As the world continues to grapple with growing geopolitical instability, the fear of nuclear warfare has surged, making people question where they might find refuge in the event of a catastrophic global conflict. With major nations amassing nuclear arsenals, the possibility of a nuclear exchange looms large, leading many to consider what might happen if such a war were to break out. Would it be the end of civilization as we know it, or is there hope for survival somewhere on Earth? Surprisingly, the answer may not be as grim as many think, and the best options for safety may not be what you would expect. Contrary to the popular assumption that the safest place in the event of a nuclear disaster might be a military bunker or a remote, high-tech doomsday shelter, it turns out that the best places to be are in countries that are not directly involved in nuclear conflicts and have the means to support life in the aftermath of a global nuclear war.

The fact that some regions of the world might actually be safer than others in the event of a nuclear attack challenges many of the common assumptions we have about the inevitability of a global catastrophe. According to Annie Jacobsen, an investigative journalist and author known for her extensive research into defense and security matters, two countries stand out as potentially offering better chances of survival during and after a global nuclear conflict. In a conversation on The Diary of a CEO podcast with Steven Bartlett, Jacobsen outlined why countries in the Southern Hemisphere—specifically New Zealand and Australia—would likely offer the best odds of survival for people in the wake of such a catastrophic event. These nations, while often overlooked in global political discussions, are well-positioned to handle the long-term effects of nuclear winter, which would devastate much of the Northern Hemisphere.

The reasoning behind Jacobsen’s assertion is based on the unique geographical, environmental, and agricultural advantages these countries possess. According to Jacobsen, the Southern Hemisphere is far more likely to be able to sustain agriculture in the aftermath of a nuclear war, making it one of the most critical survival factors. “Places like Iowa and Ukraine would just be snow for 10 years,” Jacobsen explained. “So agriculture would fail, and when agriculture fails, people just die.” This insight stems from research on the potential impacts of a nuclear conflict, which suggest that a full-scale nuclear war could result in a catastrophic global cooling event known as nuclear winter. Such an event would drastically reduce temperatures worldwide, and in many regions, snow could persist for years, making it impossible to grow crops. With food supply chains severed, the ability to produce and distribute food would become nearly impossible in most parts of the world. This is where the Southern Hemisphere’s agricultural capacity becomes vital.

In addition to crop failures, Jacobsen warned that radiation and the destruction of the ozone layer would have even further detrimental effects on the Earth’s ecosystem. A nuclear exchange would unleash not only massive explosions but also large amounts of radioactive particles into the atmosphere, which would block sunlight and lead to what is known as “nuclear winter.” As temperatures plummeted, the sun’s rays would be obscured, resulting in a dramatic reduction in global agricultural yields. Without the ability to produce food, entire populations would be forced to fight for limited resources, with survival rates dwindling in places with a lack of agricultural infrastructure. Jacobsen stressed that this would push survivors into underground shelters, sparking fierce competition for food and resources. “Everywhere except for in New Zealand and Australia,” Jacobsen added. The fact that these countries are relatively isolated from the major nuclear powers of the Northern Hemisphere offers them a strategic advantage, as they are not likely to be targeted directly by nuclear missiles in the event of a full-scale war.

Jacobsen’s conclusions are supported by research conducted by Professor Owen Toon, an atmospheric scientist who has studied the impacts of nuclear warfare and its subsequent environmental consequences. Toon and his team updated the original nuclear winter theory, which was developed in the 1980s, by focusing on how a large-scale nuclear conflict would impact global food supplies. Their research suggests that a nuclear war would likely lead to the deaths of up to five billion people, with the majority succumbing to starvation as crops fail and food becomes scarce. This stark prediction raises the question of where the remaining three billion people would find refuge. According to Jacobsen, the answer lies in the Southern Hemisphere, specifically in countries like New Zealand and Australia, which are geographically distant from the major powers that would be targeted in a nuclear war.

One of the key advantages of these countries is their location. Both New Zealand and Australia are far removed from the nuclear-armed states that are most likely to be engaged in a global conflict. The lack of proximity to major military targets such as missile silos or nuclear infrastructure makes them less likely to be hit by the initial wave of nuclear strikes. In the case of a global nuclear war, many of the world’s major cities, military facilities, and strategic targets would be hit first, but New Zealand and Australia are geographically distant enough to avoid the worst of the immediate fallout. This separation provides an invaluable buffer that could help ensure the survival of the populations living in these countries. As Jacobsen points out, the strategic distance from potential nuclear targets is one of the most critical factors in their favor.