Important Matters - survival in a post apocalyptic world. Which country?

[Ytts]

The most important discussion of all:

How are you going to survive the apocalypse of 20xx? Pick a country you'd want to be in when it all goes to hell and the general geographical region. Which one do you think is going to give you the best shot?

I'm starting to think Korea might not be too bad of a place to be, what with all the electronics factories and stockpiles of gear, the east may come out of the collapse first and stand the best chances of survival.

Then again, you'd be competing with a pretty huge population.

[SixStringSamurai]

Romania, outside of the isolated cities, probably wouldn't notice much.

Major portions of Africa would probably notice the loss of their TV stations and then get on with their lives.

Of course, this begs the question: What sort of apocalypse? Zombies? Fallout scenario?

[Elijah]

Canada~! Might be a little colder, but I know the terrain. =p

[Dalton]

The place most likely to survive an apocalypse is Africa because nobody gives a crap about that continent, so when the nukes fly that will be the only place that doesn't get leveled.

Or if you're talking about a viral pandemic, then Madagascar is notorious for surviving those.

[Mage Apprentice]

Australia! Has evertything you need to survive: industry, gold, diamonds, natural gas...beautiful girls! And because it's isolated geographicaly speaking; no one would reach there, after the apocalypse!

  Australia rules! 

[Robert]

Survive? I was always on the "where would I be to cause it" side of the equation.

Besides, when the humans die, I'll be back on R'lyeh, sipping a drink, relaxing.

[Eos]

Survive? I was always on the "where would I be to cause it" side of the equation.

Besides, when the humans die, I'll be back on R'lyeh, sipping a drink, relaxing.

[Bane]

Some sandy, desolate desert in the middle east/north eastern africa. Sort of at a disadvantage with them not needing as much water, but it's easy to get lost, survival was always difficult but basic anyway, and sand zombies are all kinds of awesome.

[Jason Baane]

The place most likely to survive an apocalypse is Africa because nobody gives a crap about that continent, so when the nukes fly that will be the only place that doesn't get leveled.

Or if you're talking about a viral pandemic, then Madagascar is notorious for surviving those.

Enjoy your aids.

[Dalton]

If AIDS was really so bad there would be no San Francisco.

Zing.

[Ytts]

I'm partial to northern Canada, specifically BC. I know which roads we'd have to demolish in order to cut off 90% of the population from doing the same thing I'm doing, so in event of viral or zombie attack, boom! It would mean the transmission time would go from a few hours by car to several months by foot, giving us an incredible amount of time to prepare.



There is some science fiction lately that I have been reading that suggests (and this is written by Americans) that Edmonton would become the new capital of North America in the event of nuclear war or catastrophic viral infection because of its isolation, large population, and significant industrial and manufacturing resources. Not to mention the complete and utter irrelevancy it has to the world at large - absolutely perfect to sidestep the nukes and military deployments.

[Ytts]

The place most likely to survive an apocalypse is Africa because nobody gives a crap about that continent, so when the nukes fly that will be the only place that doesn't get leveled.

Or if you're talking about a viral pandemic, then Madagascar is notorious for surviving those.

Enjoy your aids.

It's not the AIDs you have to worry about, it's the fact that many countries there are already disintegrating into roving tribes lead by warlords. With machineguns. I suspect in the event of apocalypse, not many people would stand a chance against armed men who've been living in their own mini apocalypse for the last twenty years.

[SixStringSamurai]

I've always wondered about the work that would be needed in order to turn a Cruise ship or perhaps Naval vessel (Battle cruiser or carrier) into permanent seagoing home.

A cruise ship, though homier, would probably have far more fuel requirements. An aircraft carrier could probably last quite a bit, and probably already has desalination gear on board.

[Elijah]

All very good points. I knew Nova Scotia probably wasn't the best choice, but Edmonton makes a lot more sense now that Web brings it up. Plus I have a lot of friends/family over there. =p

Edit: And by the way WJ, whats the name of the book(s) you mentioned? I'm curious.

[Rhonda]

No one chose America (haha).
I guess I would choose some place small? Like one of the Caribbean Islands. No real reason why.

[Crysta]

Sicily.

Sicily will rule the world one day.

[Dalton]

No one chose America (haha).

Because in the event of any kind of world-ending scenario, most likely it's either us that caused it, or whoever caused it targets us with said doomsday device first.

[Ball-o-Cheese]

The place most likely to survive an apocalypse is Africa because nobody gives a crap about that continent, so when the nukes fly that will be the only place that doesn't get leveled.

Some sandy, desolate desert in the middle east/north eastern africa. Sort of at a disadvantage with them not needing as much water, but it's easy to get lost, survival was always difficult but basic anyway, and sand zombies are all kinds of awesome.

You guys probably wouldn't last a month in actual Africa before the Apocalypse, and afterward you wouldn't even be worth ransom money that might keep you alive today.

It's not the AIDs you have to worry about, it's the fact that many countries there are already disintegrating into roving tribes lead by warlords. With machineguns. I suspect in the event of apocalypse, not many people would stand a chance against armed men who've been living in their own mini apocalypse for the last twenty years.

Africa, as a whole, is doing a lot better now than it was twenty-five or fifty years ago. The reason you might think differently is that people actually pay some sort of attention and report on a few of the things happening there. Fifty years ago no one gave a shit about British concentration camps or lunatic Belgian mutilations.

[Dalton]

That still doesn't nullify my point that Africa will be the only place to survive the nukes. I think I'd stand a slightly better chance against madmen with guns than against a nuclear explosion.

[SixStringSamurai]

If you want to survive nukes by simple fact of not being hit, then Antarctica would be your best bet. Doesn't mean that your actual survival will be impacted much, though.

[Kill Boy]

Alaska. Sara Palin will protect me.

[Dalton]

If you want to survive nukes by simple fact of not being hit, then Antarctica would be your best bet. Doesn't mean that your actual survival will be impacted much, though.

There are research bases down there so perhaps you're on to something.

[Soja]

The American South is likely to become a shitstorm of brigands, roving militias, biker gangs, death squads, and perhaps a Thunder Dome or two.

Yeah, a lot like the Mad Max Australia.

It's unlikely that other places will be much better off considering that this is the goddamn apocalypse we're talking about, so I'd probably be one of the regional warlords.

[Ytts]

If you want to survive nukes by simple fact of not being hit, then Antarctica would be your best bet. Doesn't mean that your actual survival will be impacted much, though.

There are research bases down there so perhaps you're on to something.

I was wondering earlier what exactly it would take to survive a decade stranded in Antarctica while the rest of the world collapsed.

[Robert]

After having watched John Carpenters The Thing, and reading Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, I can safely say Antarctica is not a good survival option.