Where is the safest place on earth

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Don't give me crap for being a Survivor fan but it seems that there are a lot of islands in the South Pacific that would be both not occupied and have somewhat of a food/water supply.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madhatter
Still if Australia was nuked, I'm not sure that NZ would be a safe place either.


Out of interest here, what would be the target(s) if Australia was nuked ? I always thought that the only target would be Pine Gap. But I guess there is possibly more targets over here and I also wonder if the USA has any targets it would bomb here or in NZ ?.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The Australian outback: Extremely hot, and now they have a huge water problem bue to the drough.

Himalaya: nice landscapes and quite inaccessible, but mostly controlled by dictatorial regimes under which it's quite difficult to live without going to jail, if you don't have

Antartica: being from a country where we have temperatures as low as around minus 35 centigrades in winter, I can tell you that living in cold tempatures such as in Antartica must be Hell on Earth.

My solutions:

the Canadian Great North, New Zealand or perhaps Argentina.

Canadian Great North: still quite cold, but it seems there'll be huge territories with fertile land and innumerable sources of clean, fresh water. Just look at a Google satellite image... looks very interesting.

New Zealand: balanced climate, beautiful country, nice and tolerant people, and far enough from the big rich countries to not get kicked in the arse by a nuclear holocaust. Still has some volcanic issues, but not so big.

Argentina: ever changing country where everything seems to be possible, and quite far off for not being touched by any nuclear war.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth

Originally posted by madhatter
Still if Australia was nuked, I'm not sure that NZ would be a safe place either.


Out of interest here, what would be the target(s) if Australia was nuked ? I always thought that the only target would be Pine Gap. But I guess there is possibly more targets over here and I also wonder if the USA has any targets it would bomb here or in NZ ?.

I reackon if AUS was ever a target, the Eastern states would be nuked, and perth would be invaded/occupied.

Perth has majority of the mining capacity.
If someone took perth they'd have an abundance of materials to build their war machine.
and perth being so isolated they could set up defenses to ensure no one took it back.

We have a pis weak army in WA, we'd be over run, and the invaders would have enough time to defend against the delayed counter-attack from east, or they'd bomb the east, and enjoy a mineral rich lan.d



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'd like to add this thread here which might have some relevance.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
there are plenty of remote locations
south america is got plenty in the andees specially Bolivia, man i could take you place but i'll leave it alone for the end of the world.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Just build yourself an old school Spanish Galleon and attach a motor, get about 300 friends to crew that thing properly, and start learning how to cuss alot. Bring supplies to buy you as much time as you can. Dump the motor and use the fuel tank for storage when you run out of gas. You are going to need good friends that are good with the oar in clutch situations.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
We have a pis weak army in WA, we'd be over run, and the invaders would have enough time to defend against the delayed counter-attack from east, or they'd bomb the east, and enjoy a mineral rich lan.d


I`d agree Agit8dChop only if "SIT X" is a war as in previous wars,though its a common feeling it wont be for the next world war,the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones type of scenario.

Australia especially western Australia is a good choice and not just because i live here(though i strongly doubt any place will be completely safe),because of the area vs population.Though any decent areas to hide and survive will probably be occupied or have to be shared in any country.

Just over 2 million population for West Aussie,with a land area of 2,529,875 Km²

Not all would flee,but if they did we could have over a km each,pitty most of it one would find it impossible to live off.

Up and down the coast if you know how to fish, have a water filter and know how to live off the land one might do ok.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
South Western Tasmania.



One of the most remote and rugged places on earth.
PLENTY of water and plenty of wildlife to eat.
Rugged place that has some of the thickest bush Ive ever seen. One of the best places on earth to "get lost" in


If I wanted to "disappear" South Western Tasmania would be it.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth


Out of interest here, what would be the target(s) if Australia was nuked ? I always thought that the only target would be Pine Gap......


...I must admit, I wasn't thinking of any particular target.
Yep, Pine Gap could be one, some of the power stations or mining operations as another poster mentioned.

I guess Melbourne or Sydney could also be major Targets having the largest populations.

Check out This List for some other possiblities.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I would dissapear into the jungles of northern Thailand or dissapear to Tibet, one, I lived in the jungle so no big deal for me, second, Tibet is too high and has nothing to attack so it is safe militarily. Also it has rough terrain to hide in, AND areas to farm, get water and hunt if you want meat.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Burginthorn
South Western Tasmania.

If I wanted to "disappear" South Western Tasmania would be it.


I agree but...

Shhhhhh or every body will want to go there and its not that big.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Forgot to add if I could just live in space then come back I'd do that lol...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Wow, nobody said my first choice. I'd pick Switzerland. They are a modern, developed, wealthy country, have a policy of being neutral in all wars (they haven't fought in like 500 years), have terrain that is difficult to attack, and have a low crime rate. (despite the fact, or perhaps because, everyone has guns due to mandatory military service. Who would break into a house knowing there is a 99% chance the guy has an uzi or something?) Plus, I live in Canada, so I'd be used to the weather



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I'd pick Switzerland. They are a modern, developed, wealthy country, have a policy of being neutral in all wars (they haven't fought in like 500 years)


Except the Swiss are no longer neutral, they joined the UN.

Anyway, according to (I believe) The Straight Dope, the safest place on the planet from Nuclear fallout is Tierra del Fuego, an group of islands off the southern tip of South America. Due to the movements of prevailing winds around the globe, most of the fallout would be swept around and away from this region. Too bad it's such a harsh, rocky place.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Without a doubt, Iceland. There's plenty of natural surroundings as well as wildlife to feed off. The only thing that will kill you there is boredom.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
possible three(3) reasons to nuke us. So we arn't that safe.

I'm guessing having a large spy base here in (New Zealand) dosen't help.
Waihopai electronic intelligence gathering base run as part of ECHELON.



Operation Deep Freeze, the American military base at Christchurch Airport

New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) operates a radio communications interception facility called Tangimoana

But we do have lots of sheep to eat and shag while we wait for all the problems to go away...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Dude, it's not UZIs, its the SIG 550, a full blown assault rifle that everybody has at home. Complete with 50 rounds of ammo, watertightly sealed in a can.

UN or not, Switzerland will still remain as neutral as possible, at least as far as I'm aware, I don't know all agendas of our politicians. Besides, we don't have WMDs so we're no threat to anybody, but everybody and his mother stores his money here. So, no direct blasts here, most probably. But fallout is going to be an issue...

Besides, our glaciers, our #1 source of water, are melting and are predicted to be largely gone around 2030, so longterm supply of water might prove a challenge.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
A large sub-oceanic environment would probably your best bet.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I know of a great place, Estes Park Colorado.

In terms of survival that is where I am going. I lived there for 20 years before coming down to Florida.

It sits in a bowl high up in the rocky mountains. to the west is the continental devide. and there are two rivers there that are quite clean as they feed off of springs just to the west of town.

There are strong preveiling winds that would blow most nuclear fallout well over the town, Denver sits 72 miles south east of EP.

there is a huge resident elk population that just hangs around in town.

Leather craftsmen wood craftsmen all that kind of thing.

In terms of TSHTF I would be there.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join