If nuclear war broke out where's the safest place on Earth? - page 8.

GMPoison

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Perle on January 08, 2017, 04:52:35 AM

Quote from: GMPoison on January 08, 2017, 04:45:32 AM

In a bunker underground for a little while of course Grin

I would like to know what you're going to the bunker to eat? It seems to me that in the event of a nuclear war will be two exits. The first is to die immediately and without pain, and the second is a long time to suffer and die from hunger and disease.

Lots and lots of freeze dried and canned foods, medicine, and medical equipment. Who knows what would happen afterward if you were to survive!

Perle

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: GMPoison on January 08, 2017, 04:45:32 AM

In a bunker underground for a little while of course Grin

I would like to know what you're going to the bunker to eat? It seems to me that in the event of a nuclear war will be two exits. The first is to die immediately and without pain, and the second is a long time to suffer and die from hunger and disease.

GMPoison

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

In a bunker underground for a little while of course Grin

johnny11011

sr. member

Activity: 293

Merit: 250

Nuclear war broke out, I think the earth is not safe, Mars should be the safest. Of course, you're going to immigrate to mars.

yuiyuga

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: v1ryspro on January 07, 2017, 10:13:16 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Kvazimoda on January 07, 2017, 08:36:29 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2017, 07:54:56 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Mersedes on January 06, 2017, 04:49:46 PM

I do not like when people calculate something is not the end. If you now calculate 98% of what happens and what to do. Where you have a guarantee that will not work, the situation which is part of the 2%? And what will you do in this case?

Im not sure what you wanted to say, but if i understand right you are asking what would i do if 2% happened. Well that is why i said its debatable, too many factors to take in considerating. We could talk like this for 3 days and still wouldnt find solution for every option.

Right. As an example, who is going to bomb mountain ranges? Generally, the population in the mountains is sparse. So, why waste bombs on the mountains. Save the bombs for the big cities and industrialized areas.

However, somebody might bomb one mountain here or there.
In a previous post about this it and went. If to tame the wild beast that he will never be able to live in nature. And people. He will not survive without civilization. People can only adapt if change happens slowly.

Cool

If you use the classic bomb then of course. There is the most important thing to relive the moment of attack. In the case of nuclear weapons, more people die from the effects of the blast than from the blast itself. Mountains will not protect.

I must agree with our friend here, most people die from effects of the blast. So beeing on mountain is not best idea, but beeing in bunker in mountain, well that is something to think abouth. Grin

How to grow food, where to get clean water, energy,medicines and doctors. You can transfer indefinitely. People have lost the survival skills in extreme conditions. It's like a tamed wild beast cannot be released into nature because he was not able to live.

Yes but people are adaptive. If that happens, there are still basic knowlage how to do things. And people are quick to learn when it comes to extreem, or they die. Even wild beast can be tamed.

v1ryspro

sr. member

Activity: 282

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Kvazimoda on January 07, 2017, 08:36:29 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2017, 07:54:56 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Mersedes on January 06, 2017, 04:49:46 PM

I do not like when people calculate something is not the end. If you now calculate 98% of what happens and what to do. Where you have a guarantee that will not work, the situation which is part of the 2%? And what will you do in this case?

Im not sure what you wanted to say, but if i understand right you are asking what would i do if 2% happened. Well that is why i said its debatable, too many factors to take in considerating. We could talk like this for 3 days and still wouldnt find solution for every option.

Right. As an example, who is going to bomb mountain ranges? Generally, the population in the mountains is sparse. So, why waste bombs on the mountains. Save the bombs for the big cities and industrialized areas.

However, somebody might bomb one mountain here or there.

Cool

If you use the classic bomb then of course. There is the most important thing to relive the moment of attack. In the case of nuclear weapons, more people die from the effects of the blast than from the blast itself. Mountains will not protect.

I must agree with our friend here, most people die from effects of the blast. So beeing on mountain is not best idea, but beeing in bunker in mountain, well that is something to think abouth. Grin

How to grow food, where to get clean water, energy,medicines and doctors. You can transfer indefinitely. People have lost the survival skills in extreme conditions. It's like a tamed wild beast cannot be released into nature because he was not able to live.

Kvazimoda

sr. member

Activity: 287

Merit: 250

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2017, 07:54:56 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Mersedes on January 06, 2017, 04:49:46 PM

I do not like when people calculate something is not the end. If you now calculate 98% of what happens and what to do. Where you have a guarantee that will not work, the situation which is part of the 2%? And what will you do in this case?

Im not sure what you wanted to say, but if i understand right you are asking what would i do if 2% happened. Well that is why i said its debatable, too many factors to take in considerating. We could talk like this for 3 days and still wouldnt find solution for every option.

Right. As an example, who is going to bomb mountain ranges? Generally, the population in the mountains is sparse. So, why waste bombs on the mountains. Save the bombs for the big cities and industrialized areas.

However, somebody might bomb one mountain here or there.

Cool

If you use the classic bomb then of course. There is the most important thing to relive the moment of attack. In the case of nuclear weapons, more people die from the effects of the blast than from the blast itself. Mountains will not protect.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Mersedes on January 06, 2017, 04:49:46 PM

I do not like when people calculate something is not the end. If you now calculate 98% of what happens and what to do. Where you have a guarantee that will not work, the situation which is part of the 2%? And what will you do in this case?

Im not sure what you wanted to say, but if i understand right you are asking what would i do if 2% happened. Well that is why i said its debatable, too many factors to take in considerating. We could talk like this for 3 days and still wouldnt find solution for every option.

Right. As an example, who is going to bomb mountain ranges? Generally, the population in the mountains is sparse. So, why waste bombs on the mountains. Save the bombs for the big cities and industrialized areas.

However, somebody might bomb one mountain here or there.

Cool

RealityTruth

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

narrowpathnetwork.com

You have completely missed one important fact: Native residents of those 'not affected' areas would try to kill every refugee trying to invade them to protect their land.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: bra4our on January 06, 2017, 05:59:49 PM

Africa would be safest place because we are already living like we are in a nuclear war.

May be the deserts of North Africa. There is hardly any human inhabitation in that area, and no one is going to nuke it. But it will be a challenge to get water and food there, especially if a large number of people take refuge there.

rokkyroad

legendary

Activity: 1090

Merit: 1000

According to this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/ Australia would be the last to go. Good movie if you have never seen it. "On the beach".

BitcoinMarshal

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 504

Quote from: bra4our on January 06, 2017, 05:59:49 PM

Africa would be safest place because we are already living like we are in a nuclear war.

But I am thinking completely different from you because in my view this could be also most effected area like Asia because many European countries have bases here and they will try to use them and this could be very effected are not a safe place for any one

bra4our

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Africa would be safest place because we are already living like we are in a nuclear war.

Mersedes

full member

Activity: 223

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sergeyzol on January 06, 2017, 03:25:24 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sergeyzol on January 06, 2017, 03:07:55 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

The safest place would be place where nuclear boomb didnt fall, and radiation didnt reach. If poslible find some place where there is no radiation and with healty soil, where you could seed something and live in peace. But there are more variables, so its discutabile where is the safest place...

If you start a nuclear war the safest place is in a coffin in the cemetery. And less radiation and nothing to lose. But seriously, from radiation to hide you, and then what? I think that if the war is global there is no chance.

Well that is why i said its debatable. It depends from where are you at the moment of nuclear war, or if its was your country that is hit by it, how far was you. Maybe you could get to boat in time with all resurses for trip to australia or new zeland or some other place like that. And about coffin, well if you were hit by huclear blast or cought by radiatio, you wont need coffin so there is that XD .

Why do you think that Australia or New Zealand will not fall out fallout? A nuclear winter? It all depends on the intensity of nuclear conflict. In General, I don't believe that anyone would dare unleash a nuclear war.

I do not like when people calculate something is not the end. If you now calculate 98% of what happens and what to do. Where you have a guarantee that will not work, the situation which is part of the 2%? And what will you do in this case?
You are not wrong abouth Australia or New Zealand, but those countrys fell on my mind first because they are far away. And yes probably it wont happen like never. But never forget 3 things that are infinite: universe, "Human stupidity" and winrar trial version... All things i said are hypothetical, so it depends a lot from other factors. Cheesy

sergeyzol

sr. member

Activity: 248

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sergeyzol on January 06, 2017, 03:07:55 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

The safest place would be place where nuclear boomb didnt fall, and radiation didnt reach. If poslible find some place where there is no radiation and with healty soil, where you could seed something and live in peace. But there are more variables, so its discutabile where is the safest place...

If you start a nuclear war the safest place is in a coffin in the cemetery. And less radiation and nothing to lose. But seriously, from radiation to hide you, and then what? I think that if the war is global there is no chance.

Well that is why i said its debatable. It depends from where are you at the moment of nuclear war, or if its was your country that is hit by it, how far was you. Maybe you could get to boat in time with all resurses for trip to australia or new zeland or some other place like that. And about coffin, well if you were hit by huclear blast or cought by radiatio, you wont need coffin so there is that XD .

Why do you think that Australia or New Zealand will not fall out fallout? A nuclear winter? It all depends on the intensity of nuclear conflict. In General, I don't believe that anyone would dare unleash a nuclear war.

sergeyzol

sr. member

Activity: 248

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

The safest place would be place where nuclear boomb didnt fall, and radiation didnt reach. If poslible find some place where there is no radiation and with healty soil, where you could seed something and live in peace. But there are more variables, so its discutabile where is the safest place...

If you start a nuclear war the safest place is in a coffin in the cemetery. And less radiation and nothing to lose. But seriously, from radiation to hide you, and then what? I think that if the war is global there is no chance.

dippididodaday

sr. member

Activity: 441

Merit: 278

It's personal

Underground is a good bet.

moriskarlov

sr. member

Activity: 546

Merit: 252

I also recently found out that New Zealand and Canada are not independent completely. What is that "Queen Elizabeth" protection status means, is it obliges this countries to military alliance with England?

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: xisklo on January 01, 2017, 10:28:59 AM

Quote from: TheIrishman on December 16, 2016, 06:04:15 PM

If nuclear war broke out where's the safest place on Earth?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/16/if-nuclear-war-broke-out-wheres-the-safest-place-on-earth

<< Nuclear tensions appear to be mounting again amidst political upheaval. So if the event of nuclear war, where should you head? >>

New Zealand

Not sure about New Zealand. NZ is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, under the nominal rule of Queen Elizabeth II. Since the UK is almost certain to be participating in the WW3, I am not sure whether NZ can stay out of it.

gabmen

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 529

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: Tyrantt on January 01, 2017, 12:45:24 PM

Quote from: xisklo on January 01, 2017, 10:28:59 AM

Quote from: TheIrishman on December 16, 2016, 06:04:15 PM

If nuclear war broke out where's the safest place on Earth?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/16/if-nuclear-war-broke-out-wheres-the-safest-place-on-earth

<< Nuclear tensions appear to be mounting again amidst political upheaval. So if the event of nuclear war, where should you head? >>

New Zealand

well a lot of remote islands like Fiji or lands with huge mountains in it like NZ, Chile,etc can be a good place to go.

Well definitely these places are better than most but if it's nuclear warfare I don't think even far flung and isolated places like these would be able to provide shelter as the effects of nuclear radiation covers a whole lot than the directly affected areas. It's really scary as there may really be nowhere safe entirely if a war this scale breaks out.

Topic: If nuclear war broke out where's the safest place on Earth? - page 8. (Read 12456 times)