Which city will likely survive should the world come to an end.?

Question

If a global environment disaster hits, or world war 3 obliterated the world, which city will most likely survive and why?

Answer 1

Louisville, KY because this **** hole could get no worse.

Answer 2

There won't be any survivors thus the word "end".

Answer 3

I'm speaking mostly about America, because that's the area I know best.

If you're asking about the structural aspects, probably a city in a warm but not humid climate area. This would prevent temperature related breakages, and the dryness would keep metal structures from rusting. However, if there were any tall buildings that fell, they could do major damage to smaller buildings. Maybe a city in the desert.

If you're talking people wise, I'd say it would be either a large city in a area with little-to-no weather extremes, with tons of resources to bolster survival efforts of the remaining population. If it was in a warm area, then you wouldn't have to worry about finding shelter or clothing for Winter, and hunting would be good all year round, but would increase the risk of certain temperature-sensitive bacterias. Left-over supplies of medicine and non-perishable food items would also be a major help, but probably hard to find because people would stock-up before any major conflict or disaster reached dangerous levels.

Or, the tiny villages in the mountains or in the Arctic, who are use to surviving on their own. The people there would be best prepared to handle isolation from the no longer existent outside world, and could survive the same way they had before.  

Answer 4

According to Nevil Shute's "On the Beach" (and the subsequent films of the same name), the place to be is Melbourne, Australia.

Thank God I already live here!

I'll just start laying in the canned/dried goods and bottled water will I?

LOL

Answer 5

If the world was to end I know where I would want to be- New Zealand. Any where in the USA would be contaminated/destroyed, and probably over run by survivors slowly picking each other off for the little there was left.

N.Z has a population of only 3 million, amazing natural resources and is small and insignificant enough that no one would waste a nuclear bomb/chemical warfare on it.

New York would be no good, apparently if the pumps were turned off on the N.Y. subway system they would be flooded in a matter of hours.

Answer 6

If World War 3 "obliterated the world", there would be no city to survive. As for global warming...i'm not sure. I did know, but I can't remember.

Answer 7

It would be somewhere inland from raising sea levels possibly

It would be a somewhat isolated city away from crowded sections of the world

I would say someplace like the American Midwest, maybe Kansas City, Saint Louis, or Denver