The whole world is wiped out except for a single country. Which country do you think should it be...

None.

>implying its anywhere near as severe as the US
>implying European countries have anywhere near the same population as the US

Great, now you made me want to commit suicide.

>I choose China

Fucking kill yourself you disgusting chinkaboo, chinks are ants and their country is an ugly pollute anthill.

I choose Italy of course, the country with the most soul, beauty, intelligence, creativity, passion and the best ethics.

They can carry humanity on the shoulders any day like they've always done.

t.luigi
Your country hasn't been relevant in centuries and is just a glorified tourist spot at this point.

Denmark, good culture and values, but not quite as muslim infected as Norway or Sweden and it has a bigger population than Finland. Second choice would be Japan.

Russia-- actual history preserved, large landmass, a variety of races and religions unspoiled resources.

Alaska

Does everyone else just die or does the rest of the world sink into the ocean?

Best answer itt.

Kill yourself you nu male chink lover.

>being this asshurt

This. It's a country with strong infrastructure (memes about Detroit or whatever aside), a large population with a relatively high level of education and a lot of diversity. That may trigger /pol/, and admittedly a homogenous European ethnostate might have lower crime rates etc, but diversity is a good thing when literally everybody else is getting wiped out.

I'm confident that civilization would be preserved in the US - maybe not the totality of it, but in portions. I'm not sure of that for any other countries. Certainly not Russia or China. Russia is too dysfunctional even today, and China is too backwards. Also, its population is too urban; most of them wouldn't last a week.

El Perú

Sorry, pop cultural references don't become any funnier just because it's nerd culture

Probably Switzerland.

They're got peace, guns, and money. I'd pick one of the Scandi countries, but too many Muslims would survive.

>i pick dysfunctinoal mafia state that never should have existed

Canada, because I live there.

Brazil because then i survive

I agree with the US (self-preservation bias aside), it has lots of natural resources, touches almost every climate zone on earth, has a large population and lots of hospitable land, among other things. Being developed helps too

Iceland

turkey. the roaches will always survive.

I hate to break it to you but according to historical demographics the modern West isn't the most ethnically diverse place known to mankind.

>Also, its population is too urban; most of them wouldn't last a week.
China has a higher percentage of rural residents than the U.S. which is struggling to find farmers.

Doesn't China import most of its wheat and beef from the US

Japan they are now resistant to nukes after that first hit and they are the cou try with the least jackasses and they actually are polite.

Switzerland, no question.

Irónicamente, creo que Lima es uno de esos lugares que deberían ser destruidos por una bomba atómica.
Arequipa, Qusqu, and Amazonia are fine though.

I chose USA/Canada because we are the best country on the planet

Could be thanks to the advent of mega farms and dairies but China and most of the East have traditionally been rice cultivating fish eating societies. Taiwan banned U.S beef cause of ractomine.

Yeah, I spoke imprecisely. I don't mean that China lacks for farmers. What I mean is that China's urban population is just too large (talking absolute numbers here, not relative ones) and too dense and too reliant on a complex net of infrastructure and imports that would collapse catastrophically if the rest of the world's population went poof. China's eastern seaboard would be a mass grave for tens (probably hundreds) of millions within a matter of months.

America's cities would be in bad shape too, of course, but less so.

Either Norway or Australia.

You just picked two countries that would collapse in a couple of weeks. Just too reliant on foreign imports.

Obviously Iraq.

You can't rebuild civilization from the roof. Only the foundation stone.

Norway would be fine, but the Aussies would surely go mad max, they're loaded with nutjob cults and the like

>implying USA won't be the cause of the world being wiped out

>China
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Norway would not be fine, dude. It imports literally half its food. Sure, there'd be plenty of food and arable land elsewhere, but a mass panic over starvation & possible famine is not a great footing to restart civilization from.

Australia would actually probably be better off, but neither country really has the capacity to be self-sufficient. Small populations, and too isolated geographically.

India

>no sri lanka

>Not posting all of Greater India's rightful territory

I don't know the status of Norway's food availability, nor its current farming practices, but I know it has ever been highly agrarian in its past, if not poor, off the top of my head I don't think it has a very large population, surely it could sustain its population on its arable land, in spite of the short growing season they ought to have.

Usually "muh clay" is based on some sort of historical basis, but that landmass pictured has never existed.

If we are trying to salvage the best of humanity then you have to save the English

USA

that landmass does exist lad, but you're right the geo-political entity that came closest to that is probable the Raj lel

Either China or Japan

>shitaly
>carrying humanity

Calm down Luigi.

They were dependent on foreign imports (mostly grain from Denmark) even back then, despite being largely agrarian. There was a serious famine in Norway in 1812-13 when the British blockaded them.

But more importantly, Norway isn't particularly agrarian anymore, and even if it COULD hypothetically produce enough food to feed its population (I'm not gonna crunch the numbers but it probably does have enough arable land, given modern farming technology), it ... doesn't. I mean, if they had foreknowledge of whatever magical event would cause the rest of the human population to go *poof*, then maybe. But as it stands not enough Norwegians are farmers and they don't have enough dedicated farmland.

Realistically China.

>large population
>some racial diversity
>gigantic industry, big part of the current world's
>alot of agriculture
>ALOT of land to cultivate

t. Anglo revisionist

China or the US
realistically those are the two countries that could best maintain a modern standard of living if the rest of the world went poof

>USA planet
>coruscant
>China planet
>mustafar

Whether we like it or not, USA is the only rational option.
Not only is it large, populous and developed, but it has ethnic groups from all over the world, Russians, Filipinos, Italians, Koreans whatever you want. So this the highest change to preserve most of human culture.

You can probably restore most countries in the world using the ethnic communities in the US.

France will make Humanity great again

USA is only option and possibly russia.

The biggest problem is nit agriculture importa which will cause mass famine until a sustainable crop to person ratio is sutained. The US has the bread basket and a large agricultural area, not to mention some of the smartest scientists in the world which could help in the collapse in society tha will happen. But the army would be downsized and alot of people will be funneled inro agriculture and manual labor and if push comes to shove slavery will be re introduced

Underrated post.