What Country Would Be The Safest If There Was A Third World War

Discussion in 'News, Current Events, and Politics' started by EarlAlexander, May 25, 2017.

What Country Would Be The Safest If There Was A Third World War 5 5 1votes
5/5, 1 vote

  1. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    I have been figuring out the safest country to stay if there was a third world war, Australia would have been the safest because of its size and military advantage but due to its relationship with world power and its military contribution to world peace it will not stay neutral in the conflict. The safest country would be a country that is an island and far from the actual theater of war and that would be Madagascar in Africa.
     
  2. Kanagirl

    Kanagirl New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    With the weaponry we have today, I'm having a hard time deciding. I would consider somewhere in South America. Brazil, possibly. They don't usually clash with the major players anywhere else. They have their own issues, but not on a nuclear bomb level.
     
  3. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Yah,Brazil would be safe if they decides to play a neutral role in the outbreak of ww3. They will have to avoid sales of ammunition to any side or even goods and services.
     
    Kanagirl likes this.
  4. working3

    working3 New Member
      3/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Canada? It's always safe when I go. Canadians have stable, old money. Plus, their military is pretty solid. I love our country but I would make my way to Canada. I once went to a corner store in Vancouver at like 2 am and it was super safe. There were no homeless people on the street, the block was quiet, the convenience store clerk didn't have a sketchy look in his eye. In fact, that guy looked genuinely happy to be up and at work at that hour. So I grabbed some stuff and walked back to my hotel. It was amazing. I was thinking that I would have been mugged instantly if that were New York. I wouldn't even dream of going out in a city like Ny at that hour by myself. I vote Canada.
     
  5. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    NONE OF THEM!

    Radiation will spread everywhere in dangerous levels.

    The eco-system will suffer for a long time.
    Only the cockroach can survive radiation.
     
  6. Kanagirl

    Kanagirl New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    That's a very grim outlook. You still have to go into this believing you have a chance. Otherwise, what's the point in any of this? The money put towards ammo, food, and supplies today could buy me a lot of really pretty shoes. But I'm not prepared to give up before I even start. These questions are important to think about and answer to yourself so you can look at this from the right angle and be better suited to survive, regardless of the odds. I live in TN. Look on a map at the western ky/TN border. You'll see a big green area labeled LBL (land between the lakes). It's a massive area with nothing but unoccupied land. You could live there for years without being found, if you're careful. I already know that in the event of a civil war (or any war fought on our soil), this is where my family will be. I have the exact spot picked out. If I hadn't asked these questions I would be huddled in a corner in my home, waiting for my family to get slaughtered, instead. The trees won't protect us from a nuke, but if I want to try my best to survive anything else, I have to have this planned out. I can't just assume we're screwed no matter what.
     
    MountainCutie likes this.
  7. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I'm not giving up either but in an all out nuclear war we'd all be in very deep doo-doo.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-mankind-survive-a-nuclear-winter

    ^^^ a definite maybe.
    There simply isnt enough strategic weapons to even cause enough damage or cause “nuclear” winter. By 2017, the US and Russia, by terms agreed upon by the new START Treaty, will be limited to about 1500 and 1700 deployable strategic weapons retrospectively.

    It says.

    I'm in N.E. Ohio where many nuclear weapons would strike.
    Cleveland 60 miles to the north, Pittsburgh, a major steel producers, just 40 miles to the south east.
    Add the nuclear power plants less than hours driving distance and it's bleak for me.

    I'd bug in and try to cope with nuclear fallout as best I could.
    I've read that window glass helps against some radiation and placing an inch of newspaper over windows
    can help.
    I hope it never comes to that.
    Civilization could be pushed backwards a hundred years.
    I'm no expert so I dunno.

    Thoughts?


    [​IMG]
     
  8. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Canada is really a peaceful country according to most of my conducted researches because i have not been there in person unlike NY,its because New York has more population and has enough business attracting more people.
     
  9. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Actually, its true but there must be survivors, due to the threatening atmosphere people are preparing for any global conflict in case of nukes and radiation.
     
  10. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Prepping is why I am here and you also.
    I just don't think prepping will be me much good in industrial N.E. Ohio and so close to
    steel city Pittsburgh.
    IF smaller tactical nukes were used then maybe.

    I'll prep as best I can, prepare for the worse and hope for the best.
     
    Kanagirl likes this.
  11. Kanagirl

    Kanagirl New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I pray the 'powers that be' will be intelligent enough to not go the "nuclear bomb" route. It's suicide if they do. And I realize the odds will not be in my favor if they do... regardless of prep. Other than Russia, I stay optimistic that, worst case scenario, they will stick with nothing greater than a thermobaric. If that's the case, I stick with my "somewhere in South America" answer. As close as we are are Lockheed Martin I don't know if anywhere around here is safe, at all.
     
    jeager likes this.
  12. Nela Civobeg

    Nela Civobeg New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Pretty much anywhere that modern world and big leaders haven't laid their hands or eyes. South America was a good example, Australia as well, although I believe Africa would be the safest bet, in case you prepare yourself for possible problems and life threatening situations too.
     
  13. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Curious?
    How would one living in the U.S./Canada etc. get to Africa, South America, etc. in a shtf situation?

    If there is a global shtf, and I doubt there will be, I'm bugging in where I know I'm fairly safe
    and have the weapons/ammo to keep me that way.
    Now saying that I'm not going to turn away starving, injured, people either.
    After all I do have a heart, values, conscious, and a God I believe in.
     
    MountainCutie likes this.
  14. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member
      77/99

    Blog Posts:
    0
    There is radiation all around us the mantal on a lantern is radioactive we have radioactive dust all around hell we dropped a atom bomb by mistake on South Carolina we have tested all over the place stress will kill you.
     
  15. Dan Collyer

    Dan Collyer New Member
      3/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I would get my ass over to New Zealand, a nice stable country that rarely pisses anyone off.
     
    MountainCutie and Kanagirl like this.
  16. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      171/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    In live in the United States. We, deliberatly, don't live anywhere near a primary or secondary target. There are a couple tertiary targets within driving distance, but if they were hit, the fallout dispersal is unlikely to impact us. That said, we are still set up to shelter in place should radiological fallout become an issue.

    The point is to prepare now. The threat is real, but with some basic preparations in the form a properly shielded shelter, adequate supplies, the know how, and determination, it is possible survive an atomic exchange.
     
  17. kamar19

    kamar19 New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Honestly I would say Canada or even the US. Canada doesn't have many enemies around the world, and the US has so many recourses, I don't think I would pick anywhere other then North America.
     
  18. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    If there were an all out nuclear exchange all major U.S. cities would be targeted.
    I live between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.
    A very hot zone I think.
    Everyone looses in a nuclear war.
    It would put mankind backwards at least 150 years.
    That's a guess on my part.
    Thoughts?
     
  19. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      171/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    On most fallout dispersal maps, that area would be targeted and would be subject to a lot of fallout. One cautionary note; those maps are all hypothetical. And some are based upon faulty assumptions like most warheads being ground burst, when in reality most would be airburst.

    That said, indeed, full nuclear exchange is "the sum of all fears". Major cities would be simply wiped off the map. Critical infrastructure would be gone. Distribution systems would collapse. The economy, as we know it, would no longer exist. The rule of law would, at least in the short term, be gone. Without functional sanitations systems and medical care, disease would spread rapidly.

    But by most projections, the majority of the population would survive the initial attack. They would be faced with the daunting task of rebuilding a shattered nation.
     
  20. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    A daunting task it would be!
    I pray it never comes to that.
    India and Pakistan might slug it out but I hope not.
    Then there is crazy fat l'il Kim of North Korea.
    It seems there are always insane leaders than think war settles things.
    Japanese expansionism, Hitler the mad man, Stalin who WAS paranoid schizophrenic, lead to
    at least 20 million dead of his own countrymen.
    No one will ever know the true cost in humans lives.

    Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).[1] The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.[2] The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totalled 50 to 55 million,
    ^^

    From wiki.

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    Einstein.

    I've read that in a nuclear war people in large cities can survive in subways and sewers.
    By eating each other!

    My paternal grandmother had a hand signed letter from President Roosevelt
    for having 4 sons in combat.
    3 in Europe and 1 in the Pacific.
    All came home. All badly wounded. All confirmed alcoholics. All died from Alcohol
    related issues.
    "Shell shock" we know today as p.t.s.d. It was basically untreated in combat
    vets until Viet Nam.

    My uncle Ernest never once even touched a gun when he got home.
    He couldn't even stand to kill a mouse.
    I have severe p.t.s.d. and alcoholism.
    I no longer drink and from time to time see a p.t.s.d. counselor.
    A also attend A.A. 5 X a week.
    I must survive ya know.
    Some police officers go the entire career and never see a violent death other
    than traffic.
    Some, like me, see far, far too much.
    I don't want any more.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  21. BethSztruhar

    BethSztruhar Member
      18/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Hungary? Nobody knows who we are and where we are. :p
    Without joking: I have no idea. Our Country would be affected because our Prime Minister is on Putin and Trump's side. So if there would be a war, even if I'm prepped, I have no idea where would I go, if I'd want to find a safe Country.
     
  22. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    War is indeed terrific, it is one of the worst thing to experience in life, but if it cannot be avoided it has to be faced. Biafra , where igbos in eastern Nigeria were killed or should i say genocides, without the world doing anything, instead they were all pursuing their own interest. War is really a mess. I strongly dont think the world would be saved from destruction if hit by another global conflict.
     
  23. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Africa would have been the a bit safe in the case of a global conflict but world powers or the main combatant of the conflict will always make Africa their battleground. Africa has always been affected in a war that does not involve them because it is always brought to them, their lands and resources. In the two global conflict witnessed by the world centuries back, Africa was always used as a key position during the battles even when they are not benefiting from it. So i don't really think it would be safe, even if it is, maybe not too long
     
  24. OursIsTheFury

    OursIsTheFury Expert Member
      138/149

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Russia survived countless invasions because of its harsh winter environment. It took down the likes of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and even the German forces in the World War. You can't really bide your time because attrition as well as the weather will eat up your troops before you could even reach the farthest cities from the capital. Russia is also huge with lots of population and manpower. Lots of lands to traverse too, so trying to take over that country would be more of a nuisance rather than a glorious objective. History has made it clear that it is unconquerable.
     
  25. kgord

    kgord Member
      18/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    To be honest, parts of the US and Canada are quite isolated. I think I would be quite safe here in the event of some sort of nuclear crisis, one of the reasons for this is that nobody knows where we are! I think especially if you are in the West, where the territory is vast you would be pretty safe!
     
  26. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Yah, you said it all. Russia may seems unconquerable or can stand and invasion depending on what is being used for the attacks. Japan was not invaded in the second world war but the atomic bomb changed history in the Pacific.
     
  27. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    If I recall correctly Russia was set to invade Japan when we dropped the the bomb.


    The Russians never invaded Japan during world war two, it was quite the opposite. The Japanese invaded the soviet union twice, the first time it was 1937 and the last time it was 1940/1941. The Japanese were beaten back with heavy losses both times due to heavy fire power from Russian tanks-artillery -infantry. A Russian General unknown at this time would become well known after the battle of Moscow /Stalingrad and Kursk-Marshal Georgi Zhukov.
    after the Germans had been beaten back the Russians had full intentions of helping the allies beat the japs. the allies prohibited the soviets from doing this because this might have interfered with the dropping of the a-bomb. However, Russia did invade Japan-occupied land during the invasion of Manchuria, which was under Japanese occupation at the time.
    http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Russia_invade_Japan_in_World_War_2
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  28. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      171/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Amen, my friend. I hope that all our knowledge of nuclear survival remains academic, now and in our children's future. I remember a time a while ago in which I had a family member calibrate my CD geiger counter. After he was done he said "all set ... here's hoping you never have to use this." Yes, indeed.
     
  29. Tom Moll

    Tom Moll New Member
      1/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Colorado won't be safe at all
     
  30. Arkane

    Arkane Master Survivalist
      275/297

    Blog Posts:
    0
    If the world go's nuclear most nukes will be detonated in the northern hemisphere!
    There is only a 5-10% atmospheric exchange rate at the equator!
    And fallout has a halflife of approx. 7 hours!

    The time it takes and the exchange rate then the dispersal rate means that the southern hemisphere will re relatively safe fallout wise!
    Any local nukes will not be good for the locals but in the southern hemisphere if you aint near a local detonation you are relatively safe!
     
  31. jeager

    jeager Expert Member
      195/198

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Not all the fallout has a short half life and the radiation left after 7 or so hours
    is still quite poisonous.
    The danger of radiation from fallout also decreases with time, as radioactivity decays exponentially with time, such that for each factor of seven increase in time, the radiation is reduced by a factor of ten. For example, after 7 hours, the average dose rate is reduced by a factor of ten; after 49 hours, it is reduced by a further factor of ten (to 1/100th); after two weeks the radiation from the fallout will have reduced by a factor of 1000 compared the initial level; and after 14 weeks the average dose rate will have reduced to 1/10,000th of the initial level.

    Exposure to radiation levels high enough to damage living cells prior to
    "half life" is likely fatal.
    Not that people would drop dead in mere hours, but in weeks of agonizing
    radiation poisoning.
    Survival is possible depending upon where a person is and how far from
    radioactive fall out.
    Study up on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Only gradually did the world realize that, even if you can safely walk through the ruins of a bombed city soon afterward, the effects of a nuclear attack continue to show up for years.

    There was plenty of lethal fallout in the form of "ashes of death" and "black rain," but it was spread over a fairly wide area.

    People with few apparent injuries would suddenly develop ghastly symptoms — hair loss, purple skin blotches, and bloody discharge from various orifices were among the more obvious — and die soon after. Of the 103,000 people estimated by the U.S. military to have been killed by the bombs, 36,000 died a day or more after the blasts.

    It is still debated by many, mostly snowflakes, that we should not have used
    the bombs.
    Clearly the Japanese weren't going to surrender and an invasion of the main
    islands could have cost an estimated 1,000,000 deaths on all sides.
    Civilians were told by the Imperial Government that allies raped babies,
    sucked the eyes out of living women, even ate children boiling them alive.
    Thus the massive suicides amount the civilian populace.
    Also little known is the fact that just prior to surrender the Japanese military
    had over 700 aircraft fit for one way suicide missions.
    It almost happened. Die hard Japanese military were going to attack the
    allied fleet AFTER the official surrender.
    A total WWIII would be devastating, survivable by some I'd think but
    it would be a hard life.
    I think humanity would be set back at least 100 years.
     
  32. Ystranc

    Ystranc New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Truthfully it's a little difficult to predict where the bombs will drop but I would expect the Southern Hemisphere to be safer from radioactive fallout. There are fewer nuclear powers in the Southern Hemisphere and much less crossover of weather systems then most people would expect. Second choice would be an isolated offshore island like Tristan d Cuna because although they would have a great chance of surviving in the short term they could not be self reliant in the long term.
     
  33. pioneerauthor

    pioneerauthor Member
      18/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    As a matter of facts, no country would be safe if there was a third world war, although some countries might be safer than the others around the world. Why is it that no single country would be the safest place to stay in the occurrence of the third war? It's because it wouldn't be like the first and second world wars.

    The third world war would be a type that no country, no matter how advanced in technology, would be able to withstand. In the third world war, the soldiers of the entire world would be involved and these are the people who were trained by those countries.
     
Loading...

Share This Page