What Countries Would Be Safest In Nuclear War?
 

I'm not a Doomsday pepper....... im a Doomsday salt :1orglaugh

Geddit!!?! Geddit!?!?!

Seriously though...... Obviously Russia/USA/Israel are probably places you wouldn't want to be if nuked were flying, mainly because because those countries will have been programmed into some of them as the point of destination.

So the questions:

(1) Which countries would be LEAST likely to be nuked and hence which countries have the LEAST enemies out there with nuclear capabilities?

(2) Don't suggest Ethiopia, im talking about selecting from the most progressive of nations. So which?

(3) Not geographically close to another nation that WOULD be likely to be an enemy of a nation that has nuclear capabilities?

God knows when shit starts to drop, lots of countires have USA bases, all we will be strucked with nukes too... Russia will fall, USA will fall every mayor city, war will continue for years in destructed world...

New Zealand sounds pretty tempting - they have everything you need to live and unless there's a new Hobbit movie, you don't hear anything from there for the rest of the time

Nothing happens where i live.

They also have a lot of listening devices there that will need to be blown up.

Chile is nice and out the way.

remote places

north pole

Yup. I vote Chile also. Good place.







.

Argentina and Chile, that's where the bankers funding the war will be :2 cents:

Need to think about where the wind will take the fallout as well as where will actually be bombed.

Israel, as ZOG won't nuke themselves.

Switzerland would be the safest place. I've read that they have space in underground/mountain bunkers for every citizen, and the alps would provide natural blast shielding. Same goes for every mountainous region I guess - if Poland starts getting attacked seems logical for me to head towards the mountain ranges here...

what good is being a rich banker if anything and everything you enjoyed in life is blown up?

who do you think you are fooling with this bullshit?

USA, Russia, and Europe will be gone. I guess Putin will nuke the Chinese just in case too.

My first thought was Australia, but they might receive a nuke or two as well from the Russians, so that makes them a "maybe." New Zealand, after watching "The top of the lake" I'm not going near that place nukes or no nukes.

That leaves Chile, South Africa, and Argentina.

A rich banker can always buy more stuff to replace what was blown up :2 cents:

south america i would think would be pretty untapped. australia too

I have a flat for rent/sale when nuclear war starts :winkwink:

The west coast of New Zealand's South Island...

You do understand that money will be worthless at that point?

No where would be safe.

When that shit went down in Chernobyl, radiation was everywhere. And that was an accident. And that was an accident. Imagine if the US and Russia start nuking the shit out of each other. No place would be safe. Radiation would be everywhere. Oh, you might live through the first few strikes... but after a few months everything you eat would be deadly.

I'm talking Children of Men rather than Mad Max

Just get the shavel on ur shoulder and start digging lol

Lightning never strikes twice! Nuclear strike may though im not worried about radioactive food as im a big fan of popping candy :1orglaugh

Chile - why?

Indonesia - Why not?

Austalia - I agree, it would be a total waste of ammo.

Canada - Why didn't you mention this? Canadians don't have many enemies and its not THAT close to the USA. It would also be a total waste of ammo, I mean why even bother?

Still scary after all these years.

:2 cents::2 cents:

plenty of places would be safe from radioactivity.

Check it out: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ enter the largest yield possible (the russian tzar bomb 100mt, no one uses these sizes or test them anymore), we all use significantly smaller yield nukes now. And even with the tsar bomb, the fallout isn't that widespread. biggest nukes right now are 1mt, thus minimal fallout and not widespread. plenty of space left.

:)

genius answer.


:1orglaugh

Just stay out of Canuckstikan... Please

Open sea. Buy a boat.

too much water :)

This is a tricky question.

It's not just about the blast radius or fallout, but also about if the country you are in can survive a total breakdown, because their economy will probably collapse and there is also a good chance it won't stop there. Meaning, when they can no longer import certain items (such as medicine), or do they buy power from other countries, where does their water come from, can they survive as a national while being 100% self sufficient, and last... will YOU, the foreigner, be a target should the shit hit the fan.

Obviously, remote is best. But will you be welcome there should there be very little rule of law due to a total economic breakdown caused by the war?

Lots to figure out. Not as easy as you think. A book has already been written on the best places in the USA should it break down, and it loosely touches on places abroad, but there is no solid answer.

Best places in the USA? Holy shit......... I think Russia would be safer than the USA.

As for location and self sufficient so that's why:

Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Indonesia
Malaysia
What about Ireland?
What about Iceland?

Most of these countries are in a good location and most have some level of energy/agricultural independence.

A small country south of the equator.

Maybe you should case study Nazi-Germany or Soviet Union. Although not the only ones. Military steps in, curfews, etc. And there wont be total economic breakdown even in the countries hit. At least there is black market, although everything else may be government controlled, food coupons, etc.

Well that depends. A nuclear war can be a limited exchange, just military targets or select cities, or it could be a full out war. In the case of the latter, you're probably fucked anywhere you go. With a limited exchange, you very well could survive in the USA or Russia if you're in the right place.

I would stay out of places like Indonesia and Malaysia, as they have a very strong Muslim population there and extremism is growing rapidly. You may survive the war, but get beheaded later because your an infidel.

For the other places, you have to look into how they are supported as I posted before. Who makes what, where does their power, water and food come from, can they function on their own should the world fall apart around them, and how are foreigners welcomed there, or how may they be treated without law enforcement. For that part, if you're white, you are probably better off in a white area so you can blend in. You and everyone else will probably be in survival mode, so the last thing you will want to be is an easy target, like the only white guy in a village full of Asians.

I'm in central London ATM - I doubt I would even know there was a war...

Different times. Different situation. Most of these countries now live or die by import / export, including power in some cases and medicine.

If a full nuclear exchange took place, the lights are going off in a lot of places. How long before countries who import their antibiotics run out of them? You think the banks are going to be open? It's going to cause chaos no matter where you are for a while. Eventually, hopefully, the military will step in to get things in order, but where do they buy their weapons, machine parts, and gas/oil from? You can only keep the peace for so long if you can't fuel your vehicles or keep your troops armed. Unless you make your own weapons and ammo, they can only be fired so many times. And so on.

You could break this down on many levels and find problems no matter which way you look, as you're not talking about a simple war, you're talking about complete destruction of infrastructure, ease of commerce, manufacturing, and everything else. There won't be private contractors sent in to rebuild the roads, pipelines, power grid, and on and on.

Using China as an example, they have to import much of their food because they are unable to grow what is needed to feed their population. How is that going to work out for them when they can't get anymore? It's going to be a nightmare. What kind of human rights violations do you think will take place in "safe countries" when the world can not see what is taking place and no on is going to get on their case about it?

Sure, eventually things will work out, but it will take a long, long time.

Yes the southern tip of South America is the best place but you can expect to have to compete with some extremely wealthy and powerful people for resources. My advice would be to get a job as one of their servants:2 cents:

BTW... you are right about black markets. That will happen. You won't have a choice because there won't be banking or a flow of goods at your local store. In the case of the USA, almost everything is imported, so most everything you buy on a day to day basis, even your bananas, are gone immediately.

The US National Guard will step in eventually, but like I said before, when you're out of fuel and have little to no communication, you're not going to be very effective long term. The EMP is going to knock out most communications upon detonation, so it's not like they are going to have the superior upper hand like they do currently. And lets be honest here, how many of them are going to go home to check on their families during such times? Probably a lot of them are going to go AWOL, and I don't blame them.

Vapourized :2 cents:

You really didn't get my point. Antibiotics, banks? Antibiotics are at least on the shopping list, but banks? Come on. Government starts getting for people shelter, food and water, and that point banks are irrelevant (untill much later). Governments don't buy things times like that, they take what they want and totally legally, paying is in somewhere future, if at all.

I don't know about US military, but at least around here army has stockpiles, it doesn't go shopping if we are attacked. Well, actually some weapons must be bought more if war goes on enough long time, but I guess you can manage your own citizens without cruise missiles, etc.

I am quite sure that US military has enough bullets to shoot every American, including the shooting soldiers, but as we are talking about keeping the society up, that is not the case anyways.

You are talking like you would go war against your own country/ government. Also, communication can be kept with simple "messenger guy" system, although not the fastest one, but armies and governments have used that for the most part of humankind's history.

The previously mentioned confiscation (eminent domain) includes labour, like you. You don't need private contractors, you just need people to do the work, whether soldiers or civilians. Army is prepared to make at least bridges, communication and roads, and under fire.

You do what you have to do, we are not talking about some spoiled little girls.

Discussions like this, it's like it's the 1950's and '60's all over again. :(

Thanks Putin.


I think I'll say Winnipeg, right where I am. I mean seriously, what could possibly be gained by nuking Winnipeg? :D

No, would probably have to move north, I'd say northern Canada 'd be about as safe as anywhere.

I'ma go play FALLOUT now...

You are assuming one blast on one city.

I am assuming that if Russia destroys NYC the US will retaliate with forty-eight hours - and then Russia will follow up with yet more nukes. A nuclear strike against the United States would not be anything like the two atomic blasts on Japan in the 1940s; A nuclear strike against the United States would mean all out war. And a nuclear strike against the United States would not just include the continental United States - It would include the Pacific Fleet at Hawaii, Diego Garcia, Japan, and any country the US and NATO has troops. (That's a long list of targets.)

Once a single nuke lets loose, it's game over. There won't be any place to hide.

From what crockett and Mark Prince have said about man-made "climate change"...I would guess that if a nuclear war broke out that it would eclipse all the CO2 from us peasants driving our cars.

So my answer is: According to crockett, ********** and all the global warming alarmists...nowhere would be safe because if me driving a car has doomed the world, a nuclear war would definitely melt the icecaps and FINALLY put the coastline underwater.

And then crockett and ********** can be happy that their doomsday alarmists nonsense came true! lol

Forget the military. Forgot what was done in the past. I'm talking global commerce and trade in the year 2014 and what is going to happen when it ALL stops suddenly. Most nations are dependent on other nations. That will end immediately and cause lots of problems. THAT is my main point. Many buy their power from elsewhere, along with massive food imports, medicine, and so on. All already said in posts above.

Then look at food. Will the ground still be fertile to farm or will it mostly be contaminated? I dunno. Probably depends on where you are. Water sources polluted? Radiation? Lots of variables. You can force all the manual labor onto a problem that you want, but contaminated land isn't going to grow food for people and contaminated water isn't going to help.

Not sure what you are talking about with banks. I said there won't be any. That means, you're not getting your money, which in turn means, unless you have something to sell or trade, you're ass out. Even if you could get your paper, it probably wouldn't matter anyway. At that point it probably won't be worth more than toilet paper, which you will also run out of very quickly.

What are you talking about? I'm not going to war with anyone, I'm telling you what will happen in the USA with the National Guard. Since you're obviously not American, that is the national military unit that is used to protect / help the nation. It is not going to be pleasant should they have to go into an area and keep the peace.


You are talking as if cities are going to be bombed by drones and damage will be minimal. Who is forced or not forced to rebuild is irrelevant. My point is, the world now survives on what it gets from other counties. When you're no longer getting what you need from elsewhere, you're in a world of hurt. And yes, antibiotics will be needed immediately, and if you're country doesn't make their own and are able to get them to the right places, a lot of people will die from other issues, such as a simple infection. I don't know where you are in the world, or what you make there, but not everyone makes their own drugs. In fact, most countries don't.

Sure, the US has plenty of bullets should they need them, but fuel is a limited resource, so is manpower that will be spread out over an enormous stretch of land. You can have warehouses full of weapons, but if you can't keep your vehicles fueled, in the long run, all of those weapons are of no use. But putting that to the side, the US is simply too large to police after an event like that, assuming there is anything left to police. You're talking about a nuclear war, not being hit with cluster bombs from above.

Even if the bombs are smaller these days, there is no telling how many will rain down on a city, or the secondary effects of those bombs and their radiation. Just losing the power grid permanently would be a game changer. I honestly don't even want to think of the chaos that would come after cities went black and stayed that way. Perhaps the Japanese would remain orderly, but Americans... nope. Not a chance. Especially in inner city areas. You'll probably be better off being killed in the blast than have to live in the chaos that would come after.

All of that said, I don't think anyone is dumb enough to go down that road. It would literally mean the end of everything as we know it. Back to living like the Amish, who I may add, will probably not skip a beat after the world around them is turned into rubble. :upsidedow

madagascar

You list problems, I tell solutions. I already read the problems you listed and I replied with solutions. You have problem focused approach, I have solution. I have been in my own country's military and you even mentioning some banks is so funny. For what you would even need money? Government provides you food, shelter and water if you can't get it yourself (as best as it can). You don't have to go shopping and even if there would be some shops left, they would be confiscated. Rights for private property practically ceases to exist for a moment. Even without some nukes, during WWII were food, cars, horses, dogs, etc. "confiscated" in my country. You had food stamps with what you got food.

Also I haven't said that everything would continue as it was (if everything got nuked). So what if we live like Amish? Lucky to be even alive.

About National guard, I am not expert about US military, but last time I looked you had all sorts of military branches, like regular army, navy, marines, air force, etc. Being "pleasant" job or not is fucking irrelevant. You sound again like some little girl.