Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Best Countries in The World in the Case of Nuclear War
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- Get personalized advice about tax, asset protection, offshore banking, residency, and citizenships: calendly.com/m...
You can visit our websites for more information about us: offshorecitize... & www.offshoreca...
Which countries are safe in case of nuclear war? If the worst-case scenario was to happen where could you go in order to survive?
Today we are talking about the top safest countries, that will probably not be affected much in case of nuclear war.
How should you think about the safety?
The first thing you'll need to consider is which country (or area of the world) is not likely to get attacked.
The second thing is the proximity to the place that is getting attacked, as this brings the danger of nuclear fallout.
The third thing to consider is food access and general security, access to power, and all other living conveniences of the modern life.
Here is our list of safest countries in the case of nuclear war:
- Antarctica (this is widely considered to be the safest place in case of nuclear attack, however we definitely don't recommend this option)
- Easter Island
- Canada
- Iceland
- South African Republic
- Argentina
- New Zealand
Who are we and what do we do?
We are Offshore Citizen team. We help people become global: get a second passport, set up a second residency, pay less taxes, do banking abroad, etc.
We have lots of interesting articles on different topics, we have relevant information up to date.
Author: Michael Rosmer
Feel free to join our community!
Don’t forget to subscribe to our channel
/ @offshorecitizen
In the event of a WWIII scenario, Iceland plays an important role in North Sea operations. The large NATO airbase there would certainly be a target. Canada also has several airbases that play a role in NORAD that would likely be important targets. Agreed that NZ is the best "lifeboat" option.
Canada does have bases but Canada is enormous so its easy to be far from those bases
@@OffshoreCitizen Canada is enormous but Russia is nearly twice as large again, would that same logic mean Russia is an even better place to be?
@@AskAkseli Not to mention the enormous fall out from northern US cities and ICBM fields. I guess a cabin on Baffin Island might work.
NZ is a bad option since isn't self-sufficient in the food field and would starve and not have enough food for all the refugees that tries to escape there
Don't come to my country we have enough problems here in aotearoa plus my people will probably end up resentful if foreigners come here taking more of our lands
I'm from South Africa, and I've never met someone who's been held at gunpoint..
Lol, i was in Cape Town as a tourist, and i know many South Africans, none of them told me they've been held at gunpoint either (nor was i). They did mention it's not safe, but haven't used those words.
Ya id avoid all of Africa. Fuck that continent.
Me as a tourist was attacked by someone with an axe… I only know SA folks being stabbed but I guess not much guns at least.
My wife is from Lansdowne (Cape Town). Her cousin was killed in a drive by shooting.
issue with iceland is that its in a military strategic position between europe/US and would likely be annexed/invaded in order to establish it as a halfway point for military bases
This assumes they get that far once the missiles start flying
Fallout can definitely be huge. My wife was a Chernobyl baby. Her mom was pregnant with her in Yugoslavia when the nuclear plant blew in Ukraine. They were pretty far from the actual disaster but the fallout caused many of the pregnant women in the area to miscarry at the time. That fallout can drift a long ways. If a nuclear war were to happen, it would most likely happen in the Northern Hemisphere. With that, I'd say almost anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere would be pretty safe from fallout due to atmospheric circulations. Air from the North just doesn't really mix a whole lot with air from the South.
Mothers outside of Chernobyl didn’t miscarry because of radiation. It was because of abortion. They feared that their children might grow up with illness when, in fact, it was safe and had no long-term effects. It was a psychological thing (radiophobia), and people were misinformed. It's tragic how many lives that were supposed to be born were killed because of this… When it was not needed…
This kind of thing shouldn’t be repeated.
Chernobyl was awful. Try multiplying that dozens of times to account for mutually assured destruction policies amongst virtually all nuclear countries...
In fact sir, I think that south america will be the best place to live in such case. Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentine, Chile, south of Brazil, Peru, even Bolivia. Those are countries to star again after a nuclear war, no doubt about it.
Agreed. Their neutral too
NZ has a lower latitude which would likely be crucial for survival, though still likely futile there too.
Thank you for taking the possibility of nuclear war seriously.
This is an interesting list. It would be great to see one with a climate change impact outlook (climate migration, food scarcity, and temperature/weather changes)
Surviving the bombs is one thing, but surviving the food shortages, pollution, panic and chaos is quite another. I'm in Australia in a country area at least 5 hours by road from a major city, but still think I'd have to grow my own food if the nukes started to fall in Eastern Europe. Also, the value of money will change totally, and fuel will become scarce. I don't welcome such a scenario at all.
A timely topic, to be sure. The Southern Cone of South America would be my first choice. South Pacific islands not associated with any Western country would be my second. Although New Zealand would likely be a good choice, the fact that it is an Anglo country and part of the Five Eyes might make it a target, especially if other high profile Western persons/entities make it their place of refuge.
Not to mention their Marxist leader might make life unpleasant for anyone taking refuge there.
After the situated b 52 bombers, it likely will be a target.
I agree with your comments. And New Zealand may be within range of an Australia-centered super EMP attack, which could create another challenge.
New Zealand, Uruguay, Mauritius
I would chose argentina, is self-sufficient and produces it's own food, energy and weapons, probably one of the few with internet after the u.s and russia deletes each other and the fact that is very easy and quick to get the citizenship also they are giving lands for free for new citizens in the province of mendoza which is their most prosperous province from where they produce their finest wines and other foods.
Im from Costa Rica a country with no army ironically but I know that in a case of nuclear war argentina is the best option o this continent
Argentina is like the only country that produces both more food and energy resources than they consume
Nope, not the only one.
@@lorenk.775 there might be 3 total in the world, maximum
fact check, not true
I think South America in general will be a good place.
more than energy is the food , and a clean land to produce food.
Interesting call mate. I think New Zealand would be geographically isolated enough to relax in a far flung corner of the world, not to mention the scenery is prettier then a lot of place in the world.
Ye 🙂 what do you think about Switzerland 🇨🇭?
Don't think Switzerland is nearly as good, it's right in the middle of western Europe, which is likely to get hit a lot
and its on a major fault line
Perth australia, isolated, lots of natural resources
I truly hope this will never be something we need to act on but I also believe it's stupid not being prepared or at least having thought through what to do if different types of emergencies occurs.
I would love to see a video with the professor as well. I'm particularly interested in the chances of a Nuclear Winter if there is a nuclear war and how that would impact what locations are the safest.
I hope so also, but it seems like the US leadership is stumbling their way to a nuclear war, not even using any measure of diplomacy.
Good primer on the topic.
I think being in the southern hemisphere would be a crucial first step. The prevailing winds are likely to circulate very bad stuff throughout much of the northern hemisphere.
I think you would also need to consider being somewhere that you're likely to fit in. Race. Language. Various beliefs. In such an event, most countries would become insular and untrusting of outsiders. Being able to blend in would be important.
Physical safety would be key from, so making sure that you're not a target of the other (as Doug Casey might say) chimpanzees. I would not want to be anywhere with too large a population, or the chance for others to easily migrate there.
From there it is the basics, water, food, shelter. Perhaps a way to earn income to keep these things coming into your life.
Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina are good options
Would you buy pre-emptively in any of those areas?
Uruguay is super safe and tax great , why go to Argentina ? Also believe in Brazil that will have amazing food source and energy in abundance
Uruguay is too small,Brazil is too tropical while Argentina has the advantage of different climates and different food production
Energy taxes are expensive in uruguay and the rate of criminality, homicides and suicides in uruguay are greater than in argentina, brazil is closer to the north hemisphere so part of the country could be affected by the nuclear winter.
Southern hemisphere 👍 atmosphere does not mix that much between the two sides of the planet
I am Canadian too, but if a nuclear war breaks out, you will not be safe enough in Toronto or Montreal because of the fallout coming from New York if New York gets nuked. For Canada you would be safer by going as far north as the James Bay coast or Yellowknife. But South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would surely be safe.
Michael, great stuff as always! It would be also interesting to hear your thoughts on the wealth preservation strategy in case of major conflict, not nuclear, as we are all going to f...d in this case :)
Food, somewhere to live, tradable skills and tools.
I'll see what I can create, I have done some videos talking about elements of this but will see what I can put together
Iceland, Canada, South America are on my list too.
Also, Canary Islands and Azores.
Isands are not a good. choice because of non-existant self-sufficiency. Even more if the island is in Europe, because of its closeness to the UK, its strategic position, and fallout threat.
Not Canada. Canada will be effected by the radiation, and the cold cold nuclear winters.
Canada, would be the worst place!!! It'll be caught in between U.S. The missiles will explode right over the top. Also the missile silos in the Dakotas will be a prime target, fall out will sweep the Prarie provinces.
No Iceland. Bad idea. That is a hot spot during cold war because Iceland is the best place to intercept ICBM. So once started, there will be radar stations in a heart beat. NewZeland is similar in that sense that it is a best place for radar station to detect satellite. Another reason is that there is a circulating northern air stream which touch northern Russia, Canada and Britain. So once radiation particles go into it, it will be distributed all over the stream.
You avoid going close to high latitude.
Stay where large rain fall is normal (close to equator). You want any fall out to wash away asap. Moreover you want weather that doesn't require heating to survive.
Uruguay over Argentina? Many of the advantages without some of the negatives?
It's a reasonable choice, the biggest reasons for saying Argentina are more geographic choices and more food production but it comes with trade offs.
If that happens I would go back to my home (French Polynesia, between Easter Island and New Zealand). It's far from everything, food won't be a problem (since it's tropical you can grow food all year and the sea provides) but in terms of energy it's still very dependant on oil (like most isolated islands). I would buy a bunch of Jackery power banks + solar for that problem.
Safety is also a big concern when people will start to fight for resources and although it's not the safest place on earth, people do not have guns there and help each other out. I would avoid countries where people tend to be segregated or individualistic (better to have a group effort to go through that difficult moment than people fighting to make ends meet).
I agree with New Zealand being the top choice as they can be pretty sufficient on food and energy (lots of land) and they share their borders with... no one lol. That means if a societal collapse were to happen in a neighboring country you'll be safe from that. Guns control is also much better than in the US.
Don't they have a lot of restrictions and seismic activity
But what would happen if many refugees gets to new zealand? How are you going to escape the societal collapse in a country surrounded by the ocean and no neighbors?
Mauruuru Roa pour ton choix du Fenua frangin 👍
Fa aitoito ! 💪🙏☀️
For me Australia and New Zealand would be good for me
I might go for Chile before Argentina. A lot of the same advantages but a much more stable country. They've hit a rough spot here recently with some big political shifts and are headed towards a recession in the short term, but bad times in Chile still seem to compare favorably to normal times in Argentina!
I have thought about Chile as well - not sure if they are as food self-sufficient as Argentina (which has to be the country that gets the least from the most resource-wise in the world), and the other downside is they are prone to seismic activity. The world has definitely become a shittier place in the last 3 years...
Having recently spent time in both countries.
Argentina is a mess for daily stuff. Nothing really works and people are fed up so they don't work.
I've waited 30-40 minutes for a whopper at burger king
Argentina and Chile have a history of conflict, today Chile has a much better equipped professional army, the Argentine armed forces are in a pitiful state. Argentina is practically a protectorate of Brazil.
We indeed are a mess. Hi from Argentina lol
Early 80s was interesting too! I'm thinking Vanuatu! or Ecuador, up in the hills!!
I'm glad that he's covering this topic! If not a short-term consideration, important for families going forward.
I am thinking of Uruguay ... lowest level of corruption in South America. Great food production. And no one thinks about it ... it just quietly goes on living.
In a scenario of global nuclear war, geopolitical relations become weakened, and it would likely be the end of the UN. Uruguay cannot defend itself against neighboring countries. Much of its weaponry today is donated by Brazil, obsolete equipment.
@@DCFQuintanilhabut their neighbours won't attack it. All six countries in the south cone get alone quite well.
@@eduardotrillaud696 they won't attack in peace times. Once the global food supply is gone, millions are displaced and hungry, Uruguay would be torn to shreds.
Punta Arenas(Chile) and Ushuaia(Argentina)
Easter Island is damn small, only 5k people. Internet was terrible there in 2017 (pre Starlink). Tasty fish though!
My picks would be countries far from the ocean in South America like Paraguay and Bolivia.
Rural Southern Africa would be the second place on my list; my pick in Southern Africa would be Namibia.
The South Pacific islands in Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia would be third.
Why do you say far from the ocean?
@@OffshoreCitizen
Far from the ocean makes the most sense as it avoids nuclear waste that can contaminate the ocean; also any large scale attack on South America would have to happen by ocean and places deep in the Andes like Paraguay and Bolivia are less likely to get impacted by it. This shows with the Spanish who had an extremely hard time taking over Bolivia and Paraguay, which is why to this day a majority of the people there are of pure Native American ancestry and more people speak local Native American languages like Guarani than Spanish.
@@RomilCPatel Good choice, though, just for the Record, the Andes mountains do no reach into Paraguay, but I gues they would act as a form of shild for Paraguay on their western frontier. I hear the levels of corruption and criminality there are not great either, so something else to consider.
South Argentina, South Chile, South NZ, and Raivavae ! 😁
Philippines ! We have more than 7,000 islands to choose from and lots of caves better than a bunker😂
Too close to China unfortunately
Dude if it’s nuclear war. South Africa is heaven!!!
One word... Madagascar
But what if you only have 24 hours left? So 5/7 might be too far. Same for Island. Where to get a fast flight to I? So the most realistic destination would be Canada. But what if the plane lands in Vancouver and you don't have the time to travel to the countryside anymore.... Questions after questions...
It looks like you're in Sofia and that's the Vitosha mountain behind you. Welcome to Bulgaria.
Yes it was indeed
Thanks for making this video! Interesting to look at what countries one might move to as political tensions and ongoing war escalate between Russia and Ukraine.
What are your predictions?
@@OffshoreCitizen Hey Michael, it appears that this war with Russia/Ukraine will continue, As well, it appears that we will see more destabalization of the European union and the Euro. There are so many twists and turns with the what moves Russia will take next. I feel Putin is for real and will not back down,. And, I see the US continue to push and support the Ukraine in this war. In the event of that nuclear weapons are used - i would defintely want to be in a safer region such as some the countries you mentioned like Chili and New Zealand.
Southern Hemisphere.
Rural stable region. Decent climate.
#1 Because its large, rural, isolated, tons of food and energy exports, low crime, parts of Australia are unbeatable like Tasmania, Central Queensland, Adelaide area, outside Perth, many other great locations, and has some islands as well.
#2 is New Zealand, it has earthquakes, but otherwise similar to many good Australia locations, especially South Island NZ.
#3 is many South Pacific Islands, such as Fiji, Niue, Vanuatu, even Easter Island etc.
#4 is Patagonia region South America, especially Tierra del Fuego island, and Southern half of Chile and Argentina.
#5 Falkland Islands, it's more isolated than many other places.
#6 is perhaps places like rural southern Brazil, Uruguay, while less isolated, they have great points and much less crime than northern South America.
#7 perhaps places in the northern Hemisphere like Iceland, big island Hawaii.
#8, perhaps parts of Canada it is huge.
#12 perhaps if we look inside the USA, rural midwest areas like the southern and Central plains, the Ozarks, the Ouachita mts. Build a fallout basement though...
Argentine patagonia🌲🌿🌍🌎🌏❤
You would probably be pretty safe in Nauru, but you would need to like fish and tropical fruit, haha. The weather is nice too.
Have you ever been? Not a lot of tropical fruit and lots of imported processed foods
@@HyperspaceHoliday , actually I have. I was there for a special event and we did get especially good treatment, so we had plenty of fresh food and nothing processed. However, the locals do have a frighteningly high rate of obesity from the junk food, which is unfortunate.
Thanks a lot, What do you think of Mexico/Costa Rica? Thanks
Central America is not a good idea, too close to the US
Im from southern Costa Rica there are roads that could take you as far as southern panamá but in case of nuclear war Will go as south as I can get. Northern brasil is not a bad idea.
Can you make a video on the best countries to go to if we’re in an energy crisis? like the one Europe is facing right now; I think the GCC would be good since they produce more energy than they consume.
Great suggestion, will do
I totally agree with the options you mentioned. I would probably add Chile as an equivalent to Argentina, they are next door and you can go almost as South as Argentina before hitting Antarctica. That being said, Argentina has the southernmost city in the world, which would probably be a more livable place than Antarctica. And if things get really bad, you can always take the boat from there to Antarctica directly.
Why? To live in a world that’s contaminated with fallout?
South Africa has a population of 62 million and not everyone has been a victim of crime. You have probably met a specific type of South African that exaggerated.
Depends of what type of nuclear conflict. The one envisioned by the US doctrine of MAD has few safe places (nuclear winter), while that postulated by the Russians (limited use against an adversary that can’t fight back in kind) has many. In the latter, any country coveted by Russia or China (which likely thinks like Russia when it comes to ☢️ ) without the ability to return the favor is a risk of being on the receiving end. Countries near the victim would have the fall out problem. A MAD type scenario is likely needed for a real 536AD type of catastrophic nuclear winter (536AD was a super volcano event).
For those that doubt MAD, it’s founded on the idea of use ‘em while you got ‘em (the first targets are the other side’s ☢️ ). The big question is would Biden risk MAD by protecting a country with a nuclear strike? I doubt it, and that doubt is the risk we face if Putin doubts it too.
Thanks for giving me a bit of hoop for suif Africa 🇿🇦‼️🤞🙏‼️🇿🇦
Tasmania aswell
What makes you suggest there?
@@OffshoreCitizen I posted two links to a study done about the best places incase of social collapse. Tasmania has a mild climate, lots of fertile land and sea. Low population density. Is on the southern hemisphere, distance plays in its favor in this case, as its more isolated and hard to reach. Its run be the australian people who value human rights more and culture is also more about coorporation, unlike some other developing nations where things will turn violent much quicker imo.
What’s your take on Uruguay as an alternative to Argentina in this context? Similar location, less population, same food security, more stable jurisdiction.
I think it's a viable alternative
Good if you have a couple of acres to grow your own food and raise your own animals.
An Argentine rogue province.
Paraguay is a good choice as well. One of the worlds largest underground reserves of fresh water beneath it.
South America.
What do you think makes South America the safest choice?
@@OffshoreCitizen maybe because farther from the fallouts from the northern hemisphere - so Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay - the south of SA especially - and decent safety and hopefully self-sufficient. On the other hand, New Zealand is more politically involved, more "associated to the West" and too close to Australia to be as safe, but still a good choice I think
Either far away or where the first nuke lands in my backyard...
What about Madeira? Its an island in the Atlantic. As a target that seems an unlikely target. If "shit" doesnt hit the fan, Portugal with thier D7 and Gold Visa offers benefits to your pocket book and super place to live. Just a thought.
I view it as too close to European targets and lacking in sufficient local food production
What about Belize and the Caribbean?
Too close to the US so nuclear fall out plus most of the Caribbean isn't great for self sufficient food
@@OffshoreCitizen it’s closer to the US but Belize is very self sufficient with food
I'm from South Africa.. Glad to hear we're relatively safe from nuclear. Yal be safe. 09.10.2023
What about Tristan da cunha ?
Hello, where did you film this video? I see a large tall building behind you with what looks like a huge cross on it. Is it a cross and what building is it?? Thanks. Where in the United States would be safest? Nowhere? Thanks.
Filmed it in Sofia, Bulgaria. That's certainly not a huge cross, looks like a crane
Michael what's your thoughts about Turkey, in line with this topic?
You forgot about the 80's, mate, I think you lived back then already. It has been called the "Cold War" and yes, there was a continuous nuclear threat we worried about back then ;-) In terms of countries you suggest as being safe, the question is not only who is likely to be bombed, that is the most obvious one. The fallout is much more prominent than you put it. That being said, no country in Europe is safe, we felt the fallout due to wind conditions when the Tchernobyl incident occurred, and that was an accident within the territory of a potential enemy, not an attack on a Nato state! Having said that, Iceland is certainly not safe, nor is Canada, it's way too near to potential targets of an attack. Also, supply chains and self-sufficiency are way more important, at the end of the day, you don't wanna go there just to get some shelter for a couple of days, nor for holidays. You want to continue life with at least a minimum of comfort. So, I agree with South Africa - certain parts, and New Zealand. But you completely forgot Australia which is equally as good, especially the South. Argentina is good as well, but you forgot all the rest of South America, they are all good choices, so Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. Obviously, some are safer than others in terms of crime, but they are all pretty self-sufficient, are importers of goods from neighborhood countries and in general, don't depend too much on supply chains to Europe or China since labor cost is very low.
Im 44 years from south Africa, i never been a victim of crime.. I went to England for few years, I got mugged, my car got stolen, i came because its much safer for me here and south Africa has the best climate in the world, so i really don't know what you talking about
I’d pick a part of Australia far away from major cities and fallow. Like Margaret River
Why do you think that's the best choice?
Probably Perth. There’s not enough 8-10,000km+ icbms to spare for a non priority city and it’s very isolated from the Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, adelaide where most icbms of that range would go near.
@@ac1455 why hit a major city that has no nukes? Australia is a threat to no one.
Yeah Australia would be appropriate but does it have everything we need and more such as the internet and all that and more
@@robertdavies6630Yes. Australia has a large indigenous energy supply. It is self sufficient in food. It’s geographically large and varied. It has a well educated population and the ability to produce all the things it needs. Parts of Australia, such as the southern parts of WA have a well developed agricultural zone, good water supplies and a mild climate. It is also a long way from any strategic targets. There are definitely targets in Australia, but the country is so large that there are large swaths of the country that have no strategic value.
Southern NZ is the only place on earth with any chance of survival at all, given the inevitably high level of nuclear retaliation and constant global airflows carrying deadly fallout. But survival in New Zealand is not extremely likely either.
Patagonia
I did prep for this for many years already. Is it time to leave or just sit quietly and wait for it to unfold🤔
It's always later than you think.
What about the Dew-line getting taken out? it runs across north Ontario but I am not sure if it is very important anymore do to satellites now...
Good question, not sure
Brasil and Uruguay too!!!
What do you think puts them on the list?
In geographic terms Argentina is the perfect country, having fertile soils. But the country is in a horrible economic situation and has practically no armed forces capable of defending itself. The Chilean army is much better equipped and professional, but the country is not as good in geographic features as Argentina. I say this because I am Brazilian and I know the reality of these countries. Of course, in a scenario of global war, conflicts would be unpredictable and as much as South America is a peaceful place, it is important that the country has armed forces with good defense capabilities. Something that Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia do not have.
I know you said South Africa is a dangerous place to be, but what about Cape Town for example? I've heard good things about living there.
Safety is definitely relative and partially a function of how you behave, where you go, etc
Why worry about the safety of our own petty, miserable lives?
south africa has a huge water problem and also some crime related issues imho
You're looking for comfort in the midst of a nuclear war? You can't be that delusional are you?
Why not CHILE? I am living in Chiloé Island in Chile and I may help if you are searching a Farm or a house here! Best! Andrea von Roth
I think it's a reasonable option especially if you can secure a broad food supply
@@OffshoreCitizen sure look here we have Free Market, strong Private Propierty Rights, and Our Constitution is Libertarian, similar to the American one. Plus in this Island you have cheap land and farms. Chile is like NZ but cheap.
@@andreavonruth7952 but your country lacks food production, oil and gas and on top of that your citizens are more aggressive towards migrants from other countries just look at how they treat venezuelans and haitians when they go there, in case of nuclear war chile wouldn't have the means to supply the large waves of refugees and most of them would pretty much get kicked out either by the local population or the security forces
In truth, Chile has a large production of fish, we are top-class exporters in this, not to mention that we do have extensive agriculture, and more modern materials for technology and energy such as lithium, copper, among several others, as well. We have the blessing and curse of studying geothermal energy due to the abundance of volcanoes, not to mention that Chile, located in Europe, occupies 65% of its geographical territory, it is not a small country and has a small population for so much land. You also say and talk about the treatment of immigrants, but it is because you do not know the reality, many bad people arrived here from Venezuela and Haiti, they are the main actors of crimes that had never occurred in Chile, however, we are a country of culture of work and we admire the people who come to prophecy, regardless of their procedure @@demonofreason7574
South America for sure. Ecuador is the most livable
What do you like the most about Ecuador?
@@OffshoreCitizen
1. Great weather
2. Low cost of living
3. Safe
4. Cheap real estate.
5. Groceries all organic since preservatives are banned
6. Low taxes with a territorial tax too.
7. Access to all South America similar to eu
Switzerland
No Nato Country
Not North America, Australia, Europe
Not RU and Ex Soviet states.
Not China and neighboring countries
Medium
Phillipines
North Africa
Good
Island (but nuclear Winter)
South Africa (but racial tensions VS whites)
Brasil (close to Equator good in nuclear winter)
Argentina
Ecuador
What about Chile? You get the "Argentina factor" (Really southern) but way more political and economic stability, no?
Once nuclear war begins, económic stability would no longer matters, every single economy would collapse that includes Chile, argentina has lots of food, getting the citizenship is faster and easier, spanish in argentina Is easier to learn than chilena spanish, argentina has many different places with different weathers for people from around the world.
@@sebastianmalpica3795 en chile hay mucha comida y agua tambien, somos 19 millones de personas, aca no hay caos social como argentina
@@sebastianmalpica3795 Not sure if argentinian spanish easier than chilean spanish, in fact, uruguay and argentina use spanish voseo, also they conjugate EVERY VERB different than the rest of spanish speakers (e.g. Tenés instead Tienes) and some letters sounds are unique in that accent (they pronounce every word with Y and LL as SH).
Interesting topic! Will you leave Dubai if nuclear war happens? And do you mind explaining the reason (Hopefully, no one will be stupid enough to actually start it😢)
I'd likely leave Dubai assuming I could get flights in the event of nuclear war, yes. I'd be concerned about regional supply lines and possible regional escalation
South Africa is not that dangerous as most people think.
Which part of Canada would you consider safest in this case?
Probably somewhere up in the Yukon Territory
Good question you need to consider the variables.
1. Far from places that will get bombed, this means far from major cities and military bases
2. Places where the wind currents aren't likely to carry as much fallout
3. Places where you've got good access to food
The first two might imply somewhere far north in the wilderness but the later probably implies somewhere further south with lots of food production
Sounds like the Prairies, Northern Ontario and the Terriorities up north would be the safest in that case
Fun video about a scary topic. Love it.
I would think if there is a nuclear war the last thing you would be worried about is Argentina’s debt situation or currency. Lol
NZ is the best choice.
Why do you choose New Zealand?
@@OffshoreCitizen it’s beautiful. Reminds me of the mountains where I live in Canada. Sparsely populated. Probably wouldn’t be if everyone fled there though
I think Fiji is my choice in case of a nuclear armageddon, because its as tropical and warm as you get and it's self sufficient as well 😎
In the event of nuclear war you won't be able to just jump on a plane and come here without a right so it will be tough bikkies... This country does not want mass immigration. So keep your plans in check. Also the billionaire bunker thing is very likely an urban legend. I live in rural NZ. People can't just go digging big holes without council approval and the whole community knowing about it. And so far, not one has been substantiated.
Would you feel safe in NZ in case of such an event?
Congrats on (nearly) 50k. Uruguay also worth consideration.Safer than Argentina. Perhaps also Chile.
Uruguay and argentina seems safer but chile isn't, just look at how they treat migrants and the fact they import most of their food
@@demonofreason7574 Argentina produces food for 600 million people, and we currently have a population of 40 million ;)
Argentina was actually a rich country during both world wars precisely because of producing and exporting food.
U need to consider that country won’t draft you to the war also. New Zealand is not idea place. Historically ww2 it had mandatory draft. U should look for ice land Greenland or st kitts, South American
Fair point
so what about the nuclear winter that would affect the whole of the world.
Money has no value if there in nothing to buy
Maybe Switzerland 🇨🇭 would be best country to move in during such period.
Very close to lots of the possible targets
@@OffshoreCitizen I see I thought they were very neutral and distant from wars lol
They've historically been neutral (though violated that with Russian sanctions) but are close to major European cities, which could be targets and result in fallout
@@OffshoreCitizen I see that sounds scary...
South Africa
Why do you think SA would be the best choice?
@@OffshoreCitizen their far south if there is food shortages there is lots of game to hunt guns are legal it's takes while to qualify to get them you can use solar power ecause south africa is mostly always sunny
I'd add Mauritius to the list, except on the self sufficiency in food.
Yeah that's a pretty major issue
Buy land and plant some veggies or fruit
The best to country to survive is Anuslandia
What's with your throwaway point about most people being held up with guns. I have lived here in SA for over 70 years and never witnessed gun violence you mention so off the cuff as though it were the truth. Highly irresponsible on your part. People are known to be very friendly and welcoming of visitors or tourists. Shame on you.
I would go to Paraguay. It has lower taxes than New Zealand, and better economy than Argentina.
Economy wouldn't matter once the first bombs touch the ground
As near as I can tell somewhere on the South American continent would be about the safest
No mention of Greenland?
No, only because who really wants to live there?
@@OffshoreCitizen Maybe backdoor to Danish citizenship?! 😆
I think the Falkland Islands would also not be a bad spot.
What do you think makes it a good option?
What about Sweden? 😨
chile argentina south africa, australia, new zealand
This guy is gonna be monetizing a lot these days.
Canada or Caribbean..usa too
What makes you say those?
@@OffshoreCitizen europe is the main battlefield obviously, asia you gotta be rich..it's chaotic
I think New Zealand would be a bad idea,because I live here
I don't want War Moungering northern hemisphere people here
we are a peaceful country and want to stay that way
I live in South Africa...I'm sure we'll be fine right? Right guy?? PLEASE TELL ME I'M RIGHT???!!!
Agrentina..without question. NZ would get hit eventually...fours eyes and all that...the cities in canada would be first wave hit. Northern canada would be ok
1 Simple Answer! Anywhere in Southern Hemisphere.... South America #1, as it's furthest away from any likely epicenter & fallout. Water/air are separated from from Northern hemisphere too, which provides added protection against any pollution from war. There's also no reason for any aspects of the next war to be down there.
What country in South America would you pick?
@@OffshoreCitizen Well, I'd agree with you on Argentina as a top choice down there...