I'm from South Africa, and I've never met someone who's been held at gunpoint..
@videofrat311510 ай бұрын
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.
@UnknownUnitW109 ай бұрын
Ya id avoid all of Africa. Fuck that continent.
@miromannino7 ай бұрын
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.
@plaistowbill3 ай бұрын
My wife is from Lansdowne (Cape Town). Her cousin was killed in a drive by shooting.
@MattWagner Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Canada does have bases but Canada is enormous so its easy to be far from those bases
@AskAkseli Жыл бұрын
@@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?
@MattWagner Жыл бұрын
@@AskAkseli Not to mention the enormous fall out from northern US cities and ICBM fields. I guess a cabin on Baffin Island might work.
@demonofreason7574 Жыл бұрын
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
@rogerreti1759 Жыл бұрын
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
@cearloscaceres4138 Жыл бұрын
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.
@boomertuxx2 ай бұрын
Agreed. Their neutral too
@marklangager88172 ай бұрын
NZ has a lower latitude which would likely be crucial for survival, though still likely futile there too.
@therealmountainmanmike Жыл бұрын
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.
@Rasupubegasu6 ай бұрын
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.
@marklangager88172 ай бұрын
Chernobyl was awful. Try multiplying that dozens of times to account for mutually assured destruction policies amongst virtually all nuclear countries...
@clemenswittmann4852 Жыл бұрын
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
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
This assumes they get that far once the missiles start flying
@shedtime_au Жыл бұрын
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.
@3blinds Жыл бұрын
Argentina is like the only country that produces both more food and energy resources than they consume
@lorenk.775 Жыл бұрын
Nope, not the only one.
@3blinds Жыл бұрын
@@lorenk.775 there might be 3 total in the world, maximum
@kandyapple2210 Жыл бұрын
fact check, not true
@jorgriveros2 ай бұрын
I think South America in general will be a good place. more than energy is the food , and a clean land to produce food.
@deDesigned Жыл бұрын
Thank you for taking the possibility of nuclear war seriously.
@patrickvaughan432 Жыл бұрын
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.
@realalexmackenzie Жыл бұрын
Not to mention their Marxist leader might make life unpleasant for anyone taking refuge there.
@eigelgregossweisse9563 Жыл бұрын
After the situated b 52 bombers, it likely will be a target.
@joeb5327 Жыл бұрын
I agree with your comments. And New Zealand may be within range of an Australia-centered super EMP attack, which could create another challenge.
@sebastianmalpica3795 Жыл бұрын
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.
@rioluna60585 ай бұрын
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
@udaat28 күн бұрын
tell me more about the free lands for new citizens
@kgrace1459 Жыл бұрын
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!
@mvp019 Жыл бұрын
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...
@chocmilkisgood Жыл бұрын
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
@DCFQuintanilha Жыл бұрын
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.
@eross.carmona7235 Жыл бұрын
We indeed are a mess. Hi from Argentina lol
@thedcrypted Жыл бұрын
Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina are good options
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Would you buy pre-emptively in any of those areas?
@jazzsinger007 Жыл бұрын
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.
@DCFQuintanilha Жыл бұрын
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.
@eduardotrillaud696 Жыл бұрын
@@DCFQuintanilhabut their neighbours won't attack it. All six countries in the south cone get alone quite well.
@Konic_and_Snuckles Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@mattroberts9414 Жыл бұрын
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)
@yoked39111 ай бұрын
Perth australia, isolated, lots of natural resources
@AddzieG Жыл бұрын
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.
@vimalcurio Жыл бұрын
Ye 🙂 what do you think about Switzerland 🇨🇭?
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
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
@kerrybarnes7289 Жыл бұрын
and its on a major fault line
@DiegoCore Жыл бұрын
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
@sebastianrivolta9101 Жыл бұрын
Uruguay is too small,Brazil is too tropical while Argentina has the advantage of different climates and different food production
@demonofreason7574 Жыл бұрын
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.
@sheltv100 Жыл бұрын
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.
@Janks21025 ай бұрын
Dude if it’s nuclear war. South Africa is heaven!!!
@alldaywhodie Жыл бұрын
New Zealand, Uruguay, Mauritius
@Danji_Coppersmoke Жыл бұрын
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.
@realalexmackenzie Жыл бұрын
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.
@ilyadubovskiy Жыл бұрын
Iceland, Canada, South America are on my list too. Also, Canary Islands and Azores.
@firsthelix6726 Жыл бұрын
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.
@sheltv100 Жыл бұрын
Not Canada. Canada will be effected by the radiation, and the cold cold nuclear winters.
@geoffbendel9467 Жыл бұрын
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.
@einarbreen7549 Жыл бұрын
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.
@mvp019 Жыл бұрын
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.
@Ekami67 Жыл бұрын
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.
@MelanatednNature Жыл бұрын
Don't they have a lot of restrictions and seismic activity
@sebastianmalpica3795 Жыл бұрын
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?
@reflexologista Жыл бұрын
Mauruuru Roa pour ton choix du Fenua frangin 👍 Fa aitoito ! 💪🙏☀️
@robertdavies6630 Жыл бұрын
For me Australia and New Zealand would be good for me
@xealit Жыл бұрын
Southern hemisphere 👍 atmosphere does not mix that much between the two sides of the planet
@steverosshomes Жыл бұрын
Uruguay over Argentina? Many of the advantages without some of the negatives?
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
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.
@deividassimonis728 Жыл бұрын
Punta Arenas(Chile) and Ushuaia(Argentina)
@RomilCPatel Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Why do you say far from the ocean?
@RomilCPatel Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@jimmy31hendrix Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@PrincessVelaryon10 ай бұрын
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.
@KNBNVK Жыл бұрын
One word... Madagascar
@Tholitzky18 Жыл бұрын
Philippines ! We have more than 7,000 islands to choose from and lots of caves better than a bunker😂
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Too close to China unfortunately
@junaidmoody83422 ай бұрын
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
@MrFarmboy1888 Жыл бұрын
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...
@mrkcur Жыл бұрын
Easter Island is damn small, only 5k people. Internet was terrible there in 2017 (pre Starlink). Tasty fish though!
@MichaelSchneider450 Жыл бұрын
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...
@tinglestingles Жыл бұрын
Early 80s was interesting too! I'm thinking Vanuatu! or Ecuador, up in the hills!!
@peaceonearth8693 Жыл бұрын
I'm glad that he's covering this topic! If not a short-term consideration, important for families going forward.
@reflexologista Жыл бұрын
South Argentina, South Chile, South NZ, and Raivavae ! 😁
@videofrat311510 ай бұрын
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.
@plaistowbill3 ай бұрын
Why? To live in a world that’s contaminated with fallout?
@volkssturmer582011 ай бұрын
Argentine patagonia🌲🌿🌍🌎🌏❤
@alexsquared1460 Жыл бұрын
It looks like you're in Sofia and that's the Vitosha mountain behind you. Welcome to Bulgaria.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Yes it was indeed
@marklangager88172 ай бұрын
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.
@Sechmaditrading10 ай бұрын
I'm from South Africa.. Glad to hear we're relatively safe from nuclear. Yal be safe. 09.10.2023
@MichaTheLight11 ай бұрын
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
@RomilCPatel Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Great suggestion, will do
@mvp019 Жыл бұрын
Either far away or where the first nuke lands in my backyard...
@ciper2010 Жыл бұрын
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 :)
@FlowerPowerNZ Жыл бұрын
Food, somewhere to live, tradable skills and tools.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
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
@firsthelix6726 Жыл бұрын
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.
@billhennessey6374 Жыл бұрын
You would probably be pretty safe in Nauru, but you would need to like fish and tropical fruit, haha. The weather is nice too.
@HyperspaceHoliday Жыл бұрын
Have you ever been? Not a lot of tropical fruit and lots of imported processed foods
@billhennessey6374 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@retireorbust Жыл бұрын
South America.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
What do you think makes South America the safest choice?
@johnsdeath Жыл бұрын
@@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
@bbrebozo6417 Жыл бұрын
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).
@bbrebozo6417 Жыл бұрын
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.
@heltok Жыл бұрын
I’d pick a part of Australia far away from major cities and fallow. Like Margaret River
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Why do you think that's the best choice?
@ac1455 Жыл бұрын
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.
@kerrybarnes7289 Жыл бұрын
@@ac1455 why hit a major city that has no nukes? Australia is a threat to no one.
@robertdavies6630 Жыл бұрын
Yeah Australia would be appropriate but does it have everything we need and more such as the internet and all that and more
@bruiser6479 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@FlowerPowerNZ Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Would you feel safe in NZ in case of such an event?
@hiddenfromhistory100 Жыл бұрын
Why worry about the safety of our own petty, miserable lives?
@johanjacobs92402 ай бұрын
South Africa is not that dangerous as most people think.
@Stingerca Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
I view it as too close to European targets and lacking in sufficient local food production
@oliverbrandl6892 Жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot, What do you think of Mexico/Costa Rica? Thanks
@firsthelix6726 Жыл бұрын
Central America is not a good idea, too close to the US
@rioluna60585 ай бұрын
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.
@thatswhatshesaidbro Жыл бұрын
South America for sure. Ecuador is the most livable
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
What do you like the most about Ecuador?
@thatswhatshesaidbro Жыл бұрын
@@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
@yusufg9674 Жыл бұрын
What’s your take on Uruguay as an alternative to Argentina in this context? Similar location, less population, same food security, more stable jurisdiction.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
I think it's a viable alternative
@philipandrew1626 Жыл бұрын
Good if you have a couple of acres to grow your own food and raise your own animals.
@volkssturmer582011 ай бұрын
An Argentine rogue province.
@RodrigoOswego7 ай бұрын
Paraguay is a good choice as well. One of the worlds largest underground reserves of fresh water beneath it.
@janerikkvarsten2273 Жыл бұрын
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 😎
@graemethomson516710 ай бұрын
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
@davidwyndhamlowe17642 ай бұрын
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.
@rayray5999 Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Filmed it in Sofia, Bulgaria. That's certainly not a huge cross, looks like a crane
@ywueeee Жыл бұрын
south africa has a huge water problem and also some crime related issues imho
@richiemd777 Жыл бұрын
You're looking for comfort in the midst of a nuclear war? You can't be that delusional are you?
@dreww1818 Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
What are your predictions?
@dreww1818 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@no_name-o2n Жыл бұрын
Tasmania aswell
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
What makes you suggest there?
@no_name-o2n Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@leorabelo3209 Жыл бұрын
Patagonia
@samtoo2006 Жыл бұрын
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
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Fair point
@zee6487 Жыл бұрын
What about Tristan da cunha ?
@jameswalker366 Жыл бұрын
Congrats on (nearly) 50k. Uruguay also worth consideration.Safer than Argentina. Perhaps also Chile.
@demonofreason7574 Жыл бұрын
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
@facundomartinfarias5379 Жыл бұрын
@@demonofreason7574 Argentina produces food for 600 million people, and we currently have a population of 40 million ;)
@videofrat311510 ай бұрын
Argentina was actually a rich country during both world wars precisely because of producing and exporting food.
@othername2428 Жыл бұрын
Michael what's your thoughts about Turkey, in line with this topic?
@grabisoft Жыл бұрын
As an argentinian is this scenario happens I think for us Argentina, we should tax all the foreigners to give hand over half their money to our country, and cancel forever out external debt. I think that would be enough for us as for payment for our hospitality. And being so badly treated along these decades as seen as 2nd class citizens to the US and Europe. Funny since all these counties let Africans and Muslims in their countries as if nothing happens. And we are descendants of Europeans and most of our emigrants are professionals well educated people. We will need to have our little revenge
@sebastianrivolta9101 Жыл бұрын
Our debtors would long be dead so you wouldnt need to worry about any debt. Fuel, water and food will be main commodity, Argentina has plenty. We are not all Europeans, some of us have Amerindian, Asian and African heritage.
@andreavonruth7952 Жыл бұрын
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
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
I think it's a reasonable option especially if you can secure a broad food supply
@andreavonruth7952 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@demonofreason7574 Жыл бұрын
@@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
@soulfaurzak6545 ай бұрын
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
@jimmy31hendrix Жыл бұрын
What about Chile? You get the "Argentina factor" (Really southern) but way more political and economic stability, no?
@sebastianmalpica379511 ай бұрын
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.
@ARUchannel17 ай бұрын
@@sebastianmalpica3795 en chile hay mucha comida y agua tambien, somos 19 millones de personas, aca no hay caos social como argentina
@franciscoPancho7774 ай бұрын
@@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).
@ShaneViullaume-iq4pk2 ай бұрын
Money has no value if there in nothing to buy
@ErnaSolbergXXX Жыл бұрын
I did prep for this for many years already. Is it time to leave or just sit quietly and wait for it to unfold🤔
@peaceonearth8693 Жыл бұрын
It's always later than you think.
@demonofreason7574 Жыл бұрын
I would take argentina any day over new zealand, uruguay and chile and these are the reasons. - argentina has different climates ranging from very hot in the north, template in the center and icy cold in the south and refugees from europe will surely chose a country will cold climate over a hot island or a small country with only hot or template climate like uruguay. Affordability: in argentina education and healthcare are free for everyone and the living cost is cheaper than in uruguay or even chile which is one of the few countries in the world where water has been privatized and has a price in their market. Capacity of moving out: is you get bored of argentina or feel like you want to travel to somewhere else you can easily do it to any neighbor country by land while in new zealand if you don't feel good there your only way of getting out would be through an expensive ship or aircraft. Food security: argentina produces food for about 10 times it's own population same goes for uruguay but argentina having different climates in such extense territories can produce about any food in the world and has the pampas humedas which is a very big extension of fertile soil lands where it can cultivate anything. Energy: argentina can produce it's own technology and energy it has big reserves of gas, oil and nuclear powered plants that can use while countries like chile doesn't have those things neither can produce nuclear energy due to it's seismic geography. Economy: in terms of economy we shouldn't forget that once nuclear war begins is very likely that the world econony collapses and no matter how economically stable a country is their economy will collapse no matter what argentina being already used to this wouldn't get affected as much as other southern countries since it econony could collapse but it will still have food reserves for the years to come and having a perfect geography and very far away from any nuke will give her a head start over other countries that imports most of their food or can't produce their own energy.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Great observations thanks for the breakdown
@iro3d Жыл бұрын
I would go to Paraguay. It has lower taxes than New Zealand, and better economy than Argentina.
@sebastianmalpica3795 Жыл бұрын
Economy wouldn't matter once the first bombs touch the ground
@garrygaz15 ай бұрын
so what about the nuclear winter that would affect the whole of the world.
@LLindsey1427 Жыл бұрын
What about Belize and the Caribbean?
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Too close to the US so nuclear fall out plus most of the Caribbean isn't great for self sufficient food
@LLindsey1427 Жыл бұрын
@@OffshoreCitizen it’s closer to the US but Belize is very self sufficient with food
@stevemyers2092 Жыл бұрын
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...
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Good question, not sure
@vincentolsen1668 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for giving me a bit of hoop for suif Africa 🇿🇦‼️🤞🙏‼️🇿🇦
@MatheusSlivak Жыл бұрын
Brasil and Uruguay too!!!
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
What do you think puts them on the list?
@DCFQuintanilha Жыл бұрын
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.
@1eflatАй бұрын
The best to country to survive is Anuslandia
@Nellia.20x2 ай бұрын
Switzerland
@richardszegh6443 Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Safety is definitely relative and partially a function of how you behave, where you go, etc
@vie51 Жыл бұрын
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😢)
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
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
@alvarozuniga130810 ай бұрын
This guy is gonna be monetizing a lot these days.
@jamesthornton-ei9fc7 ай бұрын
As near as I can tell somewhere on the South American continent would be about the safest
@vimalcurio Жыл бұрын
Maybe Switzerland 🇨🇭 would be best country to move in during such period.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Very close to lots of the possible targets
@vimalcurio Жыл бұрын
@@OffshoreCitizen I see I thought they were very neutral and distant from wars lol
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
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
@vimalcurio Жыл бұрын
@@OffshoreCitizen I see that sounds scary...
@mush543 Жыл бұрын
Switzerland: Switzerland is known for its policy of neutrality and has a long-standing tradition of civil defense preparedness. It has an extensive network of fallout shelters and emergency response plans in place. New Zealand: New Zealand is geographically isolated, located far away from major global conflict zones. It also has a relatively small population and is known for its political stability and commitment to disarmament. Iceland: Iceland is another geographically isolated island nation that is considered to have a lower risk of being directly targeted in a nuclear conflict due to its location. It has a small population and a stable political environment. Sweden: Sweden has invested significantly in civil defense measures and has a comprehensive emergency response system. It also has a history of neutrality and is not a member of NATO. Canada: Canada is geographically vast with a low population density, which may provide some advantages in terms of avoiding direct strikes. It also has a well-developed emergency management system. Australia: Australia is a large country with a relatively small population and considerable geographical distance from major conflict zones. It has a robust civil defense infrastructure and emergency response capabilities.
@Anonymoose66G10 ай бұрын
FYI Sweden is in NATO now. The countries best suited in case of international conflict would probably be the likes of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Iceland, Small pacific/caribbean islands, Mauritius, etc. Honestly most countries are fine i'd say, the biggest problem is air pollution, security, natural disaster risk etc. Many Caribbean islands are too natural disaster prone. The best would probably be irrelevant countries like Suriname, geopolitically irrelevant, isolated, affordable, multilingual, multiethnic, etc. It also depends on your situation, how dependent ton governmentally provided services are you? If you rich enough to build a bunker then you don't need to worry to much about governmental aid.
@plaistowbill3 ай бұрын
Australia and NZ, Canada are US allies. Any place in Europe will not be safe. Sea ports will be nuked. Nuclear winter will make growing food difficult worldwide wide. THERE IS NO SAFE PLACE ON EARTH AFTER A NUCLEAR WAR.
@Thomas_Hardy. Жыл бұрын
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
@SixHundredAndSixtySix5 ай бұрын
It's insane how western-centric your view of things are. You know NOTHING about south africa, and probably nothing about Africa in general
@neilhupping9106 Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Why do you choose New Zealand?
@neilhupping9106 Жыл бұрын
@@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
@ARUchannel1 Жыл бұрын
chile argentina south africa, australia, new zealand
@Christoph877 Жыл бұрын
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.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
What country in South America would you pick?
@Christoph877 Жыл бұрын
@@OffshoreCitizen Well, I'd agree with you on Argentina as a top choice down there...
@KevinBanks512 Жыл бұрын
I'd add Mauritius to the list, except on the self sufficiency in food.
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Yeah that's a pretty major issue
@De_Séchelles Жыл бұрын
Buy land and plant some veggies or fruit
@ErnaSolbergXXX Жыл бұрын
I think even Iceland is in the midle of nowhere, i think it will be a hot potato between russia and usa if there will be a war. It a strategic location for russia to take and important for america to keep it
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Intellectually that makes sense but I think in practice once the missiles start flying there won't be much time for a ground war
@Snowwie8811 ай бұрын
I think the Falkland Islands would also not be a bad spot.
@OffshoreCitizen11 ай бұрын
What do you think makes it a good option?
@dariophotography7169 Жыл бұрын
but what about nuclear war on the USA? China and Kore re pissed on USA and it could affect Canada too if a nuclear war broke out
@OffshoreCitizen Жыл бұрын
Yes it could, but Canada is a big place and you can isolate pretty far away