PDA

View Full Version : world war 3-list the safest 'untouched' countries?


dalsar
17-06-2009, 04:32 AM
Which are most likley to be the safest 'untouched' countries if ww3 was to break out, in terms of the countries which are unlikely to get involved or have the least destruction done to them/ or least number of army attacking them, list the countries who fit this category.

is Australia one of them?

list the ones you think (from experience of World war 1, and world war 2)

measle_weasel
17-06-2009, 05:08 AM
I wouldnt list countrys per se, but more so locations. I think the following would have a very low probability of being severely damaged, at least as a result of direct conventional/unconventional warfare: The Canadian wilderness, the Australian outback, the Rockies, the Russian wilderness, and if you want to get technical but not realistic, Antarctica and the Arctic, the Sahara, and the Gobi. Underground would probably be safest, though.

Any place that is not extremely remote will probably be affected in some way by a WWIII, and most if not all of the planet will be affected if said war sees some nuclear action.

dalsar
17-06-2009, 05:17 AM
I wouldnt list countrys per se, but more so locations. I think the following would have a very low probability of being severely damaged, at least as a result of direct conventional/unconventional warfare: The Canadian wilderness, the Australian outback, the Rockies, the Russian wilderness, and if you want to get technical but not realistic, Antarctica and the Arctic, the Sahara, and the Gobi. Underground would probably be safest, though.

Any place that is not extremely remote will probably be affected in some way by a WWIII, and most if not all of the planet will be affected if said war sees some nuclear action.

Was australia affected in world war 1 and 2?

measle_weasel
17-06-2009, 05:56 AM
Was australia affected in world war 3?

WWIII hasnt happened yet.

awakeorasleep
17-06-2009, 06:14 AM
Australia will be involved in world war 3, they were involved in world war 2 and the vietnam war, so logically they will be in. Seeing as China will be a main enemy then Australia is close enough to be dragged into the fun and games. Safest places? Sit on a big pile of Nazi gold in Switzerland and you will be fine. Nowhere else in the Northern hemisphere will be safe, Africa also has its problems. What about South America?

dalsar
17-06-2009, 06:16 AM
WWIII hasnt happened yet.

lol, oops i meant ww1 and 2.... Ive modified the post

disorder2k8
17-06-2009, 06:23 AM
apparently Norway isnt that far gone yet

awakeorasleep
17-06-2009, 06:26 AM
apparently Norway isnt that far gone yet

They must have added Norway to the list of countries to be involved , otherwise why the massive underground facilities?

h2pogo
17-06-2009, 07:43 AM
how about mongolia.
i doubt if any one would want to waste a nuke there.
nomadic people are generally pretty cool.

jhado
17-06-2009, 08:06 AM
They must have added Norway to the list of countries to be involved , otherwise why the massive underground facilities?

Norway will be a nice warm place to live ,after the re-alignment caused by the pole-shift.

That's why the seeds are being stored there, and why there's are so many "survival-facilities".

I read somewhere ,that mankind was only designed to operate within 1200 miles either side of the equator anyway

Sussed it:-
Norway moves to a better climate;
A new ice-age limits survival to the Equatorial zones; 500million people will
be enough for that (chosen ones, 80% population reduction, etc...).

I could ramble on, but I'm on posting on the wrong thread................I'll get my coat.

vorador
17-06-2009, 04:04 PM
switzerland.

steevo
17-06-2009, 04:06 PM
I would love to live in the Australia in the bush in an area where no-one ever goes. I would be happy there and would be prepared to take my chances there.

rhydra
17-06-2009, 04:12 PM
I live in an area of the UK that has tunnels and mines all over the place, some are huge and have long abandoned facilities. The residual water and air will take a long time to become contaminated, the deep valleys and relatively rugged terrain would break up any shock wave if there were any facilities in the area. One would have to have prior notice before anything kicked off to set up a home inside an abandoned mine, food supplies etc. it would also have to be protected such as camouflaging the entrance, booby traps and long sticks to deter roaming zombies.

raven200
17-06-2009, 04:16 PM
I would put my money on Africa, reason being that there are large parts of Africa that have rarely been touched and also very importantly most of the world don't think much of Africa, they don't see any major resource they would need to go after and thus it will be left alone, well the middle of Africa I think North and South Africa maybe involved.

Also I think canada is a good bet as well, they are overall a very peaceful lot and hugh amounts of untouched land, but beware they have huge grizzly bears and ofcourse the SASQUATCH.

Overall not many other places safe, don't think Australia is as the outback is one of the worlds most deadliest places and no man can physically survive there unless possibly your aboriginese.

gripit
17-06-2009, 04:24 PM
switzerland.

Agreed...

...and Antarctica...other than that, we're all screwed! ;)

sade
17-06-2009, 04:46 PM
Switzerland is safe because of the gold and Cern. Whatever else they are cooking down there...

Anyways, I think Nordic countries are quite safe. Iceland too.

dynamicwiseman
17-06-2009, 06:53 PM
Oxfordshire might not get hit, since it contains the oldest illuminati universities.

nonfictionalentity
17-06-2009, 06:56 PM
The Moon?

awakeorasleep
18-06-2009, 12:29 AM
I would love to live in the Australia in the bush in an area where no-one ever goes. I would be happy there and would be prepared to take my chances there.

You would starve to death, there is a reason why most of the Australians live on the coast.

dalsar
18-06-2009, 08:24 AM
You would starve to death, there is a reason why most of the Australians live on the coast.

will most people around the world starve? or some places will be ok you recon?

starve as shops will be blown up, lorries transporting food wil stop their routes to shops, farmers + companies producing food will slow down ?

tracker
18-06-2009, 08:26 AM
Which are most likley to be the safest 'untouched' countries if ww3 was to break out, in terms of the countries which are unlikely to get involved or have the least destruction done to them/ or least number of army attacking them, list the countries who fit this category.

is Australia one of them?

list the ones you think (from experience of World war 1, and world war 2)

I made a thread for this reason , for hints and info that might help surviving to some degree .

here it is .

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69204

or you could google

WW3 simulation your self and see .

:cool:

tracker
18-06-2009, 08:28 AM
you'll only stave because of lack of knowledge .

thats the key ya know

knowledge ,

knowing where and how TPTB store foods , where big businesses store it , where to find it and knowing good shelters

steevo
18-06-2009, 08:33 AM
You would starve to death, there is a reason why most of the Australians live on the coast.

Really ?

jhado
18-06-2009, 08:40 AM
Steevo,

Come to Kettering mate, nothing ever happens here.

Global anarchy, pole-shifts, meteorites, paah!.......not in Kettering it wouldn't.

tracker
18-06-2009, 08:47 AM
nuke war is far more easy to survive than people think .

ignorance is what kills during a nuke attack , not fall out .

geee --------go through the survival section and read !

:cool:

tracker
18-06-2009, 08:50 AM
Global anarchy, pole-shifts, meteorites, paah!.......not in Kettering it wouldn't.

that sounds funny lol :D

unusual_suspect
18-06-2009, 08:51 AM
Norway will be a nice warm place to live ,after the re-alignment caused by the pole-shift.

That's why the seeds are being stored there, and why there's are so many "survival-facilities".

I read somewhere ,that mankind was only designed to operate within 1200 miles either side of the equator anyway

Sussed it:-
Norway moves to a better climate;
A new ice-age limits survival to the Equatorial zones; 500million people will
be enough for that (chosen ones, 80% population reduction, etc...).

I could ramble on, but I'm on posting on the wrong thread................I'll get my coat.

Have you heard of these guys by any chance?

http://www.dkfoundation.co.uk/

They seem to be thinking the same thing, places above 60 degrees north.

dalsar
18-06-2009, 09:06 AM
you'll only stave because of lack of knowledge .

thats the key ya know

knowledge ,

knowing where and how TPTB store foods , where big businesses store it , where to find it and knowing good shelters

but eventually wont they be blown up, if not, then all truckers/supplying food to them would stop supplying them, so eventualy it wil become an empty store..... ?

tracker
18-06-2009, 09:14 AM
but eventually wont they be blown up, if not, then all truckers/supplying food to them would stop supplying them, so eventualy it wil become an empty store..... ?

Not all will be blown up .

it doesnt work like that .
yes it will get hard , but I seriously think you need to read certain threads in the survival section .

amny people panic over this situation of nuke war and think like your post above , but I can tell you , it wont happen like that .

yeah it will get hard , food will become rare and important ------for some worth dieing for , but thats the key


knwoing other people
how they act
where they would go
etc etc etc

see beyond the picture , and look at what makes it that way .

do that ----------------- ?

and survival becomes easier .

:cool:

towns and cities ???????????????????:eek:

never go there .

thats where people would die of fights and starvation .

country homes ?

they too will become targetted .

one has to think outside the box .

:cool:

dalsar
18-06-2009, 10:24 AM
Not all will be blown up .

it doesnt work like that .
yes it will get hard , but I seriously think you need to read certain threads in the survival section .

amny people panic over this situation of nuke war and think like your post above , but I can tell you , it wont happen like that .

yeah it will get hard , food will become rare and important ------for some worth dieing for , but thats the key


knwoing other people
how they act
where they would go
etc etc etc

see beyond the picture , and look at what makes it that way .

do that ----------------- ?

and survival becomes easier .

:cool:

towns and cities ???????????????????:eek:

never go there .

thats where people would die of fights and starvation .

country homes ?

they too will become targetted .

one has to think outside the box .

:cool:

are you suggesting move to never never land? :cool:

mark will i am
18-06-2009, 10:35 AM
Really ?

No not really. You wouldn't starve in the bush at all (if you knew what to eat and how to eat it). Aboriginies have perfected that over 40,000 years or more and populated this entire country.

Water is more important than food though. You can live 3 weeks without food but only 3 days without water. Same principle applies though: if you know where/how it's all good.

awakeorasleep
18-06-2009, 01:52 PM
Your best bet is to network with like-minded local people, learn your surroundings, stockpile some supplies and be prepared wherever you are. Nowhere is really safe, it is a New WORLD Order after all.

curtaincat
18-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Switzerland is safe because of the gold and Cern. Whatever else they are cooking down there...

Anyways, I think Nordic countries are quite safe. Iceland too.

well, during the war, hitler made sure he didnt bomb the places he wanted to live in when he thought he was taking over. ( there was a token bomb on buck house, jsut to keep the sheep happy), and he made sure st pauls cathedral 'miraculasy' escaped bombing.

most of the west end was fine, they mainly bombed the east end , poor peoples places.

selective bombing.

( excuse my spelling or fuck off);)

just what happens, they will bomb the poor and not the rich, simple as that.

steevo
18-06-2009, 05:27 PM
Steevo,

Come to Kettering mate, nothing ever happens here.

Global anarchy, pole-shifts, meteorites, paah!.......not in Kettering it wouldn't.

Sounds boring...........just the way I like it jhado :D So it's Kettering or bust for me then lol ;)

steevo
18-06-2009, 05:29 PM
No not really. You wouldn't starve in the bush at all (if you knew what to eat and how to eat it). Aboriginies have perfected that over 40,000 years or more and populated this entire country.

Water is more important than food though. You can live 3 weeks without food but only 3 days without water. Same principle applies though: if you know where/how it's all good.

Knowledge is self enpowerment. I just need to GET the knowledge. I wish that I could live with the aboriginees (the ones who still live in the bush).

fekdemasons
18-06-2009, 05:31 PM
It worked for Indiana jones !

ndc777
18-06-2009, 09:22 PM
Safest countries are those with land above 2 miles (3.2 km) altitude.

Andean countries of South America:

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru


Himalayan & linked Countries of Asia:

Afghanistan
Bhutan
China (Tibet)
India (far north)
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Nepal
Pakistan
Tajikistan



The asteroid will strike on 13 August 2022 in the Pacific.

tyler
18-06-2009, 10:57 PM
I would love to live in the Australia in the bush in an area where no-one ever goes. I would be happy there and would be prepared to take my chances there.

The reason nobody loves there is because there is nothing there and the dirt won't grow anything. No water and too hot and too many flies. It's a terrible place to be. I've been there!

robdoo
18-06-2009, 10:58 PM
If history has taught us anything, then the safest country to go to incase of a world war is....................Switzerland!

izzy
19-06-2009, 12:23 AM
well, during the war, hitler made sure he didnt bomb the places he wanted to live in when he thought he was taking over. ( there was a token bomb on buck house, jsut to keep the sheep happy), and he made sure st pauls cathedral 'miraculasy' escaped bombing.

most of the west end was fine, they mainly bombed the east end , poor peoples places.

selective bombing.

( excuse my spelling or fuck off);)

just what happens, they will bomb the poor and not the rich, simple as that.


the eastend was bombed because the docks are in the east .. i live in south kensington and that was certainly bombed ... and heavily ..

void
19-06-2009, 12:28 AM
Underground would probably be safest, though.

Brave New World Part 1 - Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds - YouTube

Void :D

curtaincat
19-06-2009, 01:01 PM
the eastend was bombed because the docks are in the east .. i live in south kensington and that was certainly bombed ... and heavily ..

sorry, izzy, did you live through the bombings? ( if so, tell more), or just living there now. still interested on any real history you have. I am a London history fan.:)

I did a tiny bit more research, well , if you can call 'google ' research, :D

this is interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/05/a7075505.shtml



I really dont know where in the world would be safe.
Perhaps just your own heart.