fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3755 ]

[ SECRET POST #3755 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3755 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [tb]

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 50 secrets from Secret Submission Post #536.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Welcome to the 1960s through 1980s, you'll get used to it. Take my advice, if it worries you so much then move next to a major military base. That way if anything does happen then it won't matter. Gone with the first flash, that was reassuring actually. None of this duck and cover, learning how to deal with fallout, rad burns, all that crap, just flash and gone.

Or move to a country that probably won't be too nuclearly devastated.

My #toptip on countries to move to for people worried about the future: New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, or Uruguay. All countries with relatively stable, competent governments that provide reasonably high levels of liberty and freedom; reasonably high levels of rainfall and very agriculturally productive so you're unlikely to starve to death or get into a water war; relatively out of the way of nuclear strikes and fallout; relatively young populations so you're not facing demographic problems going forward.

Dude. If it is publicly known that a country will not be devastated, then it will be devastated. You see all the "safe" places have been assigned their own targets to deny them to the enemy. This was common knowledge in the cold war. If there was to be anywhere untouched then it would be a key prize for the remaining conventional forces and political leaders of the combatant nations to take over. Therefore all safe havens have been targeted to keep from being used by the other side.

You'll notice I haven't specified Americans, Russians or Chinese (or India, or Pakistan, or Israel, or France) as to who the enemy or other side is. That is because no matter who is the other side or enemy, all sides will be nuking those safe havens.

And even if they were not then you are trading flash death for long slow death in the fallout and subsequent winter. If you get off on the survivalist idea, or the libertarian homesteader thing, then go ahead. Dream it, but it is going to be much less fun than mere death.

First off, two general points. 1, a lot of this depends strongly on the particular kind of nuclear exchange. Of course there are scenarios that lead to mass extinction, but in those circumstances, you're doomed no matter what you do. so if you're maximizing your odds, you're worrying more about other scenarios. 2, a reasonable person should not be worried solely about nuclear stuff and should be maximizing percentages in general.

Second, do you have any sources with regards to that bit about targeting non-aligned countries? It's not something I'm familiar with from my study of nuclear strategy.

It was common knowledge in the 1970s and 1980s, and I suspect a lot earlier. We discussed the geopolitics of it in college in relation to Shute's On the Beach and the movie thereof. That was back in '74.

You do seem to be a Libertarian Survivalist, and possibly a full on Randian with your "maximizing percentages" rubbish, so good luck with that. You can inherit the wasteland. Much joy may it bring you.

On The Beach is - as far as I'm aware - a nuclear fallout and nuclear winter thing, not a targeting thing. Again, I'd appreciate a source more specific than 40-year-old memories about geopolitical discussions.

You do seem to be a Libertarian Survivalist, and possibly a full on Randian with your "maximizing percentages" rubbish, so good luck with that. You can inherit the wasteland. Much joy may it bring you.

I don't think either of those things are true, and frankly I'm pretty mystified about how you can conclude that from what I said. I'm neither a libertarian nor a Randian, and I don't see how trying to evaluate uncertain future events in terms of the probability of their occurrence is a libertarian thing.

And I'm sure you have not redpilled either.

I haven't. If you're asking about my political beliefs, I would describe myself as a left-leaning liberal. I don't think worrying about the possibility of various extremely bad events is something that a particular ideology has a monopoly on.

Just leave them be with their libertarian fantasy, anon.

To me, it seems like a thing of basic logic.

Either you take the possibility of incredibly bad things happening to society seriously, or you don't. If you do take it seriously, it's reasonable to think about what you should do to avoid it, even if that requires relatively drastic action. That doesn't mean building some kind of stupid zombie compound or fantasizing about being a lone ranger or some shit. It means trying to put yourself in a place that's more likely to have a stable society and the means to sort out how to continue existing in a society regardless of what happens. It's not like the countries I mentioned are noted for their right-wing libertarian governments.

Obviously, I don't actually take the possibility seriously myself, as I don't live in those countries. But if you do take the possibility seriously, it doesn't seem unreasonable. No less reasonable than moving somewhere because you think you'll die quickly.

Ok, you're sounding saner here. It's just the fact that you're presenting an incredibly optimistic option as simple and logical fact.

Yeah, that's fair. For me personally, when I get to thinking about big massive threats, nuclear warfare is something but it's not necessarily the highest thing on the list for various reasons so that might be where that's coming from. Although I think the general idea holds with regards to nuclear war, it's definitely a lot less survivable and more optimistic.

Everyone will be trying to get to the countries least affected after a nuclear fallout. There will be chaos. It's not as pretty as you're making it sound.

Go now.

How is that going to help me avoid the chaos in a nuclear fallout? It'll be chaos in the countries too, not just in getting there.

Be better there than other places.

Well Tierra Del Fuego's Isla Vidal is commonly touted as one of those survivor places (despite being close to a major seaway in both Cape Horn and the Straits of Magellan) but it is really hard to get to and the boat takes a while to reach it. If you want to survive tomorrow's fireworks you need to go now. Plus it doesn't have internet access, so win-win for us and you.

You can strike Norway and Ireland off your list. Both of those are going to be right next to major targets and will suffer major fallout. Both of those suffered enough fallout from Chernobyl to force them to take their mutton off the market for a few years, and that was magnitudes of force less than a full on exchange. Not only that, but Norway has deep fjords which are perfect sheltered staging areas for naval forces, that is why Nazi Germany invaded, so it is unlikely either Russia or the United States will want to leave those intact.

New Zealand's South Island is the place Peter Thiel is supposedly planning on fleeing to, so frankly it is amazing it has not already been nuked by the Kiwi's themselves just to stop him going there.

Not to mention Norway and Ireland are in the Northern hemisphere, where they likely won't be immune from the effects of a nuclear winter.

I wish the music now was that good

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3755 ]

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off

Re: I'm so mad all the time and I can't turn it off