In some cases, yes. Civilizes shelter and comfort is nearly always preferable to "hermitizing in the wilds". There are very few plausible scenarios where evading civilization at all costs makes any sense. A pandemic might be one case (the "Outbreak" scenario), invasion another (the "Red Dawn" scenario). Beyond that, and I would question the rationale.

Moving from one Metropolitan area to another, especially in the west, often means passing through wilderness, or at best rural expanses. If it is not possible to make the commute in a day, then you need to be prepared to overnight it or more without the luxuries civilized habitation affords.

The Discovery channel has been airing some interesting, though unlikely what-if scenarios about the Yellowstone Caldera, Tsunamis and such. Sitting and watching these ficticious programs (likened to Cruise's "War of the Worlds fantasy), I was constantly reminded of this forum, and the people who share space here on it with me. I guess we are all a little bit what-if freaks. I found myself analyzing the information, first for veracity, then to determine what countermeasures could be implemented to avoid calamity.

If things ever got bad enough that folks like us are left barely clinging to humanity, then I would hope that all our discussion and preparation makes a difference. I think it is a tonic for us to admit just how truly frail mankind is. It sure doesn't take much to push us over, despite all our intelligence and evolution, we are still more or less at the mercy of nature. Some relatively subtle, nearly indetectable event (in the big scheme of things) can still just about wipe us out.

I am still left wondering if we will ever advance our technology to the point where we can actually have a chance of preventing our demise (the "Armageddon" scenario).

Yeah... good point, the day after 9/11, there wasn't a plane in the sky... <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I have to agree with Brangdon,
It would depend on the weather conditions, nature of the emergency...

Keep in mind that the Superdome was an aberation, not the "norm".
In my limited experience and observations based on news reports are that shelters are relatively safe.

Here on the Gulf Coast we've have evacuations from time to time due to hurricanes and I've never heard of any problems.
Hypothetically, knowing what I know now and had I been in New Orleans during Katrina I would've rather had been in the Dome then being one of the bloated bodies floating down the street or isolated and outnumbered by looters. As a nurse, maybe I could've done some good to someone in the dome.

Rescue/relief/medical attention is going to be targeted at the largest concentration of people.

If your out isolated on your own your vulnerable regardless of how well you're armed. There is safety in numbers as a general rule. (There are exceptions of course).

I personally prefer to shelter in place. After that I'd recommend having backup plans for your backup plans. (Where do we go if we can't get to the in-laws, etc...)

Right. I am all for being prepared to move through, and if necessary stay in, wilderness environments. I do not however believe they should be ones destination.

I would respectfully disagree with your statement that there's safety in numbers, especially since the vast majority in a public shelter will be unarmed civilians, but that's just my experience. The Superdome incident is by far not a unique situation. But more to the point, it is indicative of the nonsensical planning and implementation of government agencies whose purpose is supposed to be to keep us safe, but in reality is only there to spend our money. But for the noble, sacrificial, heroic acts of individuals, the whole thing was a bloody sham. That any more than a handful perished is a serious indictment of the gross failure and incompetence of the leadership we put in place to do precisely those things that weren't done.

So you see, going to a public shelter run by people who have a purely political agenda is just asking to become a statistic.

I guess it is all just a matter of perspective. I've grown accustomed to not relying on the government to take care of me that much. Of course, the first rule is "don't live in a place known to be susceptible to such a catastrophe. Kinda like the folks who lived downstream of Spirit Lake and decided to stay at their homes when St. Helens went off; what were they thinking? Harry Truman was no hero, he was a fool.

Ben-
Where can one live that is immune to disaster? I am guessing that this is VERY valuable real estate and would like to invest there!

I would say immune is nigh impossible, but when you know that a place is going to be overwhelmed, you've been told for years it is coming, and you neither prepare to shelter in place for the event, nor relocate in a suitable amount of time to avoid the disaster, then what does that say?

There are no absolutes, but there are places much more suitable than others. Ultimately, I suppose anyplace has it's risks. I am in Denver now, and there's a chance that this area could take an asteroid hit, or be covered in ash if the Yellowstone Caldera went off, or have some errant earthquake phenomena occur, or a terrorist attack. But the risks of such events here are not being predicted with such a great deal of alarm as was provided before Katrina hit.

Let's put it another way. Any sailor worth his salt puts to sea knowing that there's a certain inherent risk in the venture. Likely they will check the weather forecasts, talk to the Coast Guard, or at least check all the emergency gear they will take with them and make sure they are well prepared for the routine precautions. Now, people put to sea all the time, but what kind of individual is going to plan a trip out without checking at least the basics; or if having checked the weather report and hearing advisories that sailing might not be such a good idea, goes out into it anyways? Either this is a person who is prepared for just about anything, or it is a fool.

My wife works for USAA (familiar to some military/ex-military forumites) at their Phoenix location. Reportedly, the decision to construct a regional facility in the Phoenix-area vs. other considered locations was influenced in some measure by the infrequent occurrence of natural disasters of any significance, e.g. weather (no major flooding; few tornadoes; no hurriances); modest earthquake activity, last active volcano 12th century; wildfire hazard geographically distant, etc. All legitimate considerations for a business. Immune though? As said, no such thing.

Drought, OTOH, could be a problem one of these days. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

One place that immediately comes to mind is a place on the edge of the ocean that is some feet below sea level.

Sue

You know If people dont like the way the U.S. is being run.. real estate in afganistan is REAL cheap these days!!! And there are flights leaving everyday........... Having said that.. I realize along with alot of people this country has some serious government problems.. but take a look at other places in the world right now.. our grass is as green as it gets... imho