This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Place To Go When War Starts
As one humorist once said “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and so it has been since time immemorial. Complain and vociferate in the public space and you will get the attention that you need, or at least crave. The grease gets thrown onto the axel in lashings. But, sit silently in the back seat and be driven along and nobody will look over their shoulder and see you slumped in the back of the car. But, that doesn’t mean to say that you aren’t there on that back bench somewhere. Just because you aren’t squeaking, doesn’t mean to say that you don’t get from point A to point B. The others just don’t notice that you are there. The quietest ones are usually the safest anyhow, aren’t they? The ones that will look after you when all hell breaks loose.
Nobody can deny that the chances of war are increasing in the world.
Any amount of theory in international relations about how when a country gets a McDonald’s fast-food restaurant, then they will no longer wage war because they will be too busy worry about the burgers that fill their stomachs (the Golden Arches Theory) will only go down the tubes and get smacked in the face by Ronald McDonald. History has a habit of creating repetition. Bis repetita placent or ‘those things that please just get asked for again and again’. We might well look around and so the growing number of repetitions in history that were announcements of the impending outbreak of World War II that are present today in the modern world in which we live. The unlikely alliances in the world, the invasions and annexing of certain lands, the internal ethnic conflicts that are coming to boiling point not to add the burning fuel to the fire of the financial crisis that has reduced some to cinders.
So, when war breaks out, where should we go? According to the Global Peace Index from the Institute of Economics and Peace, the places to be when war does finally happen would be the following states.
Safest Places in the World
The ten highest ranking countries are all relatively small democracies that make few waves in the world.
10. Norway
09. Belgium
08. Japan
07. Canada
06. Finland
05. Switzerland
04. New Zealand
03. Austria
02. Denmark
01. Iceland
Is Iceland the top country in the world simple because it has a small population? There are 325,000 people in the country and as such it’s far less likely to have crime than with big populations. Or is it because the Icelandic people have one of the world’s oldest democracies with the parliament being established as early as the 10th century in the country? The Althing was one of the first systems of representative democracy with elected officials representing the common people. Some have even suggested that Iceland is peaceful because it has great ethnic similarity, with a very small proportion of people coming from non-Icelandic heritages (4-6% of the country). Others might believe that diversity brings strength. Is it because health care there is free and university and schooling are also free and provided for by the state? Their basic needs met, they have little cause to find conflict with others, perhaps.
Who knows why Iceland is the most peaceful country. There are many suggestions that are made, whether they be the real reasons or not.
Seven of the world’s top most-peaceful countries are in Europe. There are the usual ones that are there at the top. The Danes and the Finnish, the Swiss and the Norwegians. Say what you will but every time there’s and index published they are always at the top of the list, aren’t they? But, these are the countries that sit quietly in the back seat driving along. They don’t squeak and they certainly don’t need greasing up like the others do. There’s a link there somewhere between greasing someone’s axel and somehow going down the slippery wrong road of corruption and instability.
Global Peace
The Global Peace Index has been produced now for 8 years and there are 162 countries in the ranking (standing for 99.6% of the world population). So, apparently this is the most peaceful century in the history of mankind and yet there are growing signs that the dangerous are rearing their ugly heads. Where there are no dangers there are the bastardized twin brothers of analysis which are conspiracy thinking and rumor. Where proof lacks, the twins prevail and ensure that what wasn’t happening will.
· The index looks at three broad themes which are :
1. Level of safety and security in a society.
2. Extent of domestic and international conflict.
3. Degree of militarization of the country.
There are 22 indicators that are both quantitative and qualitative.
· Out of the 162 countries there has been deterioration in the level of peace in countries for 111 of them since 2008.
· Not surprising really since our society was founded on the development of trade, inter-locking us into a global market to prevent putting our own prosperity into danger by making it woven into the fabric of others’ economies.
· But, since the free-for-all fight that ensued after the fall of the financial markets, that has somewhat changed. Since 2008, it has been every man for himself.
· 500 million people are currently living in countries that are considered to be at risk of instability and possible theatres of conflict.
· 200 million of those people are considered to be below the poverty line in their country intrinsically linking conflict and instability with levels of wealth.
· The countries that are most at risk of falling into violence and instability today are:
1. Zambia
2. Haiti
3. Argentina
4. Chad
5. Bosnia & Herzegovina
6. Nepal
7. Burundi
8. Georgia
9. Liberia
10. Qatar
· But, the most violent countries in the world are the following 11 countries in which 85% of all terrorist activity in the world is taking place today (despite what the local media might be trying to make you think, scaremongering and panic-selling to the masses):
1. Syria
2. Afghanistan
3. South Sudan
4. Iraq
5. Somalia
6. Sudan
7. C.A.R.
8. D.R. Congo
9. Pakistan
10. N. Korea
11. Russia
· You are more likely to have a homicide rate in those countries that are 12 times the average in peaceful countries.
· The Global Economic Impact of violence has been estimated to stand at US$1,350 per person in the world or a total of US$9.8 trillion (2013).
· Africa has a combined GDP of less than 50% of that figure that impacts the world.
· The total figure also represents 11.3% of global Gross Domestic Product.
· There is a rise in the number of internal and domestic conflicts in states and violence is no longer just between states but also from within.
· Overall only 4 indicators changed for the better with less money being spent in the world on the military (as a percentage of GDP) globally and less money being spent on nuclear and heavy weapons as well as the armed forces in the world.
· But, the other criteria all seemed to do worse than in previous years and they included:
1. Terrorist activity
2. Homicide rate
3. Likelihood of violent demonstrations
4. Violent crime
5. Incarceration rate
6. Political instability and access to small arms, amongst others.
· It is not surprising that South Sudan saw the largest fall between 2013 and 2014 in the ranking of Global Peace it and became the country that suffered the most severe deterioration. It now stands at 160th place in the ranking. It fell by 16 places.
· Egypt fell by 31 places and ended up in 143rd position in the world rankings.
Will the figures above remain just figures and rankings? They are all well and good just as long as they have an impact. The trend in the figures has been getting worse over the past 8 years in which the Global Peace Index has been carrying out the study so it would seem that the figures are destined to be relegated to the back office of the corridors of power. Why would we want world peace, anyhow? For a moment it might just bring the poor out of poverty and provide them with the same living standards as the rest of the world. That would be no good, would it? How would we recognize the rich as being overly rich if they didn’t have the poor to gauge themselves by it? It seems that it would be far better to maintain them in instability and violence and that way the old adage stands very true of seeing your enemies fighting amongst themselves in their own back yards means that they don’t try to climb over your fence and get into your little oasis.
So where does the USA stand?
· The USA is 101 out of 162 in the world rankings for the World Peace Index.
· That means that it comes in just after Turkmenistan, Armenia, Bangladesh and even Haiti and Benin. It’s just one rank ahead of Angola. No comment.
· It is 30th place in world rankings for the Terrorism Index.
Do you think the USA is the 101th most peaceful country in the world out of 162?
- Pivotfarm's blog
- 27382 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Very true, who the heck wants to occupy a country when their army needs to suffer through -40 degree weather........soldiers tend to lose their will to fight real quick unless it is your homeland.
Canada should be near the top if that's the case.
Ask the Germans about their foray into Russia. Folks should note here that this event was ALL about resources, about Germany eying Russia's oil reserves, figuring that having command of them would alllow them, Germans/Nazis, to control Europe. Funny how little things have changed...
None of these countries are safe.
The #1 on this list is Iceland.
It would be a great choice except for one huge problem - it has a US Air Force base. It will be a target.
None of the NATO countries will be safe nor their best friends like Australia.
Safest places will be those that are not in the war. Most likely South America or Africa if you are black.
I would Never leave the US to find a "safe place". More and more those safe places are already tired of immigrants. Besides I would not feel comfortable somewhere where I cold not speak the language or make change. I don't want refugees coming to my mountains because that will just make getting food and supplies worse for me. Don't come here, you are not welcome.
Knowing the lay of the land, the people, and having plenty of minimally developed, low population density land nearby is a big benefit to your safety.
You can't really say that "the US is 'safe' or 'not safe'" - It's both, depending on where you're located.
Yeah, you don't wait until hell breaks loose! Further, one must accept and engage in the lifestyle that one chooses. It's taken me years to adjust to where I'm currently at; and, as they say, life is but a learning process, so, I don't ever epxect to have "arrived." Anyone taking the "wait it out" approach ain't really living.
Those thinking that running off to some other country need to consider that once the "locals" might not be so curtious once the US falls. Have to ask what is this history of US involvement in that country. Folks may appear curtious, but when the time comes.... (locals step back, then when the "occupiers" tire the locals remove support and then, perhaps, go on the offensive).
Also keep in mind that it's not like things just switch into some mode and stay there. Just about everything will happen, everywhere, at different times and in different durations. It's about survival, always has been, always will be. Being flexible and able to change per your situation/environment is the name of the game.
I agree with your sentiments especially the last sentence. I am going to a country which is very large and a friend of the usa, however my particular place is a long long way from any millitary instalation, to the point of not being there at all. And no, I won't tell you where it is, thats my secret.
The countrys listed in the northern part of the globe are definately not the places to go, most of them are in nato or vassals of the usa and will be the first to go. Besides it is very expensive to live there, my wife comes from Finland, ( its on the list) and I have been there several times, its a beautiful country, but damn cold in the winter. The President and Prime Minister of Finland should have all the stops out repairing their relations with Russia right away, Finland is in the most dangerous of areas as well as Norway, Sweden and all of the baltic countrys. What were they thinking of when they aligned themselves with usa/nato, I can't imagine, well yes I can, but the mind just boggles, I don't think I need to spell it out.
How's that making change stuff working out for you in America these days.
I've changed quite a bit, thank you very much. I'm still alive! And, nothing that I've done has made any demands on others to change, none that were undertaken through force or coercion (anyone that has changed around me has done so on their own accord, to what effect I'd had on them I cannot say).
BTW - "America" is rather large area, it encompasses North America, Central America and South America. Use of generalizations and labels tends to promote ignorance, something that I'm seeing has worked with you.
I'm livin' the dream, son.
"Do you think the USA is the 101th most peaceful country in the world out of 162?"
it's definitely closer to 162 than is shown.
as for your list. anything with nato is a kiss of death.
10. Norway - nato
09. Belgium - nato
08. Japan - chinaphobic + ussa whore
07. Canada - nato + british and ussa whore
06. Finland - ??
05. Switzerland - ?? without banking secrecy not too sure about war immunity
04. New Zealand - uk whore
03. Austria - ??
02. Denmark - nato
01. Iceland - nato
"The countries that are most at risk of falling into violence and instability today are:"
11 - ussa
...and pray tell where is israhell on the list or don't the palestinians count as a people??
More doom porn.
...because you are a pollyanna?
reality is reality. reality shows are not real. understanding that helps one cope with reality that points directly at doom for the west. the world looks like they have decided the only way to save the world is to kill the usa and a lot of people living here. shrub said you are with the usa or against it. putin and china have decided they are against the usa and have invited the world to ride their bullet train. many have joined the tttttuuuuuurrrrrriiiiissssssttttttt brics. many more want to join them.
Yea I'm a pollyanna who was a combat Marine who served two tours in a war that killed a lot of my friends. You people who throw this crap around all the time that the West is destined to fall because it's all going up in smoke from Russian or Chinese missles someday are sick if you want it and delusional if you believe it. Things are going to keep getting worse, sure, but no leader in a modern society is stupid enough to want or start a nuclear war. Now get back to living your life and let's all work together to clean up the mess made by the damn bankers and politicians.
I wouldn't be too sure of that Slick. Here's the problem with your argument that "no leader in a modern society is stupid enough to want or start a nuclear war": Accidents.
As the rhetoric heats up, communication goes down. Trust goes down. Response time goes up. What happens if an ICBM explodes in a missile silo (on either side), the satellites read it as a launch and suddenly Obama or Putin have 10 minutes to decide if it is a first strike, a test, or accidenta. Or what if a pilot on either side takes his bomber on a rogue bomb run ala Slim Pickins)? Have a read of this book and I think you will see just how fragile the system is: http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143...
As for your argument about 'sane leaders', mate, I am here to tell you that the leadership of the US Dept of State and Whitehouse have more than a touch of ego-induced psychosis. Meanwhile, the American USAF General in charge of our nukes seems to be getting a little bit of dementia when it comes to his WWII history and grasp of similies in the English language.
The US commander in charge of most of America’s nuclear missiles has warned that too much power is concentrated in the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and drawn parallels between Russia’s recent behaviour and that of Nazi Germany.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/unite-against-moscow-ag...
Lastly, as a Marine, you know, everyone loves a good fight.
And I bet you killed a lot of the friends of other people. So it all balances out doesn't it?
No leader wanted WW I. To serve in the military is to trust and obey orders from above. You trust that even if some of those higher-ups are incompetent or malicious, the system will mitigate their effects.
Trust is an opiate. Trust is delusional. Which leader should we obey, trust?
And then consider that ALL humans are OF Nature, and that Nature is full of deception. To think that people wouldn't lie, cheat or steal to survive (to whatever they construe as being necessary for "survival") would be considered naive in nearly any language.
All the social structures work (more or less) only when there is ample resources. Those claiming power, clamping on to it, utilize that cloak to conceal the underlying fact of self-preservation: of course, no one can live forever, in which case the "survival" lies in the promotion of their genes. I See through it all... I pass no judgment, I just identify what IS: no "this thing or that thing 'must be done'," no, you won't get that from me as I fully understand that there is no such thing as a "solution," for the very word connotes permanence, and, clearly, nothing is permanent (possibly death, but that debate hasn't been settled to-date), and, there's the issue of people failing to ask the right questions in the first place (kind of hard to get any "solution" to a problem that is improperly identified).
As a youngster I came to feel that I would never wish to be a "leader," that instead I would wish to be a "guider." Anarchism? Perhaps. It's also the very thing that is most hated by POWER: there is plenty of programming/conditioning against it.
I agree with you Rich. These are dangerous times, but we are not in the weakest position. Obama makes us APPEAR weak, but weak we are not. That being said, the next election will either weaken us further, or help us start to correct the illness that is prevasive upon us today. Our founding principles are where we need to steer; they've served us well for a long time. "Avoid foreign entanglements," George Washington said in his farewell address. Look where we've been..... Time to reassess, reconstitute and get right.
Ain't NOTHING going to get "fixed" because no one is addressing the REAL root causes: predicating our entire social and economic structure on perpetual growth on a finite planet. There has been NO ideology that has wavered from this basis. As a matter of fact, it's built into our DNA! EVERY fucking thing is a bubble! It's the cycle thing: grow, stall, collapse.
Decllinging resources and increasing population, an aging population at that! Growth is dead, D E A D. Brining back the "Founding Fathers," bringing back ANYONE (insert your favorite person(s) here) won't do diddly-squat because there's no overcoming physics here. Anyone who thinks that there can be growth is either a liar or is horribly ignorant (and is likely every bit as guilty as the others in what amounts to a position of basing all on a strategy of hope).
All wars are about resources. When you understand that reality you then have to adjust to the reality that growth eventually brings you to the point of having to kill in order to obtain resources. All that's left, then, is to figure out what YOU are going to do about it... Hanging on to a dying paradigm, however, is a sure dead-end; but then again, none of gets out of this alive.
Ah yes, the deniers of logic sweep down once more. Math fail! You folks differ little from the "others" that you ridicule, for you too base your views and desires on "hope." LOL! Darwin is calling out for you...
I hate to be repetitive, but how's that "avoiding foreign entanglements" thing working out for you.
the usa is in the post ww1 great britain period, deeply in debt with the natives(colonies) getting restless. most people in britain actually thought the same as you two, rule brittania, brittania rules the waves crap. most people in the usa think britain won ww2. they lost miserably. ask an old brit if he stills has his ration card from the 50s.
'Marine who served two tours in a war that killed a lot of my friends.'.....I would say you are a slow learner.
looks like you missed a few history lessons. the flow chart has been in place since the beginning of time. it is easy to follow.
the fate of the usa is inevitablly collapse as all empires have before this one. what should make you mad as a marine is the way the current regime(going back 40 years) wants to expedite the collapse so the carcass can be picked clean by them before anyone else has the chance. the most recent example for your history challenged view was the recent pillage and plundering of the ussr by the same group fighting for a good spot in line regarding the usa..
He was a Marine, of course he missed some history lessons. I have known a few Marines and they aren't exactly at the top of the intelligence chart.
High intelligence is not required and not really desired for the meat that is dumped into the grinder.
Not really surprising given they greet each other by saying "Simplify". LOL.
Lumping everyone into the same bucket is a recipe for error.
Plenty of Marines are NOT stupid. My favorite: Smedley Butler.
As my personal philosophy discourages group affiliationns (group-think), I refuse to associate myself as being either a Marine (former or current) or NOT a Marine (which would yet again be another group- "Us vs. Them" kind of thing).
Simple minds create simple world views...
actually, he is right where combat any branch is concerned. the military does not waste brains for cannon fodder if they can help it. god bless those poor fuckers. they deserve the most respect regardless of anything or anyone, including their dimwitted cos in the beltway and the street who endanger their lives for the almighty fiat.
I'm not a player of the "pecking order" game, in which case I don't apply judgment, as judgment tends to be based on the social paradigms that we're in, that most fail to understand that they are in: deep in the forest and unable to see the trees.
I could just as readily say that it's those folks' means of survival. Pretty much standard that folks go along on the coattails of those proclaiming power. Crumbs tend to fall. And as I noted elsewhere, to the dismay of the non-thinkers, is that it really comes down to the need to kill in order to acquire resources necessary to sustain whatever the culture says it needs for survival (as commanded by those in power).
Uruguay is where you want to be.
Canada is far from safe as they will be delighted to jump in with the US.
One problem with Canada could be the unexploded plutonium cores of an attempted US BMD. A high-altitude hydrogen fusion explosion is probably better in the long term.
yeah, but i doubt anyone would bother you much in the yukon or hudson bay.
Canada is mostly rocks, trees, and barren wasteland. Except for those places where people live - mostly south of, and hugging the 49'th
90 some odd percent of canadians live within 50 miles of the usa border.......and hollywood florida.
There is no safe places when the nukes start dancing
no where to hide...
just don't be a target.
a drop of oil a day keeps the guv.org away. ha
Cold places that wont; get nuked or get the fallout from people who DO get nuked.
That's made the list a fair bit shorter hasn't it?
Good one One,,, Yup, the best places will be south of the equator. S. America is a really big place with lots of open spaces...I'm liking Chile more and more. And Patagonia, well,,,
;-D
Bankster peace? Never happen. Where is the profit?
My thought: Mostly colder places. Cold gets dangerous, so people in cold places might need their neighbors in the next emergency, so it is prudent for them to act respectfully to their neighbors.
Russia, China, Europe and the USA are rattling sabers at each other and Zambia is the most dangerous place to be if War comes? Well, jack me off with a wire brush because I would have never thought that.,
" Is it because health care there is free and university and schooling are also free and provided for by the state?"
What a complete moron. The typist doesn't understand that "free" stuff from the gubmint actually costs a LOT and is NOT free. The gubmint has to tax people then run the taxes through an elite pool of highly paid government morons before the gubmint "free" stuff arrives to the peoples. There is nothing free about gubmint interference in markets.
Health care is "free" in the paradise known as Cuba. The only problem with their "free" health care is that they can't get medicine becasue they don't have an economy that can pay for medicine. Yea communisim!!!