Tropical Cyclone Gabrielle could be one of the most serious storms to hit New Zealand this century. Video / NZ Herald / Niwa / Windy
As if the real estate market wasn’t already cooked.
In a landmark study published in the journal of Risk Analysis, researchers have concluded that New Zealand and Australia stand as the strongest contenders for the population to rebuild in the event of a catastrophic nuclear winter.
The existential threat of nuclear destruction has been a point of consideration ever since the invention of the atom bomb, but as tensions continue to rise in eastern Europe, the topic has once again been thrust upon the world.
Regular commentary from Russia’s media propagandists over Moscow’s ability to flatten rival states — particularly the UK — has left the Northern Hemisphere on edge.
Now, researchers have apparently found the safest havens in the world to escape the unlikely event of total nuclear annihilation, specifically in the event of “abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios” (ASRS).
Nestled in the Pacific with vast amounts of water surrounding our borders, New Zealand and Australia have been deemed the most capable of sustaining their populations in the aftermath of a nuclear war, super volcano eruption or asteroid impact.
According to the authors of the Risk Analysis study, pockets of survivors are expected to exist across the planet, even in the face of the most severe scenarios.
The authors evaluated 38 island nations on 13 critical factors, including food production, energy independence, manufacturing and the effects of the disaster on climate, to predict which nations would be most capable of withstanding a post-apocalyptic scenario.
Such islands “must be resilient to the cascading effects abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios (ASRS) would impose beyond the impacts on agricultural systems”.
The study cites Australia’s vast food buffer, robust infrastructure, ample energy surplus, strong health security, and significant defence budget as contributing factors to its success.
However, the authors also acknowledged Australia’s close military ties with the UK and the US, which could make it a potential target in a nuclear war.
In 2019, Vice did an investigation into claims a number of Silicon Valley billionaires had bought up “apocalypse bunkers” across New Zealand amid a recent influx of foreign interest.
Peter Thiel gained New Zealand citizenship after just 12 days in the country. Photo / Brett Phibbs
US hedge fund billionaire Peter Thiel, who gained New Zealand citizenship after just 12 days in the country, reportedly purchased 193ha in the South Island using his new-found rights as a Kiwi.
According to sources close to the tech industry, a growing number of Silicon Valley innovators are taking unprecedented steps to prepare for a potential apocalypse.
Dubbed “survivalists,” these futurists are said to be discreetly stockpiling provisions and acquiring assets to ensure their survival in the event of a global catastrophe.
Reports indicate that these individuals are hoarding canned goods and non-perishable supplies, investing in gold and other precious metals as a form of currency, and even going as far as to secure helicopter transportation and secure apartments in underground bunkers designed to withstand a nuclear blast.
As society becomes increasingly reliant on technology and the digital world, it seems that a growing number of tech leaders are seeking a sense of security in the face of uncertainty.
The study published in the journal of Risk Analysis estimates the probability of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia at close to 1 per cent per annum, with plausible probabilities of all types of nuclear war likely falling between 0.3 per cent and 3 per cent every year.
However, whatever the true baseline risk, it may plausibly be rising “due to geopolitical instability and new technology”.
The study concludes that New Zealand and Australia should consider developing resilience measures to maximise their potential as post-catastrophe catalysts for recovery.
However, maximising resilience should not be the only goal, and cost-effectiveness analyses and prioritisation across the spectrum of intervention for prevention, resilience, and recovery should occur, accounting for co-benefits beyond GCR minimisation.
The study also stressed that policy be formed by an “apolitical central entity” in the face of a worldwide crisis to ensure potential corruption in is mitigated.
