Gold vs bitcoin in a WWIII scenario

[JayJuanGee]

Gold is usually more expensive than Bitcoin during a war, but Bitcoin will also increase in price.

We don't know the extent of any war, and we don't know how each of them will perform relative to the other, and it might also be worth considering how much preparation that we might want to give to those kinds of various scenarios.

How much break down in civilization is taking place during this supposed war, and are we in a place that is receiving a lot of battles or are we in a more distant location and we might not be suffering as many direct hits, but there still may be areas in which more civil break down has happened and areas in which less civil break down has happened.

It is already best to be investing in bitcoin instead of gold, so why change plans for a war that may or may not end up happening, and even if such war ends up happening, there still might be some use for bitcoin, but we don't know... and yeah, maybe instead of having as much bitcoin, then there would be needs for some prepper type materials, but then that also leads to similar questions regarding how much prepper kinds of materials are going to be necessary and for how long are they going to need to last...Of course, people living in the country have some advantages in regards to abilities to prep, but they still may have some of their own challenges based on where they are and then what is the status of the neighbors in terms of how desperate they might be and how much they might be ready, willing and able to respect property rights.

[Ayers]

Let's compare it to the situations Ukrainians found themselves in.
They needed to flee the country, but there was a chance border guards would steal their money if they found them carrying a lot. The same would happen if they were found carrying a bag of gold.
If they happened to enter the EU, they wouldn't be able to fly anywhere because you cannot carry a lot of cash and valuables like gold, jewelry, including watches, and cash. AFAIK the legal limit is somewhere around 20k EUR. So, in a situation where you have to migrate with a lot of money, bitcoin is the obvious choice.

If I remember correctly, in the European Union you can travel with up to 10k euro without declaring the money; if you have more than 10k euro with you, you can still travel but you are require to declare the money, if you don't and they discover you, the money will probably be confiscated until when your position is clarified. I think in the USA is pretty much the same but instead of 10k euro is $10k. But as I previously said, we're talking about declaring the money, not as a maximum limit you are allowed to bring with you.

The thing is, a WW3 scenario would bring out desperation and physical assets would likely be overlooked. Aside from Ukraine, try to look back at the wealthy jews during WW2. Not many of them survived as well. Money didn't get them salvation. In case of a nuke warefare, both fiat, gold, and crypto would be less important where you can't exchange them for more essential things. Everyone loses. But fiat and gold did get through two world wars and though it's going to be a lot worse, these assets will also survive a third one. Crypto, which isn't really a physical aspect may or may not.

I don't think we can somehow compare what happened in WWII with what could happen in a hypothetical WWIII because we live in a completely different world now: if today a country launches a nuclear attack then there is a high probability that we are going to have a chain reaction from the allies of the countries involved, and this would turn into a way bigger world war. At that point gold, cash, crypto, everything would be useless, the only thing that will matter is finding a way to survive.

Many people also think that gold, bitcoin, money...everything will become useless if war breaks out, but I don't think so. I believe that even when there is war, the economy still works to some extent, I mean money is still used and people with more money will have better privileges and more life opportunities more. If you don't have money, gold, or bitcoin in hand, you won't be able to buy food or drinks, but if you have a lot of money in hand, I believe you can buy those things. As long as there is a need, someone will provide it for us, that's how this world operates whether there is war or not.

[Ale88]

Let's compare it to the situations Ukrainians found themselves in.
They needed to flee the country, but there was a chance border guards would steal their money if they found them carrying a lot. The same would happen if they were found carrying a bag of gold.
If they happened to enter the EU, they wouldn't be able to fly anywhere because you cannot carry a lot of cash and valuables like gold, jewelry, including watches, and cash. AFAIK the legal limit is somewhere around 20k EUR. So, in a situation where you have to migrate with a lot of money, bitcoin is the obvious choice.

If I remember correctly, in the European Union you can travel with up to 10k euro without declaring the money; if you have more than 10k euro with you, you can still travel but you are require to declare the money, if you don't and they discover you, the money will probably be confiscated until when your position is clarified. I think in the USA is pretty much the same but instead of 10k euro is $10k. But as I previously said, we're talking about declaring the money, not as a maximum limit you are allowed to bring with you.

The thing is, a WW3 scenario would bring out desperation and physical assets would likely be overlooked. Aside from Ukraine, try to look back at the wealthy jews during WW2. Not many of them survived as well. Money didn't get them salvation. In case of a nuke warefare, both fiat, gold, and crypto would be less important where you can't exchange them for more essential things. Everyone loses. But fiat and gold did get through two world wars and though it's going to be a lot worse, these assets will also survive a third one. Crypto, which isn't really a physical aspect may or may not.

I don't think we can somehow compare what happened in WWII with what could happen in a hypothetical WWIII because we live in a completely different world now: if today a country launches a nuclear attack then there is a high probability that we are going to have a chain reaction from the allies of the countries involved, and this would turn into a way bigger world war. At that point gold, cash, crypto, everything would be useless, the only thing that will matter is finding a way to survive.

Many people also think that gold, bitcoin, money...everything will become useless if war breaks out, but I don't think so. I believe that even when there is war, the economy still works to some extent, I mean money is still used and people with more money will have better privileges and more life opportunities more. If you don't have money, gold, or bitcoin in hand, you won't be able to buy food or drinks, but if you have a lot of money in hand, I believe you can buy those things. As long as there is a need, someone will provide it for us, that's how this world operates whether there is war or not.

For me, it all comes down at the size of the war: if it's a "small" war like what is going on in Ukraine, and by small I mean that it's about only a few countries, than people can still go somewhere else and yes, of course any type of money would help a lot. If we are talking about a possible WWIII with all the countries launching nuclear attacks to each other then we must understand that life as we know it will be gone for centuries. In an hypothetical post-nuclear world water and food would be way more valuable than gold or cash.

[Ayers]

snip

Many people also think that gold, bitcoin, money...everything will become useless if war breaks out, but I don't think so. I believe that even when there is war, the economy still works to some extent, I mean money is still used and people with more money will have better privileges and more life opportunities more. If you don't have money, gold, or bitcoin in hand, you won't be able to buy food or drinks, but if you have a lot of money in hand, I believe you can buy those things. As long as there is a need, someone will provide it for us, that's how this world operates whether there is war or not.

For me, it all comes down at the size of the war: if it's a "small" war like what is going on in Ukraine, and by small I mean that it's about only a few countries, than people can still go somewhere else and yes, of course any type of money would help a lot. If we are talking about a possible WWIII with all the countries launching nuclear attacks to each other then we must understand that life as we know it will be gone for centuries. In an hypothetical post-nuclear world water and food would be way more valuable than gold or cash.

I understand what you are saying and also imagine that if World War 3 breaks out, things will not be as simple as war between individual countries. But like I said, the economy will still function to some extent, as long as there is demand there will be someone to supply it. That is human nature and it will never go away even if we go back to the stone age after World War 3. Humanity has evolved over thousands of years by exchanging goods and it will always work regardless of world circumstances.

Let's look back at human history, how we have progressed from the Stone Age until now, and if there is a third world war, we will start again from there and assets like Gold, fiat money, bitcoin will always exist and be with us. We will only add new assets, never reduce them.

[Kliss]

The preference between Gold and bitcoin during scenario like this will be a personal decision. But During times of conflict the accessibility and probability of Bitcoin could be more advantageous than Gold, in such scenario physical assets like gold may be difficult to obtain or transport. While bitcoin decentralized nature and global accessibility could make it an attractive alternative. Bitcoin has been as a digital store of value, it has shown resilience to some economic events. So to invest in Bitcoin in world right now it's more preferable than the possession of gold because of the challenges of holding physical gold does come with difficult to store, check purity and hide in certain situations, heavy and not easily divisible.

[Argoo]

The thing is, some of you think of a nuclear war when someone asks you about WW3, but it doesn't have to be a nuclear conflict. In a nuclear war we'll probably face extinction, but in a conventional one you can expect normal trading to continue. You will still have Internet access, be able to watch the news on TV, just like people in WW2 had newspapers and radios. The media kept functioning throughout the war.

In Russia’s war against Ukraine, which is now in its third year, Putin and his entourage have repeatedly threatened Ukraine and the whole world with the use of nuclear weapons. One by one, the conditions were set that if the Ukrainian Armed Forces attacked the annexed Crimea, the territory of Russia itself, Moscow, then nuclear weapons would be used. But the Ukrainians are now attacking both the Crimea peninsula they captured and almost the entire territory of Russia, including Moscow.

If they attack you and try to kill you with conventional weapons, then it practically doesn’t matter if they also blackmail you with the use of nuclear weapons. If you die, then it makes no difference from what weapon, so Ukraine practically does not react to nuclear blackmail and continues to defend itself by all available means. In addition, any use of nuclear weapons will boomerang on the territory of Russia itself and this cannot be ignored. Even the use of small tactical nuclear weapons will mean that it will be impossible to live normally in this territory for decades and centuries. And then why do the occupiers need such conquered territory? In 2022, the Russians invaded the Chernobyl zone of Ukraine from Belarus and even dug in there. After some time, they were all taken to Belarus with signs of radiation sickness. They say that every single one of them has already died. But almost forty years have passed since the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Therefore, not everything is so simple. A major war involving many nuclear states does not really mean that it will be nuclear. But at the same time, it only takes a few idiots with access to the nuclear button to threaten the existence of all humanity. After all, if even one nuclear explosion occurs, after that there will no longer be any deterrent to the use of other nuclear weapons.