Originally posted by Extra Espresso

Strongest from a safety standpoint, Madrid.
Strongest from an economic standpoint, Tokyo.
Overall - Istanbul.

Honestly none of them are ideal.

Spain is in the middle of a 5 year, abject economic disaster only beaten by Greece with 36% overall unemployment and ~50% youth unemployment - where is the Spanish government getting the billions to pay for this by that time?

Istanbul is the farthest it could possibly be from the border with Syria with mountain ranges in between but it is still too early to tell regarding the repercussions from the Syrian conflict involving strikes on nearby capitals.

As for Japan, it was revealed that not only the energy company behind Fukishima, but the government as well lied about the ongoing instability of the plant as the radiation level went from a 1 to a 3 recently, with hundreds of tons of radioactive water seeping into the Pacific. The readings are getting WORSE in terms of radiation levels in the water - 2,200 milliceverts reading: if you stand in the water for four hours you will die. Those that try to say "Tokyo's far away from Fukishima" are kidding themselves in terms of the impact in miles of radiation, etc. The international scientific community is entirely cynical about the ability of an "ice wall" solution either.

So...in conclusion, the IOC's choices are

1) The capital of the 2nd most broke country in Europe
2) The largest city in a country sharing a border with one lead by the possible Archduke Ferdinand of WWIII
3) The capital of an island country in the middle of a WORSENING nuclear crisis


GREAT JOB IOC