What Countries Would Be Safest In World War 3?

No one wants to think about the end of the world as we know it ... unless you're a part of R.E.M. or GenX, in which case, bring on the bologna and potato chip sandwiches, the sweatpants, Crocs, and Ramen, and let's get this show on the road. The history of nuclear weapons is a dark, horrible, incredibly awful chapter in history, and people being people, it's looking like things aren't going to get much better.

Although World Wars 1 and 2 are fading from living memory, they're not so far in the past that we've completely forgotten just what kind of widespread death and destruction they brought. We're also pretty realistic about the possibility of World War 3, and it's safe to say that nuclear bombs — much more powerful than those that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki — will be in play. Isn't it a grand time to be alive? Some countries will be first on the hit list, but what about safe spaces? 

While we should all probably learn how to maximize our chances of surviving a nuclear attack, the best idea probably involves being well out of the action in the first place. But ... where is that? We hear all about the hotspots all day long, but what are the countries that are going to present the human race with the best chance of survival? Let's talk about the places on Earth that just might become the "Cradle of Life" after we hit the big ol' reset button on ourselves.

(After you've learned where to survive World War 3, check this out to learn more horrifying facts about the largest nuclear weapon ever made.)

In 2022, Rutgers University spearheaded a study that looked at the consequences of the nuclear war that would inevitably come alongside World War 3. They were specifically interested in global food supplies following conflict, detonation, and nuclear winter, and it was pretty dire stuff. Nuclear weapons detonated on even a relatively small scale resulted in the decimation of the world's food production, and that's where Argentina comes in. In an interview with Science Friday, study leader Dr. Alan Robock suggested that the key to survival wasn't just being where the nukes weren't, but that it also meant being in a place that could sustain itself afterward. There is, after all, no point in surviving the initial conflict only to die of starvation, exposure, or some other horrible consequence in the following years, and Argentina just might have what it takes to survive.

When he name-checked Argentina as one of the likely candidates, he explained, "We assume that trade would stop. Like we hoarded toilet paper during the pandemic, people would keep their food. So a few countries that don't have many people, that are big exporters now, would have enough food — places like Argentina or Australia."

Tech innovator and entrepreneur Martin Varsavsky agrees, to the point where he and six others bought a ranch in Argentina to be sure they're prepared for just an eventuality. He explained on X (formerly known as Twitter) that Argentina was the perfect sanctuary: Along with citing agricultural self-sufficiency, he also pointed to their non-intervention policies, remoteness from conflict hotspots, and the fact that it's unlikely to be a major target.

Iceland is a bit of a tricky one. While it's likely to be impacted by the inevitable nuclear weapons that will be detonated as a part of World War 3, it does have some things going for it that make it likely to become a refuge — starting with the fact that while they don't bear the burden of funding and feeding a standing army, they do have coastal and air defense facilities. Even if it were to be a target, likelihood of a strike is small. That's the first very important step to safety.

They're one of a few countries named as a potential safe space in a 2022 study published in Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, which found that Iceland's location presented it with a unique benefit. Climate models suggest that the island nation would suffer impacts of nuclear winter that are much less pronounced than what would destroy other countries in the Northern Hemisphere. They also rely on hydroelectric power, are increasingly dependent on hydrogen fuel, and since they don't rely heavily on imports, the failure of the world's trade networks wouldn't be as badly felt.

Back in 2019, the Reykjavik Grapevine looked at how well-prepared to face nuclear threats Iceland was, and confirmed that there was a plan in place. That included increasing stocks of iodine tablets, which are life-saving in the case of nuclear fallout. Why? Taking iodine overloads the thyroid and prevents it from absorbing radioactive iodine-131, and there's even more good news for Iceland: Native species of kelp are an invaluable, naturally occurring source of this lifesaving mineral.

While many of the safer places in the world rely on being completely out of the way if World War 3 were to break out, Switzerland sits right in the middle of what's likely to be a major conflict. However, they have a few major things going for them, and that only starts with their long-standing policy of neutrality. Switzerland's neutrality policy is among the oldest in the world and held through the first two world wars, so projecting it's going to last through the third isn't much of a leap.

But they also have something else: A massive series of nuclear shelters with enough space for each and every person ... and then some. As of 2022, Switzerland has a population of 8.6 million, and bunkers that could support almost 9 million people. And they're everywhere: Shelters were largely built during the Cold War, were constructed inside and beneath buildings, and have been used for everything from storage to wine cellars in the decades since.

They're outfitted with everything that anyone would need to survive World War 3 and a nuclear attack, and Nicola Squillaci — head of Geneva's civil protection and military affairs division — explained, "It is like a capsule, with airlocks on emergency exits and main exits. If the building were to collapse, the shelter would remain intact." They were built alongside the popularization of the phrase, "Neutrality is no guarantee against radioactivity," and Switzerland's population has also been prepped to know exactly what to do in case World War 3 does happen.

When Dr. Becky Alexis-Martin of the University of Southampton and Dr. Thom Davies of the University of Warwick decided to use computer models to simulate the massive nuclear annihilation that would likely come with World War 3, they found that getting the farthest away from conflict and nuclear detonation hotspots really did make a difference. Where better to do that than in the middle of the Pacific?

In a piece for The Guardian, they wrote that Easter Island, the Marshall Islands, and Kiribati would likely present some kind of safety for those living there. Similarly, a study published in Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society added the Solomon Islands (pictured) and Vanuatu to that list. Countless other small islands would undoubtedly afford much the same protections as these, and while creature comforts that we've become used to might become scarce, that's a small price to pay for life. Isn't it?

Study authors found that many of these island nations had maintained lifestyles that allowed them to flourish under circumstances that many other nations would flounder under. They cited things like continued reliance on what they described as "traditional and low-technology production methods," which would allow civilizations to continue to produce food and other essentials in the face of a loss of imports, communications, and trade options. Add in the fact that some are close enough to maintain a relationship with Australia and New Zealand, and it seems likely that these isolated island nations could provide some of the best options for surviving World War 3.