Safest place on earth- Nat Geo

Safest place on earth- Nat Geo

travel.nationalgeographic.com

This alpine microstate bordered by Switzerland to the west and south and Austria to the east is a fastidiously clean and well-ordered principality. • It’s also one of only two (the other is Uzbekistan) “doubly landlocked” nations, that is, bordered entirely by other landlocked nations. • An often overlooked winter-sports destination but a not so often overlooked tax haven, it’s the smallest German-speaking country in the world and the only one that doesn’t share a border with the fatherland.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org

Just checked out National Geographic and was surprised to find that they have a story on Liechtenstein, the only doubly landlocked country other than Uzbekistan. And it has lovely views of the Alps apparently…

Is this a subtle warning or just hopping on the doomsday bandwagon? In light of recent events unfolding in Japan, people are going to head for the hills. South Africa is rather cozy btw.


travel.nationalgeographic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Monkeygod333


If (or should I say: when?) SHTF, I don't think any place on earth will be safe. At least in the long run.

Safest from what? I will take my chances here in Australia, without a doubt the safest place on earth,But once again it depends on the threat,If the snakes, crocodiles ,spiders,sharks and kangaroos all rise up and start going crazy then i would say New Zealand or Antarctica would be the place to be

reply to post by Monkeygod333


Saskatchewan Canada is pretty safe too, while we don't have mountains we have them protecting on the west coast and the red river valley that will drain water all the way to the states in Manitoba.

I'm heading for "four corners" - - Hopi land.

If nothing else - I'll have interesting spirits to mingle with.

Originally posted by Monkeygod333

Safest place on earth- Nat Geo

travel.nationalgeographic.com

This alpine microstate bordered by Switzerland to the west and south and Austria to the east is a fastidiously clean and well-ordered principality. • It’s also one of only two (the other is Uzbekistan) “doubly landlocked” nations, that is, bordered entirely by other landlocked nations. • An often overlooked winter-sports destination but a not so often overlooked tax haven, it’s the smallest German-speaking country in the world and the only one that doesn’t share a border with the fatherland.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org

And a $20 cup of coffee. Safe? Maybe...Expensive? Yup!

Thanks for the info. Grabbin' my Bug-Out Bag now.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Monkeygod333

 

Saskatchewan Canada is pretty safe too, while we don't have mountains we have them protecting on the west coast and the red river valley that will drain water all the way to the states in Manitoba.

Yup, Sask and Manitoba seem to be the place to go. Cheap land (bought 80 acres @ $25,000) with an old farmhouse. Got a small pond and a river running thru.

Great farmland, lots of wild life etc.

See ya there!

Originally posted by Monkeygod333

Is it on MLS? How much? Don't care if the World ends tomorrow. I can die knowing I owned a castle! Yay Me!

reply to post by Monkeygod333


Articles like this dont take into account that in huge countries like the US and Canada we have areas that are "double land locked."

There are places in America and Canada that are at least as safe, IMHO, and better food producing, warmer locations too in the US. I would much rather be in one of our safe places than in the mountains in Europe.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Monkeygod333

 

Articles like this dont take into account that in huge countries like the US and Canada we have areas that are "double land locked."

There are places in America and Canada that are at least as safe, IMHO, and better food producing, warmer locations too in the US. I would much rather be in one of our safe places than in the mountains in Europe.

Yup, as mentioned. Sask. and Man. Would be my guess. Got property on the prairies and selling my commercial property in Nova Scotia before I go. Gotta get away from the coast.

If you want elevation, and can't leave the U.S., there's Mt. Whitney in California. 14,000+ feet. But then again it's in California...

reply to post by Annee


I left there because the land wont support the population in a SHTF scenario, unless climate change ushers in a LOT more water. It really is great for not having a lot of tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Very stable area, so far, geologically. Which is why in places you see these weird precariously balanced rocks.

BUT. That region has already been destroyed environmentally. By the Native Americans. They already collapsed their civilization there by cutting down all the trees and ended up canabalizing each other, and they abandoned their ancient cities. (Chaco Canyon) So................................. what that tells me is that if a much smaller group of natives who had been in the region for centuries could no longer make it work there even though they had the culture and lore for "how to survive here" a much larger group of inept moderns arent going to do any better.

Just my thinking. There is more to "safe" than "no natural disasters." You also need food and water.

reply to post by jude11


And if some of the predictions are right about how climate change is going to affect North America, Canada in some years may end up much warmer and a much better food producing area than it already is, as it will have a longer growing season.

Not a bad choice. Im staying further south because I am hedging against increased fuel costs. I think I could make it through a winter here with no heat. I know I couldnt in Canada. Im not that used to the cold.

reply to post by Monkeygod333


I have been there and it is truly breathe taking the views. The original skyscrapers are the mountains that inspired Sleeping Beauty and the Lichtenstein castle.

Originally posted by Annee
I'm heading for "four corners" - - Hopi land.

If nothing else - I'll have interesting spirits to mingle with.

I am often thinking of the Four-Corners, and I have visited Farmington, NM; an odd sort of town with three stones on every corner. I am not too certain what the stones represent and I doubt I would ask a local for fear they might show me rather than tell me!

However, since I do believe in the Hopi legends as well as the other Nation's prophesies such as the Iroquois and the return of Deganawidah, I find myself pondering often "just what does Hopi-land cover". To be honest I think it is anywhere West of the Rockies and South of Black Hills. It is a large area to cover but I have always felt that it is more than just the Four Corner's region.

I think it would be foolish to believe that a Reservation is the only space for the future; especially considering the Diaspora that is suppose to accompany the entrance of Etchata Etchana. Millions of people will be following him, in my understanding, and I hardly believe that the Four-Corners could accommodate everyone.

I have finally realized that where I sit now, the Anasazi of Old stood here, and that is enough for me to believe that this too is Hopi-land. I am in SW New Mexico. As well, I think if I were not in Hopi-land already, Great Spirit would have prompted me out of here long ago.

I would have thought the Himalayas or Andes range would be safest. Of course I am considering a massive flood that could wash over the continents, or perhaps widespread fires from a meteor shower of extinctive proportions. I think elevation and caves would be the safest, considering any apocalyptic scenarios anyway.
The place mentioned by the OP seems nice and safe too I guess...

Peace,
spec

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by jude11

 

And if some of the predictions are right about how climate change is going to affect North America, Canada in some years may end up much warmer and a much better food producing area than it already is, as it will have a longer growing season.

Not a bad choice. Im staying further south because I am hedging against increased fuel costs. I think I could make it through a winter here with no heat. I know I couldnt in Canada.

Im not that used to the cold.

It'll get warmer but remember that you really want cooler weather to keep food preserved. Warm weather is nice but not good for food stocks.

Also, not near the Coasts, lots of fresh water, away from the New Madrid line and Yellowstone. (Well a chance anyway) and the great thing is that no one wants to live there!

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Annee

 

I left there because the land wont support the population in a SHTF scenario, unless climate change ushers in a LOT more water. It really is great for not having a lot of tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Very stable area, so far, geologically. Which is why in places you see these weird precariously balanced rocks.

Only going by that map of major land loss after earthquakes and Tsunamis.

So - - yeah - I suspect by that time there will be major environmental changes. Being in AZ - more south - - - yeah I am aware the preconception misconception of a group of people. I choose to be positive - - that enough good (and informed) people survive.