As global tensions rise and nuclear threats reappear in headlines, many wonder whether any place on Earth could truly remain safe in the event of a large-scale nuclear conflict. While experts emphasize that such a scenario is unlikely, the destructive potential of modern arsenals makes the question impossible to ignore. Survival would depend not only on immediate protection from blasts but also on enduring the long-term consequences, such as famine, climate disruption, and social collapse. Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen has argued that some regions might offer better odds for long-term survival than others. In particular, she highlights New Zealand and Australia, not merely because they could avoid explosions, but because their geography, climate, and food production systems may make them more resilient to the prolonged global famine predicted under nuclear winter scenarios.
Jacobsen discussed these considerations during an appearance on The Diary of a CEO, hosted by entrepreneur Steven Bartlett. She emphasized that countries in the Southern Hemisphere are positioned to better weather the aftermath of nuclear exchange due to relative isolation from major nuclear powers and strategic targets. The primary concern is nuclear winter—a phenomenon in which widespread firestorms would inject soot and smoke into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight and drastically cooling global temperatures. This reduction in sunlight could collapse agricultural systems, particularly in Northern Hemisphere “breadbasket” regions like the American Midwest and Eastern Europe. Jacobsen noted that the resulting famine could potentially claim far more lives than the blasts themselves, illustrating that survival depends as much on long-term food security as on avoiding immediate destruction.
Central to these predictions is the research of atmospheric scientist Owen Toon, whose team has modeled the climatic effects of nuclear war. Their simulations suggest that even a limited exchange between major nuclear powers could inject enough soot into the atmosphere to severely disrupt global food production. In worst-case scenarios, billions could face starvation. Nuclear winter would not be the only danger: ozone layer depletion, increased ultraviolet radiation, and radioactive contamination could make agriculture unsafe in many regions. Jacobsen interprets this research as evidence that countries with resilient food systems, lower population density, and geographic insulation—like New Zealand and Australia—would have a comparatively higher chance of survival through prolonged disruption.
Geography and distance from primary military targets play a crucial role in this assessment. Both New Zealand and Australia are far removed from the Northern Hemisphere’s largest nuclear powers and the majority of missile silos, air bases, and command centers that would likely be targeted in a full-scale nuclear exchange. By contrast, countries like the United States contain numerous strategic military installations, including intercontinental ballistic missile fields in states such as Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota. Scientific analyses have highlighted that these sites could be neutralized with high-yield warheads, producing catastrophic fireballs, shockwaves, and widespread radioactive fallout. Thus, proximity to military infrastructure sharply increases the risk of direct attack, whereas more remote nations may avoid the worst immediate consequences.
Even within the United States, publications like Newsweek have explored which states might be least likely to face direct hits. Areas far from missile silos or nuclear command facilities could avoid initial devastation, but no region would be immune from the global fallout of a nuclear conflict. Wind currents could carry radioactive particles over great distances, and nuclear winter effects would disrupt agriculture and ecosystems regardless of location. Jacobsen and other analysts emphasize that long-term survival hinges on a nation’s ability to produce sufficient food domestically, particularly in temperate climates less affected by extreme cooling. Countries capable of sustaining their populations independently would have a comparative advantage in enduring extended crises, highlighting that blast avoidance alone is insufficient.
Despite potential geographic advantages, experts stress that no location would be entirely safe. Global interconnectedness means that economic collapse, refugee crises, and political instability would accompany environmental disruption. Even regions like New Zealand and Australia, statistically better positioned to survive, would face immense challenges maintaining infrastructure, healthcare, and societal cohesion. The key takeaway from these discussions is preventative: nuclear winter modeling underscores the catastrophic humanitarian cost of nuclear warfare, reinforcing the critical importance of arms control and diplomatic engagement. In the end, while some regions may fare better than others, the only truly safe outcome is the prevention of nuclear conflict itself. Any scenario involving large-scale exchanges would have planet-wide consequences, making global cooperation and disarmament the essential path to survival.
