One of the basic issues facing a survivalist in New England is a simple problem: population density. In a scenario where basic law and order has broken down, government has collapsed, and the power grid has gone inoperable, you have an immediate problem -- too many people, and no way to get them the basic supplies of life.
Most people, when considering this, say: "Well at that point the National Guard is activated, and the Federal Government steps in."
Perhaps. But as we saw in Hurricane Katrina, sometimes local government does not act responsibly, sometimes the state government is incompetent, and sometimes it takes the Feds a week or more to get their act together. What happens at street level when this occurs?
First, you have looting. With the breakdown of government in Katrina, the first looting began within 24 hours. The age old proscription "Thou shalt not steal" was overridden almost immediately by hunger and thirst. People living in a hurricane zone, with ample warning of the approaching storm, did not act appropriately and did not set aside a 72 hour supply of food and water. In some places, even if they did, the rising water quickly inundated formerly safe places, and people had to seek refuge, with no supplies, on whatever high ground they could find, sometimes becoming stranded on their own roofs. A sudden catastrophe triggers the inner child in just about everyone -- "Someone ought to have prevented this, someone ought to be taking care of me." When that someone fails to appear, then people quickly rationalize and say "Well, I'm going to take what I need." A brick gets thrown through a window. Once that line is crossed, it is not only bread and water that get taken, but anything else people feel they need in order to comfort themselves -- "I'm suffering, therefore I deserve a new TV." These desires do not always focus on the immediate and practical. Once the first brick gets thrown, everything inside the store becomes fair game.
From there it is a short distance to murder. "You have water, and I need it -- or better yet, my baby needs it? Hand it over. Stand and deliver." This is the practical language of the highwayman. Soon people are armed, and then it becomes a question of who is willing to shoot first.
Without continuous delivery of food and water, the cities soon descend into a maelstrom of violence. And when the city's supplies are used up, the population heads out first to the suburbs, and then to the country, in order to find food. A lot of people will suddenly get the urge to take up hunting, but without the experience and skill, it becomes more practical to find people with supplies, to shoot and loot. A rolling wave of violence spreads out of the city. People form together in bands. To overwhelm a strong point, you need a group. A man and his wife holed up in a house, with guns, could soon find themselves surrounded. They might kill three or four, but eventually, numbers prevail.
If you assume society is headed for chaos, you then find yourself facing a hard number very quickly -- how many people are there around me? In New England, there are a lot of people around you. Consider where the New England states stand in this table of population density:
Rhode Island is # 2 in the nation with 390.78 people per square kilometer.
Massachusetts is #3 in the nation with 317.63 people per square kilometer.
Connecticut is #4 in the nation with 279.11 people per square kilometer
Southern New England becomes a demographic nightmare almost immediately in a disaster situation. There are a lot of people with too little land to feed and water them.
Head north, and it gets a little better:
New Hampshire is #20 in the nation with 56.65 people per square kilometer.
Vermont is #30 in the nation with 25.93 people per square kilomter.
Maine is #38 in the nation with 16.38 people per square kilometer.
New Hampshire has a slightly higher population density than the average U.S. state. Vermont has fewer than half the people jammed into it than New Hampshire, and Maine less than a third.
All things being equal, if you are in New England and you want to survive a societal collapse, your best bet is to go North. If you are planning a refuge ahead of time, you really ought to think about Maine and Vermont.
To me, Maine has two considerable advantages. First, it is the farthest away from New York City. In looking at New England, we haven't considered where the urban population of the five boroughs heads in times of trouble. We certainly know where they go for vacation. If I'm a well-off New Yorker and the power grid has gone down, I'm going to remember those summers in Vermont pretty fondly. Route 91 becomes crowded quickly in the summertime and in ski season. Vermont is empty much of the year, but it has a lot of New Yorkers with vacation homes. In a disaster, its population will go up very quickly.
The second advantage to Maine is that once you get off of the coast, it has a huge amount of undeveloped forest, owned by a lot of lumber companies. Most of it is empty. If you are in the far north or northwest of Maine, you're surrounded by forest. You've got a virtually unlimited supply of firewood and game. You've got plenty of rainwater. All you need is a hunting lodge well off the main roads, and some rifles.
Because of family, my current "bug out" scenario is in Vermont. My home in Massachusetts is in a small town, but two of the major roads out of Boston run right through the middle of it. I could hole up here for only a few days, at best. But if I did so, the roads would be jammed, and it would be a very long walk to Vermont, indeed. My best bet would be to head out early, and get to family in Vermont.
But if I have a long time to prepare, I'm going to think hard about a cabin up in Maine.
Santaquin Goshen Ready, June 2017
7 years ago