3 ms·
This is a very biased western perspective - it assumes total nuclear destruction of all cities on Earth. That's not a realistic scenario. Many unaffiliated co
by koheripbal 4y ago
This is a very biased western perspective - it assumes total nuclear destruction of all cities on Earth. That's not a realistic scenario.
Many unaffiliated countries would not be nuked at all.
Most ultra-rich people looking to survive nuclear war or a climate crisis, are locating their refuge in parts of the world that are agriculturally self-sufficient, and militarily unaffiliated, and physically far from the war and any fallout.
- nus07 4y agoYou mean New Zealand , Fiji and other pacific islands where Larry Page, Peter Thiel and every billionaire now has citizenship or property ?
- felixgallo 4y agothe only place that is going to be physically far from any fallout is going to be off-planet. Wind & rain go everywhere.
- gus_massa 4y agoThe dose makes the poison. Most of the fallout will all nearby. I'd try to avoid contamination a few weeks because the radioactive Iodine has a half life of 8 days. Everything else decays too fast or too slow. (I'm not sure how difficult is to get some Iodine pills, just in case. They are quite small.) Also, "nuclear winter" will be not as hard as the initial models estimate. I hope we don't try anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
- AstralStorm 4y agoSome are considering putting an equivalent amount of particulates in air to reduce global temperatures...
- me_me_me 4y agowell, dont forget that all major cities will be wiped, but not small ones nor tows nor villages. There will be plenty people around immediately afterwards. Fallout is not the only thing you will have to be concerned with. Do you think Johnny and boys who help build and/or stock those bunkers will forget about them?