My bet is on Tajikistan. Safest place is holed up in the mountains in a country nobody’s heard about, or if they heard about it they don’t care. Friendly relations with all its neighbors, and no economy or anything worth attacking or invading for.
In the event of global warfare I doubt those border disputes will matter to anyone and China likely won’t worry about them either, since they’ll likely be busy killing Capitalists.
The US, especially the middle. It is bordered by two countries, both of which are on friendly terms with it. The rest of the world is an ocean away. It’s also heavily armed.
probably good place for us citizens or whatever political agenda is, but for foreigners there is a risk to go through the same things as japanese-americans did during ww2.
I think there’s something to be said for Portugal.
Maybe in the inland, but if there is any conflict in the ocean, you will want to stay far away from the islands and the coast, since they will probably be important strategic locations for the war in the Atlantic. It is also a NATO member and will probably get involved if anything happens.
Depends on a lot of factors related to the environment, i.e. pollution types, viability of water treatment, food sources and what their growth is reliant on, equipment and what their maintenance is reliant on (i.e. parts/consumables ideally not reliant on regions in heavy conflict).
I’ve never been in a war zone but I have been in one of the country’s worst natural disasters (along with several smaller ones) and what I learned from those experiences is not to trust anyone who refuses to understand the importance of fluid decision-making in complex life or death scenarios, instead rigidly adhering to a fixed plan they had developed long before the emergency situation happened. It ends up slowing them down far more than anything and creates loads of avoidable problems in the name of consistency.
That’s not to say one shouldn’t have a plan but if it relies on taking route A to escape and route A is on fire, the people who blindly say "STICK TO THE PLAN" without recognizing that the plan requires adaptation, they’re not to be trusted because they possess a theoretical understanding of the situation, not a practical understanding.
Far too often people who confidently think their plan A will work, end up dying because they foolishly downplayed the need for adapting/abandoning their plan in the face of impending doom. Wildfires in particular have resulted in entire families burning to death-- wealthy families who were convinced their various expensive, extensive precautionary methods were foolproof but learned the hard way that mother nature can very quickly make a mockery of the measures humans take.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !asklemmy@lemmy.ml
A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
Open ended
Not offensive
Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)
Surprised nobody mentioned Iceland yet.
Is Iceland self-sufficient in terms of food? When I was there, I saw few greenhouses and cold desert around :)
Global warming is gonna help with that
Looks like they were 50-60% self sufficient circa 2018.
New Zealand or Switzerland
Antarctica XD
My bet is on Tajikistan. Safest place is holed up in the mountains in a country nobody’s heard about, or if they heard about it they don’t care. Friendly relations with all its neighbors, and no economy or anything worth attacking or invading for.
nice country, but close to China, border conflicts with neighbors and water shortage.
In the event of global warfare I doubt those border disputes will matter to anyone and China likely won’t worry about them either, since they’ll likely be busy killing Capitalists.
China is a concern but I doubt they’ll ever destroy the place. As for water, we’ve got an infinite supply
Argentina is a good first option, I think Chile would be even better. Not only a global conflict, but a massive global catastrophe.
The US, especially the middle. It is bordered by two countries, both of which are on friendly terms with it. The rest of the world is an ocean away. It’s also heavily armed.
probably good place for us citizens or whatever political agenda is, but for foreigners there is a risk to go through the same things as japanese-americans did during ww2.
Sure, but honestly that would likely be true for most countries here.
Isn’t Argentina full of nazis?
Those guys knew how to escape conflict
deleted by creator
Maybe in the inland, but if there is any conflict in the ocean, you will want to stay far away from the islands and the coast, since they will probably be important strategic locations for the war in the Atlantic. It is also a NATO member and will probably get involved if anything happens.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
it is not solely about myself, so if you have in mind various options depends on the budget, feel free to list them
Depends on a lot of factors related to the environment, i.e. pollution types, viability of water treatment, food sources and what their growth is reliant on, equipment and what their maintenance is reliant on (i.e. parts/consumables ideally not reliant on regions in heavy conflict).
I’ve never been in a war zone but I have been in one of the country’s worst natural disasters (along with several smaller ones) and what I learned from those experiences is not to trust anyone who refuses to understand the importance of fluid decision-making in complex life or death scenarios, instead rigidly adhering to a fixed plan they had developed long before the emergency situation happened. It ends up slowing them down far more than anything and creates loads of avoidable problems in the name of consistency.
That’s not to say one shouldn’t have a plan but if it relies on taking route A to escape and route A is on fire, the people who blindly say "STICK TO THE PLAN" without recognizing that the plan requires adaptation, they’re not to be trusted because they possess a theoretical understanding of the situation, not a practical understanding.
Far too often people who confidently think their plan A will work, end up dying because they foolishly downplayed the need for adapting/abandoning their plan in the face of impending doom. Wildfires in particular have resulted in entire families burning to death-- wealthy families who were convinced their various expensive, extensive precautionary methods were foolproof but learned the hard way that mother nature can very quickly make a mockery of the measures humans take.
I have been seriously thinking of attempting to transplanting to Switzerland for this reason
why? because of neutrality?
The terrain makes it hard to invade
The ISS Or Switzerland idk
lmao the ISS is literally the least self-sufficient place anywhere in the universe where humans currently live