Survival Strategies → Shelter → Location → Escape Overseas
The UK is arguably a poor place to survive a major crisis, particularly a nuclear attack, so should I move overseas?
What about a lush south Pacific Island, such as Tahiti?
Teahapoo, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Location of the Paris 2024 Olympic surfing competition
Source: Lush Palm https://lushpalm.com/tahiti-surf/
Where overseas?
There are two fundamental issues to consider if moving overseas to increase ones chance of survival:
1 Population desity - like in the uk, one must be protected from the hoards of desperate people that will seeking food and shelter after any major
catastrophy, particularly a nuclear war.
2 Exposure to a nuclear winter - a nuclear war will inevitably produce climate change with global agricultural collapse,
starvation and famine on a massive scale.
World population density map
Source: World in Maps https://worldinmaps.com/world/population-and-settlement/population-density/
World famine levels after a global nuclear war
Source: https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/
Discussion
Most of the Northern Hemisphere is a definite no, because of high population densities, but most importantly because it will be the worst zone
effected by a nuclear winter, agricultural collapse and therefore famine. Canada, even though it has a very low population density would most probably
be too cold for sustainable agriculture. The only exceptions
in the northern hemisphere will be countries close to the equator where farming would still be possible and therefore famine minimal. Our famine map
suggests Guyana and Suriname as possible equitorial "survival" locations.
The southern hemisphere fairs much better, with countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific islands and even Argentina as definite possibilities
for relocation.
So in summary, our short list of countries for survival (excluding Pacific Islands) are:
Australia - English speaking, Population 26.7 million, density 3.6 people per sq.km., est., nuclear famine level 0.0%
New Zealand - English speaking, Population 5.3 million, Density 18 people per sq.km., est., nuclear famine level 0.0%
Guyana - English speaking, Population 0.8 million, Density 3.8 people per sq.km., est., nuclear famine level 0.0%
Argentina - Spanish speaking, Population 46.2 million, Density 16.5 people per sq.km., est., nuclear famine level 2.9%
Suriname - Dutch speaking, Population 0.6 million, Density 3.0 people per sq.km., est., nuclear famine level 0.0%
I have excluded the Pacific Islands from this list because, in my opinion, they are too issolated and generally have poorer infrastructure. They may be
idyllic places to live, but if there is no major event you are a long way from normal civilisation.
Personally I would also avoid Argentina because it is Spanish speaking, and has serious economic problems, Suriname because it is Dutch speaking and
Australia, because of the high
concentration of population in the south-east, leaving New Zealand or Guyana as my first choices.
Guyana, although oil rich, has an ongoing border dispute with Venezuela. If, after a nuclear war, it lost its protective support from the US and UK it could
probably face invaision, particularly if Madura was still the president of Venezuela. New Zealand has few downsides and lots of
positive advantages. For example, it has natural geothermal energy, so does not have to rely on imported oil and gas for its long term energy needs.
Any of these countries listed above, would also probably
survive the direct effects of a nuclear war or any other major disaster, and may be able to continue functioning normally for some time.
However, they would be effected
in the longer term, pariculaly by a global nuclear war, and it would probably be best for them to have plans in place for this or other eventualities.
Conclusions
Escape to New Zealand, the sooner the better.
References
This Document
Version 1, 4 August 2024