However, few of these bags are full of necessities, the report warns.

Some 61 per cent of these people have packed food, 53 per cent packed medical supplies, and the third most common packed item is a mobile phone, with 47 per cent planning on taking theirs. The report – released in conjunction with science event The Big Bang Fair – advised that items such as a fire-starting kit, water bottle, small knife, rope and food should all be the top priorities.

Additionally, it says that people hoping to survive a disaster should head to the supermarket or a golf course. A supermarket has enough food to sustain someone for an average of 55 years, while a golf course would be abundant in golf buggies, which could be used to store generated electricity, which would be extremely useful in trying to rebuild a society.

Dr Dartnell said: "Clearly we shouldn’t be worrying twenty four seven about a potential apocalypse but it’s interesting to take a snap shot of where we are now and how we’d fare – individually and as a society."

In the context of the pending invasion, Dahham Al-'Anzi outlined the missiles, planes and other war-fighting equipment the Kingdom has acquired and then revealed "We have a nuclear bomb" and asked the TV Interviewer, "Why do you think we have all these weapons?" He then answered his own question "to protect Arabs and Muslims." Not content to have revealed this staggering information, Dahham Al-'Anzi went further and stated "We may test it within weeks."

The stunned TV Interviewer said "This is breaking news, I haven't heard this before" to which Dahham Al-'Anzi replied "This isn't breaking news, the super powers have known about this for a while."

Arabian Peninsula countries including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ratified or acceded to a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997.

The fact that Saudi Arabia now admits they took possession of nuclear bombs despite having signed the Treaty means something very simple: Saudi Arabia's "word" cannot be trusted. Even with something as serious and solemn as a Treaty, their "word" is no good. Even when their "King" signs a treaty, the word of their King is now proved to be no good. To put it in street terms, Saudis are "shifty."

With Saudi Arabia presently hosting military "exercises" with some 300,000 troops in the northern part of its country, and Turkey massing tanks and troops in the southern part of their country, it is becoming clear that Syria will be over-run within hours once the Saudis (and their coalition) and the Turks, strike from both the north and the south. Russia has a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons if they are faced with being over-run.

When the ground invasion of Syria begins - likely within days - Russia will have to make one of two choices:

1) Strike with tactical nukes to defend themselves, OR

2) Be totally humiliated by being over-run by a bunch of Arab camel jockeys with filthy rags on their heads.

If Russia strikes, then it is clear that Saudi Arabia will use full-sized nuke(s) against the Russian base at Latakia and perhaps even against the country of Russia itself! In either case, if someone nukes Russian troops, it is clear Russia will strike back.

The question is, who?

Does Russia strike Riyadh, Mecca and Medina - which would rid the world of much trouble from a religion with stone age values and barbaric rituals and practices? Or does Russia strike both Saudi Arabia AND Turkey since both are attacking? And if Russia uses tactical nukes INSIDE SYRIA, and Saudi Arabia launches from outside Syria, what will the US and NATO do?

Neither the US nor NATO want a nuclear war with Russia. No sane person wants a nuclear war with anyone! But what will the US do? The US is in an impossible predicament:

1) If the US strikes Russia, Russia will strike back - and millions of us in both countries, die.

2) If the US fails to strike back, then no US ally will ever believe our promise to defend them!

In either case, we here in the US, and our brethren in Russia, are being set up to destroy each other, by a group of Muslim fanatics. We should not fall into a trap where Christian USA and Christian Russia do battle over Muslim madmen in the Middle East.

For half a century, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the linchpin of US Mideast policy. A guaranteed supply of oil has bought a guaranteed supply of security. Ignoring autocratic practices and the export of Wahhabi extremism, Washington stubbornly dubs its ally “moderate.” So tight is the trust that US special operators dip into Saudi petrodollars as a counterterrorism slush fund without a second thought. In a sea of chaos, goes the refrain, the kingdom is one state that’s stable.

But is it?

In fact, Saudi Arabia is no state at all. There are two ways to describe it: as a political enterprise with a clever but ultimately unsustainable business model, or so corrupt as to resemble in its functioning a vertically and horizontally integrated criminal organization. Either way, it can’t last. It’s past time US decision-makers began planning for the collapse of the Saudi kingdom. In recent conversations with military and other government personnel, we were startled at how startled they seemed at this prospect. Here’s the analysis they should be working through:

Understood one way, the Saudi king is CEO of a family business that converts oil into payoffs that buy political loyalty. They take two forms: cash handouts or commercial concessions for the increasingly numerous scions of the royal clan, and a modicum of public goods and employment opportunities for commoners. The coercive “stick” is supplied by brutal internal security services lavishly equipped with American equipment.

For the moment, it is largely Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority that is voicing political demands. But the highly educated Sunni majority, with unprecedented exposure to the outside world, is unlikely to stay satisfied forever with a few favors doled out by geriatric rulers impervious to their input. And then there are the “guest workers.” Saudi officials, like those in other Gulf states, seem to think they can exploit an infinite supply of indigents grateful to work under whatever conditions. But citizens are now heavily outnumbered in their own countries by laborers who may soon begin claiming rights.

But the overwhelming reaction has been scorn, with some within his own party labelling it 'thin gruel' while Labour and campaign groups have also criticised it as 'watered-down' and a failure. Eurosceptics said the deal was 'irrelevant' as he had not asked for any changes to freedom of movement or the repatriation of powers to the UK, while others said Cameron promised 'to get half a loaf but came back with crumbs'.

They also said it did nothing to address the chaos raging across Europe. The Out camp was also boosted by news Cabinet big hitter Michael Gove is likely to campaign for out. The Prime Minister said he was 'disappointed, but not surprised' that he and his close friend would not be on the same side.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn dismissed the renegotiation as a 'largely irrelevant' spectacle but confirmed Labour would campaign for In. Announcing the deal last night, Mr Cameron said: 'Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union, never part of a European super state. There will be tough new restrictions for access to our welfare system for migrants, no more something for nothing'.

Confirming his position to campaign for Britain to remain part of the EU, he said: "I do not love Brussels, I love Britain.

"I will never say that our country can't survive outside of Europe, we can achieve great things. But the question is will we be stronger and safer in a reformed Europe?" He added: "The choice is in your hands, but my recommendation is clear. I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union."

The problem is not that the eurozone faces serious economic challenges. The issue is its failure to anticipate the risk of such a crisis ever happening, the lack of contingency planning and its inability to deal with the problem in a timely way.

European policymakers have proved indecisive and divided. They cannot decide whether they want a United States of Europe or not, and complicating matters are unstable governments in Greece, Portugal and Spain and upcoming elections in Ireland, Germany and France. Relations between various leaders are increasing frayed. The Brexit and Fixit (in Finland) debates highlight the stress.

The debt crisis is now more than five years old with no sign of a solution. As the woes of Greece indicate, there are only unpalatable choices. Minor concessions will not solve the problem. At a deeper level, the EU’s actions are promoting political radicalisation on both the political right and left with unknown consequences.

The real damage is subtler, as the true face of the European project, and European leaders and elites, is exposed. In November 1990 Margaret Thatcher, responding to a question of European monetary union, anticipated the present situation presciently: “It’s all politics. Who controls interest rates is political. A single currency is about the politics of Europe.”

As banks across the world are either in negative interest rates or headed that way, cash will be banned so there will be no way to avoid paying just to hold your money. This isn’t your grandparent’s banking system. Or even your parents. They both remember the time when you could put money in your bank and actually earn interest/income on it. The good old days, we call it.

Now, we live in a central banking, fiat currency world that is drowning in debt caused by that very system itself. And in order to keep the system alive they now have to go to negative interest rates… but if you have cash and the banks charge negative interest rates, everyone will just take their money out of the banks. So, they are quickly moving to rid the world of cash.

The idea will be to ensure that everyone’s financial life is entirely transparent and that everyone’s ability to self-finance will be subject to the good will of the state. Break a law – or perhaps even express a wrong opinion – and you may find your accounts frozen, your assets seized and your credit non-existent. This is the future of the “cashless” society. But let’s be clear: The debate is not actually a debate, having already been decided at the very highest reaches of high finance. The West – the world – is going to cease to use cash for anything.

Mr Hookem’s comments come after the defence secretary Michael Fallon stated during a visit to the islands yesterday, that the biggest threat to the Falklands security was Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Speaking from Brussels, Mr Hookem said, “While Jeremy Corbyn’s ideas on defence and security have the potential to seriously damage the scope of action and capability of the UK’s armed forces, the creation of a combined EU army would leave the Falkland Islands wide open for the Argentinians to simply walk back in.”

“Can you see the French – who were happy to supply the Argentinians with Exocet anti-ship missiles and Mirage fighter jets – or the Germans allowing EU troops to be sent in defence of the Falklands? I certainly don’t think so!”

Ukip leader Nigel Farage is trying to make the most of Cameron’s difficulties at the summit. Speaking to Today he said: “I simply cannot believe that at some point today Mr Cameron will not get some concessions out of these people because they must know that if Cameron is sent home totally humiliated, Brexit has got that little bit closer.

“We keep doing this. Government after government says we are going to reform the European Union but the problem is the word ‘reform’ in Britain means something completely different here. ‘Reform’ here means pushing on to closer economic and political union.

“There will have to be a deal but, frankly, we really are scratching around at the edges here. There is no fundamental renegotiation on offer.”

According to AJ Bell, the broker, the FTSE 100 has risen or fallen by 1 percent or more on 20 of the 31 trading days since the start of the year. This is a record, with market volatility higher today than it was during the financial crisis and in 2000, when the tech bubble popped. It has been the worst start for global stock markets since the Great Depression - has the sell-off been overdone or is the bear market here to stay?

The honest answer to the question is – nobody knows. But, in my view, there are plenty of issues to worry about, which have been brushed under the carpet for far too long. When looking at Western stock markets I think the falls since the start of the year have barely scratched the surface.

These markets have gone up a long way over the past five years, thanks to the helping hand they have had from central bankers who have injected so much quantitative easing (“QE”) into the system. But as an economic policy QE has not worked, it has created so many unintended consequences; we’ve never seen negative nominal bond yields or depositors being charged to put money in a bank in Switzerland and Germany. This is dangerous, negative deposit rates force money out of the banking system.

Another threat is deflation, and this is not currently reflected in share price valuations. The stock market falls since the start of the year are merely a sobering realisation that all is not well with the world and that central bankers’ credibility is waning.

Recent figures showed Italy's economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the last quarter of 2015, while Portugal's was only 0.2 per cent. Investors have become increasingly concerned about the anti-austerity agenda of the Portuguese socialist government, fearing defaults could lie further ahead, which has seen the borrowing costs for the government soar.

Debt levels in the country now stand at a staggering 130 per cent of GDP making Portugal one of the most indebted in Europe, according to economists at RBS. At the same time, traders appear to be particularly worried about the Italian banks, which are estimated to hold around £270 BILLION (€350 billion) of bad loans - more than 30 per cent of the eurozone's total.

Italy's top stock market dropped by as much as 20 per cent in recent weeks as fears over a European banking crisis gathered pace. Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at CMC Markets UK, said: "The solvency of Italy’s banks has also been a continuous source of concern, despite talk of the creation of a new 'bad bank' amidst concern about the true levels of non-performing loans.