An expert warns that in the event of a nuclear war, only two places on Earth would remain truly safe from the devastating effects, urging global leaders to prioritize these areas for survival and recovery. The expert’s assessment highlights the extreme risks and limited refuge available in such a catastrophic scenario.

Rising global tensions and the renewed specter of nuclear conflict have prompted urgent questions about where survival might be possible in a worst-case scenario. With major powers maintaining vast nuclear arsenals, the potential for widespread devastation makes safety and long-term survival a pressing concern.

Contrary to common assumptions, the safest options may not be high-tech bunkers or fortified shelters. Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen emphasizes that countries in the Southern Hemisphere, particularly New Zealand and Australia, could offer the most realistic chance of survival in the event of a nuclear war.

Jacobsen points out that these nations’ geographic isolation from the Northern Hemisphere’s major powers—where most nuclear arsenals are concentrated—reduces the likelihood of direct attacks. Their distance provides a natural buffer against immediate fallout from nuclear detonations.

Agriculture is another crucial factor. Research on nuclear winter predicts severe global cooling that could destroy crops across much of the Northern Hemisphere for years. Southern Hemisphere countries, with their favorable climates and productive farmland, would be better positioned to maintain food supplies and support survivors.

The threat of radiation, ozone layer depletion, and dramatic temperature drops would further endanger populations. Without viable agriculture, survivors could face extreme food shortages, forcing reliance on underground shelters and creating intense competition for resources.

Atmospheric scientist Owen Toon’s studies suggest that a full-scale nuclear conflict could kill billions through famine and environmental collapse. In such a scenario, countries like New Zealand and Australia may become critical refuges for those who survive the initial strikes.

Within the United States, regions near major military installations—such as Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota—would be primary targets. States farther from these facilities, including Maine, New Hampshire, and Florida, could experience less immediate destruction, though long-term challenges like radiation exposure and food scarcity would still pose serious risks.

Ultimately, survival in a nuclear conflict depends on a combination of geography, agricultural capacity, and distance from likely targets. While no location can be considered completely safe, New Zealand and Australia stand out as some of the most viable options, thanks to their isolation and ability to sustain food production in a global crisis.