Which means you should know where to go should the big boom take place.
This too has altered the nuclear landscape.
Here, the deeper you go and the thicker you pour your concrete, the better.
Maybe some lead lining wouldnt hurt, either.
Tiny House Design has some suggestions if youre thinking of building your ownnuclear fallout bunker.
Keep your mouth open if you see an explosion to keep your eardrums intact and RUN to your shelter.
Then you have to think about contaminated groundwater and food supplies.
Really, youre better off moving somewhere that the nukes arent likely to find.
WWIII Helpful Hint!Head to the southern hemisphere.
There are fewer valuable targets, fewer major, industrial nations, and fewer nuclear weapons.
In the case of Guam, the fact is that no one really wants it.
Its a nice land, but isolated, with few resources and no threat to anyone.
Antarctica
An obvious choice, its a good place to avoid bombs, but a terrible place to live.
Also very pretty and sustainable.
On the west side, theres desert.
Then, theres Perth.
As a bonus, English is commonly spoken there, the people tend to be very welcoming.
Though nearby Cheyenne Mountain is a major target, thanks to the NORAD installation, Denver itself is not.
Tristan da Cunha
The most remote place on earth, yet it is perfectly inhabitable for humans.
Sounds like a great place to escape from the threat of nuclear extermination.
Its a wonderful fishing hotspot too which means you will have access to some means of sustenance also.
When looking for somewhere to live in a post-apocalyptic landscape, you cant really afford to be picky.
However, with Tristan de Cunha you win on all fronts.
Plus moose, which are far meaner than any bear.
Theyre mothers-in-law with antlers.
Final Thoughts
This list is of course, largely subjective.
The same for adding Denver, Colorado.
Its a calculated risk, but every list deserves a dark horse or two.
