> once the water wars kick off in a few decades

?? could you provide some details about this? i thought water is a non issue because we have incredible amounts of it that just needs energy to desalinate, energy which will come very cheap in a couple of decades.

I think modernised nations will be able to produce that sort of massive energy, and are also less likely to be impacted by climate change related droughts/famines in the first place. Unfortunately and unjustly it's the poor countries along the equator that are f*cked, and unless some crazy political restructuring happens these countries don't have a shot of updating their economies fast enough to desalinate their way out of oblivion.

Cheap energy has always been a few decades away...

I wondered whether they were referring to rising sea levels, but then it would make a lot more sense to go to Norway.

> just needs energy to desalinate

That's a very load-bearing "just". Germany is busy shooting itself in the head by turning off their nuclear reactors.

>> My bet is that an island is easier to defend from mass migration

Not currently if you look at the boats crossing the channel.

That's only because things aren't serious yet. If there were dedicated political will the channel could be handily sealed off, and it's great that we aren't in such a dire place yet but were it to arise those boats would never make it.

The argument, rarely said explicitly except by talk radio hosts, is that the navy will be deployed to either mass murder them directly or to hole their boats and leave them to drown. As happens in the Mediterranean.

(This is obviously a crime, so special legislation will be enacted to let the state murder undesirables)

At the moment, the French navy shadows them into british waters, and then the RNLI provides a taxi to shore for them. They then manage to remain in the UK indefinitely.

And the people smugglers make about £5k per person for the migrants.