Food is one of the most important elements of long-term survival. Countries with productive agriculture may be better able to maintain supplies if international shipping becomes unreliable.
However, food security also depends on distribution, affordability, fuel, storage, labor, and the availability of farming inputs. Water is equally important. A region with abundant farmland but unreliable water may struggle during a prolonged emergency.
Energy and essential infrastructure
Hospitals need electricity. Water systems need power and functioning equipment. Communications depend on networks, data centers, and backup systems. Food distribution relies on transport, storage, and fuel.
Countries with diversified energy sources and reliable infrastructure may be better positioned to maintain essential services. But no energy system is completely independent of maintenance, replacement parts, and skilled workers.
Political stability and emergency planning
A crisis can place enormous pressure on public institutions. Governments need to communicate clearly, coordinate emergency services, maintain public order, and distribute scarce resources fairly.
Stable institutions and effective emergency planning can help communities respond to disruptions. International peacefulness rankings offer useful context, but they do not measure every aspect of resilience during a global war.
Healthcare and access to medicine
A place may be geographically remote and still be a poor refuge for someone who requires regular treatment. Hospitals need staff, electricity, clean water, medicines, medical devices, and transport links.
People with chronic illnesses or other specialized healthcare needs should consider continuity of treatment alongside geographical safety. A remote location without access to essential medicine could create serious risks even in the absence of direct fighting.
Social cohesion and local cooperation
In a prolonged crisis, the ability of communities to cooperate can be important. Neighbors may need to share information, assist vulnerable residents, organize local support, and help maintain essential services.
Trust in institutions and effective communication can make emergency responses more orderly. By contrast, misinformation, panic buying, and social conflict can make shortages more difficult to manage.
The danger of nuclear escalation
If a world war remained a conventional conflict, some remote regions might avoid direct fighting and experience mostly indirect consequences. If the conflict involved large-scale nuclear attacks, the risk would be much more severe.
Direct blast effects, fires, radioactive fallout, infrastructure destruction, and disruptions to global agriculture could affect people far beyond the immediate targets. The scale of the consequences would depend on the weapons used, the locations attacked, atmospheric conditions, and the extent of the exchange.
Research on global catastrophic risks emphasizes that no location is resilient to every scenario. Geographic isolation, food production, governance, and infrastructure can all help, but none guarantees safety.
If a Global Conflict Began, Would Moving Abroad Really Help?
The idea of relocating to a remote country can be appealing when international tensions rise. But moving abroad is not a simple solution, and attempting to leave after a major crisis has begun could be far more difficult than preparing in advance.
Airports may close, flights may be canceled, border policies may change, and travel costs may rise sharply. A country that looks attractive on a map may have strict immigration requirements or limited housing and healthcare capacity.
There is also a difference between visiting a country and being able to live there legally for an extended period. Residency, employment rights, access to healthcare, and the ability to support oneself all matter.
For most people, a practical emergency plan should begin with the place where they already live. This includes understanding official emergency alerts, keeping essential documents accessible, maintaining a reasonable supply of food and water, and knowing how to contact family members if communications are disrupted.
New Zealand's government, for example, recommends that households prepare to look after themselves for at least three days during an emergency, with longer-lasting supplies encouraged where practical. Its guidance also emphasizes emergency plans, communication methods, and keeping essential supplies ready.
These are ordinary preparedness measures, not predictions that a world war is imminent. They can also be useful during storms, earthquakes, power outages, and other emergencies.
A realistic preparation checklist
-
Keep important documents accessible. Make secure copies of identification, travel documents, medical information, and insurance records.
-
Maintain essential supplies. Store drinking water, shelf-stable food, a flashlight, batteries, basic first-aid items, and necessary medicines according to local guidance.
-
Plan for communication failures. Agree on a way for family members to reconnect if mobile networks or internet access become unavailable.
-
Know your local risks. Flooding, earthquakes, storms, and industrial hazards may be more immediate threats than a distant international conflict.
-
Follow official information. Rely on government emergency services and reputable news organizations rather than unverified social media predictions.
-
Consider individual needs. Children, older adults, people with disabilities, and anyone who relies on regular medical treatment may need additional planning.
Preparation is most useful when it is proportionate and practical. There is no need to make drastic life decisions based solely on speculative lists or alarming headlines.
Which Country Would Be the Best Choice?
If the goal is to compare potential refuges, the answer depends on which risks matter most.
New Zealand stands out for geographical isolation, food production, and relatively strong peacefulness indicators. Australia offers a large agricultural base, diverse resources, and substantial domestic infrastructure. Iceland benefits from domestic renewable energy and a strong record of peacefulness, although food imports and its strategic North Atlantic position are important considerations.
Switzerland offers a different set of advantages through neutrality, civil protection, and institutional capacity. Uruguay and Argentina have substantial agricultural resources and distance from several major military centers. Chile combines natural geographical barriers with productive regions, while Fiji's isolation comes with significant import and climate-related vulnerabilities.
Ireland offers political stability and a military non-alignment tradition, while Costa Rica is notable for its abolition of a standing army and its emphasis on civilian institutions.
These are not interchangeable advantages, and there is no reliable formula that can predict the safest country under every possible scenario.
The ranking is best understood as a starting point for discussing resilience—not as a scientific guarantee that the first country would be safe while the tenth would be dangerous.
The Final Verdict: Distance Helps, but Resilience Matters More
The image of New Zealand's remote coastline captures why the country is so often discussed as a potential safe haven. Its distance from many major global population centers, agricultural output, and established institutions are meaningful strengths.
Yet a beautiful beach and a remote location cannot protect people from every consequence of a global conflict. Food systems need transport and equipment. Hospitals need medicines and electricity. Communities need clean water, communication, and functioning public services.
The same is true of every other country on this list. Switzerland's neutrality cannot guarantee protection from regional escalation. Iceland's renewable electricity cannot replace every imported essential. Australia's farmland cannot eliminate water and supply-chain risks. South America's agricultural resources cannot guarantee that food will remain accessible to everyone during a prolonged economic breakdown.
The most important lesson is that the safest place is not necessarily the place farthest from everyone else. It is the place best able to keep people supplied, connected, healthy, and supported when normal systems are under pressure.
If World War III ever became a reality, no responsible assessment could promise that any country would be completely safe. But comparing geography, food and energy production, political stability, emergency preparedness, and healthcare capacity can help explain why certain places may be comparatively resilient.
And that is a much more useful question than simply asking where to hide.