As global tensions rise from time to time and the spectre of nuclear conflict becomes more plausible, experts are weighing in on which parts of the world would be safest if such a catastrophic scenario unfolds. While many might expect powerful nations or heavily fortified regions to offer the best protection, the actual answer appears to be far from obvious—and rooted in geography and climate resilience more than military might.
Why Nuclear War Could Impact Entire Planet
Concerns over a potential nuclear war have intensified following escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Iran. With missile strikes exchanged and ceasefire agreements repeatedly tested, the risk of larger-scale involvement—including that of nuclear-armed nations—has caused widespread unease. Experts warn that if a global nuclear conflict were to erupt, the initial blasts would only mark the beginning of a much broader humanitarian and environmental crisis.
In an interview last year on The Diary of a CEO podcast, investigative journalist and author Annie Jacobsen, known for her deep dives into defense and national security, detailed just how catastrophic a nuclear war could be. She cited research led by Professor Owen Toon in 2022, which estimated that around five billion people could perish—not just from the explosions, but from the devastating aftermath that follows.
The Nuclear Winter Threat
One of the greatest dangers post-detonation is the onset of nuclear winter. This phenomenon occurs when widespread fires caused by nuclear blasts send smoke and soot high into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and drastically cooling the Earth’s surface. Temperatures could drop by as much as 40°F, and food systems across the Northern Hemisphere would collapse due to failed crops and dying livestock. Jacobsen explained that regions like Iowa and Ukraine, which are currently major food producers, would become uninhabitable snow-covered wastelands for up to a decade.
Radiation exposure would make it unsafe to be outdoors, and people would be forced to live underground. In such conditions, the ability to grow food would determine survival—something only a few parts of the world might still manage.
Why Australia and New Zealand Stand Out
According to both Jacobsen and Professor Toon, Australia and New Zealand stand out as the two most viable refuges. These countries are located in the Southern Hemisphere, far from the main targets of nuclear-armed states, and are more likely to avoid the immediate fallout. Crucially, they also have the potential to sustain agriculture even during a nuclear winter, thanks to their geography and relatively isolated positions.
Jacobsen explained that while most of the world would be fighting over dwindling food supplies, these two nations might still be able to grow crops and maintain basic living conditions. Ocean currents and wind patterns could further shield them from widespread radioactive contamination.
What About the United States?
For those in the U.S., Newsweek and Scientific American have mapped out regions least likely to be directly targeted in the event of nuclear strikes. Areas furthest from missile silos and military infrastructure—such as the northeastern and southeastern states including Maine, Florida, and the Carolinas—might offer a relatively lower risk of immediate attack. However, these locations would not be spared from the broader climate effects or food shortages.
Fallout shelters, once relics of the Cold War, have seen renewed interest. While they may offer temporary protection from radiation, they do not address the long-term challenges posed by environmental collapse or food scarcity.
Ultimately, the safest places in a nuclear war scenario aren’t defined by their military strength or infrastructure. Rather, they are determined by their distance from conflict zones, capacity to grow food, and ability to avoid the worst of nuclear winter’s effects.
Why Nuclear War Could Impact Entire Planet
Concerns over a potential nuclear war have intensified following escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Iran. With missile strikes exchanged and ceasefire agreements repeatedly tested, the risk of larger-scale involvement—including that of nuclear-armed nations—has caused widespread unease. Experts warn that if a global nuclear conflict were to erupt, the initial blasts would only mark the beginning of a much broader humanitarian and environmental crisis.
In an interview last year on The Diary of a CEO podcast, investigative journalist and author Annie Jacobsen, known for her deep dives into defense and national security, detailed just how catastrophic a nuclear war could be. She cited research led by Professor Owen Toon in 2022, which estimated that around five billion people could perish—not just from the explosions, but from the devastating aftermath that follows.
The Nuclear Winter Threat
One of the greatest dangers post-detonation is the onset of nuclear winter. This phenomenon occurs when widespread fires caused by nuclear blasts send smoke and soot high into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and drastically cooling the Earth’s surface. Temperatures could drop by as much as 40°F, and food systems across the Northern Hemisphere would collapse due to failed crops and dying livestock. Jacobsen explained that regions like Iowa and Ukraine, which are currently major food producers, would become uninhabitable snow-covered wastelands for up to a decade.
Radiation exposure would make it unsafe to be outdoors, and people would be forced to live underground. In such conditions, the ability to grow food would determine survival—something only a few parts of the world might still manage.
Why Australia and New Zealand Stand Out
According to both Jacobsen and Professor Toon, Australia and New Zealand stand out as the two most viable refuges. These countries are located in the Southern Hemisphere, far from the main targets of nuclear-armed states, and are more likely to avoid the immediate fallout. Crucially, they also have the potential to sustain agriculture even during a nuclear winter, thanks to their geography and relatively isolated positions.
Jacobsen explained that while most of the world would be fighting over dwindling food supplies, these two nations might still be able to grow crops and maintain basic living conditions. Ocean currents and wind patterns could further shield them from widespread radioactive contamination.
What About the United States?
For those in the U.S., Newsweek and Scientific American have mapped out regions least likely to be directly targeted in the event of nuclear strikes. Areas furthest from missile silos and military infrastructure—such as the northeastern and southeastern states including Maine, Florida, and the Carolinas—might offer a relatively lower risk of immediate attack. However, these locations would not be spared from the broader climate effects or food shortages.
Fallout shelters, once relics of the Cold War, have seen renewed interest. While they may offer temporary protection from radiation, they do not address the long-term challenges posed by environmental collapse or food scarcity.
Ultimately, the safest places in a nuclear war scenario aren’t defined by their military strength or infrastructure. Rather, they are determined by their distance from conflict zones, capacity to grow food, and ability to avoid the worst of nuclear winter’s effects.
You may also like
Touching request at funeral for Greg Monks who died after vanishing on stag do
Iceland makes major change to checkouts
20 new viruses found in bats in China - two are worrying scientists most
Fortnite Squid Game skins release date, time, bundles and item shop prices
The UK seaside town that's like 'going back 50 years' and locals love it
