Support NeoGAF

[Yka]

The right answer is Sweden:

The World in Flames 1939-45

The World in Flames 1914-18

Seriously speaking the whole northern hemisphere would be a nuclear hellhole. Destroyed nuclear power facilities would be a much bigger problem than the nuclear weapons. You would be dead sooner or later (before your natural time), if you stayed in Europe or North America. Remember how Fukushima fallout went around the northern hemisphere last spring.

Nuclear power facilities:

If world war III broke out, it would probably be USA, EU, India and Israel vs. China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran. China would grab Japan, Australia and New Zealand in a heartbeat. If you don't want to welcome them as your new overlords, I wouldn't stay or go there.

South Africa might be a safe place (at least for some time) but I would say that some remote location in South America would be the safest place in the world (China could grab South Africa and Madagascar).

Time to buy your airline tickets, if Israel attacks Iran next year. Pick your country:

 

[guidop]

Heard Island, not sure about winter but fresh water from the snow lots of seals and birds to eat and remote as hell

 

[demon]

Under da sea!

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Under da sea!

In a pineapple?

 

[Emwitus]

International space station...............:....:........................lol

 

[Chuck Norris]

Unfortunately, Australia is so going to be China's bitch if WWIII breaks out.

Not sure what you mean, Australia's relations with China are about as strong as our relations with the US right now. We'd probably maintain a close-bordered policy and try to placate both sides with trade agreements.

Of course South East Asia could be the major battleground if a war between China and the US broke out. We are probably too far away for any major strategic advantage there

But the US does have military bases here which is problematic

 

[Chuck Norris]

Is nuclear winter even proven past sci fi theory? Don't volcanoes spew more ash into the air every year than nuclear explosions could ever hope to?

I'd say its more likely that there would be nuclear hot spots and a fair amount of radiation but that's about it

Wouldn't America/Russia etc. have the capability to shoot down most missiles as well? Unless they are fired from short range

 

[entremet]

Gonna be dead anyway.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Is nuclear winter even proven past sci fi theory? Don't volcanoes spew more ash into the air every year than nuclear explosions could ever hope to?

I'd say its more likely that there would be nuclear hot spots and a fair amount of radiation but that's about it

Wouldn't America/Russia etc. have the capability to shoot down most missiles as well? Unless they are fired from short range

Err, count those huge active volcanoes and then think of how many nukes e.g. China and the USA would launch in a war.

 

[rvy]

Russia. Hide under the snow. Putin will banish the unholy forces off his lands.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Who was the GAF-user from Uruguay with the beautiful girlfriend?
Gonna move there.

 

[enewtabie]

Well guess I'm toast if it's nukes. I live about a hour or so from the US Spec Ops command/82nd airborne,etc. If it's invasion, then no prob. There's enough weapons floating in the neighborhood to cover a couple of squads.

I hear Australia is nice this time of year..

 

[weekend_warrior]

Time to buy your airline tickets, if Israel attacks Iran next year. Pick your country:

Isn't there a lot of civil unrest in South America? I'd think if WW3 broke out the rebels would use that as an opportunity to seize control of their country. You won't have to worry about nukes, but the local threat might be just as bad. Besides, they have big spiders down there, fuck that shit.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Isn't there a lot of civil unrest in South America? I'd think if WW3 broke out the rebels would use that as an opportunity to seize control of their country. You won't have to worry about nukes, but the local threat might be just as bad. Besides, they have big spiders down there, fuck that shit.

You're mixing that up with Australia.

 

[IceCold]

Açores is the right answer.
Right in the middle of the Atlantic, plenty of resources.

That's what I was thinking but then realized that the Açores are pretty important due to their geographical location. There's a pretty big US base there and it's used as a pit stop for many boats who travel the Atlantic.

If you want something really isolated, try this place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_da_Cunha

 

[weekend_warrior]

That's what I was thinking but then realized that the Açores are pretty important due to their geographical location. There's a pretty big US base there and it's used as a pit stop for many boats who travel the Atlantic.

If you want something really isolated, try this place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_da_Cunha

Fantastic, when WW3 breaks out I'll grab my paddle boat and head out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Very sensible suggestion.

 

[SpartanForce]

My.

 

[Gianni Merryman]

Dubai, Abu Dhabi, other Arabic countries.

Also, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong.

 

[SolidusDave]

If you want something really isolated, try this place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_da_Cunha

No outsiders are allowed to buy land or settle on Tristan.

Also, volcano and limited genepool.

 

[Wazzim]

I'll flee to North-Africa or Switserland, no bitch touching me over there.

 

[Gianni Merryman]

Is it a given that WWIII would be nuclear?

Yes indeed, it could be anthrax or some other extremely wicked biological weapons of mass-destruction.

 

[Gianni Merryman]

I'll flee to North-Africa or Switserland, no bitch touching me over there.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think you would feel safer in North-Africa or Swirtzerland than any other countries?

North-Africa incidentally has been through some serious issues recently - just look at Egypt, Libia, Algeria, with wars, turmoils and revolutions spreading around and refugees fleeing everywhere - and it is not actually pretty a safe place even now, for what I gather.

Besides, Switzerland is for sure a nice place to live in, but should Europe get involved I don't think it's going to be the safest place you can think of.

 

[Captain Knutsman]

Yes indeed, it could be anthrax or some other extremely wicked biological weapons of mass-destruction.

Then I would go to Madagascar

Spoiler

Maybe online game side get's the joke...

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Africa would be the safest since it does not pose a threat to anyone. But to be more safe i pick Madagascar.

 

[MikeTyson]

Think I'll just stay in Ohio.

 

[legend166]

China would invade Australia for our minerals.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

China would invade Australia for our minerals.

The killer animals of all kinds in Australia are a huge deterrent for anyone

 

[Corky]

I'm leaning towards iceland, but I'm afraid that USA will use it for baseoperations for their airforce, when they invariably bomb sweden because all of ya'll suckers thought it would be safe here.

 

[Parch]

Antarctica. Does penguin taste like chicken?

 

[Mully]

so...


- country mostly independent from import&export or tourism
- politically stable (and hardly involved with over countries) /not much crime etc-
- enough agriculture etc. / good medical standard etc.
- not many interesting resources or a militarily important location (foreign military bases etc.)
- close to the equator to be as warm as possible
- southern hemisphere to minimize fallout exposure
- ideally an island or at least w/o neighbor countries that could become involved/targets
- afar from bigger cities or potential infrastructure targets (still might build a secret bunker?)
- non-lethal wildlife and low geological activity preferred


Did I forget something?


Also keep in mind that Madagascar is the only country surviving various simulated pandemics.

Cuba. They may have a military, but they are not a huge player in today's world. I doubt if WW3 broke out, they would get seriously involved.

 

[Phoenix]

Cuba. They may have a military, but they are not a huge player in today's world. I doubt if WW3 broke out, they would get seriously involved.

I was thinking Madagascar myself, but realistically - these places are just secondary targets for the major military assets that survive since they don't have large established militaries.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I'd ride a polar bear into outer space.

 

[Chuck Norris]

China would invade Australia for our minerals.

Would that really be a big priority in the middle of a war?

 

[speedpop]

If world war III broke out, it would probably be USA, EU, India and Israel vs. China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran. China would grab Japan, Australia and New Zealand in a heartbeat. If you don't want to welcome them as your new overlords, I wouldn't stay or go there.

China would invade Australia for our minerals.

China already has a piece of land in Western Australia for shipping port purposes. I guess mainstream media didn't do its job to whip the public in to a frenzy about this.

 

[EviLore]

Would that really be a big priority in the middle of a war?

You must not play Starcraft

 

[Zeke]

I'm in Texas so I'd just stick around pack the guns up and head to west texas since there is fuck all there

 

[NeonZ]

Isn't there a lot of civil unrest in South America? I'd think if WW3 broke out the rebels would use that as an opportunity to seize control of their country. You won't have to worry about nukes, but the local threat might be just as bad. Besides, they have big spiders down there, fuck that shit.

Currently, there's only some kind of conflict like that in Columbia as far as I know.

 

[speedpop]

I'm in Texas so I'd just stick around pack the guns up and head to west texas since there is fuck all there

Truth be told I think any large and unified country, let alone continent, would be ridiculous to try and assault. Europe (funny I should say this 65 years later), Russia, China, entire North America, Australia, possibly India & Sri Lanka (with a maybe on Pakistan); they're all pretty much safe when it concerns traditional warfare as we know it. It's the naval support and missile bombs that you need to worry about, especially if you live near manufacturing suburbs.

What I would be interested in is the population imbalances and maintaining control over large areas. I can only begin to imagine the horrors a military administration would face to assault and continually oppress Indonesia in this day and age.

 

[siddx]

Isn't there a lot of civil unrest in South America? I'd think if WW3 broke out the rebels would use that as an opportunity to seize control of their country. You won't have to worry about nukes, but the local threat might be just as bad. Besides, they have big spiders down there, fuck that shit.

Argentina is stable but only because the people are resigned to having a devil whore from the depths of hell as their president and all their politicians be greedy idiots.

Chile is very stable, and Brazil, despite its problems, is stable as well. Helps that Brazil's president is a badass lady. Brazil is a big enough player that it would likely be involved in a world war conflict though.

Venezuela isn't very stable depending on your definition
Columbia has actually made a lot of very good strides towards stability in certain areas but remains dangerous in some other areas.
Uruguay is stable because nothing ever happens there
Paraguay is one of the most boring places on earth but it's been making extremely good economic progress, second in the world only to qatar in terms of expansion.

Bolivia used to be a revolving door of governments, but its stabilized in recent ears. It's still an extremely poor nation though.

Peru too has stabilized in recent years and is making strides towards cleaning up corruption.
Ecuador recently had that coup, and its also extremely poor.

So there you have it, move to Chile or Uruguay.


The Surinames dont count, they are barely nations

 

[speedpop]

I once dated a girl who's family immigrated from Chile to Australia in the 80s due to the turmoil. She was probably the most beautiful woman I have ever met and one of the rare few who I keep regular contact with. She promised to take me to Chile one day so maybe I'll scoot over if World War III eventuates.

 

[Zeke]

Truth be told I think any large and unified country, let alone continent, would be ridiculous to try and assault. Europe (funny I should say this 65 years later), Russia, China, entire North America, Australia, possibly India & Sri Lanka (with a maybe on Pakistan); they're all pretty much safe when it concerns traditional warfare as we know it. It's the naval support and missile bombs that you need to worry about, especially if you live near manufacturing suburbs.

What I would be interested in is the population imbalances and maintaining control over large areas. I can only begin to imagine the horrors a military administration would face to assault and continually oppress Indonesia in this day and age.

my city would get bombed to fuck and back, one of the nick names the city has is military city usa.

 

[speedpop]

my city would get bombed to fuck and back, one of the nick names the city has is military city usa.

Time to buy a vacation house in Canada somewhere

 

[Zeke]

if i had to leave the state i was thinking going south to mexico

 

[Parch]

Economic sanctions are the biggest weapons nowadays. Terminate trade with a consumer based country heavily reliant on imports and natural resources and what are they going to do about it? Go to war? Just take what they want? That won't make them real popular in the world view. A lack of diplomacy can do more damage than any bomb.

 

[06nbarnhill]

Well two lines of thought.

If I am looking for a place that is so strategically unimportant and away from any population centers I would say northern Canada.

Though I still think even in a world vs USA battle USA would be the safest place.....the only way to attack the US is by air and by sea (sorry Canada and Mexico...you aren't horribly intimidating.) and our military is so dominant in those areas that I feel fairly secure.

 

[weekend_warrior]

Well two lines of thought.

If I am looking for a place that is so strategically unimportant and away from any population centers I would say northern Canada.

Though I still think even in a world vs USA battle USA would be the safest place.....the only way to attack the US is by air and by sea (sorry Canada and Mexico...you aren't horribly intimidating.) and our military is so dominant in those areas that I feel fairly secure.

That's what I'm thinking. I'd want to get away from the coasts obviously, and far enough away from heavily populated areas to avoid mobs and violence. So somewhere up there in Montana/ the Dakota's would be perfect. Animals to hunt for food, wood for shelter and fire.

 

[Zeke]

yes sir that would be my city

 

[Dalauz]

My country is OK
http://usuarios.multimania.es/weked/hpbimg/mundial 2002 chicas argentinas modelos.jpg

 

[Phoenix]

I don't have the financial means to escape if need be, so I'm here til the death of me. BUT if I did have the money, I wouldn't go north towards Cananda. I don't have much knowledge about military tactics, but if I were to stage an Invasion of the USA, I think I'd rather Invade Canada and stage a US invasion from there. A coastal invasion of the USA just seems like it would be a massacre for the attackers.

Pretty much most of the military doctrine of the Soviets for an invasion of the United States involved going through Canada and sending most of their forces "over the top" with their submarine forces punching through the arctic ice to fire their missiles.

 

[perfectnight]

Japan.

Joke? The chinese will pay Japan back x200 for Nanking.