A newly released study has revealed which U.S. states would be the safest—and most dangerous—to live in during a nuclear apocalypse. With increasing concerns about global conflicts involving nuclear powers like Russia, as well as the enduring popularity of dystopian scenarios in pop culture, survival readiness has become a hot topic of discussion.
The study, conducted by NoDepositDaily.com, evaluated all 50 states based on 18 survival indicators grouped into key categories. These included weapons and security, access to food and fresh water, population density, medical services, and climate conditions.
According to the findings, Vermont emerged as the safest state for surviving a nuclear apocalypse, earning an overall score of 72.35 out of 100. Vermont’s top score was driven by its exceptional food availability, ranking first in the nation. Additionally, Vermont performed strongly in “weapons and security,” coming in second nationwide for access to firearms and safety resources.
Following closely behind, Maine secured second place with a score of 68.28. The Pine Tree State also excelled in food availability, achieving the second-highest score in the country. Maine’s abundant natural resources and low population density further bolstered its survival credentials, as did its top-five ranking in supplies and survival resources.
Louisiana claimed third place with a score of 65.47, despite weaker performance in some metrics, like its 25th-place ranking for population density. Louisiana’s strongest advantages lay in its climate and access to fresh water. The state’s freshwater availability ranked first nationwide, supported by its numerous rivers and abundant rainfall.
Rounding out the top five were Wyoming (63.42) and New Hampshire (62.18). Wyoming, in particular, stood out for its availability of weapons, scoring an impressive 95.66 out of 100, the highest in the nation.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Hawaii ranked as the worst state to live in during a nuclear apocalypse, earning a score of just 35.24 out of 100. The island state’s geographical isolation and reliance on imported goods severely limit its survival potential.
Nevada followed closely as the second-worst state, hindered by poor rankings in food availability and access to fresh water. The state’s desert climate also presents significant challenges to long-term survival.
California, often celebrated for its innovation and resources, fared poorly in survival metrics, landing third worst with a score of 38.24. The state’s high population density, limited fresh water, and strict gun laws, which resulted in a 46th-place ranking for access to weapons, significantly hurt its survival ranking.
Arizona, the fourth-worst state, faced similar challenges. Despite leading the nation in access to medical services, its near-bottom ranking for fresh water availability (49th) was a major drawback. Without adequate water resources, survival in the arid desert environment becomes a daunting task.
New York rounded out the bottom five with a score of 40.01. The Empire State’s cold climate dragged it down, with a dismal score of 21.32 in that category. Apart from its relatively strong showing in medical services, New York struggled in nearly all other survival indicators, including food and weapons access.
The study relied on data from Bing Maps and U.S. government sources to calculate scores for each state. For example, “weapons and security” was assessed based on the number of police stations, fire stations, and access to firearms. Meanwhile, “freshwater access” was determined by rainfall data and the presence of freshwater lakes.
Population density was also a critical factor, as states with lower populations are better positioned to avoid the chaos of densely populated urban centers in apocalyptic scenarios.
The analysis highlights that survival readiness in a nuclear apocalypse depends heavily on a combination of natural resources, infrastructure, and strategic planning. States with abundant food, water, and survival supplies scored the highest, while those with harsh climates, scarce resources, and high population densities fared poorly.
For residents in lower-ranking states, the study underscores the importance of individual preparedness, including creating emergency plans, stocking up on supplies, and understanding local resources.
While the likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse remains slim, studies like these spark valuable discussions about resilience and disaster preparedness. Whether you live in survival havens like Vermont or challenging locales like Hawaii, the key takeaway is the importance of proactive planning for any large-scale crisis.
As the study demonstrates, survival is not just about location but also about readiness. In the end, the choices we make today could determine our chances in an uncertain tomorrow.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login