[turmoil]

Seeing as how it is likely that the east coast will be inundated by oh I dunno..this summer, where should the new "Washington" be?

[grillzilla]

I chose Las Vegas. It's just too poetic lol.

I mean, why not merge the two... the sin cities of the east and west.

[RonMN]

Anywhere but my BELOVED MINNESOTA! I like my 10,000 lakes just they way they are thank you very much!

[Cobra_Strike]

We need a few of them, however putting them up in Vegas will cut back on the plane tickets companies buy to send them there.

[dinopello]

Why would something happen to the East Coast ? Minnesota is IMO the nicest place and will be central east/west and north/south once we annex Canada. I voted for it. Wasn't Washington picked because it was a nasty swamp and they wanted a place where the politicians would want to get away from as much as possible ? In that case Vegas might be a good choice.

[smallpoxgirl]

Las Vegas. Only it should be renamed New Gomorrah.

[joewp]

I voted for New Orleans, but I'm a politician with a 1 second memory.

What were we talking about?

[steam_cannon]

My two cents...

First off, I would like to see some more links, coastal studies, that sort of thing. Like about sea level and coastal erosion. What I'm guessing we'll see is that sea level will continue rising slowly, but storm floods and wave levels will rise relatively faster...

"Heights of storm waves off the Oregon and Washington coast have measured as much as 8 feet higher than 25 years ago. Such waves deliver 65% more force when they come ashore."
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ris ... l_more.htm

Yes, I know this study refers to Washington state and not DC, but the point is that the change in wave height and energy delivered to beaches may sneak up like EROI is to Peak Oil. Massive erosion and short term flooding may hit way before long term flooding from a permanent rise in ocean levels.

Second, if the US dissolves as the Soviet Union did after collapse. Southern and Northern states may be separate countries, further affecting where the capital will be in the next x many years...

[Tanada]

Idon't like any of your choices so I will substitute my own.

Cairo, Illinois, at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi.

Easy water transport, far from danger of sea level rise, near the middle of the country geographically, small local city which would be subsumed without flavoring national pollitics too much.

Also still far enough from me to visit once in a lifetime instead of frequently.

[gg3]

Philadelphia. Site of the first Continental Congress. Arguably the birthplace of the United States. Obvious historic choice.

If the South splits off, Richmond VA would be the historic choice.

If the Northwest splits off, that's a tougher call, but probably Eugene or Portland Oregon. Eugene has going for it that it's inland whereas Portland is right on a river that will probably become a flooding issue.

It sure would be convenient to split off the northwest: after all we have Microsoft, Apple, and RedHat, not to mention Hollywood, Tesla Motors, UC Berkeley, Stanford, and the nation's biggest cash crop in Humboldt County.

But three or more smaller countries would practically invite an invasion sooner or later. Russia picks off the East Coast, China picks off the West, and then the Midwest suffers the fate of a landlocked country stuck between the coastal colonies of the world's two remaining major powers.

So on balance, let's keep it all together as one country. We did it in the pre-petroleum era, we can do it in the post-carbon era.

[turmoil]

By the way, I'm using this scenario as the long-term view. Permafrost + albedo + a snowball's chance in hell that we will change our ways = poles melt completely.

[web]http://www.clockwk.com/waterworld/[/web]

[Tanada]

Assuming imminent large sea level rise where would you put it?

[Subjectivist]

I vote Denver, the mile high city!

[jedrider]

I will still be in desert dry California, but it will be a territory of China. However, the Rocky Mountains seem like a good barrier so far, speaking from the year 2060, that is.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', 'I') will still be in desert dry California, but it will be a territory of China. However, the Rocky Mountains seem like a good barrier so far, speaking from the year 2060, that is.

[AgentR11]

I went with Omaha; substantial amount of financial business there (and in KS), but it is fairly centrally located, and well connnected rail, highway, and air. Winter can be pretty nasty though. Being very far inland also has substantial defense advantages for the nuclear war our idiots are trying to start. DC is vulnerable as heck, being on the coast, a Russian or Chinese bomber with hypersonic cruise missiles could be loitering 150 miles from the White House, yielding a hit in 3-4 minutes from trigger pull. Yes, nasty Russian dies.... but so do a million or two Americans and much of our history as a nation. Omaha, otoh, there's no getting there without an ICBM, and way too much travel time to make for a preemptive target.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', 'I') will still be in desert dry California, but it will be a territory of China. However, the Rocky Mountains seem like a good barrier so far, speaking from the year 2060, that is.

[ralfy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas

[yellowcanoe]

I vote for Fairbanks, Alaska as that would ensure that only the most dedicated individuals become federal politicians. I'm pretty sure it would also give the US the honour of having the worlds coldest national capital. The capital of Canada, where I live, is pretty balmy in comparison to Fairbanks!