Hot24h

These Two Countries Are Considered The ‘Only Places That Might Survive’ If World War 3 Involved Nuclear Weapons

tinhot36509 mins
A global nuclear conflict could destroy agriculture and leave billions dead, but experts say two countries might still have the conditions needed to endure
Recent conflicts involving several nuclear-armed nations have once again raised fears about the possibility of a third world war. Such a conflict would bring consequences that could affect every part of human life on Earth.In the past week alone, tensions have intensified as the United States and Israel, both nuclear powers, became involved in military action with Iran. At the same time, missiles were exchanged around Tehran while the Taliban in Afghanistan launched what it described as an “open war” against neighboring Pakistan, another country that possesses nuclear weapons.These developments are already terrifying for people living across the Middle East, where daily life includes the threat of airstrikes, sirens, and travel warnings. However, when multiple nuclear powers become entangled in growing conflicts, it raises the frightening possibility of a global nuclear catastrophe.

Peer-reviewed research published in Nature suggests that even a relatively small nuclear conflict could have devastating global consequences. Scientists believe that the smoke and soot produced by detonations and firestorms would rise into the upper atmosphere.Once there, those particles could block sunlight around the planet. This process could trigger what scientists call a “nuclear winter,” where temperatures drop and sunlight becomes scarce across nearly every region on Earth.

Two countries would apparently make it through a nuclear apocalypseGetty Stock Images
Such a scenario would likely disrupt farming and food production across the globe. Crops would fail in many regions, and the shortage of food could lead to famine on a massive scale. However, some experts believe that a small number of locations might still have conditions that allow people to survive.Annie Jacobsen, an investigative journalist and author of Nuclear War: A Scenario, examined scientific research and consulted defense experts to explore what might happen if the world’s major powers began launching the roughly 12,000 nuclear weapons currently in global arsenals.“Hundreds of millions of people die in the fireballs, no question,” the journalist explained during an appearance on Steven Bartlett’s The Diary Of A CEO podcast.

The most devastating consequences, however, would affect those who managed to survive the initial explosions and radioactive fallout. Jacobsen explained that while billions would die in the blasts, an estimated three billion people might remain alive afterward, though life would look completely different from what people know today.“Places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years, and so agriculture would fail. When agriculture fails, people just die,” she said, before Bartlett asked the question that many people wonder about in such a scenario: where on Earth could anyone possibly remain safe.According to Jacobsen, research suggests that people living in New Zealand and Australia could have the best chance of enduring the aftermath. Scientists believe these two countries might be the only places capable of continuing agricultural production during a nuclear winter.

According to experts, just two countries would surviveUNILAD
If thousands of modern nuclear warheads were launched, the effects would extend far beyond the explosions themselves. Many of today’s nuclear weapons are estimated to be about 50 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.Detonating so many weapons could also damage the Earth’s protective ozone layer, the thin band of gas that shields the planet from harmful radiation coming from the sun.Jacobsen described the consequences in stark terms: “On top of [a nuclear winter], you have the radiation poisoning, because the ozone layer would be so damaged and destroyed that you can’t be outside in the sunlight.”

If sunlight itself became dangerous because of the damaged ozone layer, most of the surviving population would struggle to live on the surface of the planet.

“People will be forced to live underground,” she added. “So you have to imagine people living underground, fighting for food, everywhere except for in New Zealand and Australia.”Even with this grim outlook, Jacobsen noted that a nuclear conflict would still be different from the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and about 70 percent of species on Earth millions of years ago.Unlike an asteroid, nuclear weapons are created by humans. That means humanity also has the power to prevent their use and to limit the spread of these weapons, even though achieving that goal can feel extremely difficult.

You wouldn’t even be able to go outside because the ozone layer would be goneGetty Stock Images
Despite the idea that certain countries might fare better than others, experts warn that no location on Earth would truly escape the consequences of a global nuclear conflict.John Erath, Senior Policy Director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, shared this warning during an interview with Newsweek. He explained that the impact of nuclear weapons would spread far beyond the places where they were detonated.“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.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related News

Back To Top