The 10 safest places to be if World War III breaks out

Here's a question nobody really wants to think about: if World War III broke out, where in the world would be the safest place to escape to?

In an age when military conflicts can escalate rapidly, missiles can travel thousands of miles within minutes, and the global economy depends on complex networks of food, fuel, medicine and technology, the idea of a "safe place" is far more complicated than simply being far from the battlefield.

And if an extreme scenario involved nuclear weapons, the effects could extend far beyond the countries directly attacked. Massive amounts of smoke and soot could enter the atmosphere, reduce sunlight, lower temperatures and damage food production around the world – a scenario known as "nuclear winter."

That is why researchers studying resilience to global disasters look not only at distance from military targets, but also at geographic isolation, the ability to produce food and energy independently, political stability, available water and dependence on imports.

The first conclusion is especially important:

There is currently no place on Earth that can be guaranteed to be completely safe.

A comprehensive study published in 2026 examining resilience to a range of global disasters – from nuclear war to cyberattacks, pandemics and extreme geological events – reached exactly this conclusion. Still, geographic isolation, domestic food production and stable government repeatedly emerged as advantages.

1. New Zealand – a country researchers keep returning to

If there is one country that appears again and again in discussions about surviving a global catastrophe, it is New Zealand.

Located in the South Pacific, far from the main conflict centers of the Northern Hemisphere and surrounded by ocean, New Zealand also produces a huge amount of food relative to its population.

In the 2026 Global Peace Index, it ranked second in the world, behind Iceland.

But its biggest advantage isn't simply relative peace.

Research examining island nations under a nuclear-winter scenario found New Zealand among the countries that could be particularly resilient if sunlight were sharply reduced. Australia, Iceland, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu also stood out.

Another study focusing specifically on New Zealand's food production found that the calories contained in the food it currently exports amount to almost four times its domestic consumption. Even under severe nuclear-winter scenarios, researchers estimated that the country could theoretically still produce enough food for its population.

But there is an important warning.

Modern agriculture depends on fuel, fertilizers, machinery parts, seeds and supply chains. If global trade completely collapsed, New Zealand could still face serious problems.

In other words, even one of the strongest candidates would not be immune.

2. Iceland – the world's most peaceful country, far from almost everyone

Iceland has one advantage that is difficult to ignore: it is extremely isolated.

The island sits in the North Atlantic, hundreds of miles from continental Europe, with no land border with another country.

It has also ranked first on the Global Peace Index for years, and in 2026 it was again named the world's most peaceful country.

Iceland also has abundant geothermal and hydroelectric energy, reducing its dependence on fuel for electricity and heating.

Research on islands and nuclear winter also found Iceland could be among the more resilient countries in such a scenario.

But there is a significant disadvantage: Iceland is a NATO member and occupies a strategically important position in the North Atlantic. In a conflict between major powers, geographic isolation alone would not guarantee that it has no military significance.

The island is also dependent on imports for many products.

So Iceland may look excellent on a map – but life after a collapse in global trade would still be extremely difficult.

3. Chile – the Pacific on one side and the Andes on the other

Chile benefits from one of the world's most unusual geographic configurations.

It stretches for thousands of miles along the western coast of South America, with the Pacific Ocean to the west and the enormous Andes mountain range to the east.

For a war centered in Europe, East Asia or the Middle East, that distance could be a significant advantage.

Chile is also one of the more developed and relatively stable countries in South America, with an important agricultural sector and substantial natural resources.

Remote areas in the south, particularly Patagonia, may look even more attractive: sparse population, enormous open spaces and abundant fresh water.

But even a distant country can be affected by the collapse of trade, energy shortages or extreme climate changes following a nuclear war.

4. Botswana – far from major conflict centers

Southern Africa is relatively far from most of the military hotspots that could become central to a conflict between major powers.

Within the region, Botswana stands out for its relative political stability, small population and low population density.

It is also not generally considered a major strategic target in a war between nuclear powers.

Parts of Namibia and South Africa similarly benefit from distance and vast open spaces.

But this highlights the difference between "not being a bombing target" and actually surviving a global crisis.

Water, food production, healthcare and infrastructure become critical if international trade stops.

5. Bhutan – hidden deep in the Himalayas

Bhutan is one of the world's most geographically isolated countries.

The small nation sits high in the Himalayas, with mountainous terrain that makes access and large-scale military movement difficult.

It is not a military power and is generally not considered a major target in global conflicts.

But there is an obvious risk: Bhutan lies directly between two enormous nuclear powers – India and China.

If Asia itself became a major theater of conflict, being far from large cities would not necessarily be enough to guarantee safety.

6. Switzerland – the country that built shelters for almost everyone

If a world war took place in Europe, Switzerland might seem like an unusual choice.

It is, after all, right in the heart of the continent.

Yet few countries have invested in civil defense as extensively as Switzerland.

The country has around 370,000 private and public shelters with approximately 9 million places – theoretically enough for more than its entire population. Swiss authorities state that the principle is for every resident to have access to a shelter close to home in the event of armed conflict.

The shelters include reinforced concrete walls, blast-resistant doors, ventilation systems and filters designed, among other things, to deal with increased radiation levels.

Switzerland also benefits from the Alps and its long tradition of neutrality.

In the 2026 Global Peace Index, it ranked third in the world.

But there is an obvious weakness: Switzerland is still located in central Europe. If a large-scale nuclear war affected the continent, radioactive fallout, supply disruptions and economic collapse would not stop at the Swiss border.

7. Argentina – one of the region's major food producers

Argentina also benefits from South America's geographic distance from many of the world's major military tensions.

But its more important advantage may be food.

The country produces enormous quantities of wheat, corn, soybeans and other agricultural products, along with extensive farmland and significant water resources.

If international supply chains collapse, the ability to produce food locally becomes just as important as being far from missile targets.

Sparsely populated areas in southern Argentina could also be particularly distant from strategic targets.

But even here, a global nuclear winter could damage crops and lower temperatures, meaning that even an agricultural powerhouse would not be guaranteed protection.

8. Fiji – a small island far from the major powers

Fiji lies in the South Pacific, far from the world's major cities and industrial centers.

It has no large military force or major strategic infrastructure that would normally place it high on a list of potential targets in a war between major powers.

In a conventional war, that distance could be a huge advantage.

But small islands also demonstrate one of the biggest traps in lists of the "safest places in the world":

Isolation is an advantage only as long as you can survive without the outside world.

If a country depends on fuel, medicine, spare parts and other goods delivered by ship or plane, the collapse of global trade can turn that same isolation from a protective wall into a serious vulnerability.

9. Remote parts of Canada – enormous and nearly empty spaces

Canada is enormous.

Most of its population is concentrated in a relatively narrow strip along the U.S. border, while huge areas in the north and interior are barely populated.

In an extreme scenario, such places offer distance from major cities, abundant freshwater and natural resources.

But in a war between NATO and Russia or another major power, Canada itself is a major NATO member and deeply integrated into North American defense systems.

Major cities, military bases and critical infrastructure could therefore have strategic importance.

The remote north is a different story – but its harsh climate and distance from medical facilities and food supplies make independent living extremely difficult.

10. Tuvalu, Samoa and other remote Pacific islands

Tiny Pacific islands may look almost perfect on a map of a global war.

They are thousands of miles from many of the world's major cities, usually have few major military targets and are unlikely to become battlefields themselves.

But this is precisely where the idea that "far away = safe" becomes dangerous.

Research examining islands under nuclear-winter conditions did not automatically identify every Pacific island as resilient. Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu stood out partly because of their food-production capacity and relative resilience.

A tiny island that depends on regular imports of fuel, food, medicine or technical equipment could become extremely vulnerable when ships stop arriving.

A place that escapes the bombs could still face a devastating crisis months later.

Shutterstock

And then there is an extreme "bonus": Antarctica

In one respect, Antarctica is difficult to beat.

It has no permanent population, no cities and no conventional industry.

The Antarctic Treaty also establishes the continent for peaceful purposes and prohibits, among other things, military bases, military maneuvers and weapons testing.

In other words, it is difficult to find a place with less direct military importance.

But there is one small problem:

You also have to survive there.

Without a fully equipped research station, food supplies, heating, electricity and specialized equipment, Antarctica is one of the most hostile environments on Earth.

It may be extremely far from a war while simultaneously being a terrible place to reach without enormous preparation.

And what about Australia? New research gives it a major advantage

Interestingly, a new study published in 2026 that examined a broad range of global disasters concluded that Australia showed resilience across the widest variety of scenarios studied.

That does not mean all of Australia would be safe.

Large cities and military infrastructure could become targets.

But the country is enormous, produces very large quantities of food and energy, and areas in the west and south are particularly distant from major global population centers.

Western Australia – especially areas far from the densely populated east coast – therefore frequently emerges as an interesting possibility in such scenarios.

The real problem may begin after the bombs stop

It is easy to think about nuclear war in terms of the explosion itself.

The flash.

The blast wave.

Radiation.

But in a global scenario, the aftermath could be just as serious.

Power systems could collapse.

Internet and communications could be disrupted.

Fuel and medicine could become scarce.

Factories could stop receiving parts.

Farmers could struggle to obtain fertilizer and diesel.

Food supply chains could collapse.

And if enough soot entered the atmosphere, reduced sunlight and falling temperatures could damage agriculture even in countries that were never hit by a single bomb.

That is why scientists don't ask only, "Where won't missiles fall?"

They ask:

Where will there still be food?

Where will there be water?

Where will there be energy?

Where can a country continue functioning even if international trade almost disappears?

The safest place isn't necessarily the most distant one

At first glance, we might choose a tiny island in the middle of the ocean.

But resilience research paints a more complicated picture.

The key is balance.

Enough isolation to stay away from the front lines.

Enough population and infrastructure to maintain hospitals, electricity and transportation.

Enough agriculture to feed the population.

Enough local energy.

And a stable enough government to prevent chaos after the crisis.

This is one reason New Zealand and Australia perform so strongly in these studies: they are relatively isolated, but they are not tiny islands lacking almost every form of basic industry.

So where would really be safest if World War III broke out?

There is no single answer.

If it were a conventional war centered in Europe and Asia, a remote location in the Southern Hemisphere could offer major advantages.

If it were a limited nuclear war, distance from military targets and major cities would be critical.

If it involved a large-scale nuclear exchange followed by nuclear winter, food production, energy and the ability to function without foreign trade could become even more important than distance from the explosions.

And perhaps the most important finding from the latest research is this: in 2026, researchers examining a range of global risks concluded that no single place on Earth is resilient against all of them.

Iceland may be peaceful and isolated – but dependent on imports.

Switzerland may have shelter space for almost every resident – but sits in the heart of Europe.

Antarctica may be far from the war – but is almost impossible to live in independently.

And a tiny island may be completely uninteresting to an enemy military while being entirely dependent on a ship bringing it food and fuel.

But if we nevertheless look for places that begin with some of the greatest advantages, New Zealand, Australia and Iceland are among the countries receiving the strongest research support, while Switzerland stands out particularly for its civil-defense preparedness.

And the irony is that in a true global war, the best place would not necessarily be the one with the deepest bunker.

It might simply be the place farthest from the war that can still grow enough food, produce enough energy and keep society functioning when the outside world stops working the way we know it.