Where to Go If World War III Breaks Out: The Safest Places to Duck and Cover

Where to Go If World War III Breaks Out: The Safest Places to Duck and Cover

As tensions rise among global powers, the hypothetical question of World War III looms larger. In such a catastrophic scenario, survival depends on location. While no place on Earth is guaranteed safe, some regions offer better odds than others. Here's an exploration of the safest havens in case geopolitical tensions ignite into global conflict.

Understanding the Risks

World War I and II were vast in scale, but a third global war would surpass them due to advancements in missile technology and the interconnectivity of modern nations. Missiles can now travel thousands of miles in minutes, and the central battlefields of such a war—likely Eastern Europe, the Korean Peninsula, and parts of the Middle East—would be complemented by missile threats that span the globe.

To maximize safety, a location should ideally meet four conditions:

1. Neutrality: Avoid involvement in global geopolitical rivalries.
2. Irrelevance: Steer clear of strategic locations or valuable resources.
3. Non-targeted: Be unlikely to host military installations or operations.
4. Remoteness: Stay far from primary battlefronts to avoid collateral damage.

The Pacific Islands: Isolation in Paradise

Certain tropical islands in the Pacific stand out as promising safe zones. Countries like Fiji and Tuvalu are far from potential battlefields and lack significant strategic importance.

• Fiji:

With its archipelago of 300 islands, Fiji offers ample space for relocation. Its minimal military presence and lack of alliances make it an unlikely target. Located over 1,900 miles from Australia, Fiji is well out of the way of major conflict zones.

• Tuvalu:

Even more remote, Tuvalu’s small population (about 11,000) and lack of strategic value ensure minimal interest from warring powers. Its isolation could be its greatest asset.

However, reaching these islands during wartime might require significant effort, as commercial air travel would likely be disrupted.

New Zealand: A Developed and Remote Haven

For those seeking a modern infrastructure and relative isolation, New Zealand offers an ideal middle ground. Positioned over 2,000 miles southeast of Australia, New Zealand is far from Indo-Pacific hot zones.

While New Zealand is part of security arrangements like the Five Eyes network, it is not as directly involved in military alliances as some of its peers. Its self-sufficiency in food production and resources like timber and hydroelectric energy bolster its appeal. Additionally, its vast rural areas and protected lands provide ample hiding spots if needed.

Iceland: A Northern Refuge

For those in the Northern Hemisphere, Iceland emerges as a viable option. Despite being a NATO member and its location near the strategic GIUK Gap (a key maritime chokepoint), Iceland’s isolation and lack of a standing military reduce its attractiveness as a target.

Iceland’s self-sufficiency in energy—thanks to geothermal and hydroelectric power—and abundant fishing resources further enhance its appeal. Staying clear of military installations, such as the Keflavik base, would increase your chances of avoiding collateral damage.

Greenland: Remote and Rugged

If you prefer extreme isolation, Greenland might be your best bet. As a Danish territory and part of NATO, Greenland could theoretically be drawn into conflict, but its vast size and low population density make it a low-priority target.

Heading north, away from the GIUK Gap and learning to live off the land and marine resources, would increase your chances of survival.

South America: The Far South

South America is generally detached from major global conflicts, making it a promising refuge. Chile stands out as a safe and relatively modern country.

• Chile:

Stretching along the Pacific Ocean, Chile is shielded by the Andes Mountains and is well-equipped to grow food locally. Its reliance on renewable energy and stable infrastructure add to its appeal.

For the truly adventurous, the Brazilian rainforest offers isolation, though surviving there without prior experience might pose significant challenges.

Africa: Safety in the South

Africa’s relative detachment from global conflicts makes it another viable option, particularly in the south.

• South Africa:

While South Africa has high crime rates and an ongoing energy crisis, it remains far from potential World War III battlefields. The country’s abundant seafood and vibrant cities, such as Cape Town, offer both sustenance and comfort.

Final Considerations

While these locations provide some safety, they are not foolproof. Even remote areas could experience secondary effects, such as disrupted supply chains and environmental consequences. A small-scale nuclear exchange, for instance, could trigger global climate shifts, making survival even in "safe zones" precarious.

The best plan involves preparation and adaptability. Stock up on essentials, learn basic survival skills, and remain informed about geopolitical developments. In an interconnected world, distance may offer some protection—but no place is completely immune to the consequences of global conflict.