Nuclear warfare is scary. I don't even live anywhere near a nuclear target but the concept of some stupid thing happening between Russia and the US could basically subject me and everyone I know to starvation, lack of communication, and general supply issues along with a huge increased risk of cancer with a lack of medicine, it's all kinda scary to think about.
Where in the global south (besides australia and new zealand) is least prone to natural disasters, mostly able to survive on their own, is decently safe, and has a decent ability to produce food and medicine? Of course this being /k/ some decent gun laws help too. Thinking of taking the family down to the other hemisphere to weather this is the best longterm generational survival strategy.
cheaper and more rewarding to just prep bro, basically russia has too many enemies to spend nukes on anything more than military targets. the vast majority of us won't lose power/comms/water or food supply. people would be amazed how hard it is to keep life from going on as normal
Fallout is scary and even owning land pouring a concrete shelter is tremendously expensive. Live not all too far from the downwinders in Utah and knowing how many people got turbo cancer from that crap makes the idea of actual large scale bombing seem even worse.
You only need concrete for gamma. For alpha/beta, you just have to not breathe in or swallow the dust, and you'll be fine. Duct tape and plastic can turn your home into a fallout shelter. If you're still concerned about gamma, try building a "pillow fort" inside a room. 3' of packed earth will protect you from 99.9% of the gamma, and even thin walls will add a little protection.
As for finding a "safe" country... New Zealand is about the only thing that comes to mind, and it doesn't really produce medicine. Almost every other place is far worse, however, because even if they produce enough food to be self-sufficient, they generally do so by importing lots of petroleum products (fuel, fertilizers, herbicides/pesticides, etc.). Without those, food production and distribution collapse to pre-industrial levels (actually, probably even worse for a year or two as farmers have to adjust).
Outside of NZ, your best best is actually probably the rural US, which is likely to be able to reconstitute enough agricultural production to get by after a few years (albeit with a smaller population, between the war and the lack of food/medicine/sanitation in its immediate aftermath).
How is Iceland?
>nz
>safe
M8 we call nz a third world country for a reason. Go make eye contact with the local maoris and when your face has stopped being swollen enough to talk, come tell me how safe it is. Bless their skin eating hearts.
t. Aussie battler moron
Why bother with military targets at all? I think it would hurt a frickton more to exclusively target large political/financial/economical centers like NY or Moscow. It's not like the military could survive without the economical backbone.
Even choosing a mid sized town with a population of 100 000 hurts more than seargent Jackass and lieutenant Surge being nuked
My thoughts on counter-value and counter-force nuclear doctrine are:
> state requires popular support to remain in power (Democracies, in general)
Counter-value strikes have a higher deterrence capacity. People generally do not enjoy getting nuked.
> state does not need popular support (Authoritarian states, Dictatorships, ...)
To have deterrence, only striking big cities may not be enough, as king of the ashes may still be a title your local El Presidente is interested in. Therefore, a strike centred around destroying the leader's power would have better deterrence. Cities may still be targets, as I suppose losing your country's centres of production doesn't lead to a lavish lifestyle for the great leader.
Holy shit! You have to go back in time and tell Kissinger and RAND this incredible discovery, the future depends on Dr. Anon's game theory corollary
>the vast majority of us won't lose power/comms/water or food supply
LOL. LMAO. The grid can barely handle a hard winter and just-in-time inventory management has rendered food supplies equally fragile.
How can you be this blind?
Oh look, another nook nook concern thread. I bet *this* one is organic.
If it happens there's basically nothing you can do about it. So it's best not to worry you'll likely die shortly afterwards if you're not immediately killed in a blast.
>shortly afterwards
If you're not near a target your death will probably be a long drawn out starvation or disease thing and not radiation sickness. Only so many deer you can poach while waiting for someone to get the supply chain back up
> long drawn out starvation
legitimately not enough nuclear material to wipe out the farmland; not targeted anyway
>disease
possible, but less likely than you think as long as you know how to boil water and cook things before eating them
stocking up on medical supplies is probably a good idea, as well as educating yourself on when and why the most common medications are administered (potentially including learning how to synthesize or harvest equivalents). making good, potentially even medicated bandages is super important (you'll need an absorbent gauze and a skin-compatible adhesive - packaged bandages use petroleum-based liners to protect the adhesive without strongly adhering to it - and a flexible sealed backing layer) and can prevent wound-derived infection to the point of making antibiotics much less often needed.
for most warfare against pathogens, you'll want antiseptics applied to hard surfaces, and those are actually not terribly difficult to make. learning how to turn brine into lye with electrolysis is quite trivial (chloralkali process)
>Only so many deer
you underestimate how many deer there are. you can also eat squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, etc. - you'd be surprised at how much of what's around you is edible. unless you live in a city, then you're just fricked.
>poach
requires the land to have an owner willing to prosecute for it. many of the largest landowners would have been dangerously near any city-detonated nukes
Poaching is bad because it wipes out the population, doesn't matter if someone wants to prosecute it. If everyone in your city of 30,000 or something is starving because nobody is shipping in food and even a fraction of them turn to killing the deer, the deer are going to start running out. The only reason hunting is sustainable is because we put limits on it and keep tabs on the herd sizes.
>Poaching is bad because it wipes out the population
only if you use environmentalist language to twist the meaning of poaching to "uncontrolled extermination" to justify increasingly restrictive laws on land use in the late 1990s... or did you not know that's where that comes from?
at least 40% of "poaching" in the US is literally the impoverished feeding themselves. naturally, the urbanites writing the laws can only conceive of industrial land exploitation (that's what they do to the rural land they own to make the city not starve to death, after all) and so they buy the lie that subsistence hunting is poaching.
>If everyone in your city of 30,000 or something is starving because nobody is shipping in food and even a fraction of them turn to killing the deer, the deer are going to start running out.
once again, you've mischaracterized the hunting that would be done. they wouldn't hyperfocus on a single animal. you've also taken the usual urbanite assumption that commerce and transit will simply cease to exist if the cities do (this is not the case). they'll be disrupted, sure, but now they don't have to supply cities - the largest consumers of and feeblest contributors to agricultural resources. unironically what follows city destruction is an absolute glut of unconsumed agricultural products - the plants are still growing even if the bank that owns the land is a pile of rubble.
>The only reason hunting is sustainable is because we put limits on it
lol
in the case of deer, the limits have lead to unprecedented overpopulation and the unabated spread of CWD - we're still not totally sure if humans are immune to it, by the way.
>keep tabs on the herd sizes
you clearly do not.
>Bunch of dumbfricks decimate the local population
>"they're just feeding themselves sweetie :)"
>Usual Urbanite assumption
I live on a farm and the only urban area I lived in is a "city" that has a population of 300 that is a 50 minute drive from the next nearest settlement. Still fricking hate poachers.
>transit will simply cease if cities do (this is not the case)
Yeah when there's just 1 road through a winding mountain pass to my area, if the fricking highway gets bombed out, nobody is bringing anything here. Not to mention who's going to bring the oil if the refineries are targets?
>the limits have lead to unprecedented overpopulation and the unabated spread of CWD
Nah the D.o.W. (or whatever the Parks and Wildlife they call themselves now) hands out way too many hunting licenses here. Not even 30 years ago I remember large herds of elk in the thousands roaming the fields in the valley and now there's so few of them you never see them in towns anymore and their herds only number in the hundreds.
>You clearly do not
frick off Black persongay
>I live on a farm... Still fricking hate poachers.
poaching as it refers to livestock is not what was being discussed here - hunting game animals on other people's land was
go complain about losing your livestock somewhere that it will actually accomplish something to prevent it
>Yeah when there's just 1 road through a winding mountain pass to my area
well, thank you for showing me that "what i can see in front of me is the same as everywhere else" is not a uniquely urban mindset
>if the fricking highway gets bombed out
you know, at this point i'm not sure if you're even reading the thread
nobody's wasting PGMs on a disused mountain road post-nuclear exchange
>hands out way too many hunting licenses here
>here
well, thank you for showing me that "what i can see in front of me is the same as everywhere else" is not a uniquely urban mindset. again.
>frick off Black persongay
firstly, the proper term is "Black personhomosexual", secondly... no.
Let me guess, you're someone that moved rural and pretend to act hardass and get mad actual rural people are conservationist, or you're from the south
such an incorrect guess it doesn't deserve a (you)
>actual rural people are conservationist
i thought you said they were gonna poach the deer to extinction, dingus
Cope
Hunting isn’t viable to survive in an apocalyptic scenario unless 99.999% of humanity gets wiped out and you’re one of the few survivors. The deer population was almost hunted to extinction in North America 100 years ago from far less hunting activity than we would see if the food supply was threatened
>you underestimate how many deer there are. you can also eat squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, etc. - you'd be surprised at how much of what's around you is edible. unless you live in a city, then you're just fricked.
All game animals combined in my state provide a small fraction of the yearly caloric break-even for the population. Assuming complete extinction and complete use of all biomass of the game. A cursory look shows this is the case for most all states.
Unless you include cannibalism, that is.
>small fraction of the yearly caloric break-even
people can also eat plants, you know.
and, uh... game animals explicitly exclude livestock. they ain't nukin' the fricking cow pastures
>A cursory look shows this is the case for most all states.
statewide is much too low a resolution for this, as it lumps cities in with game animal habitats - many states are calorically deficient across their entire agricultural outputs because of this. they import from food exporter states. doesn't really give enough info to say anything about the feasibility of survival through game, but more to the point, game isn't the exclusive source of nutrition for anyone.
Thankfully, I live in the centre of Poland's 2nd largest city and there's never been a nuclear war plan that doesn't nuke Poland 5 times over.
I'll be vaporized instantly, which is a fantastic way to go compared to almost any way a person could die. Dead people don't regret being dead, so if you die before you realize you're dying, nothing bad happened.
Pretty much how I feel as a bong living between an airbase and the country's last operating steelworks. Just hope I'm wearing earbuds or fricking or something so I don't hear THIS IS THE BBC FROM LONDON before it happens
>Nuke survival
Be in South America or Africa. Simple
>Be in South America or Africa.
Yeah but then you have to live in brazil
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlgXG93-wIfYou-xO4g_FvP4AhnAUz0dL
If you want something educational which doesn't take itself too seriously give this a watch. You'll feel better knowing how to respond and realise it isn't as bad as it seems
>between Russia and the US
I think you mean Russia and the lower 48. I don't see any bombs hitting us or Hawaii.
enjoy not having fruit or most kinds of vegetables, and the fallout I guess
Alaska is pretty heavily dependent upon sea trade with the PacNW. If you live in a rural area, you could probably get by, if you and your neighbors get along and are any good at subsistence living. If you live in Fairbanks or Anchorage, however, you're in a fair bit of trouble.
Also, Alaska is actually chock-full of strategic targets thanks to its position as the closest state to Russia. Greely would be a major target early on, in an attempt to knock out its ABM systems. While most fighter bases are probably not targets, Elmendorf (F-22s) and Eielson (F-35s) are well-positioned to intercept Bears and Blackjacks coming over the pole, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't get hit in the first wave. Finally, Clear is possibly the highest-priority strategic target in the entire state, as *the* key radar installation for tracking missiles coming in over the pole. There may be other targets worth expending warheads on as well; most likely, they would be communications relays capable of sending targeting information back and forth, especially from Clear.
>Alaska is pretty heavily dependent
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Project harder
>The guy with internet in alaska pretends he's a bushman deep in the interior hunting and fishing for every meal
>he probably lives in a $400,000 house he bought selling his home in Texas, pretending it makes him a real man
I want to do this so bad, just like you describe it. with an internet connection and everything. too bad i don't own a home to sell... god its fricking hot here.
Post pictures of Alaskan refineries. Without fuel deliveries, you're back to dog sleds, oars, and snow shoes.
Don't tell the immigrant living in wasilla that snow mobiles and pellet stoves aren't actually roughing it, it'll hurt his little texan brain.
What are you talking about Hawaii is has a major naval base that's definitely going to get nuked
South America IMO. Maybe Uruguay
Africa, whos gonna nuke that shit hole, or some rando island in the middle of no where.
Assuming they didn't sell half the warheads to build yachts I still don't think we have to worry about it as much as you think. God only knows what the state of the Russian nuclear arsenal is like
even if they have a few hundred it's going to suck for decades
In picrel simulation every major city in my vicinity would be evaporated except the one I live in. Feels comfy
I don't want to survive the nuclear holocaust.
I do...but go out into the remains some 200 years later and see whats changed.
You have a fundamental dilemma here OP, the countries you would actually want to live and earn income from would likely get nuked and you would suffer immediate effects of the detonations. Then the countries that are unlikely to get nuked are all shitholes where you wouldn’t want to spend your entire life. Moving to a shitty dangerous country with a bad economy just to improve your chances of surving a nuclear exchange is kinda dumb.
The best bet is to stay in the 1st world and try to live somewhere 100+ miles from any nearby target but then you still need to worry about the local job market etc
You’d be surprised what is and isn’t a target, as far as North America goes, a lot of people who live “out in the sticks” so to speak are actually living on the frontline of a nuclear war.
In my case, I live in pic related, northern Manitoba. Why would they ever nuke middle of nowhere Manitoba? My town specifically has a large nickel mine (instant target) and as if that’s not a sure enough death sentence, there are about 10 hydroelectric generating stations in the surrounding area along the Hayes and Nelson rivers that are guaranteed to get at least 1 warhead each.
Australia's cities are going to be flattened
Thankfully regulations shut down the mines 30 years ago here, there's no military bases, no large manufacturing, only resource here is hot springs and ski resorts. There's nothing for a nuclear bomb to target. However that leaves me in the "Well, we survived, now we live in the suck" category and while I'd love for my bloodline to repopulate I know my wife can't handle that and my own health already isn't great so I don't live in the headspace of the fantasy survivor wandering the wastes, I more think "ah crap my cancer is going to come back and this time without medicine"
I wonder how bad the netherlands will be hit. Pretty sure they'll hit the ports (air and sea) hard and given the small size of the country fallout will probably be a problem everywhere.
>Nuclear warfare is scary. I don't even live anywhere near a nuclear target
I dont know that feel. I'll probably be instantly purified in nuclear hellfire.