Florida's Hellenic Newspaper and Hellenic Radio, based in Miami
The Greek News and Greek Radio in FL

To those who think that Greece does not matter today, let me say that they could not make a bigger mistake. Today, like old Greece, is of the utmost importance for anyone looking to find himself.

Henry Miller, 1891-1980, American author

Florida's Hellenic Newspaper and Hellenic Radio, based in Miami
The Greek News and Greek Radio in FL

Subscribe to our newspaper
Which countries would be safest in the event of a 'World War III'

Which countries would be safest in the event of a 'World War III'

Editorial team
13 May, 2024

There is no truly safe place on Earth. Only "safer" places.

And not for everyone, but certainly for the powerful and super-rich of the planet who can move

Because Switzerland is among them


Although World Wars 1 and 2 are fading from people's memory, they are not so far in the past that we have completely forgotten the magnitude of death and destruction they caused.

With wars breaking out in almost every corner of the globe, fears of a spiraling path to World War III continue to mount.

A war is in full swing in Europe, another in the Middle East, and with China eyeing Taiwan, people may wonder where in the world they will stay safe if conflicts continue to erupt.

A 3rd World War would probably be the most dangerous armed conflict the world has ever known. With nine states possessing nuclear weapons – the US, the UK, Russia, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – the world's nations have never been better equipped.

If a global conflict turns out to be a massive nuclear event – ​​as we all fear – there is no truly safe place on Earth. Only "safer" places. And not for everyone, but certainly for the powerful and super-rich of the planet who can move

According with computer simulations conducted by Dr. Becky Alexis-Martin of the University of Southampton and Dr. Thom Davies of the University of Warwick the best "refuges" on the planet are the following:



Scientists found that the continent somewhat protected by some of its features such as its decidedly remote location, the long-standing ban on nuclear weapons and the simple fact that there would be no compelling reason for belligerent countries to waste resources to destroy it with nukes.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be affected. Research conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that among the lasting effects of nuclear war it would be widespread climate change, including polar warming, that will bring significant changes for Antarctica.

Like what; Nuclear war and global warming would cause up to 30% of the sea ice surrounding the continent to melt, causing temperatures to plummet and sea levels to rise, meaning that it would not be safe to settle in all of Antarctica.

Coasts would likely flood in a domino of shifting, warmer winds, warming oceans, and melting ice, so if Antarctica is the final destination, it's best to stay off the coast.



In 2022, Rutgers University pioneered a study that examined the consequences of nuclear war considering it inevitable in the event of a 3rd World War. In particular they focused on the issue of food supply after the conflict, the explosion and the nuclear winter.

Firing nuclear weapons even on a relatively small scale would have an effect the decimation of global food production, and this is where Argentina comes in. In an interview with Science Friday, study leader Dr. Alan Robock appreciated that the key to survival would be not just being where there were no nukes, but also being in a place that could be maintained afterwards.

There is, after all, no reason to survive the initial conflict only to die of starvation, radiation exposure, or some other horrific consequence years later, and Argentina may have what it takes to survive.

When mentioning Argentina as one of the possible candidate countries, he explained: “We assume that trade will stop. Just as we collected toilet paper during the pandemic, people will conserve their food supplies. So, some countries, big exporters that don't have many inhabitants, would have enough food, like Argentina or Australia".

Tech innovator and entrepreneur Martin Varsavsky agrees, to the point where he and six others bought a ranch in Argentina to make sure they are prepared for such an eventuality.

As he posted on X (formerly Twitter) that Argentina was the perfect refuge: Along with the invocation of agricultural self-sufficiency, also pointed out the policies of non-intervention, the distance from hotbeds of conflict and the fact that it is unlikely to be a significant target.


Australia's position it places it on the other side of the planet from where nuclear weapons are likely to be developed, giving her a kind of protection, although it will suffer the effects of the soot that will end up in the air.

In a study published in Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society in 2022, Australia was cited as one of the best places to be in the event of a nuclear war. Why; In addition to its food production capabilities, it earned points for its self-sufficiency in energy production, use and surplus, the solids, reliable infrastructure, the local governments that are able to organize the response to natural disasters such as fires and floods, the presence of nearby trading partners, sustainable healthcare and a capable military.


While it is likely to be affected by nuclear weapons, it has some advantages which make it capable of being a haven – starting with the fact that while it does not bear the burden of financing and feeding a standing army, it has coastal and air defense facilities. Even if it was a target, the chance of a hit is small. This is the first very important step towards security.

It is one of the few countries named as a potential safe space in a 2022 study published in Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, which found that Iceland's position gives it a unique advantage. Climate models show that the island nation would suffer the effects of nuclear winter , but it would be much less intense of those that would destroy other countries in the northern hemisphere.

Also, based on hydroelectricity, uses more and more the hydrogen fuel and, as it is not heavily dependent on imports, the collapse of global trade networks would not be felt as strongly.

In 2019, Reykjavik Grapevine elooked at how well prepared Iceland was to deal with nuclear threats and found that a plan was in place. This included increasing the stocks of iodine tablets, which are life-saving in the event of a nuclear explosion. Taking iodine prevents the thyroid from absorbing radioactive iodine-131.

Native species of algae are an invaluable, natural source of this life-saving element.

new Zealand

A 2022 study published in Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society found that there are many similarities between New Zealand and Australia in terms of the ability to survive World War III and a massive nuclear incident.

Like Australia, so is New Zealand it was deemed capable of producing enough food to sustain its population, especially if dairy exports were stopped and instead given to its own inhabitants. It was also found to be against 76% energy self-sufficient.

The authors of the study however, they pointed out the difficulties that would be caused by the disruption of commercial networks, saying that the difficulties of moving products between its islands would likely put a huge strain on energy resources. also, is based on imports for key items such as chemicals, oil and rubber, which could eventually lead to something of a domino effect.

Removing building blocks could destabilize the entire nation, so New Zealand's place on the list comes with a caveat.

The authors of the study write: “This situation may require the strict maintenance of law and order, especially if fuel, healthcare or even food needs to be rationed. In other words, he can survive, but in a "Mad Max" kind of way. Can an entire country work together to survive comfortably after a world war? Time may tell.


While many of the safest places in the world rely on being completely far from where World War III would break out, Switzerland is right in the middle of a potential major conflict.

However, it has some important advantages, and that starts with the long-standing policy of neutrality. Switzerland's policy of neutrality is one of the oldest in the world and lasted through the first two world wars, so predicting that it will last through the third war is not a big leap.

But they also have something else: A massive array of nuclear shelters with enough space for each person ... and more. From 2022, Switzerland it has a population of 8,6 million and warehouses that could support almost 9 million people. And they're everywhere: Shelters were largely built during the Cold War, in and under buildings, and used as storage spaces for everything, even wine cellars, in the decades since.

They are equipped with everything one would need to survive WW3 and a nuclear attack, and Nicola Squillaci – Geneva's head of civil protection and military affairs – explained: “It's like a capsule, with air vents on the emergency exits and the main exits. If the building collapsed, the shelter would remain intact."

They were built alongside the prevalence of the phrase "Neutrality is no guarantee against radioactivity" and the population of Switzerland has also been prepared to know exactly what to do in the event that World War 3 actually occurs.


In 2022, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace took an in-depth look at Indonesia. In particular, they were interested in their stance on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and made it clear that they remained neutral.

President Joko Widodo said: “We must not divide the world into parts. We must not allow the world to fall into another cold war." Interestingly, the report also looked at one of the driving factors behind this attitude which was the overriding role of ensuring their own stability.

They depend on imports from both Russia and the Ukraine, but according to a study in the journal Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, this very attitude landed them on the list of potentially safe havens during World War III.

While it was predicted that Indonesia could struggle with food supplies, maintaining friendly relations and trade with Australia could – in theory – help alleviate these problems. Meanwhile, Indonesia's neutrality means it is unlikely to be a target.

Add and their ability to produce far more energy than they consume, but also the possibility that their geographic location will protect them from the worst of a nuclear winter;

Indonesia and the Philippines also have something else going in their favor: Strong local governments and small, closely-knit local populations. Although some problems – such as the possibility of volcanic activity and less than ideal infrastructure – they mean it might not be an earthly paradise, it will probably be a fairly safe area.


When Dr. Becky Alexis-Martin of the University of Southampton and Dr. Thom Davies of the University of Warwick decided to use computer models to simulate the mass nuclear annihilation that would likely come with World War III, they found that being as far as possible from the hotbeds of conflict and nuclear explosions really made a difference. Where better than in the middle of the Pacific?

In one of their articles for the newspaper The Guardian, they wrote that Easter Island, the Marshall Islands and Kiribati may present some kind of security for those who live there. Similarly, a study published in Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society added the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to that list. Countless other small islands would no doubt provide almost the same protection as these, and while the comforts we are used to could become scarce, that would just be a small price to pay for life.

The study authors found that many of these island nations they had maintained ways of life that allowed them to prosper under conditions under which many other nations would have faltered. They mentioned things like "traditional and low-tech production methods", as they termed them, which would allow civilizations to continue producing food and other necessities in the face of the absence of imports, communications, and trade options.

Additionally, the fact that some of them are close to Australia and New Zealand makes them one of the best options for surviving a World War III.



source https://naftemporiki.gr 

photo kalhh / https://pixabay.com

The articles we publish do not necessarily reflect our views and are not binding on their authors. Their publication has to do not with whether we agree with the positions they adopt, but with whether we consider them interesting for our readers.

Follow us on Facebook @grnewsradiofl

Follow us on Twitter @grnewsradiofl


Other Articles

Latest Articles

News Commentary

Interesting Issues

Newspapers headlines

Cooking Tips

Estiatorio Milos Miami
Estiatorio Milos Miami
Estiatorio Milos Miami
International sounds DJ Entertainment

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This