Nuclear war is one of the most feared disasters imaginable. With just a few missiles, entire cities could vanish. While the global risk remains low, rising tensions in parts of the world keep the possibility alive.
In such a scenario, where would you go to survive? Geography, population, politics, and isolation all matter. Some countries and regions are far from potential targets and could offer the best chance of long-term safety.
Here are some of the best places to consider if nuclear war ever becomes a reality.
Antarctica
Antarctica tops many lists as the safest place during nuclear war. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 bans any military activity, including nuclear weapons. It’s one of the few places on Earth designated for peaceful research only.
It’s also extremely remote—far from any likely targets. Most nuclear models show little fallout reaching this icy continent. However, it’s not easy to live there. The cold is extreme, supplies are limited, and permanent settlements are rare. Unless you’re a trained scientist with access to a research base, this is more theoretical than practical.
Iceland
Iceland is an excellent option for survival. It’s isolated, surrounded by the North Atlantic Ocean, and far from any conflict zones. The country has no military, making it an unlikely target. It also has a stable government and is considered one of the safest countries in the world.
Iceland runs almost entirely on geothermal and hydroelectric energy, which means it could maintain power even if global systems collapse. Though winters can be cold, the climate is milder than you might expect.
Greenland
Greenland is a massive island with a sparse population and little strategic importance. Most of its land is covered in ice sheets, making it unsuitable for major military or industrial activity.
While some U.S. military installations exist there, the overall threat is low. Its isolation and lack of major cities make it an unlikely target.
Canada
Canada has a large landmass, but its population is spread out. This makes it more resilient in the event of multiple strikes. Many rural areas are thousands of miles from major targets.
Though it’s a U.S. ally through NORAD, Canada itself is not a prime military target. The country also has a strong disaster response system, stable government, and ample freshwater resources.
Remote northern provinces or the Canadian Rockies would be among the safest areas within the country.
Australia
Australia is far from most global conflict zones and has a low population density outside of its major cities. Its size, natural resources, and isolated location make it a good choice.
Australia’s alliance with the U.S. could draw it into conflict, but most of the country’s landmass would remain untouched. Western Australia, particularly Perth, is the safest region because it’s away from government and military centers located in the east.
New Zealand
New Zealand is peaceful, politically neutral, and far from nuclear powers. It has no nuclear weapons and maintains a strong anti-nuclear policy.
Its Southern Hemisphere location also makes it less exposed to northern fallout patterns. The country has a temperate climate, clean environment, and sustainable agriculture, making long-term survival more feasible.
Easter Island
Easter Island, a territory of Chile, is over 2,000 miles from the nearest continent. Its remoteness makes it an unlikely target for nuclear weapons.
However, living there long-term would require strong self-sufficiency. The island is small and lacks large-scale infrastructure. Still, for those who value isolation, it’s a reasonable post-apocalyptic hideout.
Kiribati and the Marshall Islands
These tropical island chains are spread out across the Pacific Ocean. While they were once used for nuclear testing, today they offer isolation that would likely protect them in a future conflict.
The geographical spread and oceanic surroundings could reduce radiation exposure. However, rising sea levels and limited natural resources could present long-term challenges.
South Africa
South Africa has a history of nuclear development but dismantled its weapons program in the 1990s. It now plays a minimal role in global conflicts.
Its geographical location, political neutrality, and independent infrastructure make it a potential safe zone. English is widely spoken, and the country has large rural areas that could be useful for survival.
Argentina
Argentina is another Southern Hemisphere country that may be shielded from northern hemisphere fallout. It has limited involvement in global military alliances and a relatively isolated location.
Scientists have even modeled Argentina as one of the best places to avoid the agricultural collapse that could follow nuclear war.
French Polynesia
French Polynesia consists of over 400 islands, spread across the South Pacific. These islands are too scattered to be strategic military targets.
The region offers natural beauty and a relatively stable political status. The surrounding waters could absorb or delay nuclear fallout, and fishing-based communities might remain self-sufficient.
Denver, Colorado (USA)
If leaving the U.S. isn’t an option, Denver may be one of the safer American cities. It’s located far inland and is surrounded by mountains. Its high elevation could help reduce fallout concentration.
While nearby Cheyenne Mountain is a known military site, Denver itself is not a primary target. It also benefits from proximity to NORAD’s protective systems.
Tristan da Cunha
This small volcanic island in the South Atlantic is the most remote inhabited place on Earth. The nearest landmass is South Africa, about 1,700 miles away.
Tristan da Cunha has a small, self-sustaining population. People there live by fishing and farming. Its extreme isolation makes it very unlikely to be involved in any global conflict.
Maldives
Located in the middle of the Indian Ocean, the Maldives is a remote tropical nation. It has no history of civil war or military coups, making it one of the most politically peaceful countries.
Its isolation, beautiful environment, and stable government make it a unique haven in case of a nuclear event. However, being a low-lying island nation, rising sea levels pose a long-term risk.
Norway
Norway is peaceful, prosperous, and geographically distant from major European military targets. It is a NATO member, but its northern regions are remote and less likely to be targeted.
The country has excellent infrastructure and a strong civil defense network. Northern Norway or rural areas could be ideal safe zones.
Sweden
Sweden is known for its neutrality and low military profile. It has long avoided direct involvement in conflicts and maintains a strong civil preparedness system.
The country also has underground shelters and food stockpiles, making it better prepared than many others. Its large landmass and sparse population help reduce the risk of mass destruction.
Building an Underground Bunker
For those who don’t want to leave home, building a nuclear fallout shelter underground is an option—especially for the wealthy.
During the Cold War, many people built personal bunkers. These days, modern underground homes can be stocked with food, water, air filtration, and communication systems.
However, living underground has risks:
-
Radiation may still seep in through air or water sources.
-
Being near a major target makes underground living less viable.
-
Long-term isolation is mentally and physically taxing.
Still, if well-planned and located far from likely targets, underground shelters can offer protection.
Final Thoughts
While nuclear war remains unlikely, it’s not impossible. If the unthinkable does happen, geography could determine survival. Remote, peaceful, and politically neutral regions offer the best chances.
Countries in the Southern Hemisphere, like New Zealand, Argentina, and Australia, are top picks due to their distance from global powers. Isolated islands such as Tristan da Cunha, French Polynesia, and Easter Island offer peace through remoteness.
But no matter where you go, preparation matters. Understanding risks, planning your escape, and choosing the right location could make all the difference.