if there was a major world disaster of whatever kind, in what part of the world would the safest place be?

Answer 1

Well i have heard people say Bangalore is a better place to be cause it is not affected with much of the natures disasters and even i think the same since i have lived there before

Answer 2

The part of the world you are in will be the perfect place to be if your heart cares for others and not just yourself. If you have common sense and are not the type to panic but consider the options in relation to the disaster, and if it is not your time, then with a little courage it is no different than many of the other challenges we will face in our time. The safest place to be is right within your own heart.

Answer 3

Of the many kinds of natural disaster that could happen, the majority can cause tidal waves or a rise in water levels. For example, an earthquake, meteor impact, volcanic eruption and global warming could all impact our oceans directly. Therefore, the safest place would be in the mountains. This, despite the increased posibility of seismic activity. Most earthquake dangers result from falling objects and colapsing buildings. So, if you know trajedy is coming, head for the hills and live in a tent for a while. Thats your best chance of survival.

Answer 4

every place has it's dangers. i remember in the early 80's some science buff calculated that the falklands islands is the safest place to stay, notonloy low crime rate but also could it was so remote, i think he based most of his calculatoins around a nuclear war between the USSR and the USA. And a year or 2 later you had the Falklands War,so it depends on the threat i guess. Underground has it's dangers, flooding, methane, earthquales, city have crime and car accidents etc, nature has snakes and reptiles and wild animals, so nowhere is 100% and hey you are going to die sometime so why not enjoy and make the most of the intervening years?

Answer 5

Anywhere in the world where you're locked in a room with 25 foot thick steel walls surrounding you, and you'd have enough food and water to last the rest of your life. But if there was a unnatural world disaster, then go to the south pole. No one bombs the south pole. And besides-why worry about a nuclear winter when you're in the coldest place on earth? But if it's a natural world disaster that's big enough to effect the entire earth in a devestating way, which, of course, is highly unlikely, then you should choose number one. If it's a weapon of mass destruction or something, then go ahead and choose number one, too.

Answer 6

Hmm. Well, if it was a world disaster, the entire world would be affected. If it was a combination of massive earthquakes, caldera, volcanos, tornados, hurricanes, tsunami, and raging forest fire, then I think that Greenland might be safer than other places. Greenland because there aren't many trees to burn, and it's big enough to hide from a tsunami, hurricanes don't reach Greenland (yet), I don't THINK there are any volcanos, and I'm not aware of a caldera. I don't know about any fault lines, nor am I aware of any plate activity near Greenland.

Answer 7

No idea, disaster can strike anywhere. You'd need all sorts of satellite support and the ability to pick up and move to some other part of the world at any moment if need be.

Answer 8

The question is not specific enough to answer. Different disasters could effect the whole planet, or depending on disaster, different parts of the planet.

Answer 9

It would obviously depend on what kind of disaster.

If it's global flooding, the higher the better, obviously.
The Rocky mountains or some other mountain range.

If it's nuclear war (unlikely, thank goodness) the southern hemisphere is best. Chile or Argentina.

If a comet hits, nowhere.

Answer 10

I don't believe there is a correct answer, the way you worded your question. Different places are more vulnerable to different disasters. Depends which disaster you're referring to.