Ireland - the perfect 'BOL' ?

Danpad

Some food for thought folks. We're on the western most edge of Europe, surrounded by seas and we're not a nuclear target. I've always held the belief that perhaps Ireland, along with the likes of Iceland and the Faroe islands, is an excellent location in the event of a global sit-X. I've busied myself over the last year or so casting a net out for a suitable plot of land which I can not only frequent as and when I please for little slices of living an off grid life, but for somewhere to 'escape' to in a shtf scenario. Having said that, on a nationwide scale, don't we already have just that? We live in a country dominated by rural terrain and with a very small population. An hours drive out of most major towns will put you, your family and tent out of any immediate madness if society were to collapse.
Now, I know that if China were to 'Red Dawn' the world, they'd 'chute' their lads into anywhere rendering my theory toothless, but I like to think that mankind is not (yet) on the brink of global nuclear war. Incidentally I read a report which suggested that nuclear strikes would be so tactically precise these days that it's almost considered less of a threat than EMP attacks. No, I'm inclined to look a little closer to home. IMO, societal break down and a WROL sit is more of a threat due to the (inevitable?) collapse of the dollar, throwing the world into disarray. Anyway, back on point, if such an event occurs I think I'd be counting my blessings that I'm here in little old Ireland rather than trying to negotiate, let's say, an autobahn out of Frankfurt or find a hiding place in Paris.

Owryan

Pretty sure Russia had Shannon down for a free nuclear facelift during the cold war, somewhere up north was a target too.

Watch Ryder

Eire's got a small population, but wild game is a bit thin on the ground.

SNAKEDOC

Watch Ryder wrote: »

Eire's got a small population, but wild game is a bit thin on the ground.

Not necessarily. Plenty of wild deer if you know where to look. They are just kept to managable numbers. If society broke down over night i think they would explode in numbers. As for nuclear war and ireland not been a target. Do i really have to say it ok i suppose i do. The last line od defence so to speak in europe is the british. RAF bases are closer to dublin than cork in some places and celafield is a big honking target. If it were hit good bye ireland. If i had a choice of where to go it would be the borieal forest northern canada. There are places there where no man has set foot yet. Food galore. The wilderness is so pristeen up there you can drink the watre straight from most of the rivers and given that fresh drinking water would be scarse in a post nuc war world all the better.

long range shooter

Danpad wrote: »

Some food for thought folks. We're on the western most edge of Europe, surrounded by seas and we're not a nuclear target. I've always held the belief that perhaps Ireland, along with the likes of Iceland and the Faroe islands, is an excellent location in the event of a global sit-X. I've busied myself over the last year or so casting a net out for a suitable plot of land which I can not only frequent as and when I please for little slices of living an off grid life, but for somewhere to 'escape' to in a shtf scenario. Having said that, on a nationwide scale, don't we already have just that? We live in a country dominated by rural terrain and with a very small population. An hours drive out of most major towns will put you, your family and tent out of any immediate madness if society were to collapse.
Now, I know that if China were to 'Red Dawn' the world, they'd 'chute' their lads into anywhere rendering my theory toothless, but I like to think that mankind is not (yet) on the brink of global nuclear war. Incidentally I read a report which suggested that nuclear strikes would be so tactically precise these days that it's almost considered less of a threat than EMP attacks. No, I'm inclined to look a little closer to home. IMO, societal break down and a WROL sit is more of a threat due to the (inevitable?) collapse of the dollar, throwing the world into disarray. Anyway, back on point, if such an event occurs I think I'd be counting my blessings that I'm here in little old Ireland rather than trying to negotiate, let's say, an autobahn out of Frankfurt or find a hiding place in Paris.

Thats half of Ireland gone;)

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/nuclear-war-the-hidden-threat-to-northern-ireland-28497656.html

And not to mention

http://westcorktimes.com/home/?p=3909

Tabnabs

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Not necessarily. Plenty of wild deer if you know where to look. They are just kept to managable numbers. If society broke down over night i think they would explode in numbers. As for nuclear war and ireland not been a target. Do i really have to say it ok i suppose i do. The last line od defence so to speak in europe is the british. RAF bases are closer to dublin than cork in some places and celafield is a big honking target. If it were hit good bye ireland. If i had a choice of where to go it would be the borieal forest northern canada. There are places there where no man has set foot yet. Food galore. The wilderness is so pristeen up there you can drink the watre straight from most of the rivers and given that fresh drinking water would be scarse in a post nuc war world all the better.

Sellafield is a roulette wheel. All bets are either on red or black, as in, if the wind is from the prevailing westerly/south westerly, the fallout for us will be vastly reduced, it it's north easterly, it's game over, absolutely.

The Norwegians did a detailed worst case scenario and their report gives some useful information on what we could expect. BTW, it doesn't take a terrorist attack for this catastrophe to occur, a serious accident or malfunction would have the same consequences.

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/a368e9b53c.pdf

(Report in English and worth looking at the maps to get an idea of how significant wind would be).

SNAKEDOC

In relation to celafield i dont even mean a terror attack. If war broke out and britan found itself under air attack it would be very vulrinable from the air and if seriously hit then the wind would not matter it would pump out radiation for long enough for the winds to change surely. A terror attack on celafield is very unlikely. As targets go its not as juicy as say parliment or london city centre or an airport somewhere there is lots of people to kill.

mister gullible

Wouldn't fancy eating game that had just been munching vegetation covered in radioactive fallout.

Watch Ryder

This isn't the 80s folks, nuclear war is a lot less likely than environmental disaster imo.

SNAKEDOC

Watch Ryder wrote: »

This isn't the 80s folks, nuclear war is a lot less likely than environmental disaster imo.

I wouldnt bank on that. If history has taught us one thing it is that man kind has a lust for war. Wars have been faught constantly for thousands of yearsnd will continue to be faught. Nuclear war is simply the next step in war fighting. The bomb has been used in only one conflict so far and i believe it is destined to be used again. I doubt that when it does happen we are looking at a full nuclear exchange between superpowers but by a nation with relatively new technology on a smaller scale. Korea for example or iran or syria. 1 maybe 2 devices max used in a strike but it only takes one bomb to make it nuclear war. If a nuc is used somewhere tommorrow it would cause untold panic and financial tormoil to put us deeper into a recession and could cause a massive standoff not unlike the cold war where countries take sides for their own interests and all of a sudden we are facing a global crisis again.

long range shooter

Watch Ryder wrote: »

This isn't the 80s folks, nuclear war is a lot less likely than environmental disaster imo.

As long as there is nuclear weapons,it is still a threat.
All it takes is the wrong press on the button.


http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

professore

Nuclear war won't happen deliberately as the person at the top giving the order is signing their own death warrant. Ambitious sociopath types like this are happy to have others die for them in their millions but are very careful of their own skins.

Tabnabs

Who needs a war? Accidents will happen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

Danpad

Nuclear horror aside, in an economical, societal breakdown WROL scenario, I think Ireland is a good place to be.

Watch Ryder

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

I wouldnt bank on that. If history has taught us one thing it is that man kind has a lust for war. Wars have been faught constantly for thousands of yearsnd will continue to be faught. Nuclear war is simply the next step in war fighting. The bomb has been used in only one conflict so far and i believe it is destined to be used again. I doubt that when it does happen we are looking at a full nuclear exchange between superpowers but by a nation with relatively new technology on a smaller scale. Korea for example or iran or syria. 1 maybe 2 devices max used in a strike but it only takes one bomb to make it nuclear war. If a nuc is used somewhere tommorrow it would cause untold panic and financial tormoil to put us deeper into a recession and could cause a massive standoff not unlike the cold war where countries take sides for their own interests and all of a sudden we are facing a global crisis again.

Lust for conflict - Yes

Lust for nukes - Nahhh. Nukes are overkill and tend to poison the air and resources, land etc too much.

The Glass Key

Lets look at it another way, there are certainly worse places to be stuck in during a SHTTF situation.

The weather here is on the whole quite mild, finding fuel to keep warm isn't that difficult we are not short on water so the only problem is getting enough to eat in the short term.

SNAKEDOC

Watch Ryder wrote: »

Lust for conflict - Yes

Lust for nukes - Nahhh. Nukes are overkill and tend to poison the air and resources, land etc too much.

I mentioned korea for a reason. This man had his wife killed for no apparent reason has threatened the US with nuclear strikes and generally has incited global war its not a massive stretch of the imagination to see him lob a nuc at the south just for sh1ts and giggles. As for ireland being a good place for a world ending senario there are about 500 other places id rather choose. We are a very small island with a lot of dependance on europe for food stocks and fuel. Ireland would run dry very quickly indeed and social order would simply vanish. The army would not be able to restore order the gardai would be helpless and general criminals would run a muck. The only place to survive would be somewhere there is less people per square mile. Look at parts of canada and alaska i know its cold but compared to ireland which has 66 people per square km alaska has 6 per square km. plus youd be on the mainland

Watch Ryder

Yep, things would get grim, but if there's one thing about us you have to keep in mind...

There's always survivors and the survivors will inherit a whole new world to restart from, hopefully better than this one.
People would get back to the ways of independence, not intra-dependence.
Self-sufficient and not joined at the hip.
All the cities and infrastructure built on an energy surplus, back to being dawn-in to communities of folks.

A return to the natural-minded state and not the artificial-one promoted heavily right now.

This computer screen you're staring at right now would be like an artifact (should it even work or be able to turn-on that is).

Watch Ryder

Watch Ryder wrote: »

All the cities and infrastructure built on an energy surplus, back to being dawn-in to communities of folks.

Doubt that, we always push as hard as we can. Especially with the past in living memory people will flock to new settlements more quickly than energy or infrastructure could keep up.

SNAKEDOC

Deleted User wrote: »

Doubt that, we always push as hard as we can. Especially with the past in living memory people will flock to new settlements more quickly than energy or infrastructure could keep up.

Yea i do agree there people will flock to big settlements however whether or not those settlements will be able to sustain large groups of survivors is another thing. I would stay away somewhere i know i can survive long term in relative peace and quiet with my family. If there is one constant it is the human nature to survive and i can just imagine how crazy people will get when they are trying to survive. The saying survival of the fittest rings to mind.

wolfeye

It wont be the perfect bug out location when this accident waiting to happen explodes some day.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/sellafield-operating-at-reduced-levels-following-elevated-levels-of-radioactivity-29967107.html

Tabnabs

The Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria is partially closed after "elevated levels of radioactivity" were detected.

A perimeter alarm has been triggered at the north of the site and each building is being checked, a spokesman said.

No evidence of radioactive release or accident had been found but "there can be no guessing on nuclear sites", he added.

The company stressed there was no risk to the public or workforce.

Director of stakeholder relations Rory O'Neill said: "One of the 20-odd site perimeter monitors that we have is registering above normal levels of radiation.

"It's not a level that would trigger any kind of activity on or off site. It's below levels that would demand us to do sheltering or anything like that."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-25975785

Ah sure, we'll be grand.

tomh903

The horrible truth is that US/Russia will NEVER give up their nukes. I despise the weapons and believe Nuclear energy has never done any good but all those people out in the streets protesting "Ban the bomb" etc... should start putting their efforts into creating weapons that would render Nuclear weapons useless.

SNAKEDOC

tomh903 wrote: »

The horrible truth is that US/Russia will NEVER give up their nukes. I despise the weapons and believe Nuclear energy has never done any good but all those people out in the streets protesting "Ban the bomb" etc... should start putting their efforts into creating weapons that would render Nuclear weapons useless.

That only continues the struggle for dominance over ones enemies. The nuclear weapon was created to have a bigger stick than the next guy and if a weapon was created to render nuclear weapons useless then thats the bigger stick and the world would go right back to 1960's cold war stand off because one side has an advantage so the other decides to move to strike. First.

I dont want to sound like im lecturing but the cuban missile crisis started because the US moved missiles and other offencive weapons into stratigic sites around europe and had a 24 hour alert bomber force airborn ready t strike at the USSR so they decided to escalate by putting weapons in cuba but it back fired. I dont blame them for trying it. The US had jupiter missiles with nuclear warheads on board in turkey spiting distance from moscow they were simply trying to restore balance and in the end the US did an under the table deal and removed the missiles from turkey. So in regards to a weapon to make nukes useless no it would absolutly not work. The only thing that will work is a world community of every country including russia china and korea, north and south to sign an argeement for total nuclear disarmament and an agreement to set up an international watchdog to prevent future weaponisation of nuclear material in any form. Or just have superman fly them all to space.:D