# Instruction for survival during modern disaster

Emma Koh

This is an indispensable guide for those who strive to be prepared for the most extreme situations. From nuclear threats to global pandemics and climate change, this book offers a comprehensive overview of all possible disasters and provides readers with key survival skills and strategies. This is not just a book, it is a guide to action, a call for conscious preparation and solidarity in times of crisis. All illustrations belong to the author of the book.

© Emma Koh, 2025


ISBN 978-5-0062-7893-6

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

## Chapter 1. Global choice of a place in the world for survival. Main place criteria

Welcome to a world of unexpected challenges and opportunities – a world where survival becomes a necessary skill. In our era, where disasters, crises and unforeseen events are becoming more frequent and diverse, it is important to be prepared for them, having at hand not only knowledge, but also practical survival skills.

Viewed as a guide to survival in a moment of catastrophic chaos, this book is a reliable guide through difficult situations, offering readers not only survival strategies, but also tools to prepare and act in critical moments. We invite you on a journey that will explore various aspects of survival in the modern world-from preparing for a crisis to acting during emergencies.

The first and perhaps one of the most important steps in ensuring your safety and survival is choosing the right place to live. In today’s world, many factors such as natural disasters, environmental threats, political stability, and access to resources play a crucial role in how safe and sustainable your place of residence is.

In this chapter, we will look at the main criteria and factors that should be considered when choosing a place to live in a modern disaster. We will discuss both global and local aspects, helping you make an informed decision about where you would like to be in the event of a crisis. Get ready to reflect on your place in the world and the steps that will help you ensure your safety and survival in the face of change. We will try toрcompare different continents and places of probable survival, in terms of the best location for a person in terms of preserving their own life. But at the beginning, we must formulate for ourselves what criteria should be met by the place that is most effective for survival during an emergency. Let’s describe them.

The location that is most effective for disaster survival must meet a number of key criteria that ensure safety and sustainability in various emergency scenarios. Here are the main requirements that such a place should meet, try to find something similar for yourself in order to save your life and your loved ones in the future. So, what criteria should such a place meet? Let’s list them:

This is of course the risk of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, fires, etc. This should include choosing a location that is either high above sea level or outside the high-risk area. In addition, access to resources is a very important factor. It is important that your chosen location provides access to basic resources needed for survival, such as water, food, wood for firewood, and access to health services and other essential amenities.

Also, the place you choose must be environmentally sustainable and not subject to air, soil, or water pollution. This will ensure the safety and health of the inhabitants in the long term. Political and social stability is also not an unimportant fact that directly affects your safety. The absence of political conflicts, wars, mass riots and crime make the place safer to live in times of crisis.

The peculiarity of climatic conditions should also be taken into account when choosing a place. Acclimate changes can exacerbate emergencies, the site should have a temperate climate with a low risk of extreme weather conditions and be sufficiently remote from potentially dangerous facilities, такихsuch as nuclear power plants, chemical plants, areas of possible military conflict, etc. The ideal place for survival should provide opportunities for self-sufficiency вас in food, energy, and other resources. This may include access to fertile soils for agriculture, the ability to use renewable energy sources, and the availability of natural resources for additional provision. The availability of electricity, gas, fuel and the possibility of using renewable energy sources will ensure comfort and safety in the event of a crisis. Consider the availability of health services and healthcare in your chosen location. The availability of hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, and medical equipment can be critical in the event of a crisis or emergency.

It is important that the location has access to public services such as schools, hospitals, police stations, shops, and other facilities that may be needed in an emergency. Important requirements include providing shelter and protection in the event of a crisis, whether it is building underground shelters, building strong homes, or accessing safe areas. The location should have good access to transport routes and communications, which will allow you to quickly evacuate or get help in case of a crisis. Roads, airports, ports, and other modes of transport should be easily accessible.

Next, we will list the necessary but less important signs of an ideal place in the event of a global catastrophe, such as a world war or a pandemic. So, it’s important that a place provides an opportunity to build a strong community and connect with others who are ready to provide support in the event of a crisis. Mutual aid and solidarity can be crucial factors for survival in extreme situations. Italso provides access to information and communication networks, which will allow you to get current news, connect with the outside world and stay up to date. Equally important is the ability of the site to adapt to changing conditions and to be flexible in making various decisions in emergency situations. This may include having backup plans, reserves, and the ability to respond quickly to changes in circumstances.

In addition, a proper place for survival must provide a high level of security and legal protection. This includes having an effective law enforcement system, keeping crime rates low, and protecting property. It is important that the chosen location provides an opportunity to earn money, access to financial services and resources if necessary. Financial sustainability can significantly improve the chances of survival and recovery from a disaster.

When choosing a place, you should take into account its kindness to relatives and friends, psychological support is very important in such a stressful period. In the event of a crisis, close relationships and support can play a key role in survival and recovery. For some people, cultural and religious aspects are important when choosing a place to live. Therefore, adjust your preferences and beliefs to ensure a harmonious and comfortable stay in your chosen location.

It would also be nice if your chosen location could provide access to educational and developmental resources, which will allow you to develop and grow even in times of crisis. Education and skills can be a valuable asset in times of instability. Economic activity and earning opportunities can affect your ability to survive and thrive in the long run. It is also important и understand the climatic features of the chosen place, as well as seasonal changes. This will help you prepare for extreme weather conditions and adapt to changes in the environment. This leads to the following advice: clean up placesаwhere the level of environmental pollution миниis minimal. This will help keep you healthy and well-being in the long run. Avoid places that are in close proximity to densely populated areas or strategically important objects, as they can be targets in the event of a crisis. It is very important that the place you choose can provide you with an excellent shelter in case you need to defend yourself from uninvited dangerous guests. This may be important in the event of a military conflict or other emergency situations. ри You should also pay close attention to the level of housing prices and the overall standard of living in the selected location. This can affect your financial stability and comfort in the event of a crisis. Evaluate the level of accessibility and cost of living in your chosen location. This includes prices for products, services, rental housing, and other expenses that may affect your financial stability in the event of a crisis. In principle, you can always find a decent place at an inexpensive price, if you approach it with the full seriousness of the moment. In this situation, you should also think about the availability of developed infrastructure and the availability of various services in the chosen location. This includes the transport network, communications, shops, schools, hospitals, and other institutions that may be important in the event of a crisis. Explore the level of public safety and law and order in the region. This is important to ensure your personal safety and protect your property in the event of a crisis or emergency. Check the availability of communication tools and information in the selected location. This includes a mobile network, access to the Internet, broadcasting, and other communication channels that may be important for sharing information and getting help in the event of a crisis.

On the other hand, a place that is close to nature reserves and other protected areas may be the best choice. This will allow you to enjoy nature and provide additional protection from emergencies.

When choosing a place to survive a modern disaster, pay attention to these and other factors that can affect your safety, comfort, and resilience in extreme conditions. Only by evaluating your priorities, circumstances, and resources can you make an informed decision that provides the best chance of survival and well-being in extreme environments. As you can see, choosing the ideal place to survive a disaster depends on many factors, and each person must take into account their specific circumstances, needs and priorities when making a decision. However, taking into account the above criteria, it is possible to make a more informed and informed choice that will provide the most effective chances of survival in the conditions of a modern catastrophe. I would also like to add that you should always и take into account the level of risk of extremist and terrorist threats in the selected location. This includes assessing the political stability of the region, the presence of conflicts and tensions in society. All this can affect your personal safety and the comfort level of you and your family. Think about the availability of educational and cultural opportunities in your chosen location, the similarity of your work experience, and your knowledge of a foreign language or the language of your chosen country. Assess the level of protection of human rights and civil liberties in the chosen location. This is important for your personal freedom and protection from arbitrary power in the event of a crisis or emergency. Consider the ease of adaptation and social integration in your chosen location, as this can be very important if you receive the necessary support in extreme situations.

Ensure себе заранее that you can plan ahead and carry out an evacuation in the event of a crisis. This includes access to transportation routes, knowledge of escape routes, having the necessary resources to carry out an evacuation, and establishing contacts with organizations and groups that can provide assistance if necessary.

Based on the criteria listed in the article for choosing a place to survive during a hypothetical планетарной interplanetary catastrophe, we can distinguish the following five main provisions, which are the most important when searching for the most reliable shelter.

Important criteria for your emergency shelter:

Access to clean drinking waterе: Access to clean water is critical for survival. Without it, a person cannot survive for more than a few days, so ensuring access to reliable sources of clean drinking water should be a priority when choosing a place to live.

Safety from natural disasters: Choosing a location that is protected from natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and fires makes a huge difference. This will ensure the safety of your life and property in the event of a disaster.

Access to resources for self-sufficiency: The location should provide opportunities for self-sufficiency in basic resources such as food, energy, and other material resources. This is important to ensure your independence and resilience in the event of a crisis.

Safety and Lawand Order: Choosing a place with a high level of security and an effective law enforcement system will ensure your personal safety and protection from crime in emergency situations.

Environmental stability: The place must be environmentally sustainable and free of pollution, which will ensure your long-term health and well-being.

These basic principles are the basis for choosing a place to survive in a modern disaster and should be taken into account by you вfirst of all when making a decision. Now let’s move on to evaluating different parts of the world, from the point of view of the safest place in any kind of catastrophe, including a pandemic, wars and globalбmilitary conflicts.


ANALYSIS OF COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM IN AN AGE OF DISASTER:

So, Europe, as the most developed and civilized part of the world in all respects. Assessing whether Europe is the best or best place for people to live during a major catastrophe, such as a world war or a pandemic, depends on many factors, including countries ' preparedness for crisis situations, each country’s infrastructure, healthкой systemsе, social security, and the level of education of the population. In general, Europe has a high level of development and many resources that can be useful in crisis situations. However, each country has its own characteristics, and some may be better prepared for such events than others.

Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland

These countries usually rank at the top of the rankings in terms of living standards, infrastructure, and social protection. They have strong economies, effective health systems, and crisis preparedness measures.

Germany, Netherlands, Denmark

These countries also have a high level of development and are generally well prepared for crisis situations. They have strong medical systems and government institutions that can respond effectively to emergencies.

France, United Kingdom, Spain, Italy

These countries have significant resources, but may face some challenges in managing crises, especially in large cities. However, they have developed medical systems and experience in crisis management.

Eastern Europe (for example, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine)

In these countries, the level of development may be lower, which makes them more vulnerable in crisis situations. However, they may have resources that can be valuable if needed.

Countries in the Balkan region (for example, Serbia, Croatia):

These countries may face challenges due to political instability and less developed infrastructure. However, they may also have resources that can be valuable in crisis situations.

In general, Europe, thanks to its high level of development and strong state institutions, may well be a good place for a person in a time of disaster. However, success depends on countries ' ability to effectively meet challenges and ensure the safety and security of their citizens. Preparing countries for war or a pandemic involves a number of aspects that can affect the ability to protect the average person. Let’s take a closer look at several key factors that can determine the potential and capabilities of protection:

State resources and infrastructure – strains with developed infrastructure and strong State support can provide better protection for the population. This includes the availability of sufficient medical equipment, protective equipment, and readiness for masse vacation and provision of living conditions for victims.

Система Health system – сCommunities with an efficient and affordable health system are better positioned to diagnose, treat, and prevent a pandemic or mass injury. This includes having a sufficient number of qualified health workers, hospitals, and medical resources.

Education and civilian training-Villages where the population is well educated and where regular emergency preparedness campaigns are conducted may be better prepared for war or a pandemic. This includes knowledge of precautions, first aid basics, and evacuation.

Economic sustainability-Economically stable countries may have more resources to implement measures to protect their populations. This includes providing essential medical and humanitarian assistance, as well as supporting the economy in times of crisis.

International cooperation and coordination readiness – сorganizations that actively engage with other States and international organizations to share experiences and resources can receive additional support in the event of a crisis. It can also help ensure access to vaccines, medicines, and other essential resources.

Based on the above, we naturally conclude that countries with a strong economy, a developed health system, competent emergency planning and a high level of civil preparedness, as a rule, have great potential and opportunities to protect ordinary people in the event of war or a pandemic. Let’s look at specific examples of European countries and their preparedness to protect ordinary people in the event of war or a pandemic.

Norway. Norway has a high level of development, a strong health system and a well-developed infrastructure. It has strategic reserves of food, medical resources, and emergency equipment. With strict civil defense measures and a public alert system, Norway can ensure that its citizens are protected in the event of war or a pandemic. Norway: Norway has a widespread practice of storing potable water supplies in homes and public places. In addition, the country has numerous natural artificial reservoirs that can provide water to the population in the event of a crisis.

Germany. Germany has one of the largest and most modern healthcare systems in the world. It has a high level of emergency preparedness due to its resources, expertise, and economic strength. Germany is also actively involved in international cooperation and is ready to provide assistance to other countries in the event of a crisis. Germany has so-called «vaccine factories» in Africa that can be used to produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic. This allows the country to quickly respond to disease threats. Germany also has a number of bunkers and underground shelters that can be used as protection in the event of war or a pandemic. In addition, Germany has strategic stocks of vaccines and medicines to fight pandemics. Germany: Germany also has plans to provide the population with drinking water in the event of a disaster. This may include reservoirs and water treatment plants.

Spain. Spain has a well-developed healthcare system and numerous hospitals, which makes it ready to handle massive cases of illness or injury. However, the country has faced some challenges in managing the COVID-19 pandemic due to insufficient medical equipment and organizational problems.

Italy. Italy also has civil protection plans, which include measures to evacuate people from threat zones, organize temporary shelters and provide assistance to victims.

Each country has its own strengths and weaknesses in preparing for catastrophic events. However, in general, countries with a high level of development, strong public resources and a developed health system usually have a great potential and capacity to protect ordinary people in the event of war or a pandemic. In addition, some countries do have bunker systems or other original methods of protecting the population in the event of a nuclear conflict, pandemic, or other catastrophic situation. Here are some examples:

Switzerland. Switzerland is known for its mountain bunkers, which can be used to protect the population in the event of war or disaster. The bunkers are located in the mountains and can accommodate a significant part of the population. In addition, some buildings in Switzerland also have anti-radiation shelters, and ordinary private homes are equipped with shockproof doors and protected basements, where the Swiss store food reservesы in case of military and other threats. Switzerland is known for its neutrality and high level of crisis preparedness. It has strong government resources, medical expertise, and technical capabilities to protect the public. In addition, Switzerland actively cooperates with international organizations, which increases its capabilities in the event of catastrophic events.

Sweden. Sweden has a civil defense program that trains the population to act in extreme situations, and bunkers are also available to protect them from radiation and other threats.

Finland. In Finland, there is a network of underground shelters, including in rock formations, which can be used as protection from radiation or other hazards. Finland has a civil defense program that develops evacuation plans and provides instructions to the public about how to respond to emergencies.

Great Britain. The UK invests significant efforts in preparing for catastrophic challenges and is committed to ensuring the safety and security of its population in the event of emergencies. For example, the UK has an early warning and monitoring system for radiation levels that allows it to quickly respond to possible nuclear threats. There are specialized plans for evacuation and protection of the public in the event of a nuclear accident, including the identification of safe zones and places of shelter. Regular training and exercises are conducted with the participation of law enforcement agencies, civil defense services and other agencies to assess the readiness and effectiveness of action plans. The UK has nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines capable of carrying out nuclear strikes in the event of a nuclear threat. This nuclear arsenal is one of the main components of the strategy of nuclear deterrence and protection of the country from potential nuclear attacks. In terms of the quality of its preparation for a nuclear catastrophe, the UK is considered one of the leading countries. Its approach to protecting its population from nuclear threats is part of its broader military strategy and is based on many years of experience and modern technologies. The UK has a national pandemic response plan that sets out procedures for monitoring, diagnosing, treating and distributing vaccines and medicines.

These are just a few examples of the different approaches that different countries take to protect their populations in the event of catastrophic events. Each country can adapt its own methods to its own unique conditions and needs. In addition to bunkers and other methods of protection, countries can also develop special action plans and programs to ensure the safety of the population in case of crisis situations. Some of them include себяso-called эevacuation plans, for quick and safe evacuation of the population from threat zones. This may include the use of special vehicles, training the population to behave properly in the event of evacuation, and identifying safe places for temporary accommodation. Many countries can also deploy alert systems that alert the public to emergency events, such as a nuclear attack or the approach of a dangerous pandemic. This can include radio communications, sirens, mobile apps, and other means of communication. They also provide systematic training in the basics of first aid, the use of protective equipment, safe behavior in emergency situations, and other skills that can increase the chances of survival and minimize risks in crisis situations. In times of emergency, it is very important have hospitals and health facilities are prepared to receive large numbers of victims and can be a key aspect in providing effective medical care in the event of a pandemic or mass trauma. Some countries maintain strategic food and water supplies that can provide the population in the event of supply disruptions due to crisis situations. In the event of large-scale catastrophic events, countries can actively cooperate with international partners to share resources, experience, and assistance in dealing with the crisis.

Each of these countries has its own emergency preparedness strategies and programs that can be tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each country. These measures are aimed at ensuring the safety and protection of the population in case of crisis situations.

Identifying the most emergency-ready European country can be difficult, as it depends on a variety of factors, including threat types, infrastructure, resources, and public readiness. However, given the various aspects of training, such as the availability of bunkers, civil defense systems, medical resources, evacuation preparedness, and other protective measures, it can be assumed that some countries may have more advanced training systems than others.


Rating of countries by emergency preparednessм levelям

Let’s rank countries as they become less prepared for чрезвычайным emergencies, including nuclear war and pandemics. Here, decidedly Switzerland is the undisputed favorite in all such ratings, since it has an extensive network of underground bunkers, civil defense systems and a high level of public readiness to act in case of crisis situations. Second местоplace goes to Sweden. This country has a training and protection system that includes bunkers, civil defense programs, and evacuation plans. Norway: ranked third and has a well-developed infrastructure to ensure the safety of the population, including bunkers and civil defense programs. Then there is Finland, which implements civil defense systems, evacuation plans and other protective measures to ensure the safety of the population in emergency situations, and then in fifth place is Germany, which has a wide range of measures to protect the population, including bunkers, training of medical resources and civil defense plans.

Although all these countries have different approaches to preparing for emergencies and their success may depend on specific circumstances, they are generally considered to be among the best prepared for crises in Europe.

Pros and Cons of living in Europe during an emergency (war, pandemic, natural disasters)

Living in Europe during emergencies such as war, pandemics or natural disasters has its pros and cons. Let’s look at them in detail and reasonably:

Positive. Developed infrastructure and healthcare system. Many European countries have a well-developed infrastructure and a high level of medical care, which makes it possible to provide effective treatment and protection of the population in times of crisis. The advantages include the readiness of many European countries for emergencies. Many of them have developed civil defense plans, public warning systems, and crisis response mechanisms that facilitate rapid and coordinated action when needed. Also, European countries actively cooperate with each other and with international organizations in the exchange of experience, resources and expertise, which increases their ability to effectively deal with crisis situations. During crisis situations, European countries usually provide the population with access to social services, such as support for the unemployed, financial assistance and medical care. In addition, European countries undoubtedly have a rich cultural and historical heritage, as well as a high level of education. In times of crisis, this can contribute to the development of social unity and solidarity, as well as cultural rehabilitation. It is worth adding that most European countries have a developed system of environmental protection and high standards of environmental safety. This makes it possible to provide a healthier living environment, which is especially important during pandemics and natural disasters. And another important fact is that the European countries often provide extensive social protection and support to their populations in times of crisis. This includes unemployment benefits, health insurance, and social assistance programs that can help people cope with economic difficulties and stress.

Minus. Unfortunately, they are quite serious and they are worth talking about. And the first of these disadvantages is the high population density, which can worsen the spread of infections during a pandemic. The next disadvantage is чthat emergencies, such as war or a pandemic, can lead to significant economic losses, loss of jobs, and a sharp deterioration in the financial situation of the population. The unpredictability of the situation, restrictions on movement and a sense of threat to health can cause stress and psychological problems in the population. In times of crisis, restrictions on freedom of movement and the closure of businesses and public places may be imposed, which may negatively affect the quality of life. The downside is that some European countries face the problem of insufficient funding for health and social protection systems, which can limit the population’s access to essential services during a crisis. In some European countries, there are problems with racial and social inequalities, which can worsen in times of crisis due to uneven distribution of resources and access to services. Crisis situations can lead to a loss of confidence in the Government and institutions, especially if the authorities fail to manage the crisis or provide sufficient information and support to the population, which threatens to destabilize the situation in the country. Such crisis situations can lead to significant economic and social consequences, including job losses, business failures, and an increase in the number of poor and homeless people.

Summing up, we can say that in general, living in Europe during emergencies has its advantages, such as a developed infrastructure and readiness for crises, but also disadvantages, such as economic losses and psychological stress. However, these countries are usually successful in meeting challenges thanks to their expertise, resources, and international cooperation.

COUNTRIES OF THE AMERICASAND ANALYSIS AND COMPARISONЕ

Now let’s move on to North America. Now рlet как может выглядеть ситуация’s see what a state of emergency situation might look likeпри чрезвычайное положении in countries such странах as the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other small countries in the region. Let’s start with the United States of America, all the pros and cons of this country are at our angle.

USA

Positive. The United States has a high level of infrastructure, medical resources, and technological capabilities that can effectively respond to crisis situations. The United States has a well-developed civil defense and emergency response system, including national government services and evacuation plans. In addition, the United States has significant medical and scientific resources to deal with pandemics and other crisis situations. The country conducts active research in the field of vaccines and treatment of infectious diseases.

Minuses. Difficulties with crisis coordination and management: Bureaucratic processes and complex management systems can make it difficult to effectively coordinate and manage a crisis situation, especially in the case of large-scale disasters. In addition, Countries face serious social and economic inequalities that can worsen in times of crisis, such as with limited access to health services for minorities.

Canada, pros and cons of the country.

Positive. Stable economy and social protection: Canada has a stable economy and an extensive social protection system, which makes оit possible to provide the population with access to health services and social benefits in times of crisis. Canada has vast territories and significant natural resources, which can facilitate the organization of evacuation measures and the provision of water and food to the population. This is the second country in the world in terms of fresh water reserves!! As well as vast territories full of forests, rivers, lakes, withгrich flora and fauna.

Minuses. Geographical isolation is certainly one of the disadvantages of Canada. Some remote areas of Canada may find it difficult to get health care and support during times of crisis due to geographical isolation. Also, some provinces in Canada may have limited medical and emergency resources, especially in remote and sparsely populated areas.

Mexico

Positive. Strong social ties and solidarity: Mexico is characterized by strong social ties in communities, which can promote mutual aid and solidarity in times of crisis. Mexico has a rich heritage of traditional treatments and medical knowledge that can be used in the fight against pandemics and other crisis situations. The diversity of natural landscapes and the ability to find remote areas to use as shelter during a disaster. That also includes that Mexico has a historical record of dealing with catastrophic events such as earthquakes and hurricanes. This experience can lead to a more flexible and rapid response during a pandemic or other crisis.

Minuses. Insufficient medical infrastructure, so some regions of Mexico may face insufficient medical infrastructure and limited access to health services, especially in rural and remote areas. Mexico faces a lack of medical infrastructure and limited health resources, especially in poor and remote areas, which can make it difficult to effectively manage the pandemic. The disadvantages also include economic difficulties and social inequalities in the country. This can lead to limited accessа to essential resources and services in times of crisis.

Small American countries:

Positive. Flexibility and small scale: Small countries tend to have more flexible and rapid crisis response mechanisms, as well as lower levels of bureaucracy and management complexity, which can facilitate coordination in times of crisis. Small countries often have close relations with neighboring States, which can facilitate the exchange of resources, expertise, and mutual assistance in times of crisis. Small countries tend to have more flexible governance structures and faster response mechanisms, which allows them to mobilize resources more quickly and take the necessary measures in times of crisis. Distance of countries from major political and economic shocks. Relatively good climate.

Minuses. Ограниченные ресурсы и возможностиPoor small countries have limited resources and opportunities. These countries may face limited resources and capacity to respond effectively to crisis situations, especially if they do not have access to technology and medical innovation. In addition, что нsome small countries are more vulnerable to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes or volcanic activity, due to their geographical location, and this is a huge disadvantage when considering them as a possible shelter. Dependence on external aid and support: Small countries may be more dependent on external aid and support in times of crisis, especially when their own resources and infrastructure are insufficient.

Common to all North American countries is the need for a balanced approach to disaster preparedness and response, which includes the effective use of available resources, the development of civil protection mechanisms, and cooperation at both the national and international levels.

Now we can quite reasonably move on to the rating of countries that we consider from the point of view of safety for us during a period of catastrophic events. So far, we are only looking at countries in Europe and South America,

So, the first place in terms of security is occupied by SWITZERLAND. This country has a well-developed infrastructure of bunkers and mountain shelters, a high level of civil defense, and a stable economy.

The second place is Sweden. Itforms an extensive system of underground shelters and bunkers, as well as an effective system of civil protection and medical care. Then there is Norway, which has an extensive network of underground shelters, a high level of civil protection and access to natural resources. Next in our ranking is Finland, which also has a system of underground bunkers and evacuation plans, as well as a high level of organization in the field of civil defense. Germany takes the lead. This country has a well-developed infrastructureа of bunkers and shelters, as well as effective medical and civilian systems in the event of a crisis. Completing our ranking is Canada, with its vast territories and access to natural resources, but requires careful choice of shelter location due to geographical features, and the United States, which certainly has a diverse infrastructure and resources, but may face problems with coordination and access to shelters due to large population densities. Mexico was in last place in the rating of preparedness for any catastrophic events. It may have limited resources and infrastructure to protect the population in the event of a crisis, especially in poor and remote areas.

Please note that this rating is based on the overall preparedness of countries for various emergencies and the availability of shelters for the population. Of course, each specific situation may require individual analysis and decision-making based on specific circumstances.

As we can see, according to our rating, Switzerland and Canada lead the ranking due to their vast natural resources, developed infrastructure and special protection capabilities. Sweden and the US also perform well, but with some limitations, such as more complex bureaucratic processes in the US and uneven access to resources in Sweden.

In general, North America, like any other region, has its own unique characteristics and advantages in the context of emergency preparedness. However, it is important to remember that each situation requires individual analysis, and how to protect and survive can depend on many factors.

А now let’s see how things are in South America and how comfortable a person can feel there. After all, it is no secret that when considering the places that are most protected during extreme events, many people also consider South America, for example, countries such as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay andли even Brazil. So, let’s take a closer look at these strings н, and how good they are in extreme situations like a world war or a pandemic. And we create our own rating for each of these countries in South America.

Our first country is Brazil

Positive. Brazil has a vast territory and vast natural resources, including water and natural resources that can be used in crisis situations. аBrazil ranks first in terms of availability of drinking water resources in the world. The country has a developed industry and economy, which makes it possible to provide resources and support in times of crisis.

Minuses. Brazil faces governance and anti-corruption challenges, which can make it difficult to respond effectively to crisis situations. Existing social and economic inequalities can worsen during a crisis, which can lead to tension and social unrest.

Argentina:

Positive. Argentina has significant natural resources, including agricultural land and mineral reserves, which can provide access to food and other essential resources in times of crisis. The country is relatively stable and has a well-developed infrastructure, which makes it easier to respond to crises.

Minuses. Argentina faces economic challenges, including inflation and a debt burden, which may limit access to resources and services during a crisis. Thanks to the new President, Argentina is beginning to successfully emerge from the inflationфpit and may become a prosperous country in the near future. However, political instability can make it difficult to coordinate actions and take effective measures in times of crisis.

Chile:

Positive. Chile has one of the most stable economies in the region and a well-developed infrastructure, which contributes to an effective response to crisis situations. Chile has a wide variety of natural environments, including mountains and deserts, which makes it easier to organize evacuations and protect the population.

Minuses. Chile is at risk of earthquakes, volcanic activity and other natural disasters, which can complicate the response to the crisis. Despite the stability of the economy, there are social problems in the country, such as a high level of inequality, which can lead to social tensions during a crisis.

Colombia:

Pros: Colombia has significant natural resources, including oil, coal, and agricultural land, which can provide access to important resources in times of crisis. Colombia also has relatively strong military and law enforcement structures, which can help ensure order and security in times of crisis.

Minuses. The country suffers from long-term internal conflicts and problems with militant groups, which can make it difficult to respond effectively to crisis situations. Instability and corruption are a huge disadvantage of the country. Colombia has a very high crime rate and strong mafia clans. This can hinder effective crisis management and make it almost impossible to consider a country as a protected place during a period of global disaster

Peru:

Positive. Peru has significant mineral resources and biological diversity, which can provide access to important resources in times of crisis. The country has a variety of climatic and geographical conditions, including mountains and jungles, which can make it easier to organize the protection of people and resources.

Minuses. Social problems and inequality: Peru suffers from high levels of social inequality and problems with access to education and health care, which can worsen in times of crisis. The country has a high crime rate and к, like many countries in South America, Peru is subject to economic and political volatility, which can make it difficult to respond effectively to crisis situations.

Ecuador:

Positive. Ecuador has a wealth of natural resources, including oil, gas and extensive agricultural land, which can provide access to important resources in times of crisis. The country has a developed tourism industry and some sectors of the economy, which can help maintain resources and stability in times of crisis. However, the country is considered very poor and agricultural, with a high level of crime and corruption.

Minuses. Ecuador is prone to earthquakes and volcanic activity, which can exacerbate crisis situations. The country suffers from high levels of social inequality and problems with access to education and health care, which can worsen in times of crisis.


Bolivia:

Positive. Bolivia has reserves of natural resources such as oil, gas and minerals, which can provide access to important resources in times of crisis. The country has remote and less populated areas, which can make it easier to shelter and protect the population in times of crisis.

Minuses. Bolivia suffers from social and political tensions, which can lead to instability and possible conflicts in times of crisis.: Some areas of the country have limited access to resources and infrastructure, which can make it more difficult to respond to crisis situations. High crime, corruption, and poor medical care also make this South American country unsuitable for our purposes.

Venezuela:

Positive. Oil resources: Venezuela has huge oil reserves, which can provide access to important resources in times of crisis. The country has a relatively strong military structure, which can help ensure order and security in times of crisis. Large woodlands and a warm climate can be attributed to the advantages of this country.

Minuses. Venezuela is suffering from serious economic problems and political instability, resulting in limited access to basic goods and services, as well as reduced security. This is a very poor country with high crime. Venezuela faces a lack of critical infrastructure and humanitarian assistance, which makes it vulnerable in times of crisis, and poor health care also makes it an unattractive place of refuge in times of disaster.

What do we come to after this small analysis? South American countries have their own unique advantages and disadvantages in the context of preparing for extreme situations, such as a world war or a pandemic. More developed countries with more stable economies, strong military and law enforcement structures, and well-developed infrastructure, such as Chile and Argentina, usually have more capacity to respond effectively to crisis situations. However, they also face their own challenges, such as natural disasters and social problems. Let’s add Uruguay and Costa Rica to the list to assess their preparedness for extreme situations, such as a global war or a pandemic:

Uruguay:

Positive. Uruguay is known for its political stability and peaceful situation. This can help to better manage crisis situations and prevent internal conflicts. Uruguay has significant agricultural land, which provides access to food and can mitigate the impact of the food crisis. Uruguay has low access to coping with other South American countries and high-quality medical care.

Minuses. The first is the small size of the country. This can make it more difficult to provide the population with the necessary resources in the event of a crisis. Uruguay’s economy is limited and depends on the export of agricultural products. This can make the country more vulnerable to economic shocks during a crisis. Country has no natural resources and is also dependent on supplies from other countries.

Costa Rica:

Positive. Costa Rica has a rich biodiversity and ecological resources that provide access to various types of food and natural materials. Costa Rica is one of the most stable and peaceful countries in Central America, although recently criminal elements have been actively infiltrating the country, so the criminal situation has worsened and kidnapping and looting have begun to flourish there.

Cons: Costa Rica may have limited resources to effectively prepare for extreme situations, such as a pandemic or war. Insufficient funding for public services and infrastructure can complicate the response to the crisis. Costa Rica is exposed to various geographical risks, including earthquakes, volcanic activity, and hurricanes. This can increase the complexity of crisis management and increase the level of vulnerability of the population.

Puerto Rico

Positive. One of the main advantages of Puerto Rico is its warm tropical climate. This makes the island very attractive. Puerto Rico provides various tax and economic benefits for investors and entrepreneurs, making it an attractive place for business. The island is rich in diverse nature, including picturesque beaches, mountains, jungles and crystal-clear rivers. This makes Puerto Rico attractive for outdoor and nature lovers. US citizens do not need a visa to visit Puerto Rico, since the island is a US territory, everyone else needs an American visa plus separately-permission to enter this country.

Minuses. One of the main disadvantages of Puerto Rico is its serious economic problems. The island suffers from high unemployment, low incomes and extensive public debt. Puerto Rico sometimes experiences political instability and uncertainty about its status, including the question of independence from the United States. The island is subject to various natural disasters, including hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods. This can lead to destruction of infrastructure, loss of lives and economic losses. Some areas of Puerto Rico suffer from crime problems, including street crime, robberies, and drug trafficking. Despite the fact that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, the level of education and access to quality medical care on the island is significantly lower than on the continental United States.

In general, Uruguay and Costa Rica have their own strengths and weaknesses in the context of emergency preparedness. It is important that these countries continue to improve their civil protection systems, develop infrastructure, and prepare their populations for possible crises in order to ensure the safety and well-being of their citizens.


RATING OF SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES

To sum up, it seems to us that the most prepared and favorable countries in South America in terms of major catastrophes, such as a nuclear war or a global pandemic, may be the followingстраны. In the first place is Chile, although there is a very high risk of climate disasters and this should not be forgotten. The first is conditional, precisely because it is a climatically unstable country. But Chile is one of the most stable and developed countries in South America. It has a strong economy, developed infrastructure and a high level of emergency preparedness. In addition, a country’s geographical features, such as high mountains and remote areas, can provide easier access to shelters and resources in the event of a crisis.

Second place Argentina. Although Argentina may have some economic and social problems, the country has extensive natural resources and developed infrastructure, which can help provide water, food and medical care to the population in times of crisis.

Uruguay is in third place in the hiring rankings. Uruguay is characterized by a relatively stable and peaceful situation, which makes it more prepared for emergencies. Despite its limited resources, the country can use its agricultural land to provide food for the population.

Costa Rica is ranked fourth. It has a high level of ecological diversity and ecological resources, which can provide access to food and natural materials in times of crisis. Stability and peace also contribute to its preparedness for crisis situations.

Colombia ranked fifth, but despite some internal conflicts and security concerns, Colombia has strong military and police structures that can help ensure order and security in times of crisis.

All of these countries are actively developing civil defense systems, emergency preparedness programs, and medical infrastructure to ensure the safety and well-being of their populations in the event of catastrophic events. While less developed countries, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, may face greater difficulties in providing security and humanitarian assistance in times of crisis due to their economic and political problems. Therefore, despite their different levels of development and geographical features, each of these countries should actively work to strengthen their preparedness for extreme situations, improve infrastructure, develop civil defense systems, and strengthen social stability to ensure the safety and well-being of their populations.

Brazil. we put it after Colombia, although of course this is conditional. Brazil is the largest country in the region and has significant resources and economic potential. However, it also faces social and environmental challenges, as well as high crime rates in some areas. At the same time, the country has a well-developed medical infrastructure and has experience in dealing with major epidemics such as Zika and dengue.

Peru has a diverse geography and resources, but also faces economic and social challenges. The country has a complex infrastructure that can make it difficult to respond quickly to crisis situations. However, the availability of natural resources and experience in dealing with natural disasters can help provide for the population in times of crisis.

Ecuador also has a diverse geography and natural resources, but faces economic and social challenges. Geographical activity includes volcanic activity and earthquakes, which can pose certain risks during a crisis. However, the country has experience in responding to natural disasters and has a well-developed medical system.

Bolivia closes our ranking of South-anti-American countries. Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in the region and faces serious economic and social challenges. Despite the availability of natural resources, a country may find it difficult to provide for its population in times of crisis due to limited infrastructure and access to health services.

Based on all the characteristics of each country listed above, we conclude that Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Costa Rica have the highest level of preparedness for major disasters in South America, due to their stability, developed infrastructure and access to resources. However, each country has its own unique challenges that need to be considered when assessing their preparedness for crisis situations.

1. Chile: This country has one of the most stable economies and developed infrastructure. Its geographical features also facilitate the organization of public protection. However, the risks of natural disasters are always present.

2. Argentina: The country has significant natural resources and some degree of stability, but it also faces economic difficulties and social problems.

3. Brazil: With its vast territory and resources, Brazil has the potential to deal with crisis situations. However, governance difficulties and inequalities can complicate the response to crises.

4. Colombia: This country has a strong military and police structure, but internal conflicts and social conflicts are not the same.

problems can make it difficult to ensure stability during a crisis.

5. Peru: Natural resources and diverse climatic conditions make Peru relatively prepared for different scenarios. However, high levels of social inequality and economic difficulties can exacerbate crisis situations.

6. Ecuador: Rich in natural resources and a developed tourism industry are the advantages of Ecuador. However, geological activity and social problems can create challenges in times of crisis.

7. Bolivia: The country has natural resources and isolated areas that can help in times of crisis. However, political instability and a lack of resources and infrastructure can pose challenges.

8. Venezuela. Despite its vast oil reserves, Venezuela faces serious economic and political challenges, which makes it vulnerable in times of crisis.

Each of these countries has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it is important that they continue to work to strengthen their emergency preparedness, including improving infrastructure, developing civil defense systems, and strengthening social stability.

Now let’s compare Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Costa Rica with other countries in Europe and North America to determine where a person will be most comfortable during a global nuclear disaster or pandemic. Let’s consider the main aspects that affect the level of comfort and safety of the population in the event of a crisis. We will look at such aspects as access to food, water, health services, and other basic goods. Countries with advanced economies and infrastructure usually have more reliable access to these resources. Moreover, the presence of a stable political and social environment contributes to ensuring security and order in times of crisis. The quality and accessibility of health services play a key role in ensuring public health during a pandemic or other health crisis. Crisis preparedness and response.

Comparative ranking of American and European countries

Let’s build a ranking based on these aspects and explain the choice of each country, and now our comparative ranking looks like this. Canada took the first place, while Switzerland moved to the second place.

Canada: has extensive natural resources, a stable economy, low crime rates, and a well-developed health system. Canada also has developed civil defense plans and medical resources to respond to crises.

Switzerland: Known for its high standard of living, stability and quality of healthcare. Switzerland also has secret bunkers that can be used in the event of a nuclear disaster.

Norway: has a wealth of natural resources, a high level of security, and a well-developed medical system. In addition, the country has strategic reserves of food and other necessary resources.

Chile: A stable economy, developed infrastructure and access to natural resources make Chile relatively prepared for crisis situations.

Argentina: A country with a vast territory and diverse natural resources. It also has a well-developed infrastructure and access to food and water. Some areas of the country may be more prone to crime, but in general, Argentina has an average level of preparedness for crisis situations.

Uruguay: Stability, relative security, and access to agricultural resources make Uruguay a place of average comfort in times of crisis. However, limited resources and economic dependence can affect a country’s ability to effectively deal with a disaster.

Costa Rica: has a high level of ecological diversity, stability and peace. These factors contribute to the relative preparedness for crisis situations. However, limited economic resources and infrastructure can create some limitations.

Germany: has a strong economy, well-developed infrastructure and healthcare system. Due to its location and stability, Germany is a relatively safe place in times of crisis.

USA: A country with one of the largest economies in the world, a strong military power and a developed infrastructure. However, high population levels and densely populated cities can create difficulties in managing crisis situations.

This rating takes into account various aspects, such as access to resources, stability, health systems, and crisis preparedness. Each of these countries has its own advantages and disadvantages, which should be taken into account when assessing the level of comfort and safety during catastrophic events.

In times of global catastrophes, such as a pandemic or nuclear war, choosing a place to hide and live becomes an important issue for many people. Many people in search of a safe place often opt for Asian countries. Asian countries, in turn, have their own characteristics and differences from the countries of Europe and America, both North and South, when it comes to such decisions. In Asian countries, especially in East Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, and China, societies tend to have a higher degree of collectivism. This means that people in these societies tend to be more cooperative and supportive of each other in times of crisis. Cultural norms and traditions help people in these countries feel safer and more secure, knowing that they are surrounded by a community that is ready to help if necessary.

In Europe and America, a more individualistic culture prevails. This means that people in these countries often rely more on themselves and their own resources in times of crisis. At the same time, they usually have a more developed system of government support and medical services, which can be a crucial factor in choosing a place to shelter during a pandemic.

North and South America may differ in their conditions and the degree of development of health systems. North America, including the United States and Canada, usually has better infrastructure and resources to deal with pandemics. However, in some cases, existing social differences and economic inequalities may make certain populations more vulnerable to the impact of a pandemic. South America, while it has its own unique cultural and natural features, may face limited resources and a less developed health system in some countries. In times of crisis, this can become a serious problem for the local population. Thus, when choosing a place to shelter and live during global disasters, including pandemics, it is important to take into account the cultural, economic, and social characteristics of different regions of the world. In addition to cultural and social considerations, it is also important to consider geographical and climatic conditions when choosing a shelter during a pandemic. In many Asian countries, especially in warmer climates like Thailand, Indonesia, and India, people may prefer to take shelter in more remote locations, away from densely populated cities. This may be due to the desire to avoid mass gatherings of people, which contributes to the spread of infections. In Europe and America, where climate conditions are diverse, the choice of shelter location may depend on the availability of health facilities and resources. ЛPeople hereпочитают are encouraged to live in areas with higher levels of health care and infection control facilities. In South America, where tropical and subtropical climates prevail, it is important to consider the possible risks associated with diseases transmitted through insects or water. Places with higher standards of hygiene and access to clean drinking water are most appreciated here. Let’s list the main factors that you need to pay attention to. This is, of course, the economic sustainability of the country you have chosen as your refuge. It is important thatо время кризиса you have the opportunity to support yourself financially in any time of crisis. Some countries may provide different types of assistance and support to their citizens during pandemics, which makes them more attractive to live in during such periods.