Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

5 worst states to be in during a major catastrophic disaster

20K views 96 replies 55 participants last post by  bigz1983 
#1 ·
I do not agree in this list but it is good insight to help you think about your short/Long term planning. Some of you are born lucky and live in a place that is abundant and ideal for the prepper and homesteader while others like me had jobs that moved every 3 years or so.

I call Colorado home now on a place and have a couple acres. About 9 years ago I knew I had to move. With the influx of people, politics and limited resources the wife and I did our vacations out in the country visiting different states.

I will be retiring here in a couple of years from my civi job and purchased some land in NW Arkansas a few miles east of Beaver Lake. Although no area is the perfect place this area was affordable, had resources and was not heavily populated.

I also liked the area just north of Beaumont Texas....it was a hard decision.

Here are the 5 States this gentlemen talks about but in the end it comes down to income, options, age, medical needs and family:

There are many different disasters that would be catastrophic to the United States. An EMP attack that causes the power grid to collapse, a huge natural disaster, or a complete economic collapse far worse than the Great Depression are just three such disasters that would take years to recover from.


What many people fail to realize, however, is that it won’t be the disaster itself that kills the most people. While it is true that the EMP strike would cause planes to fall out of the sky and cars to crash into one another, and while it’s also true that a natural disaster could claim thousands of lives instantly, it’s what happens after an apocalyptic disaster that would cause most of the deaths.

With communications, food, water, and other necessities all cut off instantly, once ordinary people will do desperate things in order to survive. Hunger and starvation, dehydration and lack of water, and people killing one another savagely for basic necessities are what would claim the most lives.

Nowhere in the United States is going to be truly safe or immune from a disaster on a grand scale. However, some states will certainly be less safe than others, and we’re going to discuss what those states are and why they are more unsafe than others.

Here are the top five worst American states to be in during a collapse, presented in alphabetical order:

1. Alaska

Here’s a state that you’re probably surprised to see on this list, especially when you consider Alaska (known as the Last Frontier) is supposed to be a safe haven for survivalists. There’s no denying that Alaska has many factors that would initially make it seem like a good place to be in during a disaster.

For one thing, it’s sparsely populated and its few urban areas are not anywhere near as populous as cities like New York or Los Angeles. It also has an abundance of natural resources such as timber and wild game.


But at the same time, Alaska has many negatives. For one thing, it’s very earthquake prone due to the fact that it’s situated along the West Coast. It’s also cut off from the lower 48 states, so imports of basic supplies and necessities will come to a screeching halt in the midst of disaster with no hope of resupply (gasoline and oil are arguably the biggest of these).

There’s no denying that Alaska is one of the most beautiful places in the entire world. But at the same time, it has serious cons that should make you seriously reconsider it as a bug out location.

2. California

You might as well put the whole West Coast under this one, which is incredibly vulnerable to earthquakes and is very densely populated. Those densely populated cities like San Francisco, San Diego, or Los Angeles are not just bad places to be in an earthquake. They are also prime EMP or nuclear targets for our enemies.

Furthermore, California’s economy is incredibly fragile with very high debt. It’s arguably the most prone to an economic collapse over any other state. This is on top of the very high cost of living, taxes, and regulations in the state as well.

All in all, the West Coast is definitely not somewhere you want to be during a disaster, but California will be even more dangerous than Washington and Oregon.

3. Florida

You can probably already guess one reason why Florida is on this list: hurricanes. It’s no secret that Florida is very prone to hurricanes, but even that hasn’t stopped retirees from flocking to the Sunshine State as a warm tropical haven.


Sure, Florida is a very attractive state, but it’s still far too overburdened with negative factors to be considered a good state to be in during a disaster. On the contrary, it’s one of the worst. Miami is a very large city and could be a prime target of a nuclear or EMP attack. The population in Florida is also very dense (it’s surpassed New York) and the crime rate is high.

In addition, most of Florida is already under sea level, which is dangerous should ocean temperatures ever seriously rise. Overall, you would be advised to not consider Florida as a bug out retreat.

4. Hawaii

Hawaii is on this list for many of the same reasons that Alaska is: it’s cut off from the rest of the United States and therefore will also be cut off from shipping and imports during a disaster. As an added con, Hawaii already has less overall resources than Alaska, with less of a chance to be successful at agriculture due to the generally poor soil.

Hawaii is also a goldmine of military bases that will be prime targets in the event of a global war. Unless you can get out beforehand on a ship or an airplane, you’re essentially stranded in an archipelago out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with no serious way of getting out.

If Hawaii serves one purpose, it’s a vacation place to make happy memories. But it’s certainly not a place to go to outlast a disaster.


5. New York

Last but not least, we come to New York. The East and West Coasts are both highly and densely populated, and the city of New York itself is going to be a prime target for our enemies.

New York also shares many cons with California: the high cost of living, high taxes and regulations, a high crime rate, strict firearms laws, heavy traffic, and so on.

Granted, not all of New York is so bad. Much of the northern part of the state is very rural and teeming with natural resources. Still, you’re in very close proximity to the city, and refugees will undoubtedly be flooding north towards Canada, so you’re still not that safe anyway.

Conclusion

Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, and New York will be the five least safe states to be in during a major nationwide disaster. As an alternative, you would be wise to check out the states in the Great Plains or the Rocky Mountains instead. While those areas certainly have their cons as well (remember that no state is truly safe), they are still much safer than the five states we’ve just gone over.
 
See less See more
#60 ·
I have to disagree with the inclusion of New York State in its entirety. I’m from Northern New York where, for the residents of “The North Country”, New York City is on an entirely different plane of reality. Most everything north of Albany is lush open farm land with some very remote wooded expanses. People are accustomed to harsh weather, loss of power and foster a cuture of self-reliance.

Natural resources… water, timber, fish, game and large-scale agricultural development are substantial in that region. It obtains many fuel resources from Canada (gasoline & propane). It compares with the central and northern regions of Maine, but with better roads and infrastructure. The economy of the area has suffered since the early 80’s, but as a haven from the impacts of natural or man-made disaster, I think it has many positive attributes.

Go Wild Cats!
 
#61 ·
Interesting insight although I have to both agree and disagree about Alaska it will come down to skill set of the pair of survivalists or group if you build a complete life in the frontier as homesteaders and learn everything you need to survive without outside help you would be just fine if SHTF the only thing you would lose access to is the luxuries you can afford to do with out. the rest of us with out that wide array of skills would need access to more places to scavenge so for the most part i agree Alaska would be bad for most people but hardcore homesteaders would be fine they would suffer increased stress especially when they run out of ammo and reloading supplies having to go back to archery.
 
#64 ·
This is where I got you guys. Hear me out.

First of all, there are five fresh water lakes in our paternoster from the isthmus. Any rudimentary filter will work.

Two, all millennials are either baristas or sell falafels, so I won't starve.

Since everyone is a liberal, even my .380 makes me the cock or the walk.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king..."

Finally, these libtards are good for something. When the balloon goes up, come to Madison with a 10/22. Find a nice house and tell the owner to get out. I doubt you'll even have to insert a magazine...
 
#67 ·
See how that works out, just ask Colorado and South Florida what happens when libtards move into a once conservative Patriotic area and poison it with their stupidity. We'll see how Texas fares as the libtard media has their sights on helping to make it a socialist state...
 
#76 ·
They've been migrating to Colorado for many years and have completely ruined it. The downhill death spiral was well underway when I left in 1999. I always saw myself retiring and moving back home but now I wouldn't consider doing so and am embarrassed to tell folks that's where I'm from. Don't even want to go back and visit. Hopefully the zombie plague will clean that place up one day. It's beautiful country!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
#77 ·
Quantifying it as states is silly, every state has its positives and negatives, just depends on where you are when the SHTF.

And the whole earthquake and volcano thing always makes me laugh because there are so many other equally if not more deadly things out there, people watch to much ignorant TV.
We haven't had a noteworthy earthquake in the Puget Sound (Seattle region if you don't have a map) sense 01 and it didn't do that much damage, no one died and it was the same mg. as the Northridge quake in Cali in 95? which killed 50-60 people, not a lot for the amount of destruction.
The last volcano that erupted in the lower 48 was 38 years ago, St. Helens, preceded by Lessan in N. Cali in 1911? in over 100 years now. St. Helens gave a couple months warning to get out of dodge and killed less than 60 people, most of whom were taking their chances with an active volcano. People on Hawaii have survived living "on" a volcano for over a 1000 years.
Compare that to the annual tornadoes of the midwest, hurricanes in the gulf and east coast, blizzards in the north midwest and town washing away floods in the east, I'm doing pretty good over here.

So no matter where you are when whatever hits, there you are.
 
#83 ·
I will be retiring here in a couple of years from my civi job and purchased some land in NW Arkansas a few miles east of Beaver Lake. Although no area is the perfect place this area was affordable, had resources and was not heavily populated.
(I would have corrected your spelling, but I didn't know if it was "civic" or "civil.")

But I'm glad I took the time to read your post. I've had two careers, one lasting almost 30 years and the other coming on 24. There was some overlap in years as I built my own company but 50 years is 50 years no matter how you slice it. My wife and I are planning to downsize and move to a similar locale. It wasn't planned this way.

A few years back I had some eye surgery. I healed with better vision than before. But something rattled me, and I wasn't usually that type. The step down in job placement was to slow things down, and not come home bushed yet unable to sleep. So I figured starting my own business would be a good idea.

I loved everything about the job except the customers. But this is a job where absolutely no mistakes are allowed.

Then "fear" came to visit me on a somewhat daily basis. I found myself in a doctor's office with a bottle full of Diazepam. I figured this action would get me over the hump. But it didn't.

My wife and I sat down and decided we had the money, enough youth and too much aggravation from our jobs. She's half-time now as a sub-teacher and today I made the big decision.

I'm stopping taking on new clients immediately, and my book of jobs and times ought to get me to about Christmas. I'm going to retire full-time.

It sounds like you did your homework, and you have plenty of time to research any area where you might settle. My wife's entire family lives in the south-eastern corner of Wisconsin, so I'm thinking "two tanks of gas" away--just enough to make it awkward enough to drop in on us uninvited. I might even start to build or customize the things I've valued for years.

I actually feel better just seeing my dreams in print...
 
#86 ·
Congratulations!! Light at the end of the tunnel.

I still work full time. My wife is a home engineer now. She has some health issues that make moving further out in the country a little more uncertain than we are comfortable with. We don't have to make half the money we used to (debt free). We have a nice home outside of town. Not far enough, but not in town. Growing up in SoCal turned me off of the typical suburbia middle class lifestyle. I'm looking forward to whatever the future holds. Our long term plan is to bug in. So, I am learning.
 
#85 ·
This has been a long discussion, and we have talked about our least favorite states.

But consider this, in the event that tectonic drift effects our country, chances are that New York and California will fall into the sea. While I've never been to California, lots of their bizarre ideology lands here, in Wisconsin.
 
#93 ·
Eastern Oregon or Washington are awesome places to be in an emergency situation, as long as you have access to water (huge caveat there). If the western half of the states haven't fallen into the sea, there's a large mountain range that will weed out many of the urban dwellers who might be inclined to make it to the other side of either state. The biggest cities that could pose issues are Spokane and Boise (both around 220,000, plus or minus. It would make more sense for Spokane residents to go east than west. I'm not sure about Boise residents because I'm not as familiar with the area. For residents of either city, going west would be rough and possibly impossible for people with children.
 
#94 ·
If it's other than a 'natural disaster', i.e. SHTF or CW2, my guess is Spokane residents would most likely head south towards liberal Boise. The city's dwellers have become incredibly liberal and 'program dependent' - and the prospect of heading east into Idaho, or continuing through into Montana may not appeal; heading north would probably be out of the question unless they already have a connection... we're pretty deplorable up here. :)
 
#96 ·
I lived in the Beaumont, Orange, Pt Arthur or what we called the Golden Triangle before the name was hacked due to Vietnam. You are absolutely right. And there is one thing that you will find there that you won't in a lot of other places. Christians who will want to see Constitutional America survive. Those who believe in man being good to man and helping one's neighbor. None of us are going to survive any length of time on our own. There will be enemies looking for an opportunity to swoop in and take it all away. The only way to survive will be to rally behind our strengths and to step up to the plate to recreate what we once were. No man is an island.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top