this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
137 points (94.8% liked)
Asklemmy
47183 readers
654 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
South America is a better place to go in a nuclear war, Australia is in NATO along with NZ, so it's a target. Can't really think of any particular targets in South America.
They are not in NATO, actually. That requires proximity to the Atlantic. They're Western though, that's true. Being in a city could be a bit of a risk.
In South America or southern Africa you're going to deal with waves of people trying to expand in from the north. No way of life escapes that unscathed. Not to mention, the projections for food scarcity on other continents aren't nearly as rosy, if there's soot in the upper atmosphere, maybe because of the higher population to start with.
And then there's poverty as a whole separate dimension of things. Here or in Australia I'm pretty sure the capacity to build things like generators will continue. In the third world there's absolutely no guarantee.
Oh sorry, you're right, they're a partner of NATO but not in it.