# The safest places during WWIII



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/ar...safe-countries-india-pakistan-north-korea-war

Interesting article. I'm in #10 and depending on weather 7 days from number one.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

They don't provide a single reason for why it would be dangerous to stay in the US.
Canada would crumble under the weight of a sudden population explosion. Most of the country is uninhabitable, so we'd all just be homeless in Toronto or Vancouver. Take your pick.

No thanks. Let it all kick off. We can use the opportunity to do a little house cleaning of our own.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I saw that article, this afternoon. It suggested I go to Canada, and I saw the reasons. I realized the article was crap. 
I saw where the article suggested people in parts of Europe go when SHTF and I saw that those countries are small and unlikely to take in so many people.
The only part that made good sense was to not go to the Middle East. No kidding. 

Danged thing about WWIII. Running to any place is going to be more than difficult. Unless you live on a boat. Those smart people on boats will have options.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

The thing about running on the boat is the constant fear it doesn’t stop bullets, it doesn’t out run dual powered speed boats, and if the wind doesn’t blow your a slow sitting duck ( when the wind blows your safe but you gotta work it continuously).


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

I suspect that an actual WWIII would be primarily nuclear in reality. I think in such a scenario, there really will not be any "safe" place to be.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

stevekozak said:


> I suspect that an actual WWIII would be primarily nuclear in reality. I think in such a scenario, there really will not be any "safe" place to be.


Full scale exchange? No place to go.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

stowlin said:


> https://www.express.co.uk/travel/ar...safe-countries-india-pakistan-north-korea-war
> 
> Interesting article. I'm in #10 and depending on weather 7 days from number one.


ooooooooh brother not this stupid hack again >>>> this bullshit article is everywhere - and it's the worse kind of claptrap nonsense ....

that women is stuck in 1912 somewhere - no freaking idea of alliances much less modern warfare strategic planning and movement ...

take her advise and you're most likely moving into Ground Zero ...


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Unless you can go underground for at least two years, your chances after that might be 50/50, JMO


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> They don't provide a single reason for why it would be dangerous to stay in the US.
> Canada would crumble under the weight of a sudden population explosion. Most of the country is uninhabitable, so we'd all just be homeless in Toronto or Vancouver. Take your pick.
> 
> No thanks. Let it all kick off. We can use the opportunity to do a little house cleaning of our own.


in regard to Canada >>>> been in NORAD alliance since post WW2 - the major cities and whole eastern half of the country gets hit >>>> whatever happens to the US happens to Canada .....


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

So, the middle east is out? That was my first option. 

Anything can happen, but I don't see a sudden all out attack, but rather an escalation, and I see it happening rather fast. You'll see it coming but I am betting travel will not be an option. 

Depending on how WWIII ( not all that unlikely as most would people hope I reckon ) would unfold, I may have a chance to take a crap and drink a beer. Canada? No, I think I will watch the show from right here.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

stevekozak said:


> I suspect that an actual WWIII would be primarily nuclear in reality. I think in such a scenario, there really will not be any "safe" place to be.


I disagree. I see a few exchanges to "rough each other up" and then there could be an actual agreement to no longer use nukes. Conventional war would still be in play.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

RedLion said:


> I disagree. I see a few exchanges to "rough each other up" and then there could be an actual agreement to no longer use nukes. Conventional war would still be in play.


I think you have more faith in human intelligence amongst the political ranks than I do, but I sincerely hope you are right!!


----------



## Yavanna (Aug 27, 2018)

I would not move from my country in case WWIII breaks out. First of all, why would someone bother to attack Brazil? ( and if someone does, I highly doubt it would be a nuclear attack, since that would pollute water and soil, then they would be unable to use our resources). 
Also, leaving to a nearby country would not be any better, really.


----------



## youngridge (Dec 28, 2017)

Yavanna said:


> I would not move from my country in case WWIII breaks out. First of all, why would someone bother to attack Brazil? ( and if someone does, I highly doubt it would be a nuclear attack, since that would pollute water and soil, then they would be unable to use our resources).
> Also, leaving to a nearby country would not be any better, really.


Brazil is an agricultural titan. Maybe Venezuela could take some tips. Being that, anyone wanting to disrupt the food chain would make Brazil a target.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Yavanna said:


> I would not move from my country in case WWIII breaks out. First of all, why would someone bother to attack Brazil? ( and if someone does, I highly doubt it would be a nuclear attack, since that would pollute water and soil, then they would be unable to use our resources).
> Also, leaving to a nearby country would not be any better, really.


any large airport and seaport would be possible tertiary targets for post strikes - just depends on the activity >>> if a bunch of bulk tankers or freight haulers - that were in transit when the shooting started - took refuge in a port - an assault sub wouldn't hesitate to nuke the port with a torpedo or a missile >>> same same with an airfield ....


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

Safe? You aren’t safe now.


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

It’s funny people think they will be ok.. if enough nukes drop to take out two super powers...we are all fked...


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

stevekozak said:


> I think you have more faith in human intelligence amongst the political ranks than I do, but I sincerely hope you are right!!


Not most people, but those countries with significant nuke stockpiles do not want a dead world and I am pretty darn confident that nukes would stop being used before we ruined everything.


----------



## Yavanna (Aug 27, 2018)

youngridge said:


> Yavanna said:
> 
> 
> > I would not move from my country in case WWIII breaks out. First of all, why would someone bother to attack Brazil? ( and if someone does, I highly doubt it would be a nuclear attack, since that would pollute water and soil, then they would be unable to use our resources).
> ...


yes, but not with nuclear weapons, that would be pointless, since the water and the land would become contaminated. 
And if they come with an army, it would be quite a colossal task to take a country so big &#128517; USA, Canada, Russia would be bad for taking too. 
Also, if Brazil is left alone, we might as well just kill each other, why bother attacking?


----------



## Yavanna (Aug 27, 2018)

Illini Warrior said:


> Yavanna said:
> 
> 
> > I would not move from my country in case WWIII breaks out. First of all, why would someone bother to attack Brazil? ( and if someone does, I highly doubt it would be a nuclear attack, since that would pollute water and soil, then they would be unable to use our resources).
> ...


our airports and ports are ridiculous &#128514;&#128514;&#128514; 
Do not have too much faith in it
Ok, if someones assembles an army big enough to march over the country, they would have to drop them by air. 
As for the ports, there are few, and they can hardly handle the trucks unloading grains, let alone any sort of military defense. 
I bet if there is any invasion, it would lead to an endless fight on facebook, with people against the invaders and people supporting the invaders. That would be fun to watch.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Someone was bored made up a bunch of BS and posted it.


----------



## Yavanna (Aug 27, 2018)

Smitty901 said:


> Someone was bored made up a bunch of BS and posted it.


yep, that's true. As if that nations on the list would welcome all of the foreigners in case of a war.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> I disagree. I see a few exchanges to "rough each other up" and then there could be an actual agreement to no longer use nukes. Conventional war would still be in play.


 No one follows any agreements anymore except the US and we get screwed every time.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

WW2 The Swiss claimed to be Natural. However they were Germany's banker . They allowed Jews to put their money in Swiss banks then put the Jews right back on trains to Germany to be killed keep their saving. yes the Swiss were safe but at what cost. It took many years for even a little of the truth to be known. Schools still teach what a great nation the Swiss were by stay out of the war. Same thing goes on today. just different players.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Yavanna said:


> our airports and ports are ridiculous &#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;
> Do not have too much faith in it
> Ok, if someones assembles an army big enough to march over the country, they would have to drop them by air.
> As for the ports, there are few, and they can hardly handle the trucks unloading grains, let alone any sort of military defense.
> I bet if there is any invasion, it would lead to an endless fight on facebook, with people against the invaders and people supporting the invaders. That would be fun to watch.


"any port in a storm" >>> the vast majority of the international pilots are ex-military - if they got surprised by a nuke attack they'd quikly divert - most would take SA over Africa anyday of the week - hopefully get fuel and safety until a rally point was announced ....

when 911 shutdown the US airspace - the planes stacked up like cars at a Xmas mall - any airfield that could handle the size was buzy - our regional field had 1,000 stranded passengers and a terminal the size of a Super 8 lobby ....


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Yavanna said:


> yep, that's true. As if that nations on the list would welcome all of the foreigners in case of a war.


Ya know, girl, South America lasted out WWII with just a few filthy Nazis moving in. I still think you should get the upstairs bedroom ready, I have a lot of old enemies...


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

The Tourist said:


> Ya know, girl, South America lasted out WWII with just a few filthy Nazis moving in. I still think you should get the upstairs bedroom ready, I have a lot of old enemies...


actually there was a good sized German colony in SA pre-WW2 - especially Argentina - the old Lufthansa had regular tri-motor air flights across the Atlantic - the FBI hunted NAZI spies down there thru out the entire war - lots of military influences in SA even today ....


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> No one follows any agreements anymore except the US and we get screwed every time.


I am not referring to any agreement in place right now, but one that would quickly come about after a few nukes have hit countries at war. None of the major powers want the end of the world, not a single one.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Denton said:


> .... Those smart people on boats will have options.


Yep, like whether to hand the keys over to the retired SF guy pointing his gun at them or not.... thats my plan.

"uuuuhhh...uuuhh....youhh got ta ta ta ta pu pu punt out , or,or,,,,hyu-yu-yu got ta got ta swim...wwwwoman.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> No one follows any agreements anymore except the US and we get screwed every time.


I don't know that the U.S. government does, either.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

You think those on boats won't point a big gun back ? People on a fiberglass boat have to chance in a gun fight so it needs to be avoided, or they need to shoot first.



Old SF Guy said:


> Yep, like whether to hand the keys over to the retired SF guy pointing his gun at them or not.... thats my plan.
> 
> "uuuuhhh...uuuhh....youhh got ta ta ta ta pu pu punt out , or,or,,,,hyu-yu-yu got ta got ta swim...wwwwoman.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Ragnarök said:


> Safe? You aren't safe now.


After reading back through this thread, I believe this to be the most important post made in it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The worst place to be is where you are a foreigner. Don't know the language or the culture? Don't have friends or family? Think about it.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Denton said:


> The worst place to be is where you are a foreigner.


Denton, I considered your opinion. To add to it, I'm a "foreigner" everywhere now, I'm a baby boomer.

I stand for ideals now out of fashion, and as a young boy I was socialized in an MC. I work at my job, and while I own the business, I worked at other peoples' companies, as well. I save money. My wife and I dine at restaurants with coupons. I repair things instead of throwing them away. In fact, I give most of the knives away now as a simple act of charity.

Now, I no longer use words and phrases like "groovy" and "right on," but during those unsure years in the late sixties, I did think for myself. I would hate to walk on the present campus of the UW-Madison and blindly accept the present mindset by rote.

I just received notice that a knife I ordered is now at my local UPS hub. At 9:00AM I will leave to pick it up. While I carry some folders as utility tools, I ordered this present one for defense. That's because I still believe you should step in and rescue a weaker person from a bully or a mugging.

--like we did when "A Bat out of Hell" was a new release...


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

stowlin said:


> You think those on boats won't point a big gun back ? People on a fiberglass boat have to chance in a gun fight so it needs to be avoided, or they need to shoot first.


Those with the biggest boats are Liberals who hte guns....just saying. I'll avoid the boats named Dixie's delight...or Molon Labe III...and go for the ones with names like Climate Changer...or White Man's Guilt...
BTW there seems to have been some defensiveness in your retort. Yes there are people who will and deserve to fight to keep their shit...then there are those who got rich by stomping on our rights, advocating the taking of our guns, the control of our lives by government....roughly 48 percent of our population by the way. So yes, when things go to hell in a hand basket, and I have to look out for myself...I am going to flat out victimize those folks to get what I need, if I need it. Thats all part of the holding people responsible part...and yes, if caught, I too would deserve to be held accountable.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Old SF Guy said:


> Those with the biggest boats are Liberals who hte guns....just saying. I'll avoid the boats named Dixie's delight...or Molon Labe III...and go for the ones with names like Climate Changer...or White Man's Guilt...
> BTW there seems to have been some defensiveness in your retort. Yes there are people who will and deserve to fight to keep their shit...then there are those who got rich by stomping on our rights, advocating the taking of our guns, the control of our lives by government....roughly 48 percent of our population by the way. So yes, when things go to hell in a hand basket, and I have to look out for myself...I am going to flat out victimize those folks to get what I need, if I need it. Thats all part of the holding people responsible part...and yes, if caught, I too would deserve to be held accountable.


You are going to get yourself killed. We will miss you. :vs_wave:


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

My only defensivesness was in that I wouldn't likley be shot at on my boat unless I fired first and I wouldn't fire first unless I felt threatened with no alternative because as I noted few people on a fiberglass boat are going to win unless they win first. I disagree that the biggest boats are liberals. In fact they got more places to hide stuff then my 50' does. One interesting thing about SHTF Times the rules about carrying firearms on the seas are out the window.



Old SF Guy said:


> Those with the biggest boats are Liberals who hte guns....just saying. I'll avoid the boats named Dixie's delight...or Molon Labe III...and go for the ones with names like Climate Changer...or White Man's Guilt...
> BTW there seems to have been some defensiveness in your retort. Yes there are people who will and deserve to fight to keep their shit...then there are those who got rich by stomping on our rights, advocating the taking of our guns, the control of our lives by government....roughly 48 percent of our population by the way. So yes, when things go to hell in a hand basket, and I have to look out for myself...I am going to flat out victimize those folks to get what I need, if I need it. Thats all part of the holding people responsible part...and yes, if caught, I too would deserve to be held accountable.


----------

