TEACHERS DISCUSSION FORUM
Return to Index › WW3: What place on Earth would be the safest?
#1 Parent Caring - 2015-12-07
Re WW3: What place on Earth would be the safest?

J, Ecuador sounds reasonable, although in my opinion nations around it may not rest in peace in case of such a war. Moreover, the possible resources of oil in the area may be targeted by powers in need of energy.

As for northern Canada, Greenland or any Northern Hemishpere nation, I'd second what Silverboy has mentioned in his post on this topic. The effects off all the firepower, radiation etc may become hard to live with anywhere there. Russia, for example, with one bomb, which it apparently has in its arsenal, would wipe out the whole NY state in seconds. Such a firepower must be strong enough to be damaging for either the Northwest Territories or Greenland.

On the other hand, NZ that is far down in Southern Hemishpere on its own may more likely be untouched by the consequencies of all the nuclear war in the Northern Hemishpere. This nation has some fine mountains and farming to offer which both could come handy during such a global tragedy in which food may disappear quickly. Perhaps, Silverboy, who I have read somewhere is from NZ, may enlighten the forum with the kiwi (and sheep) choice.

#2 Parent jables - 2015-12-07
Re WW3: What place on Earth would be the safest?

These guys are ridiculous. There are a lot of places that would likely be entirely untouched by the next world war. People who don't think too deeply are going to key in on where nukes would be falling and wind patterns to spread (low doses of) radiation and (theoretical) nuclear ashes around. While not worth ignoring altogether, you should also be worried about the collapse of consular services and economic pressures from rich countries to cause otherwise safe states to turn hostile to any obviously foreign persons. Especially if that country has a history or a longstanding fear of being colonized by people from your country or by people who look like you.

If I had to recommend a place to duck out to last minute I'd say Ecuador. Easy immigration policies, low population, moderate climate, insignificant strategically and in terms of resource wealth. They're politically uninteresting as well. They're multicultural enough that if you're white, black, east or west Indian or latino, you shouldn't have any issues blending in. Backup ideas include low population territories of greater powers. Anywhere in northern Canada, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland should give you a remote enough and sufficiently under-populated setting that it wouldn't be worth anybody's time to either attack those places, or to come there to conscript you.

Caring - 2015-12-05
WW3: What place on Earth would be the safest?

The geopolitical situation is increasingly becoming more complex and dangerous than ever before since WW2. The current events around The Ukraine and Turkey pose a measurable threat to all of us. Although nobody seem to want a war, the war appears to want us. The amounts of firepower in the arsenal of a few nations is alarming. So, how could we survive, and where would it be best to go prior to the conflict of course? Either The US or Canada would obviously not be the best options, but Australia or New Zealand could provide some chances. I'd go even further to some South Pacific island nations that would probably not be of an interest to the trigger happy nuke managers. Anyhow, what do you reckon gents? Shed a light for my family, if you can :}

Return to Index › WW3: What place on Earth would be the safest?





Go to another board -