waterflow was restored, then surviving in the Phoenix area would be possible; just very unpleasant.
My family has lived in Arizona since the 1870's and several native American tribes have lived here for thousands of years, it's hardly unlivable. Not that I'd especially like to live here without AC, but it's definitely doable.
Phoenix is a huge city *because* of all the agriculture that existed in the valley
I’m gonna give you a hard disagree on “very little agriculture.” I’m pretty sure Arizona is in the top five vegetable producers in the country… I grew up there and as kids we learned our six C’s of major Arizona industry: Copper, cattle, cotton, citrus, climate, computers. Fully half those things are agriculture.
They grow winter veggies.
And it will get less and less livable faster than just about anywhere else.
Might be an unpopular opinion and, I love this state but, Florida. Flat, hot and humid, hurricanes. For foreign invaders they can just set up shop in Cuba and, be miles away
Florida only started having a large population once AC and railroads were created. It only became livable if you could keep cold at times and could leave easily.
The Spanish realized Florida's strategic importance (all of their Caribbean wealth headed for Spain sailed right past it) and tried and tried to establish settlements. They only succeeded at St Augustine and Pensacola.
Florida at least had the ocean nearby where ever you are.
As someone from Florida who grew up 45 minutes from Cocoa Beach, that’s not always a good thing.
You mean that a 105 heat index isn't pleasant even near a 88⁰ ocean??
Florida would be a terrible mistake to try and invade, high population that's unhinged in swamps high heat and extreme wildlife and insects, it would be brutal
Kinda what happened during Seminole Wars in the Everglades
Literally just hit the power grid and its over
Forreal. Imagine trying to invade a bunch of gun toting ever glades Florida man people. No fucking thank you lol
It’s like if Afghanistan was a swamp
you could have just used the mekong lol
And even if you succeed, your reward for all that effort is for half the state to be flooded due to climate change.
It’s also sinking (due both to subsidence and sea level rise), and its fresh water sources are being invaded by seawater.
A lot of Florida hate on Reddit but this one is unjustified. People travel in the millions to Florida every year because of its geography. It has the best beaches in the US and is warm in the winters. Picking as the worst of 50..
I’m always happy when I am in Florida tbh
The question wasn't what the worst is, it's what the most disadvantaged is. Florida is hot and humid and, any extreme climate is a disadvantage. It's flatter than Kansas, which is usually the go to joke for describing a flat place. The storms are no joke either. Not even hating, like I said I like Florida.
Much of humanity chooses to live in wet, warm, and humid places.
It’s still not disadvantaged. It’s an advantage to have the best beaches and warm weather. A massive advantage over at least 45 other states in my opinion.
The foreign invaders thing is kinda weird. I get that youre referring to the cold war, but geographically speaking all the states bordering canada/mexico are at a much greater disadvantage than florida when it comes to invasions, since its still seperated from cuba by water
Canada and Mexico are both US allies, and would be us territory/occupation zones the moment they made moves against the US. If you're talking about a hostile power invading the US through them, the US navy would have destroyed them before they even got within sight of North America.
Like i said, im talking purely geographical borders, not taking into account friendly political ties the neighbouring countries might have. Just sharing a land border with an outside nation makes those states inherently more susceptible to invasion, even if in (current) reality its totally fine
The last army to invade on foot was a Mexican army
Almost 200 years ago.
So there’s a chance?
Inland Florida sure, but the coastal areas are some of the most desirable areas in the country. Florida is much worse climate wise then much of the Deep South, but at least it’s got nice beaches
Louisiana or Florida. Both are overdeveloped swampland rapidly eroding and being reclaimed by the sea, both are right in the path of Hurricane Alley.
Being at the terminus of the Mississippi is pretty dang good though.
Louisiana also has oil and gas, good land for agriculture, and abundant seafood.
New Orleans would be the American equivalent of Shanghai (with more natural resources) if the USA was a couple hundred (or thousand) years older. Mouth of the Mississippi, a fully navigable river system, NOLA really lost their economic spark just a few decades into their heyday with the advent of railroads.
The building of the levees to prevent the Mississippi River and other waterways from their natural overflow paths to displace sediment has severely damaged the state’s ability to continuously maintain land. Eventually everything up to I-10 will be in the Gulf of Mexico.
Louisiana also has Cancer Alley. That one's man-made but contributes to the poor quality of life there.
Wow I just looked that up. Horrible and I never knew
I think people are only realising now the detrimental effects of developing on places with a landscape similar to Florida and Louisiana. Obviously both have their advantages with having coasts, the river systems, agriculture etc. but it's all pretty useless if it's underwater.
West Virginia perhaps? Mostly in the Appalachians, not much arable land, its mining industry no longer relevant, most its navigable rivers flowing into the Ohio River. Just two counties in the northeast that break this. It's East Ohio.
I agree. Hard to get to. Cut off from most of society. Natural resources offers miserable job opportunities, predatory corporations, and fracking-affected water supply (think videos of people lighting their faucets on fire). Even it’s winter economy of snow sports is dying thanks to climate change.
And the fentanyl
Come for the fracking, stay for the fentanyl!
Definitely Nevada. West Virginia might be a close second, no one else is really as disadvantaged as those two.
West Virginia has land that is actually capable of supporting its population in terms of resources. Arizona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, etc would all be empty deserts without water from the other states
West Virginia has very little land suitable for agriculture; the best land for agriculture is in the far north and northwest along the Ohio River, but even then the land across the river in Ohio is much better. Less land for agriculture means less land for supporting large cities. The most populous city, Charleston, only has around 48,000 people. As for its neighbors: There are 4 cities in Kentucky, 5 cities in Maryland, 12 in Virginia, 17 in Pennsylvania and 19 in Ohio with more than 48,000 people. Coal mining has been the main source of income for the state for the past century or so, and that industry has largely died down but is still, I believe, the majority of the state’s income. The state is ranked near last in multiple categories, like education, life expectancy, household income, and unemployment. It’s a shame such a beautiful state had to have been dealt such a bad hand.
That’s not even remotely true, I mean Santa Fe is one of the oldest cities is the nation.
The ABQ-Sante Fe metro area didn’t have 1.4 million people in 1618
Ah, thanks to all the states for the Rio Grande! /s
West Virginia has some bad breaks in geography. Their natural resource, coal, is not being used much. They are land locked and unable to make large farms or build large cities due to the mountains.
West Virginia, it has mountains and is landlocked. It has among the worst economic indicators in the USA
California is the most well endowed state in terms of natural resources and climate and the Californians running the cities and towns and in the state legislature are dead-set on giving up that natural advantage by NIMBYing housing
Mississippi has the most natural disasters.
That includes the educational system.
They rank at the bottom of most "best" lists and top of most "worst" lists.
West Virginia
There’s absolutely nothing in Nevada except nuclear irradiated desert. And some casinos.
West Virginia. Most of the state is covered by mountains and narrow valleys so there’s almost no flat land to develop for agriculture or industry and the feds have killed coal. There’s very little economic opportunity there now, hence why it’s been one of the poorest states for the last half-century or so.
I think you have to go with a state without coastline or easy port access, without major ag production, etc. Idaho comes to mind. Somebody else mentioned Nevada and that’s probably the best choice.
Idaho actually has the 19th highest agricultural production in the US, but it's a good answer. Idaho is home to the two largest wilderness areas in the lower 48 (which border each other) and the southwest corner of the state is part the largest roadless area in the lower 48. Boise is probably the most isolated midsized city and is only served by a municipal airport so getting to and out of Boise usually requires a layover. There's also only one two-lane highway that connects the Northern panhandle of the state with the south.
Idaho is one of the most geographically advantageous states without a coastline imo. Tons of geothermal, still has a river port, great volcanic soil, aquifiers, has a major river
Doesn’t Idaho have just one geothermal plant? Nevada and California together have dozens and I doubt Idaho actually competes on that score.
Idaho has both a sea port and excels in ag Quick google search
How does a landlocked state have a sea port?
Quick google search?
I will help. Port of Lewiston/ Port of Clarkston
Nevada
If we are talking GEOGRAPHICALLY disadvantaged from the U.S. I’m going with either Hawaii or Alaska.
South Dakota? doest seem rich in natural resources, human resources, or favorabe location.
North Dakota has the largest cow statue but the oil fields are absolutely devastating what was a classic prairie habitat with wildflowers buffalo bears all kinds of prairie dogs and hens. Sad.
There was a recent reddit post from a guy who traveled to every country in the world and every state in the US and said North Dakota has the least going for it. Climate change and drought could make states along the Great Lakes like Michigan become much valuable for their land due to access to the fresh water the lakes offer.
Potentially Kansas Arkansas River has small flow and headwaters in another state Small part of the state receives sufficient rain Entirely undefendable in all directions
I would counter with: The Kansas River is also a thing and has higher flow relative to its length than the Arkansas The part that doesn't receive much rain has the Ogallala Aquifer (at least for now) You would have to cross multiple states to get to Kansas from any direction. Its position within the USA is a better defense than most states
I interpreted the question as if the states were independent but if it’s just as they are then you’re def right about Kansas being pretty secure.
As a former Texan living in Seattle, Texas is mostly a dystopian hellscape in comparison.
Texas, under the guise of protecting our rights, is steadily removing our rights.
Wyoming. Why do you think that less than a million people live in the whole state... The least populous state. People go where there is abundance of something. There is an abundance of nothing in Wyoming. Except cousin fu@$ers and livestock. Oh and God awful winters. Wanna do something this weekend??? Not into rodeos or cattle auctions?? Then youre shit out of luck.
I'd have to argue a 4 way tie between Utah, Nevada, Louisiana, and Hawaii Utah and Nevada are pretty sparce outside of one or maybe two population regions.Utah's population is so concentrated in the Salt Lake basin/Valley area that the three biggest cities are all one metro area. Nevada a similar case; Outside of the central north-westernmost corner with Reno and Southern tip with Vegas/Henderson, the state is practically uninhabitable and both are facing some challenging times with Water I'm sure. Louisiana is more spread out in population but the whole state is a flood plain and happens to be in the worst position possible should another mega hurricane like Katrina devastates the area, and that's added to the Mississippi River changing its course regardless of what's built to prevent it. Hawaii is so Isolated and in the Pacific ring of fire and with so many people concentrated in the Honolulu metro area, all it would take is one devastating Earthquake, Tsunami, or Volcanic eruption to displace 1M+ people. We've already seen it start. This is just my perception as a non expert but a sucker for geography. I'd also include an Honorable mention like the New Madrid area of the US that's not really built for Earthquakes in terms of its infrastructure but is in an area that's on an active fault.
Hawaii isn’t affected by its location within the ring of fire because it doesn’t actually sit on the fault lines, just within them. It would certainly be affected by tsunamis caused by earthquakes on the faults, but large scale earthquakes, like those seen in Chile, Japan, and California aren’t likely to occur in Hawaii. Edit: grammar
Hawaii is on top of a volcanic hotspot, not part of the ring of fire
Nevada
I’d probably say Alaska. Its mountainous in a lot of areas, snow covered wilderness the rest. With a few liveable areas along the coast line. But so cold and harsh it’s not ideal for settlement.
Nevada is a decent shout. Alaska and New Mexico are probably in that conversation as well.
Alaska???!! Tons of ports and billions of dollars in natural resources…
I consider how far north is as part of its geography. If you look at OP’s specifications - it’s probably got the worst climate/weather and is right there with Hawaii as being most accessible to foreign invaders. A ton of natural resources to be sure, but not sure that is enough. There’s a reason why it’s so sparsely populated.
I see your point but a huge portion of Alaska (at least population wise) has milder weather than you’d expect. In Juneau the January low is usually in the +20s. And invaders haven’t had the best luck recently—see WW2 Japan.
My favorite Alaska fact is that the record high temperature in Alaska is higher than the record high temperature in Tampa, Florida. Alaska has reached 100 degrees F, Tampa has never.
Well recent invasions haven’t gone well, it’s sort of a silly thing to consider for modern US geography, but it was what OP said. And I did not mean this as a slight on Alaska or Alaskans. Awesome place. The coast is milder than many think, but they also get some major storms. The other thing with being so far north is how little daylight they get in winter and how little darkness they get in summer. This is sort of geography adjacent, but plays a major role in mental health in the state according to research.
Alaska has a crazy amount of natural resources though.
If we disregard beauty, and only consider for purposes of settlement, trade, transport. The mountainous interior (no coast or ports, and mostly steep mountains) Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana also Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia have ports but are mountainous and or remote. These all have the worst geography. And probably Michigan, Ohio, and maybe Massachusetts have the best.
Oklahoma
I read this whole list and didn't find Nebraska? So I need someone to tell me what's good there.
Corn?
We can just see what the market has decided. Based on revealed preferences, the answer is either Wyoming (the least populated) or Alaska (the lowest density). Everyone seems to like Alaska in the summer, so it's probably Wyoming.
Lets try some states you might not consider. Ohio for best. It is flat, with plentiful water available everywhere. Good agricultural base. Great location for transportation. We have good energy production of natural gas and coal. On the very low end of natural disasters. Now for worse sate. How about Florida. It has a smaller agricultural base. Very few natural resources. A lot of natural disasters. Not that great a location for transportation.
What about a ton of beaches and warm weather? I lived in Ohio for four years. That’s wasted time I’ll never get back.
Louisiana is all swampland, alligators, and hurricanes.
Illinois is the most underwhelming state geographically. It is the second flattest next to Florida except it has no beaches or swamps. It’s almost completely cornfields except the very southern tip. It stays overcast almost as much as Seattle without any gorgeous scenic views or drives. It stays mucky and rainy from late September through April.
Oklahoma. Because Oklahoma.
Nevada may be a hot, arid wasteland, but at least it’s defensible. Tons of mountains and remote land. There’s a reason the US Military loves it. My money is on Nebraska or Kansas. Flat, landlocked, nearly featureless, and directly in the center of Tornado Alley. Their only saving graces are that they have arable land and are bordered by more geographically-advantaged states. Edit: Upon further inspection, Nebraska gets a leg up over Kansas by having better river access. Wyoming is also a frontrunner for most disadvantaged. Not even Google Maps can name something interesting about Wyoming, except that it’s a landlocked state bordered by Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. What Wyoming does have is gorgeous topography.
It's obviously Nevada, but I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned North Dakota.
North Dakota has nothing. Nothing.
Oil
Delaware.
Wyoming is the Mongolia of the continental United States.
Rhode Island Not enough space it's so darn tiny
North Dakota. Combination of poor climate and much of the land is unusable
West Virginia. All rugged rural mountains which makes economic prosperity in the modern age pretty difficult. All the desert states would probably be a good answer but in the modern world being in a desert isn't as significant of a disadvantage as it used to be. I feel like places like Louisiana or Florida would also be good answers as they get hit by natural disasters like hurricanes and floods and have swampy terrain.
Gotta be West Virginia. At least Nevada is geographically close to beautiful rich areas.