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.
I don't see a lot of clear, long-term thinking from the bug-out crowd. I think it's mostly fantasy stuff, combined with the attitude that one is better prepared than all the rest who think they're better prepared! It makes the daily grind seem more interesting but smart people would realize that preventing it is better than actually living it. Part of preventing it is paying attention to scientists and environmental warnings, but a lot of "survivalists" just obsess over the Federal Reserve, gun rights and other paranoia that isn't a root cause of societal collapse.
If the masses all tried to head for the hills, the hills would be ravaged in short order. The safest places would still be cities if people kept calm and organized enough. People would likely wise up and try to get along when they realized what was really at stake. Why go to the effort of traveling many miles from infrastructure, fuel and food caches just to build primitive shelters and act self-sufficient for a short time while desperation grew? The mountains really aren't very abundant for large groups of people. Real survivalists would stick to lower ground and benefit from existing agriculture.
A big reason we developed civilization was that surviving on a primitive level got old after awhile. Now, many are bored with civilization and want to start the experiment all over again! I fear the ones who want to derail the government and force a crisis while simultaneously ignoring evidence for environmental problems that are already destabilizing society.
And just how many citizens in a city of several million will survive more than a month? I don't know what mysterious food caches you are going to have left after a month of SHTF. Just in case you have attended city schools all of your life FOOD is NOT grown in urban areas. It is grown on farms in scattered areas and processed and then DELIVERED by trucks to urban grocery stores.
Another poster suggested paying attention to what scientists have to say. That is a good idea with the caveat: Many scientists are nothing but BS artists. Al Gore is a prime example of a BS artist but he is definitely not a scientist.
Thanks to IDIOTS like Al Gore and others Carbon Dioxide is now the biggest pollutant on the Planet.
POLLUTION is a tremendous problems but CO2 levels are not one of them. Plastics that are biodegradable are now available. They cost extra but if you are truly concerned about the environment make it a point of buying them. CO2 is what plants need to survive. Plant a tree or two if you can or keep potted plants if you are a city dweller. Plant a garden instead of a LAWN. Not only will you help improve the environment by saving the Diesel or gas the vehicles bringing veggies to your house would use but the exercise and peace of mind from gardening is precious. Learn how to preserve food by canning instead of buying everything from a supermarket. Don't spill chemicals or dispose of them improperly.
Carbon Taxes. One of the most ingenious ideas for putting money in to the pockets of a few elites ever invented. If you ever hear a politician calling for a Carbon Tax: Know that you should NEVER vote for them.
Living somewhere close to am Amish Community might be a good idea.
Anabaptists [Amish, Mennonites] are everywhere.
If you currently produce food, then you are far more likely to be among those who continue to have food, as compared to the remaining 99% of society who do not produce food.
If you currently produce food, then you are far more likely to be among those who continue to have food, as compared to the remaining 99% of society who do not produce food.
Unless food might be nationalized and redistributed among city dwellers... When SHTF, government takes care of city population first, that's where riots occur
Surprised more people didn't say Florida. Natural wilderness to provide cover and islands to hide on, lots of boats, clean potable water(plenty of lakes and groundwater), seafood, lush environment with tropical plants (even common palms yield coconuts and fruit) heat and humidity can be mitigated by swimming in the lovely water Come, Zombies come!
Unless food might be nationalized and redistributed among city dwellers... When SHTF, government takes care of city population first, that's where riots occur
Yes but remember MOST of us folks out in the country have Firearms. Do you think our Sheriff's and Local Police would take the side of any Government Agents stupid enough to try and confiscate food stuff from a Local Rural population? Not likely and even if they were stupid enough to do that they would be out gunned. Remember the REAL reason why the Second Amendment was written by the FFs. Many City Dwellers have forgotten the lesson. Not so out in the country.
Yes but remember MOST of us folks out in the country have Firearms. Do you think our Sheriff's and Local Police would take the side of any Government Agents stupid enough to try and confiscate food stuff from a Local Rural population? Not likely and even if they were stupid enough to do that they would be out gunned. Remember the REAL reason why the Second Amendment was written by the FFs. Many City Dwellers have forgotten the lesson. Not so out in the country.
It happened before in many parts of the world. Usually, unorganized farmers aren't a match to well-organized (para-)military force.
Unless food might be nationalized and redistributed among city dwellers... When SHTF, government takes care of city population first, that's where riots occur
There are many different scenarios that are all possible.
Among them is the possibility of Ag being nationalized. Modern Ag is more factories than it is farms. Coco-pops are not grown on any farm.
Even within that one scenario, I would rather be on a farm, instead of waiting for FEMA to bring food to me.
For all of the other possible scenarios, nationalization is not in the picture at all.
It happened before in many parts of the world. Usually, unorganized farmers aren't a match to well-organized (para-)military force.
Unorganized farmers with nothing but pitchforks and hoes. That is not the typical rural resident in many States in the USA. Many of the farmers I know have served in the military and damn near ALL of them own firearms and are extremely proficient with them. I dare say the typical soldier is a P*** Poor shot. Man for man the ordinary U.S. farmer is probably a better marksman than the typical infantryman of any Army on the Planet.
Unorganized farmers with nothing but pitchforks and hoes. That is not the typical rural resident in many States in the USA. Many of the farmers I know have served in the military and damn near ALL of them own firearms and are extremely proficient with them. I dare say the typical soldier is a P*** Poor shot. Man for man the ordinary U.S. farmer is probably a better marksman than the typical infantryman of any Army on the Planet.
Yes, many farmers are veterans. Yes many soldiers are poor shots. More true yet, most people, veterans, active duty, metrosexuals, whatever, get to be much poorer shots when a human is the target. As a good man once said, it ain't being good, it's being willing. The current government seems to have a lot of folks who are willing, and they cooperate with one another. It ain;t looking good for Joe Citizen.
Farmers are veterans, in many cases, but many want no more part of a fight. They hunt, fish and farm. Their bellies overhang their belts. Their backs hurt, they snore like a freight train. They haven't walked more than a hundred yards at one time since Vietnam. Some of this is over-generalization, but it is painting a picture. I live among farmers, was born into a farming family, and have lived and worked around farms my whole life. What I say is personal experience. Farmers are individualists who are unlikely to band together to fight the feds en masse. Like in Rhodesia, they are more likely to die singly on their farms. Many have a shotgun, a deer rifle, and a half box of ammo for each. A half box because they kill one deer a year, and buy a box of 20 shells every ten years or so. Most of the country folks I have seen at a range do ok with a rifle at a bench, sitting on their butt, firing at a paper target 100m or less from the bench. They are often helpless when attempting to zero a new rifle, and are downright dangerous to everyone around them with a pistol. There are proficient folks, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
The "warriors" a lot of folks like to pin their hopes on are no longer, or never have been, warriors. A warrior is proficient with multiple systems, has a grasp of tactics and strategy, maintains his body in workable condition, and is more concerned with winning than comfort. I am not denigrating the service of men who have served the US in past wars, but the ones to come will be fought by younger, (hopefully)more capable men. That's just the facts. Old men do not, on average, fight and win battles. Folks need to stop expecting past heroes to rise again and handle our business. Future fights will fall to us to win, and we need to be prepared to do so.
As far as the best state, it's the one you're in when it happens. You'll be making do with what you have right where you are. Better plan that way, rather than hoping to get to some perfect place before Murphy catches you.
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.
