Map shows safest countries to be in if global conflict breaks out

As the US joins Israel in its strikes on Iran and its nuclear facilities and Iran retaliates with attacks on Israel, fears have grown over 'World War 3' breaking out.
Overnight 20 Israeli jets targeted military infrastructure in Kermansh in western Iran and vowed to continue hitting the country, while they also continue to pummel Gaza and its people.
Iran meanwhile appears to have fired just the one drone towards Israel overnight, which Israeli officials say was shot down.
It's not clear if their limited response is down to a depleted missile capacity or if the Iranian leadership is just considering its next move.
But United Nations ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told an emergency meeting of the US Security Council on Sunday he feared the conflict would escalate significantly, saying 'no one knows what new catastrophes and suffering it [the Israeli attacks on Iran] will bring.'
He said Russia offered to mediate an agreeable solution to Iran's nuclear programme, but the US – especially its leaders – are 'clearly not interested in diplomacy today.'
Nebenzia warned: 'Unless we stop the escalation, the Middle East will find itself on the verge of a large scale conflict with unpredictable consequences for the entire international security system, plus the entire world might end up on the verge of a nuclear disaster.'
There are also ongoing fears war between the west and Russia could break out after an escalation in nuclear threats from Putin.
Vladimir Putin previously said he he had lowered the bar for carrying out a nuclear strike.
Russia's official nuclear doctrine, which previously said the country could only use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack, last year said the country can use such weapons in response to conventional strikes.
Analysts said the move was an open threat to the US and UK, who allowed Ukraine to fire longer-range Western-supplied missiles into Russia.
Open conflict between the powers would likely drag in allies from across the globe.
If 'World War III' did break out, however, some parts of the world are likely to avoid the brunt. Here we take a closer look at where might be a sensible place to hide out.
The continent sits at the most southerly point of the planet making it one of the safest places to survive a nuclear war.
There is an enormous geographic distance between Antarctica and countries with nuclear warheads.
With more than 14 million square kilometres, there is plenty of room for people to take refuge.
But some may find the icy and freezing climate unforgiving.
Iceland has earned a reputation as one of the most peaceful countries in the world.
The country has consistently topped the Global Peace Index, having never taken part in a full-scale war or invasion.
Iceland's government has signed bilateral agreements with Ukraine, although its support is limited to financing and a small amount of transportation.
A relatively remote island geographically, it would avoid the effects of conventional war in Europe – although the fallout of widespread nuclear strikes on the mainland would likely reach its shores in small amounts.
New Zealand ranks second in the Global Peace Index and has taken a neutral stance on most conflicts.
The country also has a mountainous terrain making it easier for citizens to be protected.
The Kiwi government has provided financial support to Ukraine's military and assisted in action against Russia in the International Court of Justice.
However it is extremely unlikely to face any attacks in the event of a Western conflict with Russia.
This country is the most readily associated with political neutrality, even during World War Two.
It is well protected by its terrain, landlocked geography and various nuclear shelters.
Switzerland is one of the few European countries not to have provided assistance to Ukraine, and has even been accused of favouring Russia through its neutrality – so Putin is unlikely to see it as an enemy.
The Swiss government has blocked the delivery of Swiss-made weapons and ammo bought from other European countries who blocked them.
Greenland is the world's largest island and it belongs to Denmark.
It is geographically remote, and politically neutral.
The island's current population of 56,000 people means it is unlikely to be targeted by any superpower.
Indonesia has often taken a neutral stance on political issues, with the country's first president, Achmed Sukarno, describing their foreign policy as 'free and active'.
They act independently within international affairs, and say they are most concerned with world peace.
Tuvalu is located in the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Hawaii and Australia.
Only 11,000 people live on the island and it has weak infrastructure.
It also has a limited number of natural resources, meaning it would make an undesirable target to any aggressors.
Although Argentina has engaged in conflict, most notably during the Falklands War in 1982, the country is one of the most likely places to survive famine.
The country has an abundance of crop, including wheat, which means if nuclear dust were to block the sun, Argentinians will already have crops in supply.
In 1971 Bhutan declared itself neutral in regards to any conflict after joining the United Nations.
It is also landlocked and surrounded by mountainous regions, making it easier to defend the country.
The country's 4,000 mile long coastline spans the distance between Moscow and Madrid.
Chile is also home to a variety of different crops and natural resources, making survival easier.
Its infrastructure and development is also considered the most advanced in South America.
The island nation is 2,700 miles away from its closest country Australia.
Along with a lack of clear military strategy and an army consisting of just 6,000 soldiers, Fiji ranks highly on the Global Peace Index. More Trending
Much of the island is also made up of dense forests, minerals and fishing spots.
South Africa is home to multiple sources of food, fertile land and fresh water, making survival easy.
The country's modern infrastructure could also increase chances of survival as these resources are managed.
This is an updated version of a previous article published November 22, 2024.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Iran threatens to return '50,000 US soldiers in coffins' after Trump's strikes
MORE: Meet Britain's Doomsday preppers stockpiling for World War Three
MORE: Four places which could be safe if World War Three erupts – including one in UK

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

27 minutes ago

• The Independent

‘Morning Joe' stands up for Trump on Iran strikes and says even Hillary Clinton would have bombed nuke sites

MSNBC star Joe Scarborough came to the defense of his one-time pal Donald Trump on Monday morning, insisting that the president's decision to drop over a dozen bunker-busting bombs on Iran's fortified nuclear facilities would have been made by his predecessors — and Trump's 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton. On Saturday, the United States joined Israel's military campaign against Iran that is aimed at destroying the Middle Eastern adversary's nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming Tehran was just weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb — an assertion he's made for decades now. 'Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!' Trump boasted on Truth Social about 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' though experts say satellite imagery reveals the nation's nuclear program is 'far from destroyed.' Meanwhile, after Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth both insisted on Sunday that America wasn't looking for a protracted war that would include toppling Iran's government, the president sang a different tune just hours later. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday afternoon. While a new poll shows Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's decision to bomb Iran and worry that it will make the US less safe, Scarborough – an early and vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War – said on Monday's broadcast of Morning Joe that any other president would have handled the situation the same as Trump. 'The president had no good options,' Scarborough declared. 'What would Monday look like if he hadn't have moved, if Iran wasn't already at 60 percent, and an ability to create nuclear weapons in a short matter of time, right? … I'm not championing either side of this.' Turning to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, the Morning Joe host asserted that the president had enough buy-in from the international community to take military action against Iran, adding that other Republican and Democratic commanders-in-chief would have felt obliged to do the same thing. 'I ask you, how difficult would it have been for any president to not take that shot if they knew that Iran was even being attacked by the United Nations?' Scarborough wondered. 'I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, you know, go down the list, any president wouldn't have felt compelled to take that strike.' Agreeing with the host, Ignatius said that Trump 'inherited' the war plans with Iran from his predecessors, adding that this would have been what they considered if they found 'diplomacy wasn't working.' At the same time, he said Trump's 'choices were debased at the moment' and the president 'had to make a decision.'Elsewhere in the show, Scarborough also invoked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to observe that the president had only 'difficult choices' in front of him when it came to Iran. 'Henry Kissinger famously said that when you're sitting in the White House and trying to make a decision on foreign policy, the possibility of war, you're never handed a good decision and a bad decision. You're handed two very difficult choices,' he stated. 'And the president made that choice.' While Scarborough and his wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski have been loud critics of the president for years now, that wasn't always the case. Considering him a longtime personal friend, the couple provided Trump a hefty boost in the nascent days of his 2016 presidential campaign, giving the then-reality TV star free rein of their program while promoting his candidacy. Though there would be a bitter split between the Morning Joe hosts and Trump prior to his winning the 2016 election, which would include the president peddling wild conspiracy theories about Scarborough killing an intern, the icy relationship may have begun to thaw in recent months. The couple traveled to Mar-a-Lago for an off-the-record huddle with Trump after his electoral victory in November, prompting viewers to briefly boycott Morning Joe over the perceived 'kissing the ring' trip. As for Scarborough's own foreign policy views, the former GOP congressman was a fervent supporter of invading Iraq over the George W. Bush administration's claims that the country was developing weapons of mass destruction. Though he has tried over the years to selectively criticize other cheerleaders of that war without pointing that finger at himself, Scarborough spent the early months of the Iraq War raging at news outlets, media figures and politicians he felt were too negative and critical about the US-led invasion. 'These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass,' he ranted in April 2003 to then-MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. 'Isn't it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?!'

Sky News

32 minutes ago

• Sky News

Israeli ambassador says Hamas to blame as she is challenged on deaths of children in Gaza

Israel's ambassador to the UK has insisted children have "never" been targeted in Gaza and said Hamas should be blamed for every death. Tzipi Hotovely was challenged on the deaths of innocent civilians by Wilfred Frost after two British surgeons, who have worked in Gaza during the Israeli bombardment, filmed video blogs for Sky News. He asked how many children it is "legitimate and proportionate" to kill, including those being treated in hospital, in order to kill Hamas terrorists. Ms Hotovely said Israel was "not there to kill anyone" and "never targets civilians", with its attacks complying with international law. 27:55 Dr Victoria Rose, a consultant plastic surgeon, who has worked in Gaza hospitals for three separate periods, previously told Sky she felt the number of children coming through the doors was "barbaric". She said there were "more innocent children, let alone adults, that are dying per Hamas scalp that you see". Asked about her account, Ms Hotovely said: "We never targeted the children, it's Hamas that needs to be blamed…But they need to blame Hamas for creating this reality for the Palestinian people." She added: "For every life lost in Gaza, you need to blame Hamas for committing the crimes on 7 October and for committing the war crimes by using people as human shields." Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted 251 people in the October 7 2023 attack. The group is still holding 50 hostages, with less than half of them believed to be alive. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, which has said women and children make up more than half of the dead. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Ms Hotovely said Israel is "not interested in wars", adding: "So we are asking a very simple request from the international community - pressure Hamas to release our hostages and we will have a better condition to get to a ceasefire."

The Guardian

34 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Zohran Mamdani appears to pull ahead of Andrew Cuomo, according to new poll

Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, has drawn level with Andrew Cuomo in the city's primary, according to a new poll, as voters brave record-breaking temperatures to cast their ballots. Mamdani, a 33-year-old New York assemblyman, may even be leading Cuomo, the 67-year-old former governor and scion of a prominent New York political family, if the poll's simulation of the system of ranked-choice voting is correct. A survey by Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill, found that Cuomo led Mamdani 35% to 32% – within the margin of error – for first-choice votes but when calculated by voters' final round choices, with six other candidates eliminated, Mamdani came out on top at 52% to Cuomo's 48%. Under the new 'ranked choice' system, voters select their top five candidates in order of preference. If no candidate surpasses 50% in the first round of voting, the candidate who's last is eliminated and their votes are redistributed. That could, in theory, favor candidates that have not until now featured strongly in the polls, including comptroller Brad Lander, who was last week detained by Ice agents, or Adrienne Adams, the city council speaker, or Scott Stringer, the former comptroller. But the mayoral primary does not include Eric Adams, the current Democratic mayor who has decided to run in November's election as an independent after becoming embroiled in a fundraising scandal. Cuomo, too, is still tarred by the sexual harassment claims that forced him to resign as governor in 2021. The down-ticket race also features another New Yorker, or 'boomerang candidate', with a clouded reputation. Anthony Weiner, subject of multiple sexting scandals, is running for the city council. Cuomo has led the polls until now, but Mamdani has surged in recent weeks, setting up a contest between a centrist and a progressive that may, or may not, indicate the direction of travel for Democrats nationally. Both factions of the party will welcome a win as significantly indicative. Cuomo, whose campaign is lavishly backed by some of New York's richest people, is endorsed by Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, as well as Bill Clinton and Jim Clyburn, the influential South Carolina congressman. Meanwhile Mamdani scored endorsements from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, but not the New York Times editorial board, which called him 'uniquely unsuited' for the city's challenges. The race between the leading candidates has been colored by international politics, with some accusing Mamdani of being antisemitic after he defended the phrase 'globalize the intifada'. Mamdani says the phrase has been deliberately misinterpreted to smear him and others who stand up for Palestinian rights. After the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities at the weekend, Mamdani slammed the military action as heralding a 'dark new chapter' for America. 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' he said on X, and said the 'unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos.' Cuomo later addressed the subject: 'Iran cannot have nuclear capability. That's number one,' he said. 'It's dangerous, not only for the region, it's dangerous internationally. It's dangerous for the United States.'