Disaster! Which city is more likely to be destroyed in a natural disaster. (bigger, Los Angeles)
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 think San Francisco during a Mega Earthquake. I think Los Angeles is second and St. Louis is third with their Earthquakes. I don't see LA and San Diego being totally destroyed from a fire. New York City and Houston have had Hurricanes in the past and they're still standing but they would receive a lot more damage nowadays if it's a Category 3/4/5 storm but I doubt they'd be destroyed. That Tsunami is something to worry about for the entire Eastern Seaboard though.
Both Chicago and Dallas have constant threats of tornadoes. As far as a hurricane destorying Houston, I see flooding being a much more bigger problem for Houston than the actually hurricane. They usually weaken before they reach the city limits, but it would have to move pretty fast to destory Houston.
Dallas and Houston also have chances of having earthquakes too, much more rare for Houston though. Houston has over 300 active faults running through the city.
From that list I picked SF for mega earthquake. However, more major cities in Florida (both coasts) have more of a chance of being destroyed in a hurricane than either NY or Houston.
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.