> 1) Out of the path of nuclear fallout.
> 2) Net exporter of food.
> 3) Survivable weather if electricity/water/gas is turned off for a
> week.
> 4) Not a major player in nanotechnology (not likely to be a target).
> 5) No hostile countries on border.
> 6) Minimum of entangling treaties.
> 7) No restrictions on leaving the country (so you can duck over to the
> US and get a seat when Zyvex starts launching the nanospheres).
>
> Except for (3), I'd have to guess Australia.
> (Opinion only; I disclaim all expertise.)
As far as I have experienced, the weahter in Australia is quite good, and
with the aid of a solar array you could even have electricity and thus
water. Anyway, the likelyhood of a thermonuclear war is almost zero.
Chemical and/or biological agents are much more difficult. They are easier
to produce and without drawing too much attention. As B.H. Liddell-Hart
points out in his book "Strategy", the threat of nuclear wepons has shifted
the way wars a fought. So, Australia would be my choice!
Karsten
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:00 MDT