If an extensive global war were to break out, finding a completely safe place on Earth would likely be impossible. However, some countries and regions have key advantages thanks to their remoteness from major military power centers, the ability to produce food, access to clean water and energy, and lower strategic significance.
In case of nuclear war, the threat wouldn’t be limited to direct strikes. Scientists warn about possible temperature drops, reduced sunlight, disruptions to food production, and global trade breakdown.
Because of these factors, several locations appear frequently in such safety analyses.
1. New Zealand
New Zealand is often considered a strong candidate due to its distance from the main geopolitical hotspots in the northern hemisphere.
Its advantages include a robust agricultural sector, abundant freshwater, and a high share of electricity generated from renewable sources.
Independent scientific studies examining the consequences of nuclear winter have ranked New Zealand among island states with a relatively strong capability to withstand a sharp global drop in food production.
Still, the country isn’t entirely self-sufficient. A major vulnerability would be the loss of fuel, technology, and spare parts imports.
2. Australia
Australia shares many of the same advantages.
It boasts vast territory, extensive food production, mineral wealth, and remote regions far from densely populated areas.
In terms of food security, Australia is among the countries that could be at an advantage even if global trade is severely disrupted.
However, it has one major drawback: Australia is a key US ally and part of Indo-Pacific security structures.
3. Argentina
Argentina is frequently mentioned in these scenarios as well.
It lies far from the likely main theaters of war—Europe, the Middle East, and northern Asia— and is one of the world’s leading food producers.
The country’s huge agricultural areas and low population density in some regions could be significant advantages in a global crisis.
Patagonia, in particular, is among the world’s most sparsely populated regions.
4. Chile
Chile offers similar geographic advantages to Argentina.
The Pacific Ocean protects it to the west, the Andes to the east, and much of the country is located far from today’s focal points of military tension.
Further strengths include access to water, agriculture, fishing, and various energy sources.
Drawbacks include high seismic activity and the dependence of some sectors on international trade.
5. Switzerland
Switzerland offers an entirely different form of protection.
The country is renowned for its long-standing neutrality and one of the world’s most developed civil defense systems, including extensive shelter infrastructure.
The mountainous terrain would also be advantageous in the event of conflict.
However, Switzerland is located at the very center of Europe. In the case of a large-scale European or nuclear war, its location might not be as beneficial.
Security dynamics in Europe are shifting—for example, Lithuania is making major changes to its security policy due to the potential deployment of US nuclear weapons.
6. Iceland
Iceland is considered among the world’s most peaceful nations and benefits from a uniquely strong energy base.
Its geothermal and hydroelectric power plants provide a high level of energy independence, and the island has abundant freshwater supplies and access to fishing.
However, the common claim that Iceland has zero military significance is inaccurate.
Iceland is a founding member of NATO, and its strategic location between North America and Europe is highly important for the North Atlantic.
7. Bhutan
The small Himalayan kingdom makes similar lists due to its geographic isolation.
Its mountainous terrain and relative lack of strategic significance reduce the likelihood that Bhutan would be an early target in a major military conflict.
On the other hand, Bhutan is landlocked and situated between India and China.
If a conflict broke out between Asian great powers, Bhutan’s position could quickly shift from an advantage to a liability.
8. Fiji
The Fiji Islands sit deep in the Pacific Ocean, far from most major military and industrial centers.
This remoteness is their biggest asset.
The island nation has access to fishing and some degree of domestic food production, but long-term collapse of international transport could cause problems due to reliance on imported goods and fuel.
9. South Africa
South Africa appears in these discussions mainly because of its southern hemisphere location.
It has vast agricultural capacity, significant raw material reserves, and a large territory.
Unlike small island states, South Africa also possesses advanced industrial infrastructure.
However, the country’s safety would depend on how global conflict affected its internal economic and political stability.
10. Antarctica
From the standpoint of distance from military targets, Antarctica is the extreme example.
The Antarctic Treaty designates the continent for peaceful purposes and restricts military activity.
However, this does not automatically mean that surviving a global catastrophe there would be possible.
Without specialized infrastructure and regular supplies of food, energy, and equipment, long-term habitation in Antarctica is extremely challenging.
For the average person, it’s not a realistic refuge.
Greenland Is No Longer So Clearly a Safe Haven
Older lists of safe places often included Greenland.
However, recent developments have significantly changed its status.
The American Pituffik Space Base operates on the island, playing a key role in ballistic missile early warning and military space operations.
In September 2026, the United States, Denmark, and Greenland agreed to expand the US military presence there.
The Arctic as a whole is increasingly becoming an arena of great power rivalry. Aktualizovane.sk has previously reported that Sergei Lavrov warned of the growing risk of conflict between Russia and NATO in the Arctic.
In Nuclear War, Distance Alone Is Not Enough
The biggest problem with these rankings is the assumption that safety can be determined solely by distance from potential military targets.
In large-scale nuclear war, the effects could be globally devastating.
Research published in the journal Nature Food found that significant amounts of atmospheric soot from nuclear detonations could drastically reduce agricultural production and cause massive food shortages—even in countries not directly hit.
At least five factors would be crucial: distance from military targets, food production, access to energy, water, and the society’s ability to function without international supply chains.
READ ALSO
NATO launches large-scale drills near Kaliningrad, deploying fighter jets and a rare electronic warfare aircraft.
There is no scientifically confirmed ranking that could identify ten countries as universally safe in any possible scenario of world war. The outcome would depend on who was fighting, what weapons were used, and which military or industrial targets were pursued.
Regions in the southern hemisphere capable of producing their own food and energy would likely have the greatest advantage. Even there, however, a global conflict would not mean a normal life.
This article was translated from the original Slovak version with the assistance of AI.
