A list of 'safest' countries to seek shelter as World War III fear looms

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has once again raised fear that
World War III
might break out. Israel has carried out wide-ranging military strikes on Iran, hitting sites including some of its most important nuclear installations.
Iran's supreme leader warned that any US strike on his country will have serious consequences, and Iran will not accept any peace imposed by force. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was responding, via a statement on state Television, to US President Donald Trump calling for Iran to surrender, as the conflict between Israel and Iran threatens to escalate even further.
ALSO READ:
Big worry for Iran emerges as it 'struggles' to keep up with Israel amid World War III fear
Countries to seek refuge if WWIII breaks out
People across the globe are considering potential safe spots as the threat of another World War looms amid the rising tensions in the Middle East. The mid-east region currently remains a tensed region with the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza with the situation taking a turn for the worse last week when Iran stepped into the fray, adding another layer to the already complex conflict.
Since last year, the world has been engaged in the highest number of conflicts since World War II, so it's understandable that many of us are wondering what to do in the event of a third world war. Here's a list of safest countries to move to if a third World War breaks out:
Live Events
-Antarctica:
Antarctica might be one of the safest spots to head to in case of a nuclear war, according to the map's creators suggestion. Due to its isolated location at the southernmost point on Earth, it holds little to no strategic value. Additionally, its vast expanse of 5.4 million square miles of untouched land offers ample space for thousands to seek refuge from potential conflict.
-Iceland:
Another potential safe haven could be Iceland, situated up north. In addition to its relative isolation, the country is recognized as one of the most peaceful in the world and is reportedly known for never having participated in any war or invasion.
ALSO READ:
VA spokesperson issues clarification on bombshell report claiming doctors can refuse treatment to Democrats
-South Africa:
South Africa is also in the list of a potential safe spot in the event of World War Three. With abundant food sources, fertile land, and access to freshwater, it offers strong prospects for self-sufficiency. Moreover, the modern infrastructure of South Africa also plays a crucial role.
-Fiji:
Fiji, a remote island nation, is situated approximately 2,700 miles from its nearest neighbor, Australia. With military presence, Fiji holds strategic importance and also ranks highly on the Global Peace Index and boasts rich natural resources.
-Chile:
Chile, a South American nation spanning more than 4,000 miles, has the potential to act as a strategic link between Moscow and Madrid. Abundant in diverse crops and natural resources essential for survival, it also stands out for having the most developed infrastructure on the continent.
-Argentina:
Argentina is considered one of the countries most likely to withstand a famine after a nuclear war. The South American nation is said to have a plentiful supply of crops, providing a significant food reserve even in the event of sunlight being blocked by nuclear fallout.
ALSO READ:
Kristi Noem's hospitalisation linked to her visit with RFK Jr to a controversial biohazard lab for Ebola, SARS-CoV-2?
-New Zealand
: At a time when fear of World War III looms, New Zealand could also be one of the countries where people can flee to escape. Ranked second on the Global Peace Index, the country has a longstanding record of neutrality in global conflicts. Its remote location and rugged mountainous terrain add a layer of natural defense against potential invasions and according to a report in Metro, this country is not on the radar list.
-Tuvalu:
Tuvalu, an island situated halfway between Hawaii and Australia, has a mere population of 11,000. The island's weak infrastructure and limited natural resources make it an unattractive target for potential aggressors.
ALSO READ:
'Razer blade throat': New Covid variant 'Nimbus' in US is causing very painful symptom. Check details
-Switzerland:
Long associated with peace and neutrality, Switzerland is considered one of the few countries that might endure a nuclear conflict. Its longstanding non-involvement in wars since World War II, along with its mountainous terrain, offers a strong natural defense and it is also equipped with an extensive network of nuclear fallout shelters.
-Greenland:
Greenland, the world's largest island and a territory of Denmark, is unlikely to ever be a real target for any global superpower due to its remote location, political neutrality, and small population of just 56,000.
-Indonesia:
Indonesia, though a smaller nation, has firmly stated that it will not align itself with any side in global conflicts. Its founding president, Achmed Sukarno, characterized the country's foreign policy as "free and active." Government leaders continue to emphasize Indonesia's independent approach to international relations, with a strong focus on promoting global peace.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

26 minutes ago

• Time of India

Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare

If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the profits. Banks are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the banks. The world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars more. Bloomberg Last year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil fuels. Live Events Banks saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their words. To meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right direction. Bloomberg Meanwhile, the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that time. You might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an emergency. But if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at risk. Given the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.

Economic Times

28 minutes ago

• Economic Times

Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare

Bloomberg Live Events Bloomberg (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future.A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.

News18

33 minutes ago

• News18

Iran Refuses Nuclear Talks With US After Trump's 2-Week Window As Israeli Strikes Continue

Last Updated: US Iran Nuclear Deal: US President Donald Trump said he would decide on military action against Iran in two weeks, citing 'substantial' potential for negotiations. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the US had asked Iran to negotiate for a deal, but Tehran refused, after US President Donald Trump said he would decide on military action in two weeks. 'The Americans have asked for negotiations, and our answer is no," Araghchi said in comments published by the Entekhab news outlet. He also said Trump's language around Israeli military actions shows Washington is already involved in the Israeli strikes. Araghchi said calls for ending the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have already begun and will continue to grow. 'We are engaged in legitimate self-defence, and this defence will not stop," he said. The Iranian foreign minister said the country is not prepared for any talks while Israeli strikes continue. Donald Trump's 2-Week Window His remarks came after Donald Trump said he will decide within the next two weeks whether the United States will launch an attack on Iran, citing 'substantial" chances of negotiations to reach a nuclear deal. At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out Trump's message, addressing speculation about direct American involvement in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump told aides he approved attack plans but is holding off to see if Iran will give up its nuclear programme. Iran's ally, Russia, said any US military action would be an 'extremely dangerous step". Meanwhile, European top diplomats are meeting with Araghchi in Geneva on Friday to discuss Iran's nuclear programme. Foreign ministers from France, Germany, Britain and the EU are urging de-escalation, with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy saying the next two weeks are 'a window… to achieve a diplomatic solution". The direct confrontation began after Israel launched an unprecedented wave of airstrikes on Iran last week, prompting a swift response from Tehran in the form of missile and drone attacks. More than 200 people, including military leaders, have been killed in Iran, while 24 casualties have been reported in Israel. (with agency inputs) First Published: