My only thought is that the perception of risk or threat is routinely magnified by social media and other media which all rely on shock/outrage/fear to generate clicks and views, thereby making money. This is the world we live in.

I'm also considering bringing sentimental items that are not essential or digitized, such as my high school diploma, three books, and a small vial of mineral oil. However, I'm confident that these items won't add too much weight or take up too much space. Do you think it's too much to bring?

Consider the Big Island of Hawaii.

You would still be in the US of A, for better or worse. Folks are generally very nice and many, if not most, tend to be self reliant.

You can get fairly large parcels of land. And despite the US political situation, it seems more stable and less dangerous here than even the metropolitan Oahu. Certainly seems safer than the CONUS. Less likely to have a missile attack here than Israel, even though we had a recent false alarm.

I have to say I am a little surprised to see this discussion about which country or area is "better for survival." To me moving to a foreign country for a few years is pretty normal, and in fact it should be encouraged for young people like Jeanette. It's fun, you learn so much about the world, you expand your horizon and life experiences, etc. Sure, it can be challenging, too. That's a part of the experience.

I suppose I wouldn't bother moving to, say, the middle of Wyoming because "it's good for survival" unless I happen to want to live there for other reasons. If we give up the life we want in order to increase our chances of survival, then what are we surviving for?