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 searched online for a bit and didn't find any useful information on this topic, so perhaps some of y'all could give me your two cents or at least point me in the right direction.
It's a commonly held belief among people who live self-sufficiently that the best place to be located, to survive an American disaster, is a place that is sparsely populated and far from a population center. I'd like to draw a bubble map with circles around towns / cities so that I can figure out where such places are located.
Does anyone know roughly how far people will go, in the event that some disaster forces them to look elsewhere for food? After all, that's one of the reasons why survivalists stock up on ammunition... so that they can defend their property against thieves who didn't prepare adequately and are now looking to steal food just so they can stay alive.
Someone once said that they want to be 400 miles from the nearest large population center, because 400 miles is approximately one tank of gas. Well, there are variables in there... it may be one tank of gas at highway speeds but if people are fleeing the cities en masse, there ain't gonna be any highway speed driving. Plus, people are probably likely to stay as close to home as they can.
I would imagine that the bubbles on a bubble map would do well to represent the population of the city in their area. Since the area is related to the square of the radius, a city with a population of 400,000 would have a circle of twice the radius of a city with a population of 100,000.
The only question becomes... how close to a city is too close for comfort? Answer however you'd like, but I would be interested to hear things like "I wouldn't live within _____ miles of a town with 20,000 people" or "I wouldn't live within _____ miles of a town with 500,000 people" or "I wouldn't live within _____ miles of any county that has a population density of _____ people per square mile"... and then the explanations of why this is. I did a sort of bubble map like this but I'm not quite sure if I included all of the information I need to include.
Have you read "Strategic Relocation" by Joel Skousen? If not, this would answer many of your questions. I didn't go along with every detail, but he's obviously put a lot of research and time into it and knows a whole lot more about it than I do. And he's been doing it for a long time--his business is strategically relocating people. He's a (strategic) security consultant. Highly recommended.
Kind of funny question to me as there is only one city in my state with a population of 100,000, and only about 5 towns with populations over 30,000, and I live in the 4th largest state in the union
There are just 1 million people in the whole state, so seperation from population centers isn't hard to get.
The closest large cities to me are Spokane Washington, Salt Lake City Utah, and Calgary Alberta Canada, and all of them are a lot more than 1 tank of gas away.
I live in Tamworth NH..... google that. I don't plan to go anywhere. If i have to I will place a old town dump sign I have on a rusty chain and place that out by the road passing the driveway. Most locals have no idea this place is here...
I would maybe have to deal with cities like Boston at the farthest away, and I doubt they would get here, not even close. They will be locked up on the interstate grid and run out of gas right there 40 miles from Boston. maybe some would make it from Portsmouth... So what? There is nothing here for them.
You don't just buy a rife and suddenly know how to hunt deer. So for them there is nothing here. While i have lived here a very long time, (not this place but this county) i know where there is free potable water, but they won't. One drink out of a clear beaver pond and the city dweller is no longer a threat, and don't think I wouldn't use that water as a weapon if I had to.
If it comes to push and shove over what i do have I will play that game.
So landing on my door step uninvited in SHTF could be a hazard. This is my first time to be so evil in the iopne. By nature I am a helper and a saver, but with the recent election and the way it turned out i see city dwellers as more threat than not now.
They need to know rural folks are riled and that is no longer a solution. If we don't want to fee you now with forfit taxes from our pay what makes them think they will be welcomed wandering around looking for a whole deer to shoot in our back yards!
I have another advantage. That of driving team to haul tourists for 4 winters. I know how predictable they are when they run out from city lights.
They fear the dark, and they fear bears in NH in winter, and have no clue no bears in NH are out, that no bear in it's right mind if it were out would want to tangle with 2 horses that out weight ht bear by hundreds of pounds each and that about 20 to 24 people would knock Mista' bear senseless just running in panic all of the first 15 feet before the city dwellers panicked and died too.
Another point is they have never learned to see in the dark. now there is dark and there is DARK and there is Dammned DARK.
But most nights i can see all night in the common dark with no aids.
So with you map circles and on my map (area) there is a zillion and one places to be. Add in Vt and Maine, and one could be lost for a life time and love it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so long as you have the skills, and don't mind funny looking clothes.
Tell ya the truth i like Silver Tips ways better, but alas I don't have resources like that. Ya gotta deal with what ya have.
Another point is i would be willing to bet I am dead last on that dollars and cents totem pole in here. It would be hard to believe i wasn't.
On the other hand in shtf i bet i would be well into the top 10, age discounted..
I will be 61 this month.... last point. One day I hope to meet St Peter. Probably God is out of my league, but either way, when i meet one or the other, I don't plan to be in very good shape
I'm with you MTSilvertip -- there are less than 3/4 million people in my entire state, and the majority of them (by far) are located in Anchorage and surrounding boroughs; and I'm separated from that region by a mountain range, several rivers, hundreds of miles of unpopulated/marginally-populated forest, and over 8 hours of highway. The nearest city to my location is Fairbanks, and it barely tops 100,000 and I'm over 150 miles from that on a partially gravel "highway" with many single lane bridges and mountain passes that could be blocked to prevent exodus in this direction along the road (most people won't be able to come over land, especially not in winter).
I think looking at population density is also a good key... how many people are packed in to how much space. Cities with higher population densities are more likely to spread out sooner, but also more likely to succumb to epidemic and violence sooner. The population density of AK is less than 2/sq mile if averaged, but considering nearly half the population is in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Kenai area (collectively "south central") the realistic average is closer to one household every 5 or 10 sq miles (or more) in the rest of the state.
There are 640 acres in a sq mile, and it takes at least 2 acres to sustainably feed/heat/house each person... so there no way I'd want to live within 400 miles of anywhere that the population density exceeds 320/sq mile unless there was a major physical boundary between me and them. For reference, pop/sq mile: NYC over 26k, LA (city) over 7k, Chicago nearly 12k, Alaska South Central region about 150). Now Missoula has a pop density over 2k, but the rest of Mt is less than 7/sq mile, so even if they spread out, there should still be enough resources
Basically, according to this Population Density Map, I wouldn't want to live within 400 miles of anywhere red or maroon, or within 100 miles of aywhere pink unless it was a high-agricultural area.
Eluded to but not specifically mentioned in the previous 2 posts is climate and terrain.
Terrain that isn't user friendly because of rivers, lakes, mountains... make the exodus of urban areas funnel through narrow travel channels. Even if they're not fighting amongst themselves on those paths, they're soon going to hit a suburb on that pavement they travel. They'll already be desperate (or at least thought to be by the suburb residents) so I'd think further thinning would occur. Those that make it through that suburb will meet the same in the next suburb. So, if you have nasty terrain, I wouldn't expect much company if you were in a rural area as close as 50 miles from the city. Obviously while this exodus is happening, you build your perimeter defenses by blocking bridges and such if/as appropriate.
The climate doesn't need much explanation. If it's really cold, hot or otherwise, they may not come out.
I searched online for a bit and didn't find any useful information on this topic, so perhaps some of y'all could give me your two cents or at least point me in the right direction.
It's a commonly held belief among people who live self-sufficiently that the best place to be located, to survive an American disaster, is a place that is sparsely populated and far from a population center. I'd like to draw a bubble map with circles around towns / cities so that I can figure out where such places are located.
Does anyone know roughly how far people will go, in the event that some disaster forces them to look elsewhere for food? After all, that's one of the reasons why survivalists stock up on ammunition... so that they can defend their property against thieves who didn't prepare adequately and are now looking to steal food just so they can stay alive.
Someone once said that they want to be 400 miles from the nearest large population center, because 400 miles is approximately one tank of gas. Well, there are variables in there... it may be one tank of gas at highway speeds but if people are fleeing the cities en masse, there ain't gonna be any highway speed driving. Plus, people are probably likely to stay as close to home as they can.
I would imagine that the bubbles on a bubble map would do well to represent the population of the city in their area. Since the area is related to the square of the radius, a city with a population of 400,000 would have a circle of twice the radius of a city with a population of 100,000.
The only question becomes... how close to a city is too close for comfort? Answer however you'd like, but I would be interested to hear things like "I wouldn't live within _____ miles of a town with 20,000 people" or "I wouldn't live within _____ miles of a town with 500,000 people" or "I wouldn't live within _____ miles of any county that has a population density of _____ people per square mile"... and then the explanations of why this is. I did a sort of bubble map like this but I'm not quite sure if I included all of the information I need to include.
Disaster can strike anywhere from the most populated to the most remote areas. You are not guaranteed a disaster-free life anywhere.
If this is really about self-sufficiency, the key is to choose a location where you know you have the skills to be self-sufficient under normal conditions, with the means to leave the area if needed whether it's remote or somewhat populated. If you can't be self-sufficient under normal conditions in your chosen area, you are totally screwed anyway.
After the events subsequent to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy it doesn't seem that the urban hordes wish to go much of anywhere unless the government provides both transportation and a place to go. Both the savages in Louisiana and the whiners in New York and New Jersey stayed very close to home. I recall reading that many in New Orleans who weren't looters waited patiently in front of their homes for government rescuers to come.
That said, I'll take a sparsely populated place far from the cities. It's simply more pleasant for living on a day to day basis. Should the cities explode even the most enterprising savages aren't likely to come anywhere near me. It's really too bad as I'd love to have a couple of decaying heads mounted on my gate posts.
There is a reason why some states are unpopulated as they are. Before you venture to relocate, do your research. A place like Wyoming is pretty and invites dreams of self-sufficiency.....two months of the year. The rest of the time you are iced in, snowed in, freezing your butt off, your butt is glued to the saddle in -40 while you are praying to God that blizzard doesn't kill you...
After the events subsequent to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy it doesn't seem that the urban hordes wish to go much of anywhere unless the government provides both transportation and a place to go. Both the savages in Louisiana and the whiners in New York and New Jersey stayed very close to home. I recall reading that many in New Orleans who weren't looters waited patiently in front of their homes for government rescuers to come.
That said, I'll take a sparsely populated place far from the cities. It's simply more pleasant for living on a day to day basis. Should the cities explode even the most enterprising savages aren't likely to come anywhere near me. It's really too bad as I'd love to have a couple of decaying heads mounted on my gate posts.
Not sure where you got the information about the refugees from Katrina and Sandy. From what I read, refugees from Katrina went out by several hundred miles from where they lived. The map on the following site shows that Katrina refugees sometimes went out by over 1,000 miles:
I read that FEMA was housing Sandy evacuees in their famed travel trailers, up to 200 miles away from home... because there wasn't enough space closer to home.
However, it would seem logical that the crazed masses won't make it too far from their home bases in the event of total chaos. They'll crowd each other out, possibly kill each other, etc. I would imagine, though, that some of the smarter ones would be able to make it reasonably far. I wonder if it would be okay to live relatively near where the crazies might come, as long as you're buried in the middle of nowhere on little-known roads and pathways.
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.
