The safest places on earth after nuclear war: The map of World War III shows 8 refugee regions

As geopolitical tensions increase, the threat of nuclear conflict has become an increasingly worrying issue. A recent study published in Nature Food highlighted the devastating impact of nuclear war on the world’s food supply, in addition to the immediate destruction caused by radiation, heat and blast effects. This report, based on simulations of the atmospheric and agricultural consequences of nuclear war, reveals dramatic predictions: global food systems could be severely disrupted, leading to the starvation of 6.7 billion people worldwide.

Global Famine and Agricultural Resilience

In the event of a nuclear war, large parts of the world’s most populous regions would have devastating consequences. The study suggests that countries such as the United States, Canada, much of Europe and Russia could experience widespread famine, with up to 98% of the U.S. population at risk of dying from hunger. For example, approximately 312.2 million people in the United States could starve due to the destruction of agricultural systems and the collapse of international trade networks.

On the other hand, some countries, particularly in South America, Australia and certain smaller regions, may be better able to weather the consequences of a nuclear conflict. These nations are known for their ability to sustain their populations due to strong agricultural systems. Countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Australia, Iceland and Oman were highlighted for their agricultural resilience. The study states: “Food consumption may support current levels of physical activity in this country,” increasing the likelihood that these countries will support their populations despite the global food crisis.

Food systems and livestock scenarios

The study models three possible scenarios for how the world’s food systems might respond to a nuclear crisis:

• Case of livestock farming: Animal production continues as usual.
• No Livestock Case: All livestock is killed in the first year, with 50% of livestock feed used for human consumption.
• Partial livestock farming: Half of the grain is used to feed people, while the other half is used for surviving livestock.

In the case of partial livestock farming, food resources would remain limited and only basic supplies would be possible. By the second year of the conflict, the majority of the world’s population would likely survive on inadequate calorie intake. These projections assume there will be no international trade, further limiting food access for many countries.

Immediate risks and survival in the event of a nuclear explosion

Aside from the long-term threat of famine, the immediate threat of a nuclear attack itself poses a major threat to human life. A study from the University of Nicosia in Cyprus has examined how best to maximize survival during a nuclear explosion. The study, which used simulations of a 750-kiloton explosion (three times the size of the Nagasaki bomb), concludes that the best protection is a stable room away from doors and windows, ideally in a corner.

The research emphasizes the importance of protection against shock waves, which are responsible for much of the initial destruction following a nuclear detonation. “The best place for shelter is a sturdy building at the far end of the room from any door or window and ideally in a corner,” the study explained, emphasizing the need to protect against the blast and strong winds.

Escalating nuclear threats amid global tensions

In recent months, the risk of nuclear escalation has increased due to geopolitical developments. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that Russia’s new, battle-tested missiles could bypass Western defenses and hit European capitals within minutes. “Europe wonders what damage can be done to the system if the heads are nuclear… The damage is unacceptable, it is impossible to shoot down with modern means and we are talking about minutes,” Medvedev posted on Telegram.

This warning comes amid a change in Russian nuclear doctrine that now lowers the threshold for nuclear retaliation. Historically, Russia’s nuclear response was triggered only by a nuclear attack on its territory. However, under current circumstances, the use of conventional weapons against Russia or its allies could also justify a nuclear response. This policy shift follows increased Western support for Ukraine, particularly the provision of long-range missiles capable of hitting Russian territory.

Possible safe havens in a nuclear crisis

While much of the world faces significant risks in the event of a nuclear conflict, certain countries are expected to fare better due to their geographical isolation, political neutrality or robust infrastructure. These nations could offer refuge to those caught in the crossfire of a nuclear war:

• Antarctica: Due to its remote location and lack of strategic importance, Antarctica is one of the safest places to be during a nuclear conflict. The vast, undeveloped land accommodates thousands seeking refuge.
• Iceland: Iceland is known for its neutrality and peaceful attitude and is expected to avoid direct conflict. However, the consequences of nuclear attacks on mainland Europe could potentially also reach the island.
• New Zealand: As a neutral country with mountainous terrain, New Zealand could provide protection from invasion. Although New Zealand supports Ukraine on financial and legal matters, its neutral foreign policy makes it unlikely to be targeted.
• Switzerland: With its longstanding neutrality and extensive nuclear bunkers, Switzerland could be a safe haven. Its geographically isolated location and lack of involvement in the conflict make it a less likely target for nuclear attack.
• Greenland: Greenland, owned by Denmark, is geographically remote and politically neutral, making it a safe option during a global crisis.
• South American Countries: Countries like Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay are less likely to experience food shortages due to their agricultural abundance, especially after nuclear fallout.

The Bigger Picture: The Search for Security

Despite the bleak outlook painted by these studies and simulations, not all hope is lost. As global tensions continue to rise, many people are looking for ways to protect themselves and their families in the event of a nuclear conflict. Experts emphasize that countries with strong agricultural systems, neutral foreign policies and geographical isolation could become important havens.

Additionally, in response to the escalating nuclear threat, emergency agencies such as FEMA have issued guidelines to help people survive a nuclear attack. These guidelines focus on finding shelter quickly, staying indoors, and using trusted sources.