‘Only two’ countries in the world will survive nuclear war, study finds

The US and Israel, who are both nuclear-armed nations, launched strikes on Iran last week, leading to an escalation in global tensions.

It has led to many fearing that the situation could spiral into becoming a Third World War, and potentially a nuclear crisis.

So, if this were to happen, where would be the safest location to flee to?

A new study published in the Nature journal claims there are only two nations that would be safe.

Even in a ‘small’ nuclear war, billions could be killed, due to the impact causing soot to go into the atmosphere and block sunlight, leading to a nuclear winter.

This would then lead to a catastrophe for agriculture across the globe, and lead to an international famine.

However, the study claims that two countries would be able to survive in spite of this.

Annie Jacobsen, who is the author of Nuclear War: A Scenario, compiled research from scientific papers and defence experts to conclude where could survive.

“Hundreds of millions of people die in the fireballs, no question,” she told Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO podcast.

Jacobsen estimated that three billion people could survive an initial nuclear war, but that even surviving that would lead to devastating circumstances.

“Places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years, and so agriculture would fail. When agriculture fails, people just die,” she explained, via UNILAD.

However, Jacobsen claims that there would be two countries that could avoid this fate.

People living in Australia and New Zealand may be able to survive, because they could be the ‘only places that could actually sustain agriculture’.

Jacobsen went on the explain that modern nuclear warheads are powerful enough to destroy the ozone layer, and so people would be unable to go outside in the sunlight due to the lack of protection given from radiation poisoning.

“People will be forced to live underground,” she explained. “So you have to imagine people living underground, fighting for food, everywhere except for in New Zealand and Australia.”

Despite Jacobsen’s comments, other experts believe that nowhere is really ‘safe’ from the impacts of nuclear war.

Speaking to Newsweek, John Erath, the Senior Policy Director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said: “While those who live near military facilities, ICBM silos in the Midwest or submarine bases along the coasts might bear the most immediate and severe consequences of a nuclear attack, there’s no question: ANY nuclear war or weapons detonation would be bad for everyone.

“Nowhere is truly ‘safe’ from fallout and other consequences like contamination of food and water supplies and prolonged radiation exposure.”