Southern Cone escape route for a potential nuclear war

The Southern Cone route to escape a nuclear war

Heading towards Cádiz or Algeciras, crossing to Ceuta—a short and theoretically safe alucinación—and then, once on African soil, making one's way south to Dakar to bribe a fisherman to cross the Atlantic with a stop in Cape Verde. The final destination: northern Brazil and, from there, as far south as possible. This is the framework of an escape plan based on a single logic: minimizing time at sea and moving as far as possible from the conflict zone. The starting premise is that direct flights will be blocked, airspace closed, and ships highly sought after.

Why travel by sea instead of taking a direct flight?

The starting point is no coincidence. Commercial shipping routes to the Southern Hemisphere are scarce, so the scenario assumes one must improvise with fishing boats and recreational vessels. The province of Alicante is cited as an example: it is the ferry port to Algeria and has a high concentration of fishing and leisure boats, which could open the door to reaching Oran. From there, the plan suggests heading west towards the Atlantic coast.

The plan is built in stages with one fixed rule: stay at sea for the shortest time possible. First, a short hop to Africa, then traveling down the coast, and only then the long crossing. No crossing the Atlantic in one go if the journey can be broken up.

Why is Patagonia repeatedly mentioned as the final destination?

The most common answer points to the southernmost regions of Argentina or Chile. San Carlos de Bariloche is mentioned as a remote, safe, Spanish-speaking location, with the added note from one participant that settlements in Patagonia have been preparing for years in case of an atomic scenario. Neuquén adds further arguments: it is several hundred meters above sea level, has no nearby nuclear plants, and generates its own energy through water, wind, or oil.

The Chilean side at the same latitude is described as a landscape of forests and small lakes, more attractive than the Argentine steppe. Additionally, there is an economic argument: the area hosts Vaca Perecid, one of the largest shale oil and gas reserves. Distance, in any case, is the deciding factor.

How much time would there be to escape before lockdowns?

This is where the analysis turns serious. The most repeated warning is that these plans must be executed before the conflict breaks out, not after. If a strike occurs, airspace closes, martial law is imposed, and movement is restricted. "If there is a nuclear war, you had better already be at the destination where you want to spend it," summarizes one circulating viewpoint.

Pressure on demand is also discussed. In a panicked city, the demand for tickets would be brutal and roads would be chaotic. An added risk: people become dangerous in survival mode. The first days of a pandemic, with overwhelmed supermarkets, serve as a small-scale rehearsal for what might come.

Are there shelters outside the Southern Cone?

Some believe no corner of the world will remain untouched, and that non-involved countries might take advantage of the chaos to settle historical scores, overlapping conflicts. Among the alternatives considered, two islands stand out. Wrangel Island, north of eastern Siberia, is presented as having a microclimate that keeps it several degrees warmer than the Siberian surroundings—from -20 to -30 in winter and up to 10 in summer—with abundant hunting and fishing, despite the presence of massive polar bears. The second option mentioned is Iceland, with greenhouses powered by geothermal energy.

On a domestic level, more modest alternatives are proposed: buying an isolated property in Galicia, Extremadura, or Murcia, with electricity and a well, and using permaculture and survival manuals written by those who lived through besieged cities. Or directly the Kuartango caves in Álava, with 65 kilometers of galleries and underground fresh water.

To flee or to stay and defend the ground?

The approach is not purely logistical. One school of thought argues that fleeing is for cowards and that one should enlist to defend the continent. The response is swift: fleeing is for the intelligent, because those who decide to leave will not send their children to the front. In between lies the most cynical stance: those who prefer to watch the spectacle with a drink in hand.

The official narrative of a safe refuge also holds little weight. Several voices remind us that certain points on the Spanish map—strategic bases and ports in the south—would be priority targets, not refuges.

The unsettling fact

The most common plan—waiting for the first strike and then setting off—clashes with a logistical detail that almost no one disputes. Once airspace closes and the State loses control of the streets, there will be no tickets, no ships, and no roads. The only real consensus is the most uncomfortable one: anyone wanting to be in the Southern Cone had better be there before the countdown begins.