Let's imagine that a natural disaster destroyed Washington DC. What would be a good replacement location for the nation's capital?
I’m talking about a serious catastrophe – a meteor crashing onto Pennsylvania Avenue, or a nuclear weapon exploding over the Smithsonian.
(not hurricanes or floods – they happen all the time)
What city in the US would be the best replacement for Washington, and why?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
25 Answers
Going on the theory that D.C. can be targeted and reached (is reached a word?) fairly easy from other countries by a nuclear bomb or something similar, I think the capital should be moved somewhere in the mid west.
It was a straight
It was a strategic answer.
Something geographically central to the Continental US: Des Moines, Kansas City, Lincoln, Wichita. I’ve never been to any of them, So I’m not sure which would be best suited (assuming it had a major upgrade to it’s airport and infrastructure).
My suggestions:
1. California, where all the sane, caring people live. weather’s is better too.
2. Omaha, where Warren Buffett lives. Money already runs the country.
In a mountainous region and main security place underground.
I’d put it somewhere in the center of the country, near a supply of land and water that can handle the influx of 500,000 to 1,000,000 people. Housing and offices would initially be FEMA trailers while apartments and offices are built from scratch. The effort would be of the same scale as the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Moon shots.
We’d need all the immigrant labor we could find.
Centralia Illinois might fit the bill.
I’d bet Amazon has already researched this area.
Why would there need to be a different location. You rebuild and keep going. D.C. is the best place for the nation’s captial…it should not be located within a state.
Did you see Designated Survivor?
@Sagacious There is a movement afoot to admit DC to statehood.
Washington was created to impress and gobsmack visiting government representatives, so a new one would probably want the same layout.
You would probably want to avoid locations threatened by rising sea levels, hurricanes, etc.
A centralized location might be a plus.
How about Kansas?
I agree with those who say Kansas or somewhere near the center of the country—which could withstand the influx of a large population of newcomers, and already has a large number of roads coming into it. I disagree that California would be a good choice, because it is too far away for most of the country for a new choice, and seems to want to be its own republic.
Not sure it really matters where you put it. What really matters is that we don’t repopulate it with self-serving cretins again.
Well, it really DOES need to be more centrally located, and in a region that is less, ida know, regional. In other words, in a region not identifiable by a certain type of people.
Area 51, Nevada; or Roswell New Mexico
Response moderated (Spam)
Or maybe Ontario, Canada.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
