Mars. I could then chronicle the whole affair.
Well said, Gest. We never know until we are faced with the situation. Let us pray that we never are.
Here are my choices, in order:
In a US Navy nuclear powered sub.
The international space station.
On board Air Force One.
Ever read or see the movie of On the Beach?
Not right now - a virtual garbage scow (no shuttle missions to take out the trash), with oxygen supply problems.
Best place to be in case of a nuclear war?
Somewhere else.
In Florida, in 1962, they told us we’d be fine hiding under the desk, as long as there was a blanket over it.
:smack:
Just one more vote for “Ground Zero.” I have thought about this since the cold war began, and I simply don’t want to live in the kind of world that would be left. Of course, suicide has been hovering in my brain for at least 30 years and I’m still here. Maybe my powerful will to live would overcome my grief at seeing the world change so violently and so enormously. But I doubt it.
This is a depressing topic. And it’s my birthday. I think I’ll go to the pit and cheer up.
I would imagine the best place to be would be Antarctica, or on a ship/submarine in the middle of the ocean.
At home, watching it all on TV?
No. But, a sub would have power enough for decades and food enough for years (with rationing). You could wait it out, and travel the globe looking for safe sites to rebuild.
Compared with the radioactive, smoldering ruins of an apocalypic wasteland? Sounds good to me. Toss the trash out into space.
Well, you could be posing a hazard to yourself in chucking the trash out; it could come back and bite you in a collison or something. It would hang around in orbit with you unless you took calculated actions to send it somewhere else.
Otherwise, I’m with you. Unless my Canadian Wilderness Plan is feasible… anyone have any idea if it’s possible to escape the radiation in this way?
DC. New York. Some place where I can count on evaporating in the first half-hour of the war so I don’t have to live through the aftermath. 
Where I live was a prime immediate-vapourisation location in the cold war. There was all sorts of military stuff around here. Unfortunately, we can’t rely on a quick death any more.
Sorry, but “best place to live” and “colder than hell” are mutually exclusive unless you’re a penguin or a polar bear.
Another ground zero for me.
That article uses “hypothetical,” “predicted,” and “possible” all in the first sentence. Nothing in it convinced me it’s anything but a theory.
To be fair, they can’t really test this hypothesis to prove it…
You aren’t thinking like the sort of people who have massive numbers of nuclear weapons at their disposal.
These guys run tests to make sure soldiers won’t fail to fire the missiles when ordered, because of some namby-pamby ‘feelings’ about the civilian casualties.
They use terms like ‘mutually assured destruction’.
The point of having these weapons is to threaten to **utterly destroy ** the opposition (hopefully only in retaliation, otherwise we are all fckd).
Of course you nuke Africa when attacked. You don’t want to ‘lose’ to some ‘third world’ country.
After the first 100 million casualties, what is the point in stopping? Are you going to apologise? :rolleyes:
And of course you launch all your missiles as soon as possible. The enemy has targeted all your launch sites. If you don’t launch, you will look ‘silly’ when the rest of your missiles are destroyed on the ground.
I was hoping for a better question…