Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This message board sees a plethora of lists of varying merit. This is an interesting one and some may find it worthy of consideration. While I disagree with them strongly regarding the safety of serveral nations mentioned, e.g., Malta, I did find some some food for thought in other listings.
There are some other places that come to mind as well, e.g., Svalbard which is now part of Norway but covered by special laws because of the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. One of these laws allows immigration along with permanent residency and the ability to take a job or start a business with no government permission needed. Taxes are far lower than the rest of Norway because Svalbard is not part of the Norwegian welfare state.
The idea of fleeing to the great beyond is very attractive and financially possible for many of us. It's another survival strategy that could be worthwhile, particularly since the United States has become both the most bellicose and most hated nation in the world under its present ruler. No matter how rational and competent his successor is, it will take many years to undo the damage.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,949,132 times
Reputation: 16466
I think New Zealand should be #1, followed by Chile and Argentina. They are out of fall out patterns and are hard to get to. Fiji is tiny islands surrounded by the need for a really big boat.
Nothing in europe, it would be a giant glowing hole second only to the US, Russia, China and the mid east.
WWIII? All it would take is for one nuclear missile to be launched before it became a free-for-all with a "Get them before they get me" attitude. My suspicion is that the over riding requirement to survival is the absence of winds that would carry the lethal radiation to your domicile.
I have not studied global wind patterns. Common sense indicates that areas like New Zealand, the Arctic/Antarctic and some other highly isolated areas may be spared.
Due to how amazingly bellicose our government has become, my vote would be to ratchet up the nuclear winter threat to slightly better than a 50/50 chance.
I might go on but that would take us in a political direction....always a cause for division.
Actually, we're fighting WWIII right now: battlegrounds or attacks in CA, NY, Amsterdam, Paris, all across N,W & E. Africa, the whole MIdEast and into Malaysia. Some of the traitors in our elected offices have failed to call it that.
Those of us who remember The Cold War probably also remember this discussion. Nuclear attacks, it was surmised, would be mainly in the N hemisphere and there is little circulation of prevailing winds between N & S hemispheres, therefore, nuclear fallout would be predominantly a problem for the N. hemisphere. "Nuclear Winter" is a theoretical consideration, but would probably be less of a problem than the weather changes caused by natural events like large volcanoes which we survive regularly.
Also consider that our northern mountain and plains regions are sparsely populated and unlikely to be targets of any nuclear devices. One of the surprising conclusions of the medical studies after the WWII nuclear attacks on Japan was that victims were either close enough to ground zero to be vaporized, a little farther away and were badly burned (probably succumbing to infectious processes so devastating to burn victims) or far enough away not to be directly affected by the explosion, but receiving enough radiation to do genetic damage:mainly leukemia and some thyroid ca, both very treatable today. There were surprisingly few cases of genetic defects passed on to the next generation. It's probably because most germ cell damage would cause infertility of that line of cells.
Islands of the S. Pacific, while remote and difficult to get to for invaders, are also difficult to flee from by the invadees.
BTW- 20 yrs after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, the environment has returned to normal. Twenty yrs is but a single heart beat in the life of Gaia. Patience is a virtue.
"Also consider that our northern mountain and plains regions are sparsely populated and unlikely to be targets of any nuclear devices"
These regions also happen to be where we located a large percentage of our nuclear arsenal. States like Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, and Alaska. ICBM silos are going to be targeted. As will the northeastern megalopolis and other nerve centers.
"Nuclear Winter" is a theoretical consideration, but would probably be less of a problem than the weather changes caused by natural events like large volcanoes which we survive regularly."
In the 70's, experts felt that nuclear radiation from a WWIII event would be potent enough to wipe out the world population 17 times over....a pretty thorough eradication by most measurement. Since then, bombs and missiles have done nothing but grow in efficiency.
Hmm, still don't have a place then to go do we all, period, no?
I'd stay USA though -- not foreign lands. But in the US, I still think the Pac NW (not the coastal areas there like Portland & Seattle areas -- nor anywhere less than 200 miles at least east of them) would be best. I know many here think otherwise but the southern US east to west would have encroachment from foreigners here coming into US Lastly then the NE US areas would get the whole mid-Atl. states migrating north, til hitting the north border of Canada & there -- the Canadian gov't will turn US folks away.
So, ahem, anyone have a real solution or is this just conjecture & really has no fixed endpoint or answer? Hmm...
A single nuclear detonation in one of these cities?
Washington DC
New York City
Moscow
Tel Aviv
Berlin
London
Tokyo
Shenghai
Hong Kong
Colorado Springs/NORAD
Seattle
Paris
...and others
The retaliation would be massive. MAD....mutually assured destruction. Like when my dogs get in a farting contest. j/k
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinzas
once the nukes fly, wind patterns will change, dramatically, Many nukes will go astray, too. A few nuke detonations mean nothing. Between the US and Russia, we fired off over 250 ABOVEGROUND nukes, with no provable harm done by the test sites. We could neutron nuke every Muslim city and have almost zero problems from the radiation, while saving trillions of $ and thousands of lives per year.
The idea of fleeing to the great beyond is very attractive and financially possible for many of us. It's another survival strategy that could be worthwhile, particularly since the United States has become both the most bellicose and most hated nation in the world under its present ruler. No matter how rational and competent his successor is, it will take many years to undo the damage.
OK, think also that Money won't mean squat. What you have may have value, but money won't be accepted for food. "Gas, a$$ or grass" to coin a phrase will be the "New norm"
Having said that, I'd rather get wiped put at the beginning as the end ain't fun to get there starving to death.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,949,132 times
Reputation: 16466
My TP stash is going to be worth it's weight in gold.
And my gold hoarde is going to be worth it's weight in AMMO!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
