10 Safest Countries If WW3 Breaks Out

Comments

  1. Having lived in Australia, I can tell you that there would be some serious problems with some of the top survival destinations. The people who put this video together have overlooked one vital thing. The biggest problem is the clannishness of islanders. Believe me, you will not be accepted as a refugee, especially when your race is obviously different from the locals.

    My advice is to find an out-of-the-way rural property and dig in.

    • Aussie Prepper says:

      Sorry, cant agree with much of what this guy says! European countries as a “safe” haven? Gimmee a break! Look at WW2 for a hint at what the joint will look like after the occupation troops move in when the nukes stop falling.

      New Zealand is excellent. Great country.

      Maybe Iceland/Greenland but you better like freezing your butt off. Think total disruption of power supplies – then think how you will survive a Winter that is 8 months long with nothing to heat your shelter?

      I am disappointed we here in Aussie have been overlooked – we have a lot going for us and here I’m staying. I also think if there is a nuclear WW3 the Southern Hemisphere is the place to be but lets face it – if the nukes start flying it will be horrendous.

      I’ve been to the US a few times and really love the place and think rural USA is as good a place as any to ride out the storm.

      Aussie

  2. In many ways these people are looking at the country as a whole, but fail to look at the interdependence of nations currently. Most places are not self sufficient, in the modern sense. They are also looking at the governing bodies remaining more or less intact. I think I’ll stay close to where I am and learn how to live without out “government assistance”.

  3. Babycatcher says:

    The locals won’t appreciate thousands of people invading their territory, either! And what about wind drift! I should think it wouldn’t matter where you were on earth- the wind would carry nuclear fallout far from its origin….

    • riverrider says:

      wind drift fallout can be predicted, there are websites devoted to it and as the name indicates, fallout falls out. the tiny bit held aloft for over two weeks is a negligible threat. after the fallout, just wash everything down and bury the residue. studies of chernobyl suggest the danger has been greatly exaggerated if proper countermeasures are used in the first few days.

  4. Another country? Do you speak the language? Even a few words, enough to get by? Could be a hard time ahead. Will any of those nations sell you out if they are invaded by your nation’s enemy?

    Global thermal exchange would very likely have you in a hot area, or not, no choice given. Learn how to survive that.

  5. The only problem being is unless you already live in one of these countries and speak the language, your out of luck. Once a full fledged WWIII begins, you are stuck where you are. There would be no going to the air port and flying out to some remote country to set up a new life. It is my belief that in anything less than a full nuclear exchange, the USA is going to remain one of the safest countries to live in. As long as the American populous is armed, I don’t believe any country has the balls to attempt a military invasion of America. But, if they do and I have to die, it will be on American soil defending my country against invaders. In a full up nuclear exchange all bets are off, but you can still be safe, if you do a little homework and figure out the most likely targets to stay away from. Other than some direct attacks of the major cities like DC and NYC, they will most likely be high altitude detonations for EMP effects.

    • My country! Only cowards run away! Why wait, if you aren’t willing to fight for her, then leave now!

      If an EMP were to take place, then the nuclear reacters will cook off, too.

  6. The whole concept rests on the notion that there would be massive fallout and a nuclear winter. Bull Pucky!
    Few nuclear detonations would produce fallout because few would be Ground Burst as seen in the opening footage. Ground Burst create fallout through a process of Ionization which occurs when the debri gets sucked into the fireball.
    Most detonations would actually be Air Burst because they create a much larger area of devastation and damage. Debris does not enter the fireball and thus will not be ionized.

    • Genealogist58 says:

      Thank you Ron . I agree , the mushroom cloud works great for Hollywood but in real life the bigger kill zone would be Air Burst . I will even take it further that most will die from the overpressure from the blast . Even one pound per square inch will take out the doors and windows of house and can kill .
      If you are out of the initial air burst /fireball zone and if the overpressure is less than 2 PSI you can very much survive a nuclear attack.

    • Anonamo Also says:

      Ok, agreed, What kind of range/miles are we talking from the burst?.. what then?, it truly becomes the shtf when the reactors all go off line because of No or limited power…Do they do like Japan is now doing and just pump amonia in the soil to freeze the nasty…and just hope it goes away.? For How Many reactors?
      ..Does the airburst and detonations set off earthquakes? ….and most of the reactors are in an earthquake zone… Looks like the planners just looked for a fault zone and said lets put a N. plant here!

  7. These locations ignore a lot of factors – small islands in the Pacific are succeptible to tropical storms/tsunamis. Many of the sites are suffering thePC disease (New Zealand/Denmark/Ireland) or restrict gun ownership… Then there’s the ISIS emigres that are traversing Europe. DH and I thought about retiring to Malta. Boy am I glad we didn’t! Look how close it is to N Africa. Wonder how secure the finances are in these nations. I don’t know about Chile, but wow, they sure did gloss over a lot of factors to consider, like how to earn a wage, the language barriers, if these places would be livable without shipment of goods from outside the nations, etc. and Bhutan! You must be joking. Seems to me WWII saw a lot of action in many small, out of the way locales. I’m pretty sure any future war would involve more than just nukes – they’re pretty expensive, and eventually you’d run out, wouldn’t you?

  8. countrygirl says:

    Australia is a thinly populated, resource rich, very large country that is quite close to a overpopulated (China) resource poor aggressive country. If WW III breaks out or anything that seriously reduces the power of the U.S. to police the seas and scare off aggressors Australia will be overrun by Chinese and the current citizens will be killed or enslaved. Of all the countries in the world Australia is the one with the huge target on it. New Zealand is right there with it.

    • Aussie Prepper says:

      What you say about Australia is quite accurate countrygirl. We dont have nukes either. Like WW1 and 2 we were pretty much left out of it because it would take enormous resources to invade us and we provided hundreds of thousands of troops for overseas theatres of conflict. And a Chinese invasion of Aussie would only be possible if China was left unscathed by the mess that was happening North of the Equator, highly unlikely. We do have lots of coal and iron ore but almost no oil so an invasion here would only be possible after the rest of the world was “pacified” which would come at what cost? Natural Gas we have but it is mostly offshore way up off the inhospitable Northwest coast.

      Would someone nuke us? Why? Same with New Zealand.

      I disagree with the notion of bug-out-locations like Chile or other South American countries, or places like Iceland and Greenland, and ANY Euro country would be the last place I’d wanna be stuck in – anyone who got there would be the odd one out and would find it very hard to get by. What language to they speak in Iceland for instance, anyone know?

      We like you Yanks (well, most of us do) and you’d fit in well here if you got stuck when the balloon went up but I really think the best option is still hunkering down in our own respective countries.

      Oh, by the way, dont listen to that crap about Aussies not being allowed to have guns – not true! Some we cant have, that’s true, but we are still doing OK.

      Aussie

  9. Rita Simpson says:

    I’m very pleased to see my country listed as being so small as to be of no interest, which is one of the reasons I feel safer here than anywhere else in the world. We can be self sufficient if we want or have to, despite that others may think we’re not. We certainly used to be before the EU and if you can do it once, you can do it again…..

  10. Chile? Really? Earthquakes and they are severe when they have them. Unless you are there with your own clan likely they will not rescue you. They are looking for their own when things happen.

    The Islands, not sure about those either. Tsunami’s, etc. Plus they do get allot of products from other countries. Not sure how self sufficient an entire population anywhere without world support and supplies. It is a global economy now.

    Iceland – if you can survive the cold.

    Greenland might be an option if you own land there.

  11. Portugal was a neutral country during the 2nd war. My mother was born in 1936. She said that she had food on the table and jobs. No bombs or soldiers. All survived from the land. I have 3 nationalities : Portuguese, German and French and I have family in Brazil, South Africa and Portugal is definitely safe. We are pacifists and we don’t care about outside politics. We are the only country that gave free independent to our colonies without war. We never had a civil war . We have 9 Countries that speak Portuguese: Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Macau in China , Guine Bossau, Timor , cabo verde, Saint Tome e Principe and Goa in India.

Before commenting, please read my Comments Policy - thanks!

29 Shares
Share12
Tweet
+13
Pin14