It’s an uncomfortable thought, but with today’s headlines full of escalating tensions, many people can’t help wondering where they would be safest if World War III ever became a reality.
The global atmosphere is anything but calm. War continues in Ukraine, NATO reports repeated airspace incidents, tensions around Taiwan remain high, the Middle East is perpetually volatile, and missile tests from North Korea are no longer shocking—they’re expected.
Several European countries have already issued civilian survival guidelines, and some schools have been instructed to prepare students for wartime scenarios. Add to that rising friction between major powers across multiple regions, and it’s no surprise people are quietly asking: Is there anywhere truly safe?
The honest answer is this: no place would be completely untouched. But some locations are far better positioned than others due to isolation, neutrality, geography, and self-sufficiency.
Here are some of the safest places in the world—spread across continents—if the unthinkable were to happen.
New Zealand
New Zealand is often considered the ultimate “last refuge.” Its nearest neighbor is over 1,200 miles away, and it sits far from major military flashpoints.
While it cooperates with Western alliances, it is not a high-value military target. Ranked among the most peaceful countries globally, New Zealand is highly self-reliant, rich in agriculture, fresh water, and renewable energy.
Studies repeatedly rank it as one of the best places to survive a global collapse or nuclear scenario.
Iceland
Consistently ranked as one of the world’s most peaceful nations, Iceland’s remote position in the North Atlantic gives it a major advantage.
Despite being a NATO member, it lacks a standing army and has minimal strategic value in conventional warfare. Its isolation, geothermal energy, and low population density make it far safer than mainland Europe.
While nuclear fallout could theoretically drift from afar, Iceland would likely avoid direct conflict.
Chile
Chile benefits from powerful natural defenses. The Andes Mountains shield it from the east, while the Pacific Ocean isolates it from the west.
South America as a whole sits far from the world’s primary military flashpoints, and Chile’s long coastline provides both isolation and access to resources.
The country is agriculturally strong, resource-rich, and relatively stable, making it one of the safest options in the Southern Hemisphere.
Botswana
Southern Africa is distant from global power struggles, and Botswana stands out as one of the region’s most stable and peaceful nations.
It avoids major alliances, maintains internal stability, and possesses significant natural resources. Other remote areas in southern Africa may offer similar advantages, but Botswana consistently ranks among the safest.
Bhutan
Hidden deep within the Himalayas, Bhutan is one of the most geographically protected countries on Earth.
Its rugged terrain makes access extremely difficult, and its policy of neutrality keeps it far from global power conflicts. With no aggressive military posture and minimal strategic value, Bhutan would likely be ignored in a global war scenario.
Switzerland
Switzerland has built its reputation on neutrality for over 200 years—and backed it up with preparation.
Its mountainous terrain, underground infrastructure, and widespread bomb shelters offer unparalleled civil defense. Nearly every citizen has access to a nuclear shelter, and the country produces much of its own food.
Switzerland has avoided direct involvement in modern conflicts and remains one of Europe’s safest refuges in a global crisis.
Antarctica
Not a country—but arguably the most isolated place on Earth.
No permanent population. No military bases used for warfare. No strategic targets.
Survival would be extremely challenging without preparation, but from a conflict perspective, Antarctica would be untouched by global war.
Argentina
Argentina’s vast landmass and agricultural power make it unusually resilient.
The country produces enormous quantities of food and remains largely outside modern geopolitical conflicts. Its distance from major military powers adds another layer of safety.
In scenarios involving famine or nuclear winter, Argentina’s food production could prove life-saving.
Fiji
Fiji lies thousands of miles from major nations and has little military relevance.
With a small defense force and a history of avoiding major conflicts, the island nation consistently ranks high on global peace indexes.
Its isolation and natural resources make it one of the safer options in the Pacific.
Remote regions of Canada
Canada’s major cities may be vulnerable due to alliances, but the country’s vast interior tells a different story.
Remote areas offer clean water, wilderness, low population density, and the ability to live far from strategic targets. In a global conflict, distance and obscurity could mean survival.
Small Pacific island nations
Countries like Tuvalu, Samoa, and Kiribati are nearly invisible on the global stage.
They have no strategic military value, no enemies, and minimal involvement in international conflicts. In a world at war, being overlooked might be the greatest advantage of all.
Final thought
In a global war, safety wouldn’t depend on luxury or power—but on distance, neutrality, self-sufficiency, and geography. While no place would be perfectly safe, some regions offer far better odds of survival than others.
Leave a Reply