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

[TheIrishman]

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? >>

[1715056713]

1715056713

[1715056713]

1715056713

[kodes88]

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? >>

If a nuclear war in the future, and all countries actually use their best nuclear, then believe me there will be no safe place to be occupied. Radius of Nuclear could reach hundreds of kilometers, can even reach thousands of kilometers. As nuclear created USA and Russia. Nuclear also will spoil everything, including animals, plants, water, air and even humans. Nuclear war is a small apocalypse. Earth will not be a safe place to live, if there are no tools that could minimize the impact of nuclear, then the earth will die, slowly, there would be no life on earth.

[Seansky]

If a nuclear war broke out, there ain't a safe place here on earth except on the underground deep below. It will just be safe for around a minute or so and after that, I think it will not be safe. I really do hope that nuclear war won't happen in the near and far future since surviving this kind of war seems like a very hard thing to do, if this happens all living things on earth might be extinct or destroyed. We might survive it but what about the food and water afterwards, there will be a shortage for sure.

[Sithara007]

I don't think that the radiation fallout will reach Antarctica. Also, the ice sheets are some 2,000 meters thick in some places. So establishing a subterranean base in that continent may be the best way to stay alive during the WW3.

[Tyrantt]

If a nuclear war broke out, there ain't a safe place here on earth except on the underground deep below. It will just be safe for around a minute or so and after that, I think it will not be safe. I really do hope that nuclear war won't happen in the near and far future since surviving this kind of war seems like a very hard thing to do, if this happens all living things on earth might be extinct or destroyed. We might survive it but what about the food and water afterwards, there will be a shortage for sure.

Hm, I think that Mountains in Tibet could be a great  place to chill while the bombs are flying over.

[Tyrantt]

I don't think that the radiation fallout will reach Antarctica. Also, the ice sheets are some 2,000 meters thick in some places. So establishing a subterranean base in that continent may be the best way to stay alive during the WW3.

I've opened a world map to find a nice play to chill at and Tuvalu(since it's far in the ocean), Chile (surrounded by mountains), Fiji (also a remote island) and yes antarctica. Those are  just some of the right away obvious countries that I've found.

[Balthazar]

I don't think that the radiation fallout will reach Antarctica. Also, the ice sheets are some 2,000 meters thick in some places. So establishing a subterranean base in that continent may be the best way to stay alive during the WW3.

There is nothing to be afraid of. Most of nuclear weapons are far more ecologically friendly than the so-called conventional weapons. Fission products of the common nuclear explosion have very short half-life, just wait few hours and you will be able to visit epicenter of the explosion without putting your health into danger. Wait few weeks and there will be almost natural level of radiation.

Unlike nuclear weapons, conventional explosives are far more dangerous in terms of pollution. Just for example, TNT is a very poisonous and stable substance. TNT and its decay products are accumulating in the plants and animals, causing genetical disorders, leukemia and so on.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2016/02/17/the-canary-girls-and-the-wwi-poisons-that-turned-them-yellow/

There are some places which are uninhabitable since WW2 because of the TNT and other "conventional" substances.

[Sithara007]

I don't think that the radiation fallout will reach Antarctica. Also, the ice sheets are some 2,000 meters thick in some places. So establishing a subterranean base in that continent may be the best way to stay alive during the WW3.

I've opened a world map to find a nice play to chill at and Tuvalu(since it's far in the ocean), Chile (surrounded by mountains), Fiji (also a remote island) and yes antarctica. Those are  just some of the right away obvious countries that I've found.

I don't think that Chile will be a safe place, as it is a major country in the Latin America. They will be participating in the world war, unlike the small Pacific nations such as Tuvalu. Fiji is also having agreements with the NATO. 

[zero1ten]

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? >>

I don't think there would be a safe place if ever a nuclear war breaks out because if that happens it will cause a nuclear winter that will block the sunlight from entering the atmosphere for years thus all the plants on earth will die and soon the domino effect will take place from animals going extinct because of lack of food and then all humanity will fall as well.

[8ouch]

Underwater 

[Sithara007]

I don't think that the radiation fallout will reach Antarctica. Also, the ice sheets are some 2,000 meters thick in some places. So establishing a subterranean base in that continent may be the best way to stay alive during the WW3.

There is nothing to be afraid of. Most of nuclear weapons are far more ecologically friendly than the so-called conventional weapons. Fission products of the common nuclear explosion have very short half-life, just wait few hours and you will be able to visit epicenter of the explosion without putting your health into danger. Wait few weeks and there will be almost natural level of radiation.

Unlike nuclear weapons, conventional explosives are far more dangerous in terms of pollution. Just for example, TNT is a very poisonous and stable substance. TNT and its decay products are accumulating in the plants and animals, causing genetical disorders, leukemia and so on.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2016/02/17/the-canary-girls-and-the-wwi-poisons-that-turned-them-yellow/

There are some places which are uninhabitable since WW2 because of the TNT and other "conventional" substances.

That is an interesting point... I have always wondered why the Japanese decided to rebuild the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the WW2. Your explanation answers that question. Many thanks.

[AdolfinWolf]

I don't think that the radiation fallout will reach Antarctica. Also, the ice sheets are some 2,000 meters thick in some places. So establishing a subterranean base in that continent may be the best way to stay alive during the WW3.

There is nothing to be afraid of. Most of nuclear weapons are far more ecologically friendly than the so-called conventional weapons. Fission products of the common nuclear explosion have very short half-life, just wait few hours and you will be able to visit epicenter of the explosion without putting your health into danger. Wait few weeks and there will be almost natural level of radiation.

Unlike nuclear weapons, conventional explosives are far more dangerous in terms of pollution. Just for example, TNT is a very poisonous and stable substance. TNT and its decay products are accumulating in the plants and animals, causing genetical disorders, leukemia and so on.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2016/02/17/the-canary-girls-and-the-wwi-poisons-that-turned-them-yellow/

There are some places which are uninhabitable since WW2 because of the TNT and other "conventional" substances.

That is an interesting point... I have always wondered why the Japanese decided to rebuild the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the WW2. Your explanation answers that question. Many thanks.

So, TNT is more dangerous after the initial explosion in terms of the environment then nuclear weapons? That's something new, i always hear people screaming about the fallout etcetera...

[audaciousbeing]

This is really a call for concern especially at a time where countries now test their powers based on the numbers of nuclear weapons in their arsenal but for me and quite a number of people in the world I don't think there is a place to run to we just keep hoping that someone does not get mad and start testing the fireworks as for op, I dont know how connected he is because I have watched videos of how US have buildings and locations that can withstand such attack so he could be one of the beneficiaries of such facility.

[crwth]

I think no one would be safe with a nuclear war on going. If you have a vault, you could. It's going to be one hell of a time to live if that happens. It would be sad to see some people that would want to eradicate a country just because of an argument

[Jet Cash]

I thought nuclear weapons were old hat, isn't the future with Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons?

[schamas]

Best Place is Australia, already has radiation from earth's magnetic field.
Noone think to hit that place,

[Losvienleg]

Africa or a small island lost in the immensity of the ocean. There you will risk nothing. In Africa there's nothing to bomb and in the island no one will ever find you if you chose the good one. And even if, they won't bomb you.

[just_Alice]

Easter Island in the South Pacific would be one of the safest places on Earth as the article suggests and I agree with that. I'm wondering whether people are already buying real estate there. After a nuclear war the Earth would be a bad place to live anyway so let's hope that will never happen.

[Sithara007]

Africa or a small island lost in the immensity of the ocean. There you will risk nothing. In Africa there's nothing to bomb and in the island no one will ever find you if you chose the good one. And even if, they won't bomb you.

With a population of over 1 billion, Africa represents one of the greatest reserves of manpower, for a potential world-wide conflict. So the warring sides will be attempting to remove this resource, by nuking Africa.

[Slow death]

So if the event of nuclear war, where should you head? >>

Iceland.



A great place for someone to hide

Africa or a small island lost in the immensity of the ocean. There you will risk nothing. In Africa there's nothing to bomb and in the island no one will ever find you if you chose the good one. And even if, they won't bomb you.

With a population of over 1 billion, Africa represents one of the greatest reserves of manpower, for a potential world-wide conflict. So the warring sides will be attempting to remove this resource, by nuking Africa.

The world today is very different from 80 years ago, there are many African Millionaires who are partners/owners of big companies that are in Europe and America, it will not be so simple to see all Africans as cattle