Where would be the safest place to go in the event of a nuclear attack?

That would, of course, depend upon a personal definition of “safety”, where the nuclear exchange(s) took place and how many weapons were used. If you posit a limited nuclear exchange which was confined to several major cities and military installations, then it is likely that:

Most people would be safest remaining in the city or town in which they live (provided, of course, this area wasn’t attacked). Most cities and town has sufficient infrastructure established to support their inhabitants and while there would be disruptions in the supplies of food and water (and perhaps healthcare) most cities and towns would survive the initial attacks and life would continue as normal, at least for a while.

Most survivors from major cities attacked could move to nearby semi-rural or rural areas, as these areas are likely to be unaffected by the initial attacks. They would strain limited resources, but if the government is quickly restored measures could be taken to absorb the survivors into the areas and a “new normality” would likely ensue.

People who live in semi-rural, rural or remote areas would likely see little difference in the quality of their lives. The areas closest to cities might experience some refugees, but rural areas and remote areas wouldn’t likely see more than a few stragglers (especially in larger nations) as limited fuel and food supplies would prevent masses of people from traveling too far from they are at.

Read the rest of the article BELOW: