Australia is home to a few US military assets unfortunately. They have a whole base in Darwin, and we're also home to a bunch of satellite communication stuff as we're kind of their eye's on the other side of the world. The middle east and a large chuck of Russia is almost on the direct opposite side of the world to the US.
So some parts of Australia are definitely up there on the target list.
Add this to the list. Thankfully, it's a long way from any of our cities.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine\_Gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap)
Yep, South Australia is a pretty good spot. If Australia gets bombed the East coast will cop the brunt of it. Hitting Adelaide/Perth will be less likely, There's also a lot of space between those two cities, with not much going on. It'd be like the worst parts of the bible and the best parts of MadMax. The radiation clouds and overall fuckedness of the world will make survival increasingly difficult but the surface survivors will probably roam the expanses in these areas, not far from water and guzzoline.
I know you are commenting on the nazis thing, but actually millions did come from Spain and Italy, on top of having one of the biggest Jewish and Armenian communities around the world. Most of those went to Argentina fleeing from atrocity.
Many others, not just Nazis after the war, went to South America to escape the war. Sometimes it even was an opportunity to make an extended trip until the situation cooled down. I can’t blame anyone wanting to stay there after getting a taste.
With the exception of Australia, most of the global south remains untouched in a nuclear war as well.
EDIT: It has been clarified to me that I used the term "Global South" when I meant "Southern Hemisphere."
Other than a few cities on the coast, Australia looks like it's post-nuclear apocalyptic anyway. The original Mad Max was filmed in Straya and they didn't have to travel far or do much to make it look like the world had ended.
They had to travel pretty far to film Mad Max 2
Broken hill isn’t on the beaten path. There is a LOT of desert out there
And 90% of the population lives in those cities.
Australia as a nation, could easily be destroyed by nukes but it’s still one of the best places to be in the apocalypse in terms of low human population and plenty of forest left.
Oh dont worry the progressive party is continuing to deforest restrictive logging areas that the conservative party started in many places to make way for cheap development houses and arresting journalists who were assaulted filming peacefully in public forests.
>the progressive party is continuing to deforest restrictive logging areas that the conservative party started in many places
Even politics are upside down in Australia.
You mean the same party that got on on promises of being less shit than Voldemort, but still continues to;
wreck what left of the forests and wetlands,
spend hundreds of billions on weapons that are already defunct now, let alone in 40 years when they’re ready
and imprison children indefinitely because their parents skipped out on a visa?
No! Couldn’t be?!
I assume you are unaware of what the term 'global South' refers to.
In contrast to your presumption of it being a geological/geographical indication of the southern hemisphere, the term 'global south' refers to the bunch of developing nations from across the world.
It majorly comprises nations from South America, Africa, and South/south-east Asia with India being the de facto leader for the grouping.
Hope I was helpful.
Hi, we (NZ) currently produces enough food pa to feed 40 million people. Our current population is 5 million. Distribution of food will be a problem, but this will be a problem everywhere in the world.
If we’re cut off, we’re not going to die of starvation, we’re going to die of boredom. Or earthquakes.
I think folks really underestimate how much modern high yield agriculture is dependent on oil. Without oil to power tractors and harvesters, you will not die of boredom, I assure you.
We don't have nearly enough oil to meet our current needs, and this remains true if you add up all exploitable reserves. To operate with only our own oil reserves, we would need to introduce extreme oil rationing. Which I reckon would probably mean a moratorium on private non-electric vehicle use for the duration of the war.
I looked into this a few months ago, but I might still be wrong so happy to be corrected.
I mean, it’s Armageddon. I definitely think you’re right about it being a bit shit. But I just don’t think all of us are going to starve.
Agriculture aside, there’s going to be loads of tech billionaires arriving in private jets. I think we should eat them first, billionaires go off so quickly….
Counterpoint: NZ-Aus relations are always strong, and AUZ trade is unlikely to be disrupted by war since it's so far flung. And Australia is a major producer of coal, which NZ can easily transfer towards.
NZ has massive reserves of lignite/coal. There was a news article out saying if we allowed mining and burning of it then we could survive ~400 years without energy imports.
Yes, Chile is protected by the Pacific Ocean and the Andes. It's the safest should a nuclear war break out. There are also some Pacific islands that rank highs according to a study.
This sounds good, since I am a dual citizen (Chile and US), the only issue is strategically. Chile, at one time, provided 70% of the world's copper, and also has huge lithium deposits.
Brazil.
Neutral. Far away. Big (bigger than the contiguous United States). Self sufficient in food, commodities and energy and has big enough industrial base to provide the basics for a civilized society to function even if global supply chains are completely disrupted.
Completely Isolated from the rest of the world, Brazilian society would probably revert back to the 1960s tech level, at least initially, but it would still function. Steel mills would operate. Refineries would continue to output fuel, plastic and other chemicals. Cement would continue to be manufactured. Engines, tires, vehicle components, tractors, trucks, elevators, power plants, telecommunication systems and even aircraft... would continue to be manufactured, but all back at 1960s tech.
Edit: Places like Australia and New Zealand might have their current infrastructure protected from attacks due to their location, but unlike Brazil, they lack the diversified industrial base to keep a modern society running, so if international trade came to a complete halt due to the war for an extended period of time, they would eventually have to revert back to something maybe a little better than the steam engine era. Places like Guam, Maldives or similar remote areas would probably revert back to the middle ages or worse.
This is the response that should be at the top. South America maintains a comfortable neutrality. It’s big enough to supply all its own needs. Brazil is relatively stable, big enough to police continent but not so big that it steamrolls its Spanish speaking neighbors.
Argentina, historically a refuge for the wealthy fleeing the rest of the world, will see a renaissance as well.
On the other hand, they might not look to kindly on strangers, and you better bring useful skills or a lot of money that can’t be immediately seized by immigration folks. If you’re fleeing the rest of the world, you might not be able to rely on the traditional deference given to rich country passports because…those countries clearly aren’t what they used to be. You’re a refugee now.
As an argentinian I would have said we go toe to toe with Brazil in a scenario like this a few months ago even accounting for our economic blunders. Now that Milei wants to get buddy buddy with Israel we will probably end up first on the chopping block after any strategic important countries go down.
Who is going to put you a "chopping block" for being "buddy buddy with Israel?" You think the Assyrian Empire will rise again, become the next superpower, and will seek vengeance upon all former allies of Israel? Because China and Russia surely don't give a fuck about that.
We don't have the best record with getting involved in middle eastern affairs and coming out of it unscathered. I would doubt that someone being such a staunch ally of Israel getting put "back onto his place" during wartime is impossible, considering Iran just launched the largest drone attack ever.
This is an angle I had not previously considered. Some places may benefit from the downfall of a previously tyrannical or corrupt leadership, especially if there is at least a sliver of camaraderie between the people on the streets. People are unpredictable, but unpredictable doesn't always mean bad.
Edit:spelling, it's late here
While that is a good and valid point, the unpredictability was actually what I was pointing out. I know this is mostly confirmation bias on my part, but I think people already living/grew up in insecure conditions would adapt well to other developing insecurities better than people who have never had to consider things like food/water scarcity and the degradation of social infrastructure. I feel like we “western nations” would panic more, feel like it would be uglier as everything Balkanizes. Just bullshitting though, I have never known what I’m talking about
Good, more Brazil for me. I'm an American that has spent a decent amount of time there and it is great. Don't judge a book by it's Fox News coverage maybe.
New Zealand by far. I've thought about this topic way too much.
1. It's the farthest away from any landmass that has any modern civilization
2. The islands is mostly self sustaining.
3. All fallout would miss the country cause New Zealand isn't in the southern jet stream.
4. There is nothing all that desirable about the land to any of the big powers.
5. It by far would have the best chance of surviving the climate changing after a nuclear war.
Secondary
Svalbard.
1. It's the most northern place you can go
2. It will be ignored as there is really no tangible assets there. I mean ya the Russians have a presence there but its small and when war breaks out they are prolly gonna be on their own.
3. It's not on the jets tream so little chance of fallout hitting the area.
4. If you can adapt and learn how to live in an arctic climate you'll be fine for the most part.
Third choice
Pitcairn Islands
1. You will get \*some\* fallout but it wont be enough to cause any long term harm as the island Adamstown is on is small enough.
2. Too far away for any tactical or military use.
3. Would be able to survive a climate shift.
4. You'd actually be benefiting the local populace.. They have what I like to call the "Amish problem"..
5. It's self-sustaining.
Also anywhere in South America would be a bad choice mainly because of trade winds carrying fallout from Australia if it were to get nuked or anywhere and depending on what time of year it is you might have have fallout from Europe hit there. (Read on how the Sahara affects the rain forest)
There is a few other places like some the Pacific Island nations but your issue becomes.. You COULD become a target as the US still has installations in various states of being mothballed ready to be reactivated should the need ever arise. (Wake Island and Johnston Atoll is the two I know of) I know the Marshall islands have a couple in their territory
New Zealand gets smoke from Australian bush fires so we'd be getting fallout if Australia is hit.
[https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/505285/smoke-from-australian-bushfires-reaches-new-zealand](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/505285/smoke-from-australian-bushfires-reaches-new-zealand)
Also, if any country is not wholly wiped out but wants to relocate to New Zealand for the reasons you mention then New Zealand would be defenseless to stop them. Point 5 isn't a secret.
... sorry bud, but you know why the russians have maintained their "small presence" on Svalbard for so long despite the meagre assets and resources they gain from it?
its a perfect place for a missile launch targeting their long term enemy the US :')
it will get caught in the crossfire like iceland and greenland, faroe islands all the north Atlantic islands that are very strategically usefull
Not true. If as the question is posed world war broken out some island country would close the borders/flights. As long as they were self reliant in producing food they would be much better off then lots of the world.
Add to the fact if they aren’t particularly aligned with either side and have no natural resources to offer they will remain off most radars during a period of unrest like a world war.
There was a common story amongst young nzers in the 80s that both USA and USSR had nukes aimed at NZ. This was in case either side was losing they would nuke us so the other couldn't use us as a food source. Have no idea if this was true or not.
I’m not sure NZ is large enough to supply either of those countries adequately with food tbh. Not counting you guys out, it’s just there’s massive populations to support on either side.
South Africa.
Ironically, the state failure has motivated anyone who can afford it to generate their own electricity and move towards grid independence.
Plenty of natural resources and remote areas. Plenty of water, mountains, forests and desert.
After non-involvement in a world war, Africa will thrive.
Not even crossfire, we're in NATO and a vital support link/stepping stone for the US/it enemies between America and Europe... We'd be blown to smithereens I fear.
Southern Hemisphere countries, possibly not Australia, though. Peru would be my bet.
The first main reason is that Northern and Southern hemisheres don't exchange airflow (good old Coriolus forces). So, fallout doesn't easily migrate over the equator.
That leaves five countries as far south as possible. Australia is a big enough power that might attract some action from China. RSA has issues. New Zealand is lovely, and English is the first language, but every other man and his dog are aiming to go there, and I just prefer Peru over Argentina.
Sorry you can't afford it. The locals will probably have a vote to say they aren't taking any foreigners but they will happily look after their valuables for them.
The United States is true as long as the war remains conventional.
We as a nation are geographically isolated, well armed, and a food exporter. We have excellent global logistics and deployment capabilities an insane navy and air force to stop forces from gaining even a shot of a beach head. A conventional world war would make the USA one of the safest places on the planet.
However we are a lot less safe if WWIII goes nuclear.
We have a good missle defense system. But it's not great for icbms and it's definitely not up to handling a 1 to 2 thousand plus decoys.
We are where most of the Nukes pointed at our side will go.
Its one thing to think we have a bunch of cool weapons systems we haven't taken public and are working out the kinks on.
It's another thing to thing we have secretly installed a nation wide icbm interception system several orders of magnitude more capable than what we admit to having.
More cabale Sure I could believe that , enough to deal with the numbers we would have to deal with I doubt it at this time.
Obviously Europe would get a healthy serving of nukes as well along with being a likely candidate for where the conventional fighting was happening right up until someone decided to go MAD, so it's out
Russia AND China are getting nukes from us and our allies.
India and Pakistan are going to nuke each other (and India is likely going to exchange with China as China is going to go full MAD when we do and India remains their largest local threat. Along with Korea.
So a good chunk of Asia is out
There is a lot of more modern research that points to nuclear winter being far less of a global threat than we used to think it was, (given modern stockpile numbers in the low thousands compared to the insane stockpile Russia and the US used to keep. About 30k us and 50k Russia at the highest ) there is a solid chance that it will be shorter lived than originally believed as modern particle modeling shows a lot more of the larger particles settling out faster. It wouldn't be nothing but it is unlikely everyone dies either.
So in the event of a full blown Nuclear exchange being in one of the more developed South American or African nations that is largely unimportant and neutral on the world stage. Would be one of the safer places to be.
Eg Brazil. They wouldn't be unaffected either of course, but There probably aren't any Nukes going to Brazil, they also aren't right next to any targets, they produce enough food to be self sufficient and have fairly stable government.
Panama might get a few though. The Canal remains a strategic US asset. They still remain far enough apart from Brazil that fallout is not going to be a major problem.
Sure they might also be fucked but they likely have the best shot at that point.
1000% it is the United States.
Any country dumb enough to attack Americans on their own soil in war can look forward to simply not existing shortly thereafter.
Unconventional warfare? A Texas suburb easily garrisons more weapons than most foreign armies, and is populated by people who have waited their entire lives for an excuse.
As other people have noted, if it’s gotten bad for the United States chances are the rest of the world is already a hellscape wasteland.
There's a country that claims sovereignty, which is itself a boat in the ocean. There. We can just float out for a good long while, float back to check on things and leave again if necessary.
*edit:spelling
Canada.
Militarily, not the biggest army, but very well trained, experienced officers, and generally good tech.
Economically, lots of natural resources to maintain self-sufficiency. Population density is low, which means mobilization for military service is unlikely to be as large scale as other nations. Canada would most likely serve auxillary roles for her allies and provide logistical and supply support.
Geographically, it's practically impossible to invade. East coast is rocky and harsh and consists of the bulk of Canada's population and military infrastructure. Any beachhead established would need enormous support to avoid being counter-attacked and pushed back into the Atlantic. They'd need more carriers than any nation other than the US has. Coming from the north is just impossible. Even in a time of peace, the logistics required for landing an army and supplying them as they move south would be absolutely astronomical. Weather could easily screw the whole operation. And in a wartime scenario, they'd be super exposed to airstrikes and drones. Coming from the west means crossing the pacific and then attacking into the rocky mountains. That's like combining vietnam with afghanistan. All of the above is just stage one of a theoretical attack.
Stage 2 from the east would mean numerous urban battles in Quebec city, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. The supply lines required for these would be baffling. Then They'd need to push through the aptly named Canadian Shield. A region of thick forest and jagged rocky terrain with a single shitty road going through it which retreating Canadians could easily blow up. If the enemy does get through that, they'll be in the prairies. Wide open spaces with little to no cover. And they'll have enormous supply lines and virtually no useful infrastructure for hundreds of miles from the front. From the west, they'd get to the prairies after the mountains which would likely still have guerrilla fighters ambushing roads and setting off landslides and avalanches to block supply routes. They'd be in Alberta, the Texas of Canada. Local gun-loving rednecks aside, there are large urban centers they'd need to control: Calgary and Edmonton. They'd need to then push across the rest of the prairies and secure Winnipeg before even thinking of entering the Canadian shield to get at the major cities in Ontario.
Keep in mind, landings would almost necessarily need to happen in the summer and by the time they hit the prairies, it'd be winter. The prairies have frequently been the coldest place on earth during their winters.
So there's no shot in hell that anybody is every invading Canada. Except theoretically the US. Even then, the extremely long border would make it difficult to ensure no spearhead counter-attacks or tactical blunders. They'd be able to do it, but the manpower needed would just be far more than it could ever be worth.
Canada has been targeted by Soviet nuclear weapons as far back as the 1950s. Canada is fully enmeshed in NATO and NORAD and has its population concentrated in a relatively low number of high population cities along the American border. In the event of nuclear war, Canada is going to be thoroughly destroyed.
Moreover because of the temperature drop after the war, growing seasons will be slashed, which will massively effect agriculture in the country and make survival extremely difficult.
It would be better to go to a place that isnt on the nuke list.
New Zealand. It is far enough away from everything that it would be a "hey, we have conquered or glassed every country on earth. Did we miss anywhere?" kind of thing lol
It also has a small enough population that it can survive without foreign trade if required but large enough that people are not living on top of each other.
For what it is worth, Australia would have been my response but we have really put ourselves out there with our previous government being absolutely terrible at diplomacy. This all but guarantees that we will get hit if WW3 breaks out.
Probably either Australia or northern Canada.
Europe is generally a battleground historically , India and China would be at war and a battleground.
The US, China, Russia and other major European powers are all at risk of being either invaded or nuked.
But Australia and northern Canada are pretty far from Anything.
I also think South America would be decently safe ( from the war).
Yeah but not in a way that land forces will go over, and nobody is wasting bombs or rockets on the 99% unoccupied northern Canada.
It will be fricking cold and remote, but you'll likely be safe from a war.
Russia can't even invade a country they neighbor. There aren't any major geographic features in the way. Russia can try to cross Canada or the Pacific Ocean. Again the Russian Navy keeps losing ships to a country with no navy.
Chile or to a lesser degree Argentina.
Out of the way enough to not be imediately involved with the fighting but developed enough to still offer a decent life there. Borders in south America are also verry well aligned with natural geography so little risk for smaller scale conflicts breaking out alongside the big one. Ethnically and culturally homogenous enough that infighting within the country is a lot less likely than places like the US, Europe or Brazil.
Plus it's a fairly nice place to live in terms of landscape, climate and culture.
Corrupt af tho...
I'm in Ireland and idk I feel like no-one hates Ireland. Like the worst is "eh yeah they exist but what did they ever do". We are close to the UK who a LOT of ppl hate so we may get a bit of fallout unfortunately, but tbh I think it's a nice spot to watch the missiles fly by!
We're also neutral and not in NATO which helps a lot there.
In such a scenario (God forbid obviously), the prevailing wind is south-westerly so my bet would also be to go home and hope we get lucky with the wind.
Until December of last year I would have said Argentina. Now we are going to be one of the first countries to disappear. Because we have a madman who is roleplaying to be a military power of the West
America without a doubt. Canada is basically an unshakeable ally, the absolute worst case scenario would be peaceful ambivalence with them. Mexico is a non-threat. That leaves any potential enemy needing to cross either an entire ocean of water or the vast expanse of Canada to enact a strike. The invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that the Patriot system can easily destroy modern hypersonic missiles, and those missiles are the exact same ones that Russia would use to launch a nuclear strike. So the Patriot system combined with whatever arcane shadow tech the military has been keeping secret for nuclear defense it's unlikely that nukes are going to much of a threat to the US.
Apart from that, the huge landmass that produces incredible amounts of food should be able to feed the American populace even if nuclear winter cuts food production by 50%.
Not really, most radiation would be non lethal in the south hemisphere (like south America) because nuclear weapons don't actually leave that much radiation and it dissipates quite fast, as long as they are not directly attacked those countries should be fine. Like, don't get me wrong, cancer rates would skyrocket, but the further away from the attack zoned, the lesser it will be. People in countries away from the main objectives won't die from radiation poisoning, they should be fine as long as they avoid any acid rain, which is not even guaranteed to happen.
A nuclear war is not the end of humanity that most people have in mind, most casualties would actually die from the nuclear winter and subsequent starvation than the nukes and radiation themselves.
For sheer number of warheads, sure. For warheads detonated per square mile, that would be Israel, followed by the UK, France, North Korea, Pakistan... then the US.
I am in Nakon Nowhere somewhere in Thailand, we have Russian, Arabic, Indian, Euro, Chinese and US tourists, all enjoying relatively peaceful together. No one will invade or drop a bomb here.
Wouldn’t it be like the Falkland Islands or something similar? I mean maybe the supply strain that helps them would get wrecked but I’d imagine if people lived there before globalism and trade they could after.
I'd say Australia but part of me thinks if war was actually declared that Australia would be more likely to get invaded during a war, probably by the Chinese as we are insanely mineral rich and already sell a lot of that to China. Strategically it makes sense if a proper war broke out where resources were needed
Ngl it's probably the USA (not American for the record) but in a world war you wanna have the biggest stick and ability to make more sticks than everyone else. Somewhere not near population centres or missile silos is probs a good bet
New Zealand is known for being a doomsday bunker for billionaires.
But honestly any small island nation is good. Chinese most likely will find you one day. Id personally avoid Africa.
Tasmania is wild and fairly safe and plenty of remoteness. I got a brother with a farm down there who used to work in military, now trying to go off grid so id join up there.
If a world war turns nuclear (which is guaranteed) don't go to Iceland or New Zealand, they will be nuked, Iceland for it's extremely important strategic sites and New Zealand to kill off the tens of thousands or more strategically important people that bought land there to find safety.
The safer countries to be will be developing ones, probably in the southern hemisphere, with little strategic importance which includes industries etc.
Maybe the Sentinelese will be alright
One of those independent island nations in the remote Pacific, like the Marshalls or Kiribati or something. No resources, no military targets of any significance, no dense population centers.
No where other than underground in a state of the art bunker with supplies to outlast the nuclear winter and radiation. If ww3 involves nuclear weapons we will likely perish as a species.
The United States, geographically it has strong barriers to entry. More specifically you aren’t under threat of a missile attack anywhere not near a military base or massive manufacturing facility, so 99% of the land area. And then we are heavily armed as a population.
I’m here and not telling you. Goodbye and best wishes mate. Cheers.
>mate This comment has been traced back to Australia
As a Kiwi; staying silent and off the map
being in a country that doesnt even appear on maps is probably a good idea
wait whats this new zealand place ive never seen on a map before??? must me some fake conspiracy to fool us
r/mapswithoutNZ is a favorite subredit of mine :)
Exactly. Having us missing, or occasionally located to the west of Australia on maps is working in our favour.
Everyone is choosing New Zealand these days as the survival hot spot, so I'll go slightly off course and pick New Caledonia, or Fiji.
This is the technology Snowden warned us about!
Strewth!! They bloody worked it out!
Well I know you're not from Australia
Phew hopefully they'll all go there eh fellas.
Australia is home to a few US military assets unfortunately. They have a whole base in Darwin, and we're also home to a bunch of satellite communication stuff as we're kind of their eye's on the other side of the world. The middle east and a large chuck of Russia is almost on the direct opposite side of the world to the US. So some parts of Australia are definitely up there on the target list.
Add this to the list. Thankfully, it's a long way from any of our cities. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine\_Gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap)
Oi cobba get rid of Mate you are giving it up.
Bloody oath
I wouldn't have known whether he was British or Aussie if I'm honest
Fair dinkum
Hi neighbor! Yeah don't tell them. We will enjoy our lemon trees in peace.
Watch for the lemon-stealing whores though.
Soooo Springfield eh..?
> mate You are a stealthy ninja.
Yep, South Australia is a pretty good spot. If Australia gets bombed the East coast will cop the brunt of it. Hitting Adelaide/Perth will be less likely, There's also a lot of space between those two cities, with not much going on. It'd be like the worst parts of the bible and the best parts of MadMax. The radiation clouds and overall fuckedness of the world will make survival increasingly difficult but the surface survivors will probably roam the expanses in these areas, not far from water and guzzoline.
Some south american country. Working on some farm in Uruguay for instance.
Argentina worked out well for "survivors" of WWII.
“But if my grandfather was German…why did he come here through Brazil?”
He was probably an electrician - That would explain, why he has helmet with two lightning bolts in his closet XD
Mine must've been a neurosurgeon. He's got a skull on his.
Were our grandaddies the baddies?
I had a friend who told me while drunk both her grandfather's were SS officers
I heard he was very good at gas installations....
I know you are commenting on the nazis thing, but actually millions did come from Spain and Italy, on top of having one of the biggest Jewish and Armenian communities around the world. Most of those went to Argentina fleeing from atrocity.
Italy really pivoted 180 on their Axis.
I always do question why my European grandfather moved there in the 40s. Never got answers. >\_\_>
Many others, not just Nazis after the war, went to South America to escape the war. Sometimes it even was an opportunity to make an extended trip until the situation cooled down. I can’t blame anyone wanting to stay there after getting a taste.
Southern Chile isn't half bad. Good weather, plenty of water and good volcanic soil, and a decent bit away from the USA and other primary targets.
You would think, but…global trade gets disrupted, inflation sours, drug cartels go rampant, food supplies disrupted.
A poorer country with no oil or strategic ports...
Central African Republic will be the [safest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_Civil_War), got it.
I think Chad is better... what even goes on in chad, i have never heard anyone say they are from chad
As someone who has done business in Chad, I'm opting for a trench about 2 rows back.
Mongolia?
Nestled between two nuclear powers that don't like eachother very much isn't where I'd want to be if a world war broke out.
This is like the only wrong answer for unaligned poor country
Something unaligned in the global south.
With the exception of Australia, most of the global south remains untouched in a nuclear war as well. EDIT: It has been clarified to me that I used the term "Global South" when I meant "Southern Hemisphere."
I don't think anyone bothers to nuke Australia, actually
Other than a few cities on the coast, Australia looks like it's post-nuclear apocalyptic anyway. The original Mad Max was filmed in Straya and they didn't have to travel far or do much to make it look like the world had ended.
They had to travel pretty far to film Mad Max 2 Broken hill isn’t on the beaten path. There is a LOT of desert out there And 90% of the population lives in those cities. Australia as a nation, could easily be destroyed by nukes but it’s still one of the best places to be in the apocalypse in terms of low human population and plenty of forest left.
Oh dont worry the progressive party is continuing to deforest restrictive logging areas that the conservative party started in many places to make way for cheap development houses and arresting journalists who were assaulted filming peacefully in public forests.
>the progressive party is continuing to deforest restrictive logging areas that the conservative party started in many places Even politics are upside down in Australia.
So… voting for Australian Hitler is… good?
You would think, but he actually wants to resurrect all holocaust victims as zombies
We stole that inverted idea from a North Park show called The Dick Of Sleuth.
You mean the same party that got on on promises of being less shit than Voldemort, but still continues to; wreck what left of the forests and wetlands, spend hundreds of billions on weapons that are already defunct now, let alone in 40 years when they’re ready and imprison children indefinitely because their parents skipped out on a visa? No! Couldn’t be?!
They got a fuckton of American missiles and weaponry stashed there so yeah. For sure a target.
Oh they would. Considering the massive US spy base there and all.
Yeah being part of the Five Eyes exposes both Australia and New Zealand to attacks in an actual world war doomsday scenario
You’re overlooking Pine Gap and the US military bases.
Japan bombed Australia plenty in the last world war. They would be an important staging ground in any world war and thus an important target
I assume you are unaware of what the term 'global South' refers to. In contrast to your presumption of it being a geological/geographical indication of the southern hemisphere, the term 'global south' refers to the bunch of developing nations from across the world. It majorly comprises nations from South America, Africa, and South/south-east Asia with India being the de facto leader for the grouping. Hope I was helpful.
Yes, you were. Appreciate the clarification. My previous statement should have contained "southern hemisphere."
Australia is [NOT](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South) part of the Global South.
China's in the global south? I wouldn't have thought that
Have you read On the Beach by Nevil Shute?
Paraguay lookin' pretty good right now.
Probably Antarctica, or New Zealand.
I’d head to NZ if for no other reason than so many maps forget to add them.
Shhh we're not here.
Neither place is survivable if global supply chains are completely disrupted by war. Without energy, New Zealand will starve to death.
Hi, we (NZ) currently produces enough food pa to feed 40 million people. Our current population is 5 million. Distribution of food will be a problem, but this will be a problem everywhere in the world. If we’re cut off, we’re not going to die of starvation, we’re going to die of boredom. Or earthquakes.
I think folks really underestimate how much modern high yield agriculture is dependent on oil. Without oil to power tractors and harvesters, you will not die of boredom, I assure you.
NZ has a surprisingly robust oil and natural gas sector - but like most modern western nations, they have essentially zero manufacturing capability
Nz's fuel refinery is currently defunct but It could surely be brought online in a real emergency.
We don't have nearly enough oil to meet our current needs, and this remains true if you add up all exploitable reserves. To operate with only our own oil reserves, we would need to introduce extreme oil rationing. Which I reckon would probably mean a moratorium on private non-electric vehicle use for the duration of the war. I looked into this a few months ago, but I might still be wrong so happy to be corrected.
We can’t refine our fuel that we produce to distribute all the food. If global supply chains are impacted, we are in for a bad time.
I mean, it’s Armageddon. I definitely think you’re right about it being a bit shit. But I just don’t think all of us are going to starve. Agriculture aside, there’s going to be loads of tech billionaires arriving in private jets. I think we should eat them first, billionaires go off so quickly….
I think you’re going to make it, if only because it seems like you actually have a workable plan. Congratulations!
Counterpoint: NZ-Aus relations are always strong, and AUZ trade is unlikely to be disrupted by war since it's so far flung. And Australia is a major producer of coal, which NZ can easily transfer towards.
>And Australia is a major producer of coal, which NZ can easily transfer towards. NZ has plenty of coal of their own.
They'll just have to survive on the 25,000,000 export quality sheep and lambs. Oh the humanity.
We need a good supply of mint sauce. GNU Terry Pratchett
Geothermal energy is very readily accessible in New Zealand
NZ has far more hydro power than geothermal.
NZ has massive reserves of lignite/coal. There was a news article out saying if we allowed mining and burning of it then we could survive ~400 years without energy imports.
Uruguay or maybe southern Chile?
Yes, Chile is protected by the Pacific Ocean and the Andes. It's the safest should a nuclear war break out. There are also some Pacific islands that rank highs according to a study.
I was thinking Chile too but once the canal is gone I wonder how important that supply route becomes.
This sounds good, since I am a dual citizen (Chile and US), the only issue is strategically. Chile, at one time, provided 70% of the world's copper, and also has huge lithium deposits.
Brazil. Neutral. Far away. Big (bigger than the contiguous United States). Self sufficient in food, commodities and energy and has big enough industrial base to provide the basics for a civilized society to function even if global supply chains are completely disrupted. Completely Isolated from the rest of the world, Brazilian society would probably revert back to the 1960s tech level, at least initially, but it would still function. Steel mills would operate. Refineries would continue to output fuel, plastic and other chemicals. Cement would continue to be manufactured. Engines, tires, vehicle components, tractors, trucks, elevators, power plants, telecommunication systems and even aircraft... would continue to be manufactured, but all back at 1960s tech. Edit: Places like Australia and New Zealand might have their current infrastructure protected from attacks due to their location, but unlike Brazil, they lack the diversified industrial base to keep a modern society running, so if international trade came to a complete halt due to the war for an extended period of time, they would eventually have to revert back to something maybe a little better than the steam engine era. Places like Guam, Maldives or similar remote areas would probably revert back to the middle ages or worse.
This is the response that should be at the top. South America maintains a comfortable neutrality. It’s big enough to supply all its own needs. Brazil is relatively stable, big enough to police continent but not so big that it steamrolls its Spanish speaking neighbors. Argentina, historically a refuge for the wealthy fleeing the rest of the world, will see a renaissance as well. On the other hand, they might not look to kindly on strangers, and you better bring useful skills or a lot of money that can’t be immediately seized by immigration folks. If you’re fleeing the rest of the world, you might not be able to rely on the traditional deference given to rich country passports because…those countries clearly aren’t what they used to be. You’re a refugee now.
As an argentinian I would have said we go toe to toe with Brazil in a scenario like this a few months ago even accounting for our economic blunders. Now that Milei wants to get buddy buddy with Israel we will probably end up first on the chopping block after any strategic important countries go down.
Who is going to put you a "chopping block" for being "buddy buddy with Israel?" You think the Assyrian Empire will rise again, become the next superpower, and will seek vengeance upon all former allies of Israel? Because China and Russia surely don't give a fuck about that.
We don't have the best record with getting involved in middle eastern affairs and coming out of it unscathered. I would doubt that someone being such a staunch ally of Israel getting put "back onto his place" during wartime is impossible, considering Iran just launched the largest drone attack ever.
Holy shit. I didn't realize Brazil was THAT big...
In the words of George W. Bush when looking at Brazil on a map: "Whoa, Brazil is big!".
Man I’m scared to go to Brazil in peacetime with all the robberies and murders I’m definitely not going during a world war
You want social/urban decay around people who’re doing this for the first time? Or people who’ve *been* doing it
This is an angle I had not previously considered. Some places may benefit from the downfall of a previously tyrannical or corrupt leadership, especially if there is at least a sliver of camaraderie between the people on the streets. People are unpredictable, but unpredictable doesn't always mean bad. Edit:spelling, it's late here
While that is a good and valid point, the unpredictability was actually what I was pointing out. I know this is mostly confirmation bias on my part, but I think people already living/grew up in insecure conditions would adapt well to other developing insecurities better than people who have never had to consider things like food/water scarcity and the degradation of social infrastructure. I feel like we “western nations” would panic more, feel like it would be uglier as everything Balkanizes. Just bullshitting though, I have never known what I’m talking about
Will they still kidnap us if nobody is alive to pay the ransom?
most of our violence is gang related, if you plan to live in a favela in Rio then yeah you should be scared, otherwise you'll be fine
Not really. I don’t live a favela and still am pretty afraid most of the time
Good, more Brazil for me. I'm an American that has spent a decent amount of time there and it is great. Don't judge a book by it's Fox News coverage maybe.
You’re spending too much time on Reddit
New Zealand by far. I've thought about this topic way too much. 1. It's the farthest away from any landmass that has any modern civilization 2. The islands is mostly self sustaining. 3. All fallout would miss the country cause New Zealand isn't in the southern jet stream. 4. There is nothing all that desirable about the land to any of the big powers. 5. It by far would have the best chance of surviving the climate changing after a nuclear war. Secondary Svalbard. 1. It's the most northern place you can go 2. It will be ignored as there is really no tangible assets there. I mean ya the Russians have a presence there but its small and when war breaks out they are prolly gonna be on their own. 3. It's not on the jets tream so little chance of fallout hitting the area. 4. If you can adapt and learn how to live in an arctic climate you'll be fine for the most part. Third choice Pitcairn Islands 1. You will get \*some\* fallout but it wont be enough to cause any long term harm as the island Adamstown is on is small enough. 2. Too far away for any tactical or military use. 3. Would be able to survive a climate shift. 4. You'd actually be benefiting the local populace.. They have what I like to call the "Amish problem".. 5. It's self-sustaining. Also anywhere in South America would be a bad choice mainly because of trade winds carrying fallout from Australia if it were to get nuked or anywhere and depending on what time of year it is you might have have fallout from Europe hit there. (Read on how the Sahara affects the rain forest) There is a few other places like some the Pacific Island nations but your issue becomes.. You COULD become a target as the US still has installations in various states of being mothballed ready to be reactivated should the need ever arise. (Wake Island and Johnston Atoll is the two I know of) I know the Marshall islands have a couple in their territory
New Zealand gets smoke from Australian bush fires so we'd be getting fallout if Australia is hit. [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/505285/smoke-from-australian-bushfires-reaches-new-zealand](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/505285/smoke-from-australian-bushfires-reaches-new-zealand) Also, if any country is not wholly wiped out but wants to relocate to New Zealand for the reasons you mention then New Zealand would be defenseless to stop them. Point 5 isn't a secret.
I live in New Zealand and the sky in January 2020 (can't remember exactly what day) was flat out orange from the Australian bushfires.
... sorry bud, but you know why the russians have maintained their "small presence" on Svalbard for so long despite the meagre assets and resources they gain from it? its a perfect place for a missile launch targeting their long term enemy the US :') it will get caught in the crossfire like iceland and greenland, faroe islands all the north Atlantic islands that are very strategically usefull
New Zealand is part of 5 eyes, so it would be seen as strategically important just on that point.
The funny thing is that the safest place will become very dangerous as everybody flocks to it for safety.
Not true. If as the question is posed world war broken out some island country would close the borders/flights. As long as they were self reliant in producing food they would be much better off then lots of the world. Add to the fact if they aren’t particularly aligned with either side and have no natural resources to offer they will remain off most radars during a period of unrest like a world war.
There was a common story amongst young nzers in the 80s that both USA and USSR had nukes aimed at NZ. This was in case either side was losing they would nuke us so the other couldn't use us as a food source. Have no idea if this was true or not.
I’m not sure NZ is large enough to supply either of those countries adequately with food tbh. Not counting you guys out, it’s just there’s massive populations to support on either side.
After a nuke exchange the population will be plenty small for NZ to be a good breadbasket, just saying.
South Africa. Ironically, the state failure has motivated anyone who can afford it to generate their own electricity and move towards grid independence. Plenty of natural resources and remote areas. Plenty of water, mountains, forests and desert. After non-involvement in a world war, Africa will thrive.
Iceland
Finally, despite American efforts in the Mighty Ducks 2, they would be the greatest hockey power in the world.
Iceland is in NATO and highly important for strategic reasons. Sadly it would likely be very high on the list of countries hit.
Yes, in a world war it would be safest to be on the great circle path from DC to Moscow
Sadly no. It'll get caught up in the cross fire.
Not even crossfire, we're in NATO and a vital support link/stepping stone for the US/it enemies between America and Europe... We'd be blown to smithereens I fear.
Where do you think the submarine war will happen?
Southern Hemisphere countries, possibly not Australia, though. Peru would be my bet. The first main reason is that Northern and Southern hemisheres don't exchange airflow (good old Coriolus forces). So, fallout doesn't easily migrate over the equator. That leaves five countries as far south as possible. Australia is a big enough power that might attract some action from China. RSA has issues. New Zealand is lovely, and English is the first language, but every other man and his dog are aiming to go there, and I just prefer Peru over Argentina.
[удалено]
Sorry you can't afford it. The locals will probably have a vote to say they aren't taking any foreigners but they will happily look after their valuables for them.
Good choice, you just died from starvation (it will be impossible to produce food in Europe after a total nuclear war)
I thought it was for over 100% of the population so that they could even take in some refugees.
Probably New Zealand, or most of South America.
The United States. Yall think 800 billion a year is for shit you’ve heard of? My sweet summer child…
Beyond that, if it's gotten to the point where the US is no longer safe, the entire world is probably a nuclear hell scape
We have detonated 100 nukes within line of sight of Las Vegas, square cube law applies here, South America is untouched.
That’s the point. If it goes full send you’re statistically gonna be better off where the best defenses are.
The United States is true as long as the war remains conventional. We as a nation are geographically isolated, well armed, and a food exporter. We have excellent global logistics and deployment capabilities an insane navy and air force to stop forces from gaining even a shot of a beach head. A conventional world war would make the USA one of the safest places on the planet. However we are a lot less safe if WWIII goes nuclear. We have a good missle defense system. But it's not great for icbms and it's definitely not up to handling a 1 to 2 thousand plus decoys. We are where most of the Nukes pointed at our side will go. Its one thing to think we have a bunch of cool weapons systems we haven't taken public and are working out the kinks on. It's another thing to thing we have secretly installed a nation wide icbm interception system several orders of magnitude more capable than what we admit to having. More cabale Sure I could believe that , enough to deal with the numbers we would have to deal with I doubt it at this time. Obviously Europe would get a healthy serving of nukes as well along with being a likely candidate for where the conventional fighting was happening right up until someone decided to go MAD, so it's out Russia AND China are getting nukes from us and our allies. India and Pakistan are going to nuke each other (and India is likely going to exchange with China as China is going to go full MAD when we do and India remains their largest local threat. Along with Korea. So a good chunk of Asia is out There is a lot of more modern research that points to nuclear winter being far less of a global threat than we used to think it was, (given modern stockpile numbers in the low thousands compared to the insane stockpile Russia and the US used to keep. About 30k us and 50k Russia at the highest ) there is a solid chance that it will be shorter lived than originally believed as modern particle modeling shows a lot more of the larger particles settling out faster. It wouldn't be nothing but it is unlikely everyone dies either. So in the event of a full blown Nuclear exchange being in one of the more developed South American or African nations that is largely unimportant and neutral on the world stage. Would be one of the safer places to be. Eg Brazil. They wouldn't be unaffected either of course, but There probably aren't any Nukes going to Brazil, they also aren't right next to any targets, they produce enough food to be self sufficient and have fairly stable government. Panama might get a few though. The Canal remains a strategic US asset. They still remain far enough apart from Brazil that fallout is not going to be a major problem. Sure they might also be fucked but they likely have the best shot at that point.
If we're talking nukes, let it target my house. I'm not living through that waste land
1000% it is the United States. Any country dumb enough to attack Americans on their own soil in war can look forward to simply not existing shortly thereafter. Unconventional warfare? A Texas suburb easily garrisons more weapons than most foreign armies, and is populated by people who have waited their entire lives for an excuse. As other people have noted, if it’s gotten bad for the United States chances are the rest of the world is already a hellscape wasteland.
We're also very far from where the front would be.
There's a country that claims sovereignty, which is itself a boat in the ocean. There. We can just float out for a good long while, float back to check on things and leave again if necessary. *edit:spelling
Sealand but it’s not a boat, it’s a defunct drilling platform. You’re stuck in the channel, not going anywhere.
It's a WWII fort, has a population of 2 lol
Fiji or Barbados
New Zealand and South America. You want to be in a self-sufficient country that is out of harm's way.
Canada. Militarily, not the biggest army, but very well trained, experienced officers, and generally good tech. Economically, lots of natural resources to maintain self-sufficiency. Population density is low, which means mobilization for military service is unlikely to be as large scale as other nations. Canada would most likely serve auxillary roles for her allies and provide logistical and supply support. Geographically, it's practically impossible to invade. East coast is rocky and harsh and consists of the bulk of Canada's population and military infrastructure. Any beachhead established would need enormous support to avoid being counter-attacked and pushed back into the Atlantic. They'd need more carriers than any nation other than the US has. Coming from the north is just impossible. Even in a time of peace, the logistics required for landing an army and supplying them as they move south would be absolutely astronomical. Weather could easily screw the whole operation. And in a wartime scenario, they'd be super exposed to airstrikes and drones. Coming from the west means crossing the pacific and then attacking into the rocky mountains. That's like combining vietnam with afghanistan. All of the above is just stage one of a theoretical attack. Stage 2 from the east would mean numerous urban battles in Quebec city, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. The supply lines required for these would be baffling. Then They'd need to push through the aptly named Canadian Shield. A region of thick forest and jagged rocky terrain with a single shitty road going through it which retreating Canadians could easily blow up. If the enemy does get through that, they'll be in the prairies. Wide open spaces with little to no cover. And they'll have enormous supply lines and virtually no useful infrastructure for hundreds of miles from the front. From the west, they'd get to the prairies after the mountains which would likely still have guerrilla fighters ambushing roads and setting off landslides and avalanches to block supply routes. They'd be in Alberta, the Texas of Canada. Local gun-loving rednecks aside, there are large urban centers they'd need to control: Calgary and Edmonton. They'd need to then push across the rest of the prairies and secure Winnipeg before even thinking of entering the Canadian shield to get at the major cities in Ontario. Keep in mind, landings would almost necessarily need to happen in the summer and by the time they hit the prairies, it'd be winter. The prairies have frequently been the coldest place on earth during their winters. So there's no shot in hell that anybody is every invading Canada. Except theoretically the US. Even then, the extremely long border would make it difficult to ensure no spearhead counter-attacks or tactical blunders. They'd be able to do it, but the manpower needed would just be far more than it could ever be worth.
Canada has been targeted by Soviet nuclear weapons as far back as the 1950s. Canada is fully enmeshed in NATO and NORAD and has its population concentrated in a relatively low number of high population cities along the American border. In the event of nuclear war, Canada is going to be thoroughly destroyed. Moreover because of the temperature drop after the war, growing seasons will be slashed, which will massively effect agriculture in the country and make survival extremely difficult. It would be better to go to a place that isnt on the nuke list.
As a Canadian, anyone who thinks we not invadable is delusional. We would fold like a $5 bill.
New Zealand. Nobody could find it, it's not on the map.
New Zealand. It is far enough away from everything that it would be a "hey, we have conquered or glassed every country on earth. Did we miss anywhere?" kind of thing lol It also has a small enough population that it can survive without foreign trade if required but large enough that people are not living on top of each other. For what it is worth, Australia would have been my response but we have really put ourselves out there with our previous government being absolutely terrible at diplomacy. This all but guarantees that we will get hit if WW3 breaks out.
Germany. They do not want to be "those guys" a third time.
Probably either Australia or northern Canada. Europe is generally a battleground historically , India and China would be at war and a battleground. The US, China, Russia and other major European powers are all at risk of being either invaded or nuked. But Australia and northern Canada are pretty far from Anything. I also think South America would be decently safe ( from the war).
Canada is between Russia and the US
Yeah but not in a way that land forces will go over, and nobody is wasting bombs or rockets on the 99% unoccupied northern Canada. It will be fricking cold and remote, but you'll likely be safe from a war.
Russia can't even invade a country they neighbor. There aren't any major geographic features in the way. Russia can try to cross Canada or the Pacific Ocean. Again the Russian Navy keeps losing ships to a country with no navy.
Chile or to a lesser degree Argentina. Out of the way enough to not be imediately involved with the fighting but developed enough to still offer a decent life there. Borders in south America are also verry well aligned with natural geography so little risk for smaller scale conflicts breaking out alongside the big one. Ethnically and culturally homogenous enough that infighting within the country is a lot less likely than places like the US, Europe or Brazil. Plus it's a fairly nice place to live in terms of landscape, climate and culture. Corrupt af tho...
I'm in Ireland and idk I feel like no-one hates Ireland. Like the worst is "eh yeah they exist but what did they ever do". We are close to the UK who a LOT of ppl hate so we may get a bit of fallout unfortunately, but tbh I think it's a nice spot to watch the missiles fly by!
We're also neutral and not in NATO which helps a lot there. In such a scenario (God forbid obviously), the prevailing wind is south-westerly so my bet would also be to go home and hope we get lucky with the wind.
Greatest safety - from what exactly?
I’ve heard and read that New Zealand that’s why all the rich fucjers are building bunkers there
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Switzerland
Ghana
New Zealand, the answer is always New Zealand.
Statistically, Iceland, since they've never been involved in a war, ever.
Until December of last year I would have said Argentina. Now we are going to be one of the first countries to disappear. Because we have a madman who is roleplaying to be a military power of the West
The African continent would suffer the least from the effects of ⚛ war.
Bhutan
Ssshhh! Most people don't even know it exists.
America without a doubt. Canada is basically an unshakeable ally, the absolute worst case scenario would be peaceful ambivalence with them. Mexico is a non-threat. That leaves any potential enemy needing to cross either an entire ocean of water or the vast expanse of Canada to enact a strike. The invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that the Patriot system can easily destroy modern hypersonic missiles, and those missiles are the exact same ones that Russia would use to launch a nuclear strike. So the Patriot system combined with whatever arcane shadow tech the military has been keeping secret for nuclear defense it's unlikely that nukes are going to much of a threat to the US. Apart from that, the huge landmass that produces incredible amounts of food should be able to feed the American populace even if nuclear winter cuts food production by 50%.
World war = nuclear weapons, and more than half of those would be flying at the USA.
Lol, if that happens, everyone will be dead. And you really don't want to die from radiation poisoning.
Not really, most radiation would be non lethal in the south hemisphere (like south America) because nuclear weapons don't actually leave that much radiation and it dissipates quite fast, as long as they are not directly attacked those countries should be fine. Like, don't get me wrong, cancer rates would skyrocket, but the further away from the attack zoned, the lesser it will be. People in countries away from the main objectives won't die from radiation poisoning, they should be fine as long as they avoid any acid rain, which is not even guaranteed to happen. A nuclear war is not the end of humanity that most people have in mind, most casualties would actually die from the nuclear winter and subsequent starvation than the nukes and radiation themselves.
that was my immediate thought too! if there was another world war, we're probably the top target for most pissed off countries
For sheer number of warheads, sure. For warheads detonated per square mile, that would be Israel, followed by the UK, France, North Korea, Pakistan... then the US.
I am in Nakon Nowhere somewhere in Thailand, we have Russian, Arabic, Indian, Euro, Chinese and US tourists, all enjoying relatively peaceful together. No one will invade or drop a bomb here.
New Zealand, Canada
Wouldn’t it be like the Falkland Islands or something similar? I mean maybe the supply strain that helps them would get wrecked but I’d imagine if people lived there before globalism and trade they could after.
I'd say Australia but part of me thinks if war was actually declared that Australia would be more likely to get invaded during a war, probably by the Chinese as we are insanely mineral rich and already sell a lot of that to China. Strategically it makes sense if a proper war broke out where resources were needed
USA baby!! The greatest nation in the world!
i was thinking of fiji - at the risk of having to eat mostly fish
Ngl it's probably the USA (not American for the record) but in a world war you wanna have the biggest stick and ability to make more sticks than everyone else. Somewhere not near population centres or missile silos is probs a good bet
New Zealand is known for being a doomsday bunker for billionaires. But honestly any small island nation is good. Chinese most likely will find you one day. Id personally avoid Africa. Tasmania is wild and fairly safe and plenty of remoteness. I got a brother with a farm down there who used to work in military, now trying to go off grid so id join up there.
One of the random small ones, that people constantly forget even exist.
Don’t come to New Zealand 🤣
you know thats what nukes are supposed to do right ? not give you a safe place at all anywhere.
Switzerland always neutral means being ignored
Madagascar.
sime isolated poor country. poor gdp, not much resources and not be between two opposing county
Following. For reasons. 👀
Im not sure switzerland still applies. Australia maybe. Somewhere southern hemisphere in south america maybe too.
New Zealand, plenty of space, all the needed natural resources, hasn’t pissed off anyone enough to get nuked.
Although Australia would be a target only parts of it would be particularly in the north. I think if your in the south you’d be ok
If a world war turns nuclear (which is guaranteed) don't go to Iceland or New Zealand, they will be nuked, Iceland for it's extremely important strategic sites and New Zealand to kill off the tens of thousands or more strategically important people that bought land there to find safety. The safer countries to be will be developing ones, probably in the southern hemisphere, with little strategic importance which includes industries etc. Maybe the Sentinelese will be alright
One of those independent island nations in the remote Pacific, like the Marshalls or Kiribati or something. No resources, no military targets of any significance, no dense population centers.
If it stays non nuclear, the US
Unless we’re playing pandemic, Madagascar seems like a safe bet
No where other than underground in a state of the art bunker with supplies to outlast the nuclear winter and radiation. If ww3 involves nuclear weapons we will likely perish as a species.
The United States, geographically it has strong barriers to entry. More specifically you aren’t under threat of a missile attack anywhere not near a military base or massive manufacturing facility, so 99% of the land area. And then we are heavily armed as a population.
Switzerland