
Not all states are created equal in a survival setting.
Here is one person's opinion on the states you should avoid if making it through a survival situation in one piece is your goal.
1. Alaska
Here’s a state that you’re probably surprised to see on this list, especially when you consider Alaska 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).
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.
Picking a state based on its ability to endure a survival situation requires thoughtful deliberation of what that state offers in terms of government, emergency services and infrastructure.
In some ways, it is easier to decide what states to avoid, first, and then go from there.
For more information on states you may want to avoid if survival is your goal, check out the Urban Survival Site.

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.
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?
Before I look I’m going to guess the liberal strongholds because they will be full of panicking snowflakes. 😀
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!
So full of s**t
Nick Greer
This is America , Not old for young , Watch true world