If hypothetically WWIII started, and I don’t want to be involved, where would the safest place to live be? Assuming money is not an issue and I would prefer something nice, bonus points if it is not an apartment.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Wyoming
moronic answer. The missile silos in Wyoming would be a primary target if Russia or China decided to perform a preemptive strike.
It's not like this will happen, so it's a perfect place for schizo's to go live and not hurt anyone
Anon those are in montana, nebraska, and north/south dakota.
Wyoming has jack shit
edinburgh of the seven seas
Have fun getting supplies out there if shit really hits the fan
They’d obv lose access to fuel & medicine but St Helena & Tristan Da Cunha are self sufficient food-wise. Life would just return to how it was on those islands in 19th century
South America unironically.
New Zealand.
A large number of rich people from the US etc have bought houses there specifically for that reason.
New Zealand is already well known, it's gonna be a target. It's like the "Hamptons" of "safe locations"
I was just about to say that. That anon was confident that rich people are buying property there, which implies that this knowledge is already common. Any spiteful superpower with a chip on its shoulder would probably target noo zillun for MAXIMUM DAMAGE.
Why would the elite of country A want to nuke the elite of country B in a war? They don't go to war because they hate each other.
NZ has almost zero strategic and negligible economic value. It's already extremely unthreatening and does not even allow American nuclear warships to come anywhere near it meaning it wouldn't be used as a military staging ground even if there was some kind of benefit to using it as such (there isn't). The "safest" place to be would be some island with literally nothing on it even more remote than NZ like Pitcairn or something. The safest place with real infrastructure and quality living would most likely be NZ.
Central america would be a good place. The problem is that you have a great risk of getting shot in a robbery. Much riskier than a nuclear threat.
This
That's true. But
>tfw americans have plans of nuking brazil and argentina in case of total war just to avoid them becoming superpowers due to farming
>assuming money is not an issue
Do you want to bug out in a sophisticated bunker, or do you want to revert to a peasant lifestyle?
Survivalists recommend the Northern Rockies as a region to build your fortified compound deep in the forest.
If money is truly not an issue and you are willing to give up modern civilization and live like a peasant with the peasants, you would want a place with:
1) plentiful rainfall
2) a long growing season
3) friendly neighbors accustomed to simple living and willing to share their practical knowledge
4) minimal natural diseases
I'd recommend the northern Andes tropical highland region. The environs of San Agustin in Huila, Colombia struck me as a great place to go back to the land and disappear. Low population density, friendly people, rich greenery, lots of rain, extremely mild climate, far from the big cities.
>I don’t want to be involved
I interpret that in two different ways.
"I don't want to be attacked by invading forces" = Move to a country that doesn't really fight or make enemies (Canada, Iceland, Switzerland, etc.)
"I don't want to be forced to join the conflict as a soldier" = Make yourself as unqualified as possible. Gain some weight, identify as trans, feign a disability, exaggerate any minor ailments that you actually do have (if any), get an anti-semitic tattoo on your face, etc.
ww3 means nuclear exchange. which means the eurasian and american continents will be atomic wastelands. i would get as far as possible away from those places until civilization returns.
>eurasian and american continents will be atomic wastelands.
I take it Africa will be fine because there's nothing of value there?
basically yes. no nukes there so the third world will be spared probably. but it will be a shitshow down there too since no customers to buy all the natural resources.
>I take it Africa will be fine because there's nothing of value there?
Except most of the minerals needed for modern technology. If shit actually did hit the fan there would be a nuclear-armed recolonization of large swathes of the continent.
Nukes are less area covering than popular imagination gives. Stay out of cities and combat zones, it will be relatively short. The real adventure will be the billion little wars after the big powers collapse, which will be mostly unpredictable and entirely global.
Canada and Iceland are both NATO member states and both host US military installations. If WWIII breaks out they will almost certainly be involved.
I would get a boat and frick off here. In fact I am already saving for a boat. No way this shit will continue peacefully in my lifetime
Aren't there any naval bases in that region? If so, that would probably place you in proximity to conflict. Nothing would be stopping some country from seizing an advantageous island as a base of operations save their targets.
then you can just frick off to another island. there are thousands of islands in that area, many of them barely habituated
Argentina, in the Andes on the Chilean border. It's the place most protected by nuclear fallout and nuclear wenter, fertile for farming, highly unlikely to get nooked, and cheap to move to. If you aren't going to BOOONK, then I'd look into buying a ranch down there. Not that I think prepping for WW3 is a good idea anyways lmao.
Just get in before WW2 happens and build a good relationship with the locals.
>Just get in before WW2 happens
dude you're a bit late for that
although i have heard that some of the survivors of the losing side ended up there
Ireland will be even safer than Switzerland
>pic related is a 4 million euro property
Probably because of the roof. West side has so much cheap farm houses
Is that actually true?
Is Ireland really that dire these days???
Even if the current housing crisis didn't exist, holiday homes on the west coast are generally as expensive if not morseso than an equivalent house in urban areas.
There are houses in west Galway (Roundstone) that would be smaller but twice as expensive as my current house in the mid-west.
West Cork is probably your best bet, just make sure you're within cycling distance of a place with some infrastructure & community.
All bets are off when the Gulf Stream collapses though.
The answer is Australia, strong military, civilized society and major food exporter and will likely be hit by less nukes than the northern hemisphere western nations.
Southern hemisphere also has a much less intense nuclear winter.
>strong military, civilized society and major food exporter
you say that as if those weren't reasons for strategic hits.
The only safe places are irrelevant 3rd world shitholes because no one will spend ammo or manpower on those
South America
Chile, argentina
The ISS would be pretty safe
You could even choose which country you want to land in afterwards!
North Canada. Northwest territories, Nunavut.
The safest place that would still have decent amenities if shit hit the fan: probably Australia or NZ
The absolutely safest place anywhere on earth: Probably Tristan da Cunha
WWIII won't happen at least not in the foreseeable future. Worst case scenario is that Russia chimps out and nukes Kiev prompting an all out conflict between NATO and Russia. Russia would be completely flattened and the west would be badly damaged by nukes. China would just stay out of it and take over what's left, so your safest bet is to learn mandarin.
See
After the global empire falls, you will see a frickton of regime change and local wars break out. Probably will start with stupid ethnic grievance shit like the Pakis and Hindus, but with no global cop it eventually tumbles into dissolution of large states and mass piracy/banditry.