Best place for survival?

Originally Posted by Arborethic

There is NO safe place! The wilds of the Canadian North might become radioactive hellholes if nukes fall in the right place.

Actually, if you read my post again, you'll see that I didn't actually state that anyone would nuke the Canadian wilderness. However, a dirty hydrogen bomb on the northwest coast of the USA could conceivably put enough radioactive fallout into large reaches of the Canadian wilderness via the jet stream. Remember the ash fall pattern after the St. Helen's eruption? A similar strike on Chicago could do the same with a strong south wind in the spring of the year.

But as long as you brought up 'budding' madmen, some third world countries are in the process of developing nuclear weapons. They don't have the precise delivery systems more industrialized nations have, so one of them might AIM at Chicago, but have the missle go off course by hundreds and hundreds of mile.

There was also a military think tank couple of years back that considered a purposeful strike by someone such as North Korea. In order to demonstrate their 'power', they might purposefully aim a nuke at a wilderness area north of the USA border. This would give them a low casualty strike that would be less likely to generate total retaliation, while sending a powerful message of fear to the USA.

This same think tank also considered Yellowstone National Park as a target by our enemies. Due to the fact that Yellowstone is the site of a super volcano, they might attempt to trigger an eruption that would make a thermonuclear device look rather tame in comparison.

Personally, I think we have a good chance of seeing an accidental nuclear explosion in the fairly near future. Terrorists might have trouble obtaining a good delivery system, so they might attempt a ground transport system. The suicide type bombers are not rocket scientists. The 'brains' of the operation hands them a bomb and sends them on their mission. A surprising number of suicide bombers wind up blowing themselves up while in transport.

Those of us in the country like to think that we are safe. But everyone lives within reach of deadly levels of fallout. Global politics and weaponry doesn't allow anyone the option of a hermit's retreat these days.

Originally Posted by Jethro

Well said. There is no totally safe place, especially from nukes. Obviously ground zero will most likely be in a highly populated area, but deadly fallout can blanket the entire continent.

Originally Posted by stanb999

Read what FEMA, ............................says about Nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by ET1 SS

We pondered this question for years, settled on:

Maine

Lots of game, forest, water, very little government, ...

Originally Posted by Jeff54321

Maybe not the most trustworthy and reliable of agencies.

Originally Posted by Cygnet

Regarding fallout:

One of the reasons I suggest N. AZ's rim country (or just beyond it) is that it isn't downwind of the cities MOST of the year. During the monsoon, sometimes you get wind blowing from the south just right, but most of the year, the air's some of the cleanest in the nation. LA's pollution goes farther north, over the grand canyon; Phoenix' air pollution plume tends to be farther south. Tells me that it wouldn't be downwind of a nuke strike except for maybe part of the time during six or eight weeks during the summer.

And nukes aren't likely. The terrorists and the Chinese are not stupid. (There's actually a document the government recovered from Afghanistan where Al Qaeda was discussing the possibility of hitting us with a nuke -- and decided against it because they were afraid we would "overreact." Translation, they win nothing if we blast the entire middle east to slag. Same with China. They win nothing by invading the US because we WILL bomb them if our back's against the wall. They're not stupid -- we've already made slag of two cities in a war.)

I'm way more afraid of a plague, to tell the honest truth. Avian flu scares the absolute snot out of me.

Leva

Originally Posted by joe1968m

very interesting thread
my vote would be montana, wyoming, or idaho
but winter would be quite a challenge
hope this thread lasts awhile

Originally Posted by Pigeon Lady

I'm with Airotciv.

I don't really think anywhere is totally safe from everything.

I'm just going to become familiar with every inch of my land, every nook and cranny. The location of every edible plant when it's available and how to prepare it. All the sources of water, -little springs that bubble up out of the mountain -should some bad guys set up camp on my creek. Where the sunlight falls at any given time during the day/month year. Wildlife patterns and how to trap it ect.

Meldding into your surroundings is about your best bet.

On the other hand after reading about the vast range Indians would cover in their hunting trips... one child carried of by indians in south west VA was taken all the way to their base in what now is Ohio! I wonder if it's even possible to survive a whole year on a 34 acre plot.

I recently learned that for two years during the civil war there were more than 500 confederate soldiers hiding out in the woods on and around our land and neighboring mountains! But their kin folk would smuggle food and other items to them under cover of darkness. I keep hoping I'll stumble across some evidence of a camp or something when I'm out poking around on the mountain.

Anyway what I'm saying is if all you've ever known is Georgia and you flee to the wilds of Montana. No matter how isolated you are from the threat you'll be the author of your own misfortune.

P.

Originally Posted by reitenger

Making it across the plains to the rockies should be easier now. There are a lot more wells and ponds developed along the way than there were in their time.

Originally Posted by ET1 SS

Forgive me, but I dont see why anyone would WANT to walk across the rockies.

I have lived on either side of the Rockies.

I settled in Maine, as my future farm site.

You are thinking that the rockies ahve some item on your wish-list that no other state has?