Mixing
Best places to be on Earth when an all out nuclear war breaks out?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What countries would be the least likely to get nuclear bombed or have fallout if a full nuclear exchanged occurred? With the hypersonic UCBMs there is only minutes to get to a safe place. So it would be best to just live there. Which country has a good economy and be the least likely to be included in World War III directly or indirectly? This country has a nuclear war plane that is followed out so there is already preset countries that are going to get a nuking in that event for doing nothing unless changed.
Is there a anti-war map or a shaded map showing the safest areas on Earth?
Also consider flooding if it is an asteroid and not nuclear.
Noah's flood actually happened. When does science prove that it happened?
This is a world building question in a preventative context because those people or countries would be left fully functional while others gone and that is where the world building would begin.
science-based reality-check survival map-making nuclear
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What countries would be the least likely to get nuclear bombed or have fallout if a full nuclear exchanged occurred? With the hypersonic UCBMs there is only minutes to get to a safe place. So it would be best to just live there. Which country has a good economy and be the least likely to be included in World War III directly or indirectly? This country has a nuclear war plane that is followed out so there is already preset countries that are going to get a nuking in that event for doing nothing unless changed.
Is there a anti-war map or a shaded map showing the safest areas on Earth?
Also consider flooding if it is an asteroid and not nuclear.
Noah's flood actually happened. When does science prove that it happened?
This is a world building question in a preventative context because those people or countries would be left fully functional while others gone and that is where the world building would begin.
science-based reality-check survival map-making nuclear
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
2
You start your question by saying “land mass†and then switch to “countryâ€Â. Which do you mean? Antarctica is the safest land mass from nuclear war, but is not a country.
– Mike Scott
5 hours ago
@MikeScott got it thanks
– Muze
4 hours ago
I don't get why are you using the map making tag
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
Well, who are the combatants on this nuclear war?
– Sasha
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What countries would be the least likely to get nuclear bombed or have fallout if a full nuclear exchanged occurred? With the hypersonic UCBMs there is only minutes to get to a safe place. So it would be best to just live there. Which country has a good economy and be the least likely to be included in World War III directly or indirectly? This country has a nuclear war plane that is followed out so there is already preset countries that are going to get a nuking in that event for doing nothing unless changed.
Is there a anti-war map or a shaded map showing the safest areas on Earth?
Also consider flooding if it is an asteroid and not nuclear.
Noah's flood actually happened. When does science prove that it happened?
This is a world building question in a preventative context because those people or countries would be left fully functional while others gone and that is where the world building would begin.
science-based reality-check survival map-making nuclear
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
What countries would be the least likely to get nuclear bombed or have fallout if a full nuclear exchanged occurred? With the hypersonic UCBMs there is only minutes to get to a safe place. So it would be best to just live there. Which country has a good economy and be the least likely to be included in World War III directly or indirectly? This country has a nuclear war plane that is followed out so there is already preset countries that are going to get a nuking in that event for doing nothing unless changed.
Is there a anti-war map or a shaded map showing the safest areas on Earth?
Also consider flooding if it is an asteroid and not nuclear.
Noah's flood actually happened. When does science prove that it happened?
This is a world building question in a preventative context because those people or countries would be left fully functional while others gone and that is where the world building would begin.
science-based reality-check survival map-making nuclear
science-based reality-check survival map-making nuclear
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
edited 2 hours ago
Renan
32.6k768167
32.6k768167
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
asked 5 hours ago
Muze
530322
530322
2
You start your question by saying “land mass†and then switch to “countryâ€Â. Which do you mean? Antarctica is the safest land mass from nuclear war, but is not a country.
– Mike Scott
5 hours ago
@MikeScott got it thanks
– Muze
4 hours ago
I don't get why are you using the map making tag
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
Well, who are the combatants on this nuclear war?
– Sasha
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
You start your question by saying “land mass†and then switch to “countryâ€Â. Which do you mean? Antarctica is the safest land mass from nuclear war, but is not a country.
– Mike Scott
5 hours ago
@MikeScott got it thanks
– Muze
4 hours ago
I don't get why are you using the map making tag
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
Well, who are the combatants on this nuclear war?
– Sasha
27 mins ago
2
2
You start your question by saying “land mass†and then switch to “countryâ€Â. Which do you mean? Antarctica is the safest land mass from nuclear war, but is not a country.
– Mike Scott
5 hours ago
You start your question by saying “land mass†and then switch to “countryâ€Â. Which do you mean? Antarctica is the safest land mass from nuclear war, but is not a country.
– Mike Scott
5 hours ago
@MikeScott got it thanks
– Muze
4 hours ago
@MikeScott got it thanks
– Muze
4 hours ago
I don't get why are you using the map making tag
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
I don't get why are you using the map making tag
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
Well, who are the combatants on this nuclear war?
– Sasha
27 mins ago
Well, who are the combatants on this nuclear war?
– Sasha
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
New Zealand. Nowhere in the southern hemisphere is a likely target for nuclear weapons, but New Zealand is further south than any other countries except Chile and Argentina, has a stable economy and government, a temperate climate, and is self-sufficient in food. It’s also far enough from anywhere else that it’s unlikely to be swamped with refugees from further north.
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Europe, North America and Asia will get bombed into oblivion, or covered in thick nuclear fallout.
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped and would quickly collapse into chaos and anarchy, or a tighter dictatorship or military rule than what exist as of today. And they'll get some bombs lobbed at them by the virtue of having military bases from the nuclear power presents all over the continent.
Most South American countries are already teetering on the brink of anarchy, not a good choice.
Australia would probably get a few 'stray bombs' just by virtue of being allied with the US or Europe, in order to deny any surviving government a potential shelter there. Which means that New Zealand is likely to get nuclear fallout, if not a couple bombs as well, for the same reason than Australia would.
Which leaves the less habitable parts of the world: Greenland, though winds and water current would probably carry some nuclear dust over it, Antarctica, but getting there is a journey in itself, and you cannot live here, or some island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.
But, basically, in a WWIII nuclear exchange, no country will be spared, whether it gets some nuclear missiles lobed at it or through the consequences of the bombing and the utter collapse of anything global, from the economy to the internet to the international shipping lanes.
No country would be left fully functional following such a massive bombing. Everything would have to be rethought to take into account that supplies from the rest of the world are gone.
Middle-East would become a nice shiny mirror, which means that fuel would become extremely scarce. Most rare earths and minerals would become unavailable because the mines will be in radiation zones or inaccessible for some reason. The factories in Asia that produces most of the technological stuff that we use everyday will be vaporized or glow in the dark, thus no more new stuff and no spare parts to fix the old stuff.
And I'm not even talking about the panic that would instantly spread through the population of the world once the news spread that nukes have been launched or have began falling on various places over the world.
Basically, even a country spared the nukes will need to have a strong and level-headed government, a calm population, and will have to basically invent a new way of life to cope with the instant disappearance of all the supplies it was getting from the rest of the world.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Either Africa, South America or British Columbia in Canada. Africa and South America are both dry spots as far as nuclear armed countries. Of course, the farther south, the better, less chance of radiation. Canada is too close to America to be useful for the most part, but B.C. or Nunavut might be far enough North to manage. Greenland is also a pretty good choice, surprisingly. Australia also has a good chance of surviving, but may get nuked just because its a large enough country.
So all and all, the farther south you are the better, since anything in the northern hemisphere is most likely going to be completely destroyed by radiation polluting the trade winds. Greenland may fair better than most countries, but Chili or other countries on the southern tip of south America are the best bet for survival.
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll add three.
North Korea is the most likely country to start throwing missiles around. This is the map of the range of their ICBM's:
Let me highlight a detail:
Brazil is a country that is neutral on every major conflict, with important ties to all sides. Being outside the range of the first wave of missiles, it will have the most land where you won't die of radiation poisoning in minutes, so that's where everyone will go for the final battle of sticks and stones as predicted by Einstein.
To summarize in an image:
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
New Zealand. Nowhere in the southern hemisphere is a likely target for nuclear weapons, but New Zealand is further south than any other countries except Chile and Argentina, has a stable economy and government, a temperate climate, and is self-sufficient in food. It’s also far enough from anywhere else that it’s unlikely to be swamped with refugees from further north.
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
New Zealand. Nowhere in the southern hemisphere is a likely target for nuclear weapons, but New Zealand is further south than any other countries except Chile and Argentina, has a stable economy and government, a temperate climate, and is self-sufficient in food. It’s also far enough from anywhere else that it’s unlikely to be swamped with refugees from further north.
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
New Zealand. Nowhere in the southern hemisphere is a likely target for nuclear weapons, but New Zealand is further south than any other countries except Chile and Argentina, has a stable economy and government, a temperate climate, and is self-sufficient in food. It’s also far enough from anywhere else that it’s unlikely to be swamped with refugees from further north.
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
New Zealand. Nowhere in the southern hemisphere is a likely target for nuclear weapons, but New Zealand is further south than any other countries except Chile and Argentina, has a stable economy and government, a temperate climate, and is self-sufficient in food. It’s also far enough from anywhere else that it’s unlikely to be swamped with refugees from further north.
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
answered 4 hours ago
Mike Scott
8,76131639
8,76131639
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
I thought New Zealand was north of Australia for some reason, but no, good choice.
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
Another pro: its nature looks amazing
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Europe, North America and Asia will get bombed into oblivion, or covered in thick nuclear fallout.
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped and would quickly collapse into chaos and anarchy, or a tighter dictatorship or military rule than what exist as of today. And they'll get some bombs lobbed at them by the virtue of having military bases from the nuclear power presents all over the continent.
Most South American countries are already teetering on the brink of anarchy, not a good choice.
Australia would probably get a few 'stray bombs' just by virtue of being allied with the US or Europe, in order to deny any surviving government a potential shelter there. Which means that New Zealand is likely to get nuclear fallout, if not a couple bombs as well, for the same reason than Australia would.
Which leaves the less habitable parts of the world: Greenland, though winds and water current would probably carry some nuclear dust over it, Antarctica, but getting there is a journey in itself, and you cannot live here, or some island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.
But, basically, in a WWIII nuclear exchange, no country will be spared, whether it gets some nuclear missiles lobed at it or through the consequences of the bombing and the utter collapse of anything global, from the economy to the internet to the international shipping lanes.
No country would be left fully functional following such a massive bombing. Everything would have to be rethought to take into account that supplies from the rest of the world are gone.
Middle-East would become a nice shiny mirror, which means that fuel would become extremely scarce. Most rare earths and minerals would become unavailable because the mines will be in radiation zones or inaccessible for some reason. The factories in Asia that produces most of the technological stuff that we use everyday will be vaporized or glow in the dark, thus no more new stuff and no spare parts to fix the old stuff.
And I'm not even talking about the panic that would instantly spread through the population of the world once the news spread that nukes have been launched or have began falling on various places over the world.
Basically, even a country spared the nukes will need to have a strong and level-headed government, a calm population, and will have to basically invent a new way of life to cope with the instant disappearance of all the supplies it was getting from the rest of the world.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Europe, North America and Asia will get bombed into oblivion, or covered in thick nuclear fallout.
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped and would quickly collapse into chaos and anarchy, or a tighter dictatorship or military rule than what exist as of today. And they'll get some bombs lobbed at them by the virtue of having military bases from the nuclear power presents all over the continent.
Most South American countries are already teetering on the brink of anarchy, not a good choice.
Australia would probably get a few 'stray bombs' just by virtue of being allied with the US or Europe, in order to deny any surviving government a potential shelter there. Which means that New Zealand is likely to get nuclear fallout, if not a couple bombs as well, for the same reason than Australia would.
Which leaves the less habitable parts of the world: Greenland, though winds and water current would probably carry some nuclear dust over it, Antarctica, but getting there is a journey in itself, and you cannot live here, or some island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.
But, basically, in a WWIII nuclear exchange, no country will be spared, whether it gets some nuclear missiles lobed at it or through the consequences of the bombing and the utter collapse of anything global, from the economy to the internet to the international shipping lanes.
No country would be left fully functional following such a massive bombing. Everything would have to be rethought to take into account that supplies from the rest of the world are gone.
Middle-East would become a nice shiny mirror, which means that fuel would become extremely scarce. Most rare earths and minerals would become unavailable because the mines will be in radiation zones or inaccessible for some reason. The factories in Asia that produces most of the technological stuff that we use everyday will be vaporized or glow in the dark, thus no more new stuff and no spare parts to fix the old stuff.
And I'm not even talking about the panic that would instantly spread through the population of the world once the news spread that nukes have been launched or have began falling on various places over the world.
Basically, even a country spared the nukes will need to have a strong and level-headed government, a calm population, and will have to basically invent a new way of life to cope with the instant disappearance of all the supplies it was getting from the rest of the world.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Europe, North America and Asia will get bombed into oblivion, or covered in thick nuclear fallout.
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped and would quickly collapse into chaos and anarchy, or a tighter dictatorship or military rule than what exist as of today. And they'll get some bombs lobbed at them by the virtue of having military bases from the nuclear power presents all over the continent.
Most South American countries are already teetering on the brink of anarchy, not a good choice.
Australia would probably get a few 'stray bombs' just by virtue of being allied with the US or Europe, in order to deny any surviving government a potential shelter there. Which means that New Zealand is likely to get nuclear fallout, if not a couple bombs as well, for the same reason than Australia would.
Which leaves the less habitable parts of the world: Greenland, though winds and water current would probably carry some nuclear dust over it, Antarctica, but getting there is a journey in itself, and you cannot live here, or some island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.
But, basically, in a WWIII nuclear exchange, no country will be spared, whether it gets some nuclear missiles lobed at it or through the consequences of the bombing and the utter collapse of anything global, from the economy to the internet to the international shipping lanes.
No country would be left fully functional following such a massive bombing. Everything would have to be rethought to take into account that supplies from the rest of the world are gone.
Middle-East would become a nice shiny mirror, which means that fuel would become extremely scarce. Most rare earths and minerals would become unavailable because the mines will be in radiation zones or inaccessible for some reason. The factories in Asia that produces most of the technological stuff that we use everyday will be vaporized or glow in the dark, thus no more new stuff and no spare parts to fix the old stuff.
And I'm not even talking about the panic that would instantly spread through the population of the world once the news spread that nukes have been launched or have began falling on various places over the world.
Basically, even a country spared the nukes will need to have a strong and level-headed government, a calm population, and will have to basically invent a new way of life to cope with the instant disappearance of all the supplies it was getting from the rest of the world.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Europe, North America and Asia will get bombed into oblivion, or covered in thick nuclear fallout.
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped and would quickly collapse into chaos and anarchy, or a tighter dictatorship or military rule than what exist as of today. And they'll get some bombs lobbed at them by the virtue of having military bases from the nuclear power presents all over the continent.
Most South American countries are already teetering on the brink of anarchy, not a good choice.
Australia would probably get a few 'stray bombs' just by virtue of being allied with the US or Europe, in order to deny any surviving government a potential shelter there. Which means that New Zealand is likely to get nuclear fallout, if not a couple bombs as well, for the same reason than Australia would.
Which leaves the less habitable parts of the world: Greenland, though winds and water current would probably carry some nuclear dust over it, Antarctica, but getting there is a journey in itself, and you cannot live here, or some island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.
But, basically, in a WWIII nuclear exchange, no country will be spared, whether it gets some nuclear missiles lobed at it or through the consequences of the bombing and the utter collapse of anything global, from the economy to the internet to the international shipping lanes.
No country would be left fully functional following such a massive bombing. Everything would have to be rethought to take into account that supplies from the rest of the world are gone.
Middle-East would become a nice shiny mirror, which means that fuel would become extremely scarce. Most rare earths and minerals would become unavailable because the mines will be in radiation zones or inaccessible for some reason. The factories in Asia that produces most of the technological stuff that we use everyday will be vaporized or glow in the dark, thus no more new stuff and no spare parts to fix the old stuff.
And I'm not even talking about the panic that would instantly spread through the population of the world once the news spread that nukes have been launched or have began falling on various places over the world.
Basically, even a country spared the nukes will need to have a strong and level-headed government, a calm population, and will have to basically invent a new way of life to cope with the instant disappearance of all the supplies it was getting from the rest of the world.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
answered 3 hours ago
Sava
335
335
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Sava is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Either Africa, South America or British Columbia in Canada. Africa and South America are both dry spots as far as nuclear armed countries. Of course, the farther south, the better, less chance of radiation. Canada is too close to America to be useful for the most part, but B.C. or Nunavut might be far enough North to manage. Greenland is also a pretty good choice, surprisingly. Australia also has a good chance of surviving, but may get nuked just because its a large enough country.
So all and all, the farther south you are the better, since anything in the northern hemisphere is most likely going to be completely destroyed by radiation polluting the trade winds. Greenland may fair better than most countries, but Chili or other countries on the southern tip of south America are the best bet for survival.
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Either Africa, South America or British Columbia in Canada. Africa and South America are both dry spots as far as nuclear armed countries. Of course, the farther south, the better, less chance of radiation. Canada is too close to America to be useful for the most part, but B.C. or Nunavut might be far enough North to manage. Greenland is also a pretty good choice, surprisingly. Australia also has a good chance of surviving, but may get nuked just because its a large enough country.
So all and all, the farther south you are the better, since anything in the northern hemisphere is most likely going to be completely destroyed by radiation polluting the trade winds. Greenland may fair better than most countries, but Chili or other countries on the southern tip of south America are the best bet for survival.
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Either Africa, South America or British Columbia in Canada. Africa and South America are both dry spots as far as nuclear armed countries. Of course, the farther south, the better, less chance of radiation. Canada is too close to America to be useful for the most part, but B.C. or Nunavut might be far enough North to manage. Greenland is also a pretty good choice, surprisingly. Australia also has a good chance of surviving, but may get nuked just because its a large enough country.
So all and all, the farther south you are the better, since anything in the northern hemisphere is most likely going to be completely destroyed by radiation polluting the trade winds. Greenland may fair better than most countries, but Chili or other countries on the southern tip of south America are the best bet for survival.
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
Either Africa, South America or British Columbia in Canada. Africa and South America are both dry spots as far as nuclear armed countries. Of course, the farther south, the better, less chance of radiation. Canada is too close to America to be useful for the most part, but B.C. or Nunavut might be far enough North to manage. Greenland is also a pretty good choice, surprisingly. Australia also has a good chance of surviving, but may get nuked just because its a large enough country.
So all and all, the farther south you are the better, since anything in the northern hemisphere is most likely going to be completely destroyed by radiation polluting the trade winds. Greenland may fair better than most countries, but Chili or other countries on the southern tip of south America are the best bet for survival.
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
answered 4 hours ago
Clay Deitas
3,590823
3,590823
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
You’ll have trouble growing food in Greenland or Nunavut. And both Africa and South America go far enough north that there will be millions of refugees moving south.
– Mike Scott
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
In Nunavut you would need to hunt mostly, but if you're living there you probably know somewhat about hunting. Especially if you're descended from a native tribe. And it will take a while for refugees to traverse the entire continent. Especially if you have undeveloped forests in between you and them like in Africa. Chili has mountains which is another good way to keep them out. @MikeScott
– Clay Deitas
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll add three.
North Korea is the most likely country to start throwing missiles around. This is the map of the range of their ICBM's:
Let me highlight a detail:
Brazil is a country that is neutral on every major conflict, with important ties to all sides. Being outside the range of the first wave of missiles, it will have the most land where you won't die of radiation poisoning in minutes, so that's where everyone will go for the final battle of sticks and stones as predicted by Einstein.
To summarize in an image:
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll add three.
North Korea is the most likely country to start throwing missiles around. This is the map of the range of their ICBM's:
Let me highlight a detail:
Brazil is a country that is neutral on every major conflict, with important ties to all sides. Being outside the range of the first wave of missiles, it will have the most land where you won't die of radiation poisoning in minutes, so that's where everyone will go for the final battle of sticks and stones as predicted by Einstein.
To summarize in an image:
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll add three.
North Korea is the most likely country to start throwing missiles around. This is the map of the range of their ICBM's:
Let me highlight a detail:
Brazil is a country that is neutral on every major conflict, with important ties to all sides. Being outside the range of the first wave of missiles, it will have the most land where you won't die of radiation poisoning in minutes, so that's where everyone will go for the final battle of sticks and stones as predicted by Einstein.
To summarize in an image:
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll add three.
North Korea is the most likely country to start throwing missiles around. This is the map of the range of their ICBM's:
Let me highlight a detail:
Brazil is a country that is neutral on every major conflict, with important ties to all sides. Being outside the range of the first wave of missiles, it will have the most land where you won't die of radiation poisoning in minutes, so that's where everyone will go for the final battle of sticks and stones as predicted by Einstein.
To summarize in an image:
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
edited 25 mins ago
Sasha
3,993934
3,993934
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
answered 54 mins ago
Renan
32.6k768167
32.6k768167
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125171%2fbest-places-to-be-on-earth-when-an-all-out-nuclear-war-breaks-out%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
You start your question by saying “land mass†and then switch to “countryâ€Â. Which do you mean? Antarctica is the safest land mass from nuclear war, but is not a country.
– Mike Scott
5 hours ago
@MikeScott got it thanks
– Muze
4 hours ago
I don't get why are you using the map making tag
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
Well, who are the combatants on this nuclear war?
– Sasha
27 mins ago