Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that happens,. I hope you are prepared to be overwhelmed by the number of people that will flock to your state. You only have around 570k people in your entire state now. That is about how many live in one building in NYC. (Sarcasm).
Survival instincts tells me to pick places that terrorists won't find appealing to target. And sparse population centers are high on my list.
Yeah, that will chose the East Cost for suit case nukes or any nuke for that matter, Airports are the given spot for Bio WMDs....
The whole idea of a "bug out" is flawed anyway, unless you are already known to the locals you aren't getting anywhere. That being said, Alaska may be the worst place to aspire to for a BOL. The weather is harsh, the resources are limited due to that harsh weather, and the locals anywhere won't accept you until you've been there a while.
One of the local outdoors writers reckoned that the entire state of Alaska has a carrying capacity of 60,000 people, and that is pretty much the historical pre-settlement population. There is already over 10X that number and adding more isn't going to help anyone. My concern woud be that the population would strip the resources (food and fuel, there is at least plenty of water) beyond the point of replenishment and then it's game over. Wood grows slowly, moose and caribou do a calf or too every couple years, and the growing season is too short for meaningful agriculture, unless you really want to live on taters and coleslaw for the rest of your life. Not that most people would have the stamina and resources to make it Alaska in the first place. Are you dreamers really going to walk 2,000 to 4,000 miles and survive that journey? It factored into my decision to move from AK last year.
Me, I would think somewhere coastal, ocean or great lakes. Close enough to go for fish. The ocean would be even better, shellfish, driftwood, marine mammals, even kelp.
If that happens,. I hope you are prepared to be overwhelmed by the number of people that will flock to your state. You only have around 570k people in your entire state now. That is about how many live in one building in NYC. (Sarcasm).
Survival instincts tells me to pick places that terrorists won't find appealing to target. And sparse population centers are high on my list.
Do tell what your chosen areas are. Let's put them to the test of the wider audience's wisdoms
The whole idea of a "bug out" is flawed anyway, unless you are already known to the locals you aren't getting anywhere. That being said, Alaska may be the worst place to aspire to for a BOL. The weather is harsh, the resources are limited due to that harsh weather, and the locals anywhere won't accept you until you've been there a while.
One of the local outdoors writers reckoned that the entire state of Alaska has a carrying capacity of 60,000 people, and that is pretty much the historical pre-settlement population. There is already over 10X that number and adding more isn't going to help anyone. My concern woud be that the population would strip the resources (food and fuel, there is at least plenty of water) beyond the point of replenishment and then it's game over. Wood grows slowly, moose and caribou do a calf or too every couple years, and the growing season is too short for meaningful agriculture, unless you really want to live on taters and coleslaw for the rest of your life. Not that most people would have the stamina and resources to make it Alaska in the first place. Are you dreamers really going to walk 2,000 to 4,000 miles and survive that journey? It factored into my decision to move from AK last year.
Me, I would think somewhere coastal, ocean or great lakes. Close enough to go for fish. The ocean would be even better, shellfish, driftwood, marine mammals, even kelp.
About half of AK's population is in Anchorage. Most of the state is sparsely settled (if at all in some parts) wilderness with hardly any road connections. The short growing season is an issue but it's not much shorter than what I'm accustomed to in the colder parts of the northeast unless you get above the arctic circle. If you're in those isolated bush areas you could avoid wiping out the resources if you use them wisely.
Every place in the lower 48 along a coast is pretty densely populated or very close to big cities. You'd be better off in parts of SE AK if you want a coast without being overrun by people.
In Science if the original premise is faulty then all results based on that premise are faulty. The original poster pretends to be authoritative about the hostess with the mostess. But when they make comments like NYC has 8 million people packed onto an 14sq mile island we can only conclude that they have not done any credible research and is not trustworthy thereafter. Manhattan (pop 1,585,717) IS NOT NYC.
That said I'll rephrase the original authors misconceptions with the more realistic understanding that the NYC/NJ metropolitan area has upwards of 15 million people.
Plus, as the first born American of WWII refugees the idea that displaced people are "zombies" is incredibly offensive and further indication that this discussion thread is corrupted by bias, bigotry and perhaps, if one considers the "deep meaning" of some comments, white supremacist. And those folks, mostly Calvinists, are never more dangerous then when they are "on their knees'.
Why is it that race always has to be injected into every thread on CD forums??? Some folks are OCD about skin color. Sad.
The use of the word "zombies," which admittedly is misused in this regard, has nothing to do with race--the idea is that, in that situation, we would have desperate, starving people willing to do pretty much anything, legal or otherwise, to get food and other necessities. That's hardly a revelation: it has happened in every war, every major catastrophe, and every major breakdown. It is not exclusive to skin color. A person with purple skin or fuchsia skin can be just as dangerous as a person with green or blue skin. It's the mentality, intellect, and stability UNDER the skin that counts in those sorts of situations. There is both good and evil in the world--may as well face the facts. Some folks would react very badly in a "crisis." It's a statistical reality. Read your history books. Watch the news.
"Zombies" are not simply displaced people, they are displaced people who turn into predators. Nobody is claiming that everyone will do that. But some will--no surprise; our prisons are full of them right now.
Why is it that race always has to be injected into every thread on CD forums??? Some folks are OCD about skin color. Sad.
The use of the word "zombies," which admittedly is misused in this regard, has nothing to do with race--the idea is that, in that situation, we would have desperate, starving people willing to do pretty much anything, legal or otherwise, to get food and other necessities. That's hardly a revelation: it has happened in every war, every major catastrophe, and every major breakdown. It is not exclusive to skin color. A person with purple skin or fuchsia skin can be just as dangerous as a person with green or blue skin. It's the mentality, intellect, and stability UNDER the skin that counts in those sorts of situations. There is both good and evil in the world--may as well face the facts. Some folks would react very badly in a "crisis." It's a statistical reality. Read your history books. Watch the news.
"Zombies" are not simply displaced people, they are displaced people who turn into predators. Nobody is claiming that everyone will do that. But some will--no surprise; our prisons are full of them right now.
Hmm. I am not sure which wars or conflicts you are referring to. I can tell you that the Balkan civil wars did not really end up having "zombies" running around and looting people's homes and businesses. It was more along the lines of an organized force taking over a place and taking everything they can get their hands on. In that case people with thousands of rounds of ammo and guns would not stand much chance on their own. There is some opportunistic behavior in any conflict really but what exactly are you referring to historically?
Is it that there is something special about Americans that you are referring to?
Thanks!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How Sad It Is, And Away We Go!
