What States Are NOT the Best Choice for a Survival Situation? The Answers Are Surprising!

United States

Knowing where to live from the perspective of a survival incident and its aftermath is a tricky question.

The United States has a lot of very diverse states whose approach to natural and manmade disasters varies.

Some states have great infrastructure but very little in emergency services. Other states have a great emergency management system, but the infrastructure stinks.

Some are bad at both and a few are great at both.

Then there is the issue of the state government and what they are inclined to do in terms of stabilizing the situation and moving towards a restoration of normalcy.

While most articles and lists cover states that you should consider living in, we wanted to focus on states you may want to think twice about and on the next page, we do that.

Next Page »


7 Comments

  1. Vivien Kinard Odom said:

    Florida and East Coast states and maybe portions of the gulf coast states are prime targets if the Canary Islands have a seismic episode causing a tsunami.

  2. Joe Speciale said:

    Overall I agree. Though the whole idea of the lone survivor is ridiculous. Humans do better in groups. The source article mentions New York’s northern areas but not California’s? Regional bias maybe?

  3. Don Hughes said:

    Before I look I’m going to guess the liberal strongholds because they will be full of panicking snowflakes. 😀

  4. Brent Morgan said:

    I still don’t see why Alaska on there. When’s the last time you heard about an earthquake in alaska? And is being cut off from the lower 48 part of the reason why you go there? To get away from everybody and everything modern? Not a very good article!

*

*

Top