Sorry to be going against the grain (not) but all this BS about nuclear fallout from atomic bombs is like the climate crisis - scares children and is greatly exaggerated.  But dont tell anyone - Hollywood and all the other media BS will be annoyed.

 

 

And in answer to the question, given Neil is correct and a nuclear WW3 is survivable by those not in/near the blasts, I would look for a location where you can grow/make all your own food and necessities, and where you can either barracade or hide yourself against all the roaming mobs/gangs that will take everything you have and/or kill you. Remote places away from all other modern people (who are toitally dependent on civilisation to give them everything), where the natives will leave you alone if you leave them alone and/or add some value to them - Papua New Guinea? - Remote Outback Australia?  Or an underground bunker with decades of food and water and all the other necessities - but me thinks no one here will be allowed inside 🙂  Maybe all those preppers will finally be happy - until the starving mob arrives and takes everything. 

 

15 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

a nuclear WW3 is survivable by those not in/near the blasts, I would look for a location where you can grow/make all your own food and necessities.

It won't be the radiation that kills most of the population, it will be the nuclear winter, caused by smoke, that will plunge the world into freezing darkness for decades and make it virtually impossible to grow food.

Seethe second post in this thread.

41 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

It definitely sounds like something the numskull would ask. After all he's not the kind of guy who thinks things through, and he probably just assumes that Mar-A-Lago is not subject to radiation. Also, don't forget this is the guy who recommended bleach to get rid of covid, so he might think bleach works for radioactivity too. 

Didnt he also suggest dropping a n uke on a hurricane to make it go away?

 

PH

Thor bought a villa at Tasmania. The real estate goes crazy there. 

Nice to stay in your cozy villa during nuclear winter with leukemia and glowing pets )))

When is it starting ?

 

regards Worgeordie

Tin foil hat 3. 

In a deep underground bunker with about a 200 year supply of needed items.

The Falkland Islands, you wont notice any change.

21 hours ago, KhunLA said:

That didn't take long ... Trump seems to arrive in every thread 

 

Even the measles in FL thread, and the "American Man Found with Bullet Arrested at Phuket Airport"  thread  

Agreed. On many minds as a clear and present danger.

Defo North America.

 

Trump gun fukc yo shizzle up long before you do his !

The most secure location to survive a nuclear holocaust ?

1. the ISS ( international space station ) .

2. Antarktic .

But , even if you survive , would it be a life worth living ...?

There is a way to avoid the nuclear war for a nation capable of genetically developing a lethal ' supervirus ' , like corona ...

At least that would not destroy all of the planet , and leave place for a reboot ...

May be , in some deep underground secret laboratory , they are already working on it ...?

12 monkeys ...

What scares me most are the rabid Christians and Muslims that think they are going to wake up in a better place when they die. Less incentive to not go to war.

1 minute ago, The Old Bull said:

What scares me most are the rabid Christians and Muslims that think they are going to wake up in a better place when they die. Less incentive to not go to war.

 

If I could get some tangible proof on the 72 virgins thing I'd swap over to muzzy faith in a heart beat.

If you can handle living without the amenities the US is probably the safest but you would have to select the right place.

 

The USA has more wilderness are than the entire continent of Africa.

 

Example: Alaska's Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve. At 13.2 million acres, it's larger than Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, and Switzerland combined.

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If NZ were to escape intact, who would be the "people in charge"?

Hint, pick your choice between a group with "power" in their title, or perhaps the ones with "mob" in theirs.

You know who has all the guns, since the law abiding guys handed theirs in.

Law abiding guys still have there guns and there are plenty out there, just not the semi automactic guns. As to who would  be in charge? Who knows and the number of ordinary citizens out number the gangs.

23 hours ago, CharlieH said:

Won't matter, whilst you may escape the blast, you won't escape the nulear winter that follows.

 

All you will do is prolong the inevitable.

I'd rather go in the blast.😁

 

 

 

Kiribati should be safe until the tide comes in  

52 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

If I could get some tangible proof on the 72 virgins thing I'd swap over to muzzy faith in a heart beat.

But what 72 virgins?

Sheep, goats or camels  

29 minutes ago, Grumpy one said:

But what 72 virgins?

Sheep, goats or camels  

They all pink on the inside.

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Danger loving people?

 

The closest to danger most get now is watching thrillers on tv.

 

We do have a lot of sheep though, so there is that.

 

 

Their Leisure centers need an upgrade, a sheep tied to a lamp post is not really my thing.

22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Well you definitely revealed which side of the aisle you're on, with an inane reply like that. 

 

Some of us are trying to keep this forum sane and rational. 

Sorry, you're on a hiding to nothing. More drongos arrive here every day.

2 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

 

If I could get some tangible proof on the 72 virgins thing I'd swap over to muzzy faith in a heart beat.

It depends on how the original expression in archaic Arabic is translated, apparently it could equally be 72 dates or raisins.

Survival will require more than bring able to be food independent during nuclear winters. The biggest world economies will collapse, meaning little to no foreign imports, especially regarding energy, technology, industry, manufacturing materials, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, livestock supplies, pesticides, etc.

SE Asia nations and Pacific islands would be very vulnerable even if able to feed their own populations. Even agriculture might be impacted from blights, mutations, drought.

Realistically, there will be only degrees of safety that itself may become terminal.

On 3/5/2024 at 9:19 AM, spidermike007 said:

This is most definitely a topic most of us would prefer not to think about. A nuclear holocaust is something few of us would escape from, unscathed. I hope it never happens, and that even madmen like Putin, Kim, Netanyahu, and Xi realize there is no upside for anyone.

 

After all, despite the best efforts of visionary men like Musk, we do not have any alternatives planets yet. We should stop behaving as if we do. 

Add trump to the end of your first paragraph.

Safest place in WWIII?  Mar del Plata. Argentina.

 

Why?

 

1.  After the initial explosions, the biggest threat to life will be starvation.  With the supply chains interrupted (or destroyed entirely) anyplace that is not self-sufficient for food supplies will see starvation on a mass scale.  Argentina seems to be the #1 country for food self-sufficiency.

2.  It's a big enough city to have resources, but not big enough to be a target.

3.  I could easily improve my Spanish from rusty/basic to fluent.  Spanish is an easy language to learn and I used to speak it well enough to get by.

4.  The climate is moderate and should be survivable even if it cools or warms by several degrees.

5.  It is far from the starving masses in Asia, Europe or Africa (many African countries are not food self-sufficient and will face mass starvation after the war).

Anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere will be safer than the Northern Hemisphere.

23 hours ago, Old Croc said:

It won't be the radiation that kills most of the population, it will be the nuclear winter, caused by smoke, that will plunge the world into freezing darkness for decades and make it virtually impossible to grow food.

Seethe second post in this thread.

It will not be as bad as that or in the movies - if I recall that panel discussion I saw a while back, the smoke/haze will clear within a year or two (depending on how many bombs dropped). Growing plants under lights is very achievable - power and water would be problemmatic.

1.  There isn't going to be the sort of nuclear exchange that is usually depicted in the "WW3" disaster scenarios used to panic/entertain those who know no better.

 

2. There is going to be no "Nuclear Winter".

 

On 3/5/2024 at 10:25 AM, grain said:

Also remember what Einstein said: “if World War III is fought with nuclear weapons, then World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” 

 

Yes, but he didn't specify that they will no longer be humans but monkeys.

Switzerland

11 minutes ago, indyo said:

Switzerland

Why ?