[dyna962007]

Assuming the United State in the future will be involved in a thermal nuclear exchange with Russia, North Korea, and China, otherwise referred to by some as “World War 3”,
and in consideration of developing a strategy for survival of such an exchange,
and in considering both the destruction caused from the initial blast radius of the strikes and the long term nuclear fallout,
and in considering environmental factors including weather patterns, jet stream, wind direction charts, etc.,
and when considering official US government modeling for a 2,000 /500 scenario missile strike, as well as data available from FEMA, and the National Resources Defense Council,

• What specific area(s) within the United States are least likely to be affected adversely from the Nuclear event as described above?
• What countries or territories outside the US will be least affected by nuclear fallout?
• Which countries or territories outside the US are least likely to become involved in fighting a worldwide event such as that described above.

Thank you.

 

[Kauboy]

In US, OK or KS. Nothing there to hit. Maybe a few bases. Plan accordingly.
Outside US, sub-saharan Africa. Same reason.

Any place with good infrastructure and good defense will be on the target list.

 

[Demitri.14]

Antarctica would be a safe place. Bring LOTS of warm clothes. I wonder if BBQ penguin is any good.

 

[Sourdough]

n US, OK or KS. Nothing there to hit.

 

[Sourdough]

What countries or territories outside the US will be least affected by nuclear fallout?

Those in the southern hemisphere. Especially those in the lower half of the southern hemisphere. Suggest South America, New Zealand, Australia. But you will need six to twelve months of paperwork, and actually be there before the SHTF.

 

[Kauboy]

View attachment 115301

Nothing in OK or KS to hit.
Thanks for validating.

 

[Sourdough]

Nothing in OK or KS to hit.
Thanks for validating.

Looks very close. and ugly if the wind is wrong. Also, the older Nules are very inaccurate, especially the old USSR ICBM's. Given the prevailing winds are West towards East, Oregon, especially the southern and western part, look safer.

Winds are going to be a bigger factor then direct target area. Offshore wind/breeze would be a huge factor in survival.

 

[dyna962007]

Yes to me, it looks like you need to be in the western part of the country from the point of view of the winds. Moving west to east, even areas that are not targets will get pummeled by fallout from the hits to their west. Also looks like certain parts of southern Texas might be ok. Most of the time the winds dont settle down that far south and much of the winds come from Texas and heads north.
I dont see a ton of options for the US. If you take a look at the map I am attaching and contrast it with the one provided in another post here by Kauboy, the two dont agree in all ways and looking at them both, its pretty hard to feel good about your chances anywhere here in the US

 

[dyna962007]

 

[dyna962007]

In US, OK or KS. Nothing there to hit. Maybe a few bases. Plan accordingly.
Outside US, sub-saharan Africa. Same reason.

Any place with good infrastructure and good defense will be on the target list.

only problem with OK and KS is they are full out downstream from the winds of California which will be hit hard

 

[dyna962007]

Those in the southern hemisphere. Especially those in the lower half of the southern hemisphere. Suggest South America, New Zealand, Australia. But you will need six to twelve months of paperwork, and actually be there before the SHTF.

Yep, I have been thinking about Mexico, Costa Rico, Panama etc. I was also wondering about Switzerland, and all those countries in that area. It sucks to leave at all but I just dont see us pulling this out, I see full out devastation

 

[Sourdough]

If....."IF" there is even a "moderate" exchange of nuclear armed ICBMs in the Northern Hemisphere, because of the rotation of the earth, it will be very ugly everywhere, even Alaska.

 

[Sourdough]

I remember in the late 40's and throughout the 50's there were several studies of global wind currents. New Zealand was consistently considered the safest place to be.

All countries even if they are neutral in the Northern Hemisphere will suffer. Strangely Russia will be one of the safer. You will never hear that information in America.

 

[ErickthePutz]

I remember in the late 40's and throughout the 50's there were several studies of global wind currents. New Zealand was consistently considered the safest place to be.

All countries even if they are neutral in the Northern Hemisphere will suffer. Strangely Russia will be one of the safer. You will never hear that information in America.

How is Russia, glowing from being glassed, going to be “one of the safer”?

 

[Sourdough]

How is Russia, glowing from being glassed, going to be “one of the safer”?

Based on the wording of your inquire I'll pass on offering a useful reply. Members on this forum are snarky. But here is a clue, the people (Many) will be safer than those people in America. The countries may be equally devastated, but provisions for humans are better in Russia.

 

[Kauboy]

Any future strike on the US will be HEMP anyways.
Worrying about strike sites and fallout is old thinking.

 

[stowlin]

It’s not why I moved to Ireland but ok

 

[Tango2X]

Remember-- the wind direction is from west to east.
Plan for fallout accordingly

 

[foodzwhat]

In US, OK or KS. Nothing there to hit. Maybe a few bases. Plan accordingly.
Outside US, sub-saharan Africa. Same reason.

Any place with good infrastructure and good defense will be on the target list.

I live in south central Iowa. I think that our biggest problem is going to be fall out. I mean, there's nothing of military value here.

 

[Chipper]

I live in south central Iowa. I think that our biggest problem is going to be fall out. I mean, there's nothing of military value here.

Just farm land and the ability to feed millions.