+- Survival UK Forums (http://forum.survivaluk.net)
+-- Forum: Discussion Area (http://forum.survivaluk.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: Scenarios (http://forum.survivaluk.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=84)
+--- Thread: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts (/showthread.php?tid=8070)
Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - NorthernRaider - 8 December 2015
Definitely don't agree with this authors choice of locations.
http://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/624859/The-10-safest-countries-if-World-War-3-breaks-out
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - CharlesHarris - 8 December 2015
If WW3 breaks out, it will eventually go nuclear. In that case you have a world-wide "On the Beach" scenario, but after the worlds over-population has been eliminated to the tune of about 1 billion people, the remaining resources will allow any long term survivors to prosper in a pre-industrial society and in a few thousand years they will have forgotten their origins and can evolve to do it again!
I just want some young, tough, resourceful blokes and their ladies to find my preps and carry on when I am done.
Maybe it's time to read The Road again...
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - NorthernRaider - 9 December 2015
I prefer Alas Babylon.
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - Tartar Horde - 9 December 2015
I fear if we do have a full nuclear exchange there will be far more than one Billion dead Charles.
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - NorthernRaider - 9 December 2015
I dunno about casualties any more, 30 years ago everyones nukes were huge great ground bursting megaton city killers, but these days most military use air burst kiloton weapons, death toll with still be dreadful but INITIAL casualties are likely to be less but much modern infrastructure will be toast so post attack die off will be still horrendous
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - bigpaul - 9 December 2015
if you read War Plan UK- yes, I know its 35 years old but at least it gives some idea- they reckon the population after an attack will HALVE every 6 months, maybe levelling out at the 2 year mark, i'm sure you can all do the sums.
probably be more than half these days as no one is self reliant any more.
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - Jace - 9 December 2015
Saw an article this morning about a nifty nuke+fallout map that a university professor has developed and shows to all his students. I can't find the article now, however, remember the interactive map is based on a calculation method and modeling that the UK used to use in the last years of the cold war.
The map is available at http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
(you can choose which city to nuke, nuke size, ground burst or air burst etc)
Back to the article NR mentioned - I think New Zealand would be the only viable country of those ten the author provided. The island nations would be too small to host many outsiders (not to mention disappearing underwater through climate change
), while places like Switzerland are at as much risk as any other European country. While NZ would face nuclear fallout from possible strikes on Aus, I reckon it would be the only country isolated enough and able to accommodate a lot of people (not to mention being fairly food-secure).
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - CharlesHarris - 9 December 2015
Multiple high altitude EMP bursts to take out the power grid, GPS, Internet and phone system would only require an aggregate of 20-50kT.
Or Putin could set off one of his Sakarov Tsunami-producing, high rad, deep ocean cobalt mega-weapons they developed during the Cold War and produce a 1000 ft. tidal wave that would wipe out the Benelux countries, UK, and most of France, while devastating the east coast of the US from Boston to Baltimore up to 100 miles inland.
We've known about Soviet nuclear torpedoes for years, Putin intentionally leaked this again as a form of sabre rattling.
100-megaton warhead in Atlantic Trench could devastate US east coast and much of Europe coast with massive tsunami and intense radiation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252
On the diagram the giant torpedo's range is given as "up to 10,000km" (6,200 miles) and depth of trajectory is "up to 1,000m" (3,300ft). It was developed by Rubin, a submarine design bureau in St Petersburg.
It would, apparently, be launched by nuclear-powered submarines of the 09852 "Belgorod" and 09851 "Khabarovsk" series. Rossiiskaya Gazeta called the torpedo a "robotic mini-submarine", travelling at 100 knots (185km/h; 115mph), which would "avoid all acoustic tracking devices and other traps".
According to state-run Rossiiskaya Gazeta, the destructive power attributed to the new torpedo's warhead would fit the description of a cobalt bomb. That would be a type of thermonuclear warhead with a layer of cobalt-59, which on detonation would be transmuted into highly radioactive cobalt-60 with a half-life longer than five years.
Such a weapon would guarantee "that everything living will be killed", the paper said - there would not even be any survivors in bunkers. A cobalt bomb has never been tested because of the devastating radiation it would unleash.
"But it can be considered as a means of deterrence - like the Perimetr system, which is on combat readiness, which guarantees retaliation with all of Russia's nuclear forces even if command posts and the country's leadership have been annihilated".
Russian military experts told BBC Russian Service:
A warhead of up to 100 megatons could produce a tsunami up to 500m (1,650ft) high, wiping out all living things 1,500km (930 miles) deep inside US territory - Konstantin Sivkov, Russian Geopolitical Academy
Robotic torpedo shown could have other purposes, such as delivering deep-sea equipment or installing surveillance devices. The Russian defence ministry has a special division for deep-sea research - Konstantin Bogdanov, Lenta.ru website
This is no secret for the US, whose military is also working in the area of robotic submersibles for hunting and destroying submarines - Viktor Murakhovsky, reserve colonel, editor of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine.
The submarine, the newspaper said, had been called “Sakharov’s Torpedo” after the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov, but had never been built. Meduza, a Lithuania-based news portal covering Russian affairs, cited blogs of Russian military history enthusiasts asserting that the design resurfaced in the 1980s, under the code name “Skif,” but that it was again shelved.
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - NorthernRaider - 9 December 2015
These days Russia is likely to conquer the west by BUYING it not bombing it.
RE: Ten safest countries to go to if WW3 starts - CharlesHarris - 9 December 2015
I expect that would be true and that the ChiComs would be happy to give him a great deal on about $14 Trillion in Obama debt.