By 
First looking at weather patterns, it seems that if there is a radioactive fallout, where would you want to be? Remember that weather patterns start in the west or northwest and move across the country and change throughout the year, but always blow mostly from east to west. So if you live east of the west coast, you could be in trouble if a western city is nuked. Then there are the easterly winds in CA, which are called the Santa Ana winds, which are hot, fast and dry, the worst possible conditions for fires. As we see every few years in the mountains of southern CA.
So maybe you want to live on the west coast, with pretty good weather year-round and the wind blowing the other way. But he would like to live away from any major West Coast city. Not in LA, Not near nuclear power plants, Not near Pt Mugu, Camp Pendleton or Vandenburg AFB military bases. Then where? Probably on the coast between Humboldt, CA and the mid-state of OR. But sadly, there are huge faults along the West Coast and the OR coast is riddled with problems, from liquefaction to offshore tsunamis generating seismic faults.
San Francisco gets big earthquakes as we know and LA is not immune either and neither is the central valley of CA with its problems after the Coalinga Fault test. Living between the Russian River and the OR Coastline near the coast would be fine even with these issues. Also, it would not be downwind of any radioactive fallout and is not a target. Safe in the sense that he has fish to eat and wood to keep warm and doesn’t need much of anything for energy, surrounded by capable forest people.
It would have a lot of rain and no water that would be contaminated by running off from the fallout areas. Of course, from an attack by sea from the Pacific side in the event of an invasion, it would not be in the best place, we do not expect any war, however, in 20 years, China will be our largest trading partner or it will be 2 thousand millions of like this piece of real estate? If we were attacked for any reason, they would have air support from every Army and Air Guard Base along the Pacific coast. Where are other good places? If Seattle didn’t get hit by a weapon of mass destruction then you still have Earthquakes and remember MT. St. Helen. There are some inland cities on I-5 that are surrounded by mountains, but they are also close to volcanoes.
Where else would be good? Well, not Phoenix, not Las Vegas and Reno is just over the hill from CA and gets all that’s left of the weather. Boise also has problems. Although there are other cities in ID worth mentioning. Salt Lake is on a major earthquake fault. How about Helena MT, drought and fire problems? Kellogg ID, superfund area. Billings out of the water, Bozeman? Well, too close to the state park and there are problems with volcanoes too. Butte, MT too close too. Casper WY out of the water and downwind in case of volcanic activity from Yellow Stone. Also think if Portland, SF or LA isn’t nuked then we like, Four Corners, Elko NV, Battle MT (armpit) are doable with a large groundwater supply but contain arsenic. Winnamucka NV is also not sure but has thermal activity for power. ND and SD also seem safe, but the winter weather is harsh. The Ogalla underground aquifer is rapidly draining and could cause earthquake collapse. NE western, not good, Denver either in case of future water supply problems or radioactive fallout from the volcano at Yellow Stone. How about in the Northern Section of AZ? Flagstaff has severe weather, fire season. Winslow AZ is nice, with rail and FWY, but isolated. Of course, these are just a few western states and hey, we’ve identified several great places with everything you need to get by.
Having studied the FEMA reports and the regional problems of each area and state and the disaster plans, we are well informed by such data, but they fall short and it is necessary to consider a comprehensive plan of attack, because many people who live in a region they need supplies, as we see after major hurricanes. Which, by the way, leaves us wondering if, in fact, there are safe cities all over the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, or the West Coast of Florida. As we saw in the 2003 blackout, hurricanes and power loss, numerous fires in drought areas of CA, AZ, NV, MT, ID, OR, NM, these are all big problems.
When multiple disasters happen and transportation goes down, power goes out, water goes out, dams break, bridges break, etc. And that? Well, for some it will be their demise, others have planned it properly. Some of the safest cities are close to large groundwater supplies and generate their own power or have cogeneration plants, which are nearby cooperatives. Those Midwestern cities near big rivers are not safe because of problems with flooding, as we have seen and continue to see every three or five years in some town. The water is fresh and clean in those areas and very soft, but when it floods, it’s a mess and very dangerous too.
Some would say that it is probably not necessary to have a great disaster plan, however, it is a good exercise in planning nonetheless. Things of importance are unpolluted fresh water supply, food supply, encapsulated market, not overcrowded, no issues with polluted air due to known normal weather patterns and comparable to the last 200 years, outside of an area of fire and a defensible location. It is also of secondary importance outside of the risk of major seismic activity, travel from major highways causing an influx of others trying to escape, thus bringing diseases or viruses or depleting local natural resources. Worst places to be DC, state capital cities with lots of military bases nearby, cities on major highways with bridges and no other ways over 40 miles or passes in mountain ranges.
Cities that are not the safest cities are Denver, Dallas, Mobile, Biloxi, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Orlando, Tampa, Las Vegas, Salt Lake, LA, etc. Cities that have no way to get the population out quickly are a problem, eg DC with its daily network crash or Los Angeles, Atlanta, SF etc. Cities that depend on outside sources for important things are bad. Not to mention, you are more likely to die from a car accident, though on the plus side, they do have the cleanest and best filtered water supplies. That, of course, is a trade-off for the polluted air around you that could also kill you before your average life expectancy figure.
Port cities and cities with large major airports, which are hubs for major airlines, are also bad. Cities that are large but don’t have federal banks are also one click down the list. Also think about logistics by train. Towns that are downriver near major rail bridges, which handle a lot of interstate trains, are also bad. Port cities get an extra bad deal. Cities that are close to port cities that have more than 2 million inhabitants are also dangerous. Large cities near the borders of Mexico are dangerous if they have more than 2 million inhabitants.
San Diego County, San Antonio, Phoenix, Austin TX, Houston even throw Tucson, El Paso, Yuma all wrong. Already at a time of fresh water problems due to drought and overpopulation. Santa Monica is bad and LAX is a bad area to be around. A problem at the sewage treatment plant near LAX could be devastating with chlorine gas and weather patterns a weapon of mass destruction. Also of concern for our scenario of possibilities are the main areas of the computing brain. Like Silicon Valley, Seattle, VA, and other Internet hubs, which would also include Boston.
I would like to see a comprehensive plan to save American lives if there is an attack or an event from Mother Nature, one that encompasses the entire country. Perhaps this is a good job for our war planners at the Pentagon to try out a reverse order plan, it would help them learn where to minimize vulnerabilities and a plan of action against international terrorists or catastrophic events from mother nature.
I have been to every city in the United States with more than 10,000 inhabitants. Where have you lived? Have you experienced a natural disaster? Many of us have. Last year’s hurricanes alone added 40 million more people to that list, it was a costly year for FEMA, but we did it and we showed resilience. So where are you safe? The answer may be nowhere or everywhere and the preparation and quality of first responders may be the key. What were your immediate concerns and needs during that period of your life when you faced so much uncertainty? What would you say to others planning to protect America’s life and property, including first responders, planners, and those tasked with protecting humanity in times of need?