It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Where would you not want to be during sit X?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2007 @ 04:36 PM
I seen a thread asking what places would best suit small pockets of survivors from a global cataclysm but I would like to know what places would fare the worst in such a situation. I know its tough to say because we don't know what it will be, nuke/aliens/disease/asteroid/food shortage/Godzilla but I am pretty certain that no matter what six X some places will just be death traps if the regular circulation of goods cant get shipped. If the governments of the world were unable to sustain their economies then the highly populated (urban) areas would suffer the most?

I do not really see North America in all that much danger unless all our land is wiped out or the disease is that bad but I think places like Asia, Africa, Middle east and parts of Europe will have it the worst. South America I cant really say as I am not to familiar with how it works there.

Where I live in Ontario I really think people for the most part would be cautious but also help each other and form some kind of organized self governing body. There is to much open space and fresh water and it would be difficult to target it all with nukes.

My question is though where do you think it would be the absolute worst and best to avoid during sit X?

posted on May, 5 2007 @ 04:51 PM
My only suggestion would be to 'head underground' (so many feet under the earth) - to avoid fallout, invasion, etc. As far away from any 'ground-zero' of activity.

I live in Ontario as well (1 min walk to lake Ontario), and think that IF anything ever happened to New York (God forbid), the reprecusions - i.e Nuclear war - would have a trickle affect across the Ontario lake.

It's really hard to say 'where' on the surface of this planet would be a safe haven.

Above ground - we are in the open/exposed to the senerios that you've mentioned.

I'm not at all perpetrating people to spend their hard earned money to build shelters. I'm just giving my opinion as to what I think would be a viable answer.

Nobody wants to be near 'ground-zero' when it hits the fan. Everyone should at the very least, have a plan of action, should a situation arise.

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 08:04 AM
Where to not be? anywhere in mainland Britain...a population of 60million in a country the size of Texas is just trouble with a biiiiig 'T' if/when the worst happens

Although the solution would be very simple and would appeal to anyone British...invade France instead

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 09:23 AM
First instinct is any ware in a Big city. But beyond that would be stuck in a building. any building is bad news in most situations, IMO. The worst would be a high rise four or more floors off the street.

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 09:37 AM
Places I wouldn't want to be in Situation X

-Big cities, anyplace with a population over about 100K. Larger than that, and US cities start having serious trouble with endemic crime. The whole of the "old south" US was wrecked by Katrina. But New Orleans and Mobile are the only "major cities" on that coast, with pops above a million . . .

-Desert, if I didn't have my own access to water, on my own land, independent of the power grid.

-On the coast. In situation X, one tiny issue will be . . . no more weather reports. Think about what hurricane Katrina would have done, if people had gotten NO WARNING AT ALL!

-Any place that gets more than about 2 feet of snow in the winter. Without the props of civilization, more than a foot of snowfall is automatically a survival situation.

-Any camping or other "nature area." People will flock to places they know. Which means on "X DAY + 1," Yellowstone National Park will be filled with survivalists armed to the teeth with assault rifles, but carrying only 3 days of MRE's. . . .

-Any major highway leading TO or FROM the above noted areas.

Basically, on "X DAY + n," you want to be irrelevant, unnoticed, and unimportant. You don't want a flashy suv, or expensive looking equipment. Most of all, you don't want to look like a threat, merely a pain.

-You don't want to be in the path of survivalsts, hell bent on "surviving."

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
You don't want to be in the path of survivalsts, hell bent on "surviving."

That would have to rank as #1 on 'where not to be during Sit.X'

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 02:15 PM
dr_strangecraft's list covers most of my concerns.......big cities, important buildings, government or financial facilities, coastal areas, escape highway routes, crazies......and separated from family, or far from home.

Being here, would be ok for some degree of bad weather, tsunami, power outtages, economic collapse......we are already kinda 'out of sight, out of mind', as the good dr_ advises. Not important enough to attract terrorists or looters.

But.....not so good for a nuclear attack, being downwind from Redstone Arsenal in Alabama and halfway to Dobbins AFB , Atlanta and the CDC. If it comes to that......I might just as well head toward ground 0.

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:23 PM
I think some really bad cities to be in during a global crisis would go:

1. Mexico city 2. Los Angles 3. Tokyo 4. New York 5. Beijing 6. New Delhi 7. London 8. Moscow 9. Tel Aviv 10. Dallas

Sure there is a ton more bad places to be but I think those 10 would be death traps if SHTF. Although some bonuses like if you were able to loot some good items and food before the massive frenzy that cleans everything out and get to a safe zone that you can defend then a major city could be a good place to bring people together and try to rebuild. I also now would be more weary of places in the wild that many people would flock to as well so I would get as much supplies as I could and head for some place I don't think many other would go to. I am confident that I was lucky to be born in Canada and I hope during sit X I'll be ok and able to live a decent life.

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 01:22 PM
I too am in Ontario but not in a good place. My husband and I recognize this and plan to move before the winter this year.We live in North Bay where the underground (the hole) and new above ground NORAD base is.We do not feel safe here as quite possibly this base would be target #1 right after the Cheyenne mountain base. I agree with Duckster that underground is best or as far away from a city as possible. I grew up in a small town in cottage country and that is where we are going to move our family. Plenty of bush, lakes, hunting and privacy, even with the weekend warriors that come up from the big smoke. Maybe we can all meet up closer to event x and pool our resources and hole up together. Who knows?

posted on May, 24 2007 @ 04:28 PM
Where not to be?

Big Cities - mass hysteria, looting, more likely for the govt to intervine on your bug out plan

Airports - or even moreso on an airplane

Skyscrapers - even though depending on sit x, you would have a great view of the end of modern civilization, thats about all you could do.

But most importantly:

In an unfamiliar area and not prepared - To not know your surroundings could be a death warrent during sit x.

If I'm halfway to Denver on a business trip when sit x happens, and I'm in the middle of nowhere Kansas hundreds of miles away from my family, my supplies, and my gear...theres a good chance that I'm in for a really rough ride.

If you are even halfway cautious you would have an atlas at least so you would be able to find a town to seek shelter and whatnot if needed, but sit x scenarios are various, and for the majority of the scenarios, being in a place that you don't know squat about is worse then any other.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by DropInABucket]

posted on May, 24 2007 @ 04:39 PM
I would not want to be caught anywhere near cities during sit x but I would not want to become reliant upon the social services afterwards even more so. That is how one will end up in one of those concentration camps. Out here in the country we would be prepared to protect our land and homes from any threat. Good people will be out there, but like during the deppression, you might get a little bread and tea, but you had better keep on moving after that...

posted on May, 24 2007 @ 04:46 PM
I used to think I was in a good spot here in Nye County, NV (I mean, come on! Art Bell calls it home too and he has to know something I don’t, right?) but then I was doing some planning with the wife on how I would be coming in to town in case of sit. x from Vegas, where I work 7 days a week.

What I realized is that half of Vegas would likely be heading our way, and we are not nearly small enough to just block our roads. Pahrump is a town of about 40,000 60 miles west of Vegas. Unlike most towns of our size we are spread thin and no one knows each other. There would be no common defense of Pahrump. Most of us live on over an acre, even those close in to town. No way we could block the hundreds of thousands that may head our way from Vegas even if would could band together.

So now I have to bug out because of those who will be bugging in.

And where is there to go from Pahrump? Death Valley. Great. I’m so screwed.

posted on May, 25 2007 @ 10:16 AM
Where I would not want to be in Sit X, if it involved WMDs (ie Nukes particularly) is where I am now, as I am fairly near the centre of the city. If I was able to get into my room if I wasn't in it at the time, I have maps for the nearest area which is mainly easier to survive in than a city would be, but I daresay anyone in Manchester or Sheffield would soon head into the Peak District, which Is where I would go. However, it might not be too bad, as there is a fairly large area and some secluded areas, particularly in the northern area, and I have a detailed map for that area, and a less detailed one for the southern area.

When I'm at home in Norfolk, I know the area fairly well, and could do quite a lot there in order to survive. In that area, I also have access to more things, and a car, if it were still useful. However it is more populated than the peak district is normally, which would be a problem.

BTW, I found this idea quite funny:

Which means on "X DAY + 1," Yellowstone National Park will be filled with survivalists armed to the teeth with assault rifles, but carrying only 3 days of MRE's. . . .

What if Sit X is Yellowstone?

[edit on 25-5-2007 by apex]

posted on May, 25 2007 @ 10:27 AM
One of the overlooked things would be coastal areas. In a nuke attack, there could be some unexpected problems.

The technology of many countries is such that while they might launch a nuke at Miami, Florida, it could land off the coast of Georgia. Now if you're the unlucky person that an errant nuke hits on land, there's not much you could do about it. But a 'miss' into fairly shallow water could result in a wave that would reach a long ways.

Also, in any exchange beyond a few minutes, there is also the possibility that an sub could be hit and explode, causing a tsunami.

posted on May, 25 2007 @ 11:32 AM
I think the good Dr has it wrapped. Quite simply, avoid any area with high population densities (whether they're cities, evacuation camps, highways, airports, likely evacuation routes or likely panic destinations --- like well known camping sites). High PD areas are going to quickly exhaust necessities and things will get real ugly real fast. Think Katrina.

As for a nuke strike, unless you're really close to ground zero, within a couple miles of a 250kt ground detonation, you can survive. Any likely terrorist nuke attack would fall well within this scenario. Only if we were ballistically attacked by Russia or China (far less likely) with considerably more numerous, larger airburst detonations would the rules change significantly. Nuke Modeling. In the case of a nuke attack you'd need to shelter-in-place for several days before getting out of dodge. Nuclear Survival

But as the Dr says... be inconspicuous, appear low-value and stay far away from concentrations of people.

posted on May, 25 2007 @ 04:20 PM
I would NOT want to be anywhere with large crowds of people. The average person is stupid, and likely to panic, or, just as bad, think only of themselves and not care if those nearby are hurt or killed. I would not want to be at work or school, because then I would be cut off from my home supplies. Probably the home is the best place to be, since that is where you are most prepared to handle a trouble situation. If you have a car, it would be ideal to have it within a short walking distance, and hopefully with a few survival supplies inside.

Small towns or farms are probably the best place to be, as opposed to a big city. On a farm, you have food and supplies, even if you are not a survivalist, you probably have more that most survivalists in the city do, just because it is part of your livelihood. In a small town, most of the people likely know each other. People are less likely to take advantage of someone they know as opposed to a total stranger, even a casual acquaintance, and more likely to work together to overcome problems. I am unlikely to steal food from my neighbour if I am his friend, for instance, and vice versa, and more likely to work with him, knowing I won't have to guard my back against him as well as the Situation X.

I most certainly would not want to be in any Third World country during such a situation, for what I would think are obvious reasons. I also would not want to be in the USA, for fear of martial law or other government abuses of power. I don't mean to say that martial law is automatically bad, but I am saying that I trust the US government less than almost any other. They are more likely to screw up the situation through either incompetence, or through self-interest, ignoring the general needs of the populace in favour of the rich and powerful.

Hmm, other things. I wouldn't want to be on vacation when it happened. I wouldn't want to be on an airplane, or stuck in traffic, or in an airport. Large buildings would be bad, due to the crowds and cramped environment, especially if you were on a very high floor.

It is a delicate topic, but there are certain places that certain racial groups would likely not want to be during Situation X. For example, a male, twenty-something Arab probably does not want to be at a location where a terrorist attack has just occurred, even though he had nothing to do with it. (I had a Muslim friend who was at King's Cross during 7/7, and man he was scared out of his mind! Fortunately, nothing bad happened to him beyond a small cut on his leg from flying debris, but it could have easily been worse, both in terms of physical damage, and the reactions of those near him)

Yeah, this post is long enough, probably no one read this far, anyway.

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by DropInABucket

If I'm halfway to Denver on a business trip when sit x happens, and I'm in the middle of nowhere Kansas hundreds of miles away from my family, my supplies, and my gear...theres a good chance that I'm in for a really rough ride.

I was re-reading this thread and just wanted to point out the following about this particular scenario:

1. Most of agrarian Kansas has windmills that pump water from underground aquifers. These "low-tech" devices are unaffected by power outtages, or even an EMP following an atomic blast.

2. You are most likely surrounded by fields of cattle and feed corn. Feed corn is entirely edible by humans, until it dries down for harvest. So are wheat and sorghum, for that matter. I'm the sort of trailer trash that grew up eating animal feed when there was no money for groceries.

3. Friendly locals. Known for their cooking and hospitality toward well-meaning strangers. If you've ever had a flat tire in western kansas, you know that you may wait an hour for the next car to pass by on the road. But that car will stop and ask how they can help you . . . they also probably have a firearm in the car "just in case."

4. Every farm in mid america has big tanks of fuel, its own basic shop with machine tools like pipe threaders, lathes, presses and pneumatic jacks, plus hand tools and, oftentimes, tack and bridle for horses.

5. Most rural homesteads have a large garden, a deep-freezer, and a pantry full of home canned green beans, tomatoes, and okra.

The main question is, whether they will perceive you as a good-natured fellow citizen in need of assistance, or a belligerant survivalist.


posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:04 PM
A case in point of hospitality in rural America, from the blizzard back in January. I know some of the people involved in this event:

. . . In an isolated area of the state between Clayton and Springer, in the north east corner of the state, 44 stranded motorists became guests of the Triple M Cattle Ranch, owned by Randy and Christine Glover . . . .

Fulll story here.

The glover's home was tiny, just 1200 square ft.; yet they took in every stranded motorist that appeared on their doorstep. They found food and entertainment for all of the people. Basically, those people owe their lives to their hosts. If you've ever driven highway 56, theres not so much as a gas station for 80 miles. In a snowstorm, you depend on the kindness of strangers.

It would be the same in any other survival situation, IMO.


posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by citizen smith
Where to not be? anywhere in mainland Britain...a population of 60million in a country the size of Texas is just trouble with a biiiiig 'T' if/when the worst happens

Although the solution would be very simple and would appeal to anyone British...invade France instead

The population situation in the UK is worse than you think, Texas is nearly 3 times as big as what is formerly known as Great Britain(that includes all Ireland). It has the 4th most densely populated Island nation in the world.

According to most survival experts, any population center larger than 10,000 folks will be unsustainable after 3 weeks in case of collapse or mega-disaster. I've got 2 locations picked out as bug out areas, both have population densities of less then 10 folks per square mile

posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 04:23 PM
Dr. Strangecraft that story was a great contribution.It does get you thinking that maybe we should prepare extra for more people. Not everyone we encounter will be hostile, just unprepared.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in