Global geopolitical tensions have flared once more after a series of US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran prompted retaliatory actions from Tehran in several parts of the Middle East. At the identical time, the Russian-Ukrainian war continues and there are not any clear signs of de-escalation.
This multi-regional escalation has brought back a classic query that now seems increasingly relevant: If World War III broke out, which countries can be relatively safest?
Several countries are sometimes mentioned as a result of their combination of distant geography, long-term neutrality, high levels of peace, and high resource resilience. Based on the Global Peace Index (GPI) 2025, which assesses internal security, conflict intensity and level of militarization, the next places are considered to be more more likely to avoid the direct effects of worldwide conflict.
1. Antarctica
Antarctica lies on the southernmost point of the planet, removed from the world’s essential centers of military power. This extreme distance makes it not possible to change into a strategic goal in a standard or nuclear war. Theoretically, its vast, ice-covered territory – spanning hundreds of thousands of square kilometers – provides vast physical space for shelter.
However, geographical security doesn’t equal livability. Extreme temperatures and hostile natural conditions make long-term survival on the continent extremely difficult.
2. Iceland
Iceland ranks first within the GPI 2025. It is consistently ranked as probably the most peaceful countries on the planet and has never been involved in a full-scale war or foreign invasion.
Iceland, geographically isolated within the North Atlantic, has a strategic advantage. The country doesn’t have a standing army, but is a member of NATO and is subject to the collective defense clause in Article 5.
Still, Iceland is unlikely to change into a primary goal as a result of its minimal military footprint. Any radioactive fallout from a nuclear conflict in continental Europe is predicted to succeed in the island only in limited concentrations.
3. Indonesia
Since independence, Indonesia has adhered to the principle of a “free and lively” foreign policy. This doctrine emphasizes strategic independence in decision-making in addition to a commitment to world peace.
As a result, Indonesia tries to avoid direct alliance with major military blocs, which theoretically reduces the danger of becoming a direct goal of a large-scale global conflict.
4. New Zealand
New Zealand ranks third within the GPI and is well known as probably the most geographically distant countries on the planet, situated within the southwest Pacific. Its distance from the essential centers of Eurasian geopolitical tensions provides a natural protective layer. The country’s mountainous terrain also provides additional defensive benefits.
Although the federal government has offered financial support to Ukraine and supported legal motion against Russia before the International Court of Justice, the likelihood of a direct attack on New Zealand’s territory is taken into account extremely low.
5. Switzerland
Switzerland has long been considered an emblem of European neutrality. This country didn’t take a military side within the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and even limited the transfer of Swiss weapons to lively war zones.
In addition to its political position, Switzerland has a highly developed civil defense infrastructure, including an intensive network of fallout shelters. These aspects make it unlikely that it’ll be perceived as a direct enemy by parties involved in major global conflicts.
6. Tuvalu
Tuvalu is situated within the Pacific Ocean, roughly between Hawaii and Australia, and has a population of roughly 11,000. Limited infrastructure and minimal natural resources give it little military and strategic importance.
Under the logic of war, territories of little strategic value are rarely prioritized as targets, making Tuvalu one in every of the locations least more likely to be directly affected by a large-scale global conflict.
7. Argentina
Argentina has a history of armed conflict, most notably the Falklands War in 1982. However, its essential strength lies in its agricultural sector, especially wheat production.
In a nuclear war scenario wherein radioactive fallout could seriously disrupt global food production, countries with large food reserves and agricultural production would have a greater probability of survival. Argentina falls into this category, giving it a relative advantage by way of long-term resilience.
8. Bhutan
Bhutan has maintained a neutral position since joining the United Nations in 1971. As a landlocked country surrounded by mountainous terrain, it advantages from natural territorial defense.
Their distance from the world’s major conflict zones further isolates them from the direct effects of worldwide geopolitical tensions.
9. Chile
Chile stretches over 7,000 km along the western tip of South America and has probably the most advanced infrastructure within the region. The country also advantages from a various range of agricultural products and wealthy natural resources.
In times of worldwide crisis, the mix of recent development and resource self-sufficiency plays a key role in maintaining internal stability – an area wherein Chile is comparatively well positioned.
10. Fiji
Fiji is roughly 4,700 km from Australia and maintains a military force of roughly 6,000 soldiers. This island nation consistently ranks high on the Global Peace Index.
Its forests, mineral resources and wealthy fisheries increase its internal resilience, especially if global supply chains are disrupted by large-scale conflicts.
