Jump to content

WW3 hide-aways.

Recommended Posts

Just thinking, with Trump seemingly having given in to the Neo-Cons with his attack on Syria, and by doing their bidding losing a good deal of the 'Red Neck' support which got him elected, where is a good place to be if something kicked off ?

 

Wars are usually started when the economic / financial systems have become unsustainable, so, given the predicted collapse of the debt, housing and banking bubbles, something could be afoot again, especially when the Governor of the Bank of England is telling us to buy gold, the ultimate and historic safe haven for wealth.

 

I think those of you in Iberia are in the best place, in a safe corner of Europe (with less government interference in free speech and behaviour), and with a prevailing wind from the seas which would blow any fallout northwards ! For the super rich, further afield may be the choice. I'm not a 'Prepper', but best to have a 'Plan B' ? ( your 'Plan A' of getting out of this collapsing hell-hole was sensible.)

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 16:27 ----------

 

Sorry, I got that wrong. It bwasn't the Gov. of the BoE, it was Jamie Diamon ( same difference !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just thinking, with Trump seemingly having given in to the Neo-Cons with his attack on Syria, and by doing their bidding losing a good deal of the 'Red Neck' support which got him elected, where is a good place to be if something kicked off ?

 

Wars are usually started when the economic / financial systems have become unsustainable, so, given the predicted collapse of the debt, housing and banking bubbles, something could be afoot again, especially when the Governor of the Bank of England is telling us to buy gold, the ultimate and historic safe haven for wealth.

 

I think those of you in Iberia are in the best place, in a safe corner of Europe (with less government interference in free speech and behaviour), and with a prevailing wind from the seas which would blow any fallout northwards ! For the super rich, further afield may be the choice. I'm not a 'Prepper', but best to have a 'Plan B' ? ( your 'Plan A' of getting out of this collapsing hell-hole was sensible.)

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 16:27 ----------

 

Sorry, I got that wrong. It bwasn't the Gov. of the BoE, it was Jamie Diamon ( same difference !)

 

Even Spain is not safe from American Atomic bombs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18689132 Spain waits for US to finish nuclear clean-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere above ground will be safe.

 

Food production will fail because of nuclear winter.

 

Hundreds of nuclear power facilities across the globe that have active cooling reliant on a continuous electricity supply will fail. There will be multiple uncontainable Chernobyl-type fires that will burn for months or years and contaminate rivers, the oceans and the land.

 

Some kind of underground facility that can sustain life for ten or twenty years would be best. Maybe in the Rockies, High Andes or similar.

 

What you would emerge to after all that time would probably look like Eden but would be as deadly as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere above ground will be safe.

 

Food production will fail because of nuclear winter.

 

Hundreds of nuclear power facilities across the globe that have active cooling reliant on a continuous electricity supply will fail. There will be multiple uncontainable Chernobyl-type fires that will burn for months or years and contaminate rivers, the oceans and the land.

 

Some kind of underground facility that can sustain life for ten or twenty years would be best. Maybe in the Rockies, High Andes or similar.

 

What you would emerge to after all that time would probably look like Eden but would be as deadly as hell.

 

Interesting theory about nuclear meltdowns.

 

How many current nuclear reactors have control rods made of a moderator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting theory about nuclear meltdowns.

 

How many current nuclear reactors have control rods made of a moderator?

 

I wasnt't just thinking of reactors. Continuously cooled spent fuel pools could be a big enough problem alone, because their pumps need to run continuously, and if they dont run continuously the water will boil off. In theory it should be OK if the storage is well configured but there is no guarantee every pool will be correctly configured, and given the blast effects of nuclear explosions all bets are off anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the answer for us if nukes are to be used.

 

 

Angel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasnt't just thinking of reactors. Continuously cooled spent fuel pools could be a big enough problem alone, because their pumps need to run continuously, and if they dont run continuously the water will boil off. In theory it should be OK if the storage is well configured but there is no guarantee every pool will be correctly configured, and given the blast effects of nuclear explosions all bets are off anyway.

 

You weren't just thinking about reactors when you said Chernobyl like fires? The fire resulted from an uncontrolled reaction. Not from spent fuel rods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few videos on the net on this subject. Punch in ..........

 

'Where Can I Hide if the Global Economy COLLAPSES ?'

 

Europe's out except for Switzerland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You weren't just thinking about reactors when you said Chernobyl like fires? The fire resulted from an uncontrolled reaction. Not from spent fuel rods.

 

No I wasn't. A pool full of spent fuel with the water boiled off and the integrity of the storage structures ruined by a blast has potential to be horrific. Fukushima had 1,500 tonnes of spent fuel on site, a lot of it in pools. The containment is much less than for the fuel in the reactor cores. Obviously. Blast damaged pools with the pumps out of action would have potential for long-lived fires with probably no functioning emergency services to deal with it. Depending on the fuel the amount of material going into the air could be at Chernobyl levels. Multiply dozens or hundreds of times around the globe - Europe, Russia, USA

Edited by I1L2T3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I wasn't. A pool full of spent fuel with the water boiled off and the integrity of the storage structures ruined by a blast has potential to be horrific. Fukushima had 1,500 tonnes of spent fuel on site, a lot of it in pools. The containment is much less than for the fuel in the reactor cores. Obviously.

 

So you were thinking of fires, not Chernobyl like fires. You used Chernobyl for dramatic effect.

 

The water at Fukushima didn't boil off btw.

Edited by MamboNo5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.