this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
139 points (94.8% liked)

Asklemmy

48155 readers
951 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Where would you move to ride out a potential WWIII?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (29 children)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

We will know the best place after whatever event happens. It’s always hard to predict these things with so many variables.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Chatham Islands ?

I chose Tasmania, am here now.. I dont think anywhere is but i am hoping it's lesser and i am not the literal tip of the spear.

Albiet the poulation is older, white, conservative, religious so there is that problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Marquesas islands. They are very large, no dangers, lot of hideouts, lot of food resources, innaccessible for wheel vehicles, almost impossible to build large bases and to urbanise (small interest for China), they are isolated from other archipelagos, and the islands have not even 10k inhabitants in total (14 islands) so no one would get interest in nuking here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Somewhere I won't be bothered, like Tristan da Cunha or the Pitcairn Islands

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Nomadic life makes the most sense, just figure out your mode(s) of transportation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Why should I leave? They're the ones who suck. I'm not giving any ground

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’ve got a bug out zone extremely close to a bordering country that’s self sufficient. Staying put unless things get wildly out of hand. We could probably house another 2 families if needed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Can I call dibs?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Exactly where I am.

I moved to a backwater town in the middle of the desert for a fucking reason, worse comes to worst and I've got the benefit of being able to travel in literally any direction and be on res.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

if teleportation is allowed, i would just telefrag putin in moscow.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If we take its actual definition; far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist, countries like Cuba for sure fits the bill. Now Cuba is authoritarian (and normal since they are in permanent and genuine threat from its neighbor) and probably that is not what is in your mind. Latin America is, as many as you pointed out, no ideal... but most countries there at least lacks of a strong government to enforce things (for better or worse) so, in a turbulent world, it is indeed a better bet. I think, for the time being, Spain has proven to be resilient to authoritarianism and even the voters of "extreme" parties are not that extreme themselves! In Latin America, Mexico is proven to have an amazing leadership (today, I consider it the best worldwide) so unlikely to change overnight. Colombia, Chile and Uruguay seems promising too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

See, when we analyze Latin America countries, one cannot think exclusively in terms of US or Europe political science. Our states may seem like weak forces when scrutinized from afar, however this is exactly the problem. Fascism has different ways of spreading through institutions and evangelical militias or drug cartels are literally everywhere. Sometimes, our states do not enforce fascism by law. They are weak on surface and extremely dangerous in their militias and affiliations with drug cartels. The contradiction is the rule around here. Mexico is not the heaven you make it sound. Do not trust a country's safety based on official governments, it is a starter error when analyzing Latin America politics

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Think my home country Suriname is pretty safe. Almost no one knows it exists and there's plenty of places to ride out instability

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Somewhere obscure in the U.K. I’d rather struggle to survive there rather than as cannon fodder for some rich scum.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I am going to timetravel to the 1890s

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The dream of the 1890s is alive in Portland

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

It's the dysentery, isn't it?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί