Only ‘two countries’ likely to survive nuclear war that could kill 'five billion in days'

The world is never truly at peace, and in 2026, it sometimes feels like we couldn't be further away from it. In the aftermath of Iran and Israel's 12-day war from June 2025, the latter has joined forces with the USA to launch attacks on the cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah.

Operation Roaring Lion and Operation Epic Fury claimed the lives of numerous Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Ali Shamkhani, the former head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.

Retaliation was swift, as there were reports of missile and drone strikes in the Persian Gulf, as well as specifically targeting US military bases in the likes of Bahrain and Iraq.

There are already reports of civilian areas caught in the crossfire, with Dubai's Fairmont The Palm hotel hit, and reports that an Amazon data center in the UAE could've been struck.

As with any time of war, misinformation is spreading like wildfire, with U.S. Cyber Command already debunking rumors that it told troops to turn off their location settings.

We previously reported on concerns about what kinds of futuristic weaponry will be used in whatever war comes next.

When US citizens aren't worrying about whether they'll be drafted or not, they're likely thinking where would be the safest place to flee to. Americans might be planning a trip to the likes of Delaware or Massachusetts, but if nuclear weapons start raining from the sky, we need to face the inevitable that the USA isn't exactly a safe haven.

What would happen to the human race in a nuclear war?

In a resurfaced interview with Steven Bartlett's Diary of a CEO podcast, author Annie Jacobsen warned there are only two countries likely to survive a full-blown nuclear war.

Releasing the non-fiction Nuclear War: A Scenario in 2024, Jacobsen spent years interviewing everyone from nuclear academics to ex-secretaries of defense, also reviewing reams of declassified documents and coming to a pretty grim conclusion.

Jacobsen told Bartlett that a global nuclear war would likely lead to some five billion deaths in the first 72 minutes alone. If most of the human race being obliterated in scenes reminiscent of Terminator 2: Judgment Day wasn't enough, the fallout would then trigger a mini-ice age: "Most of the world, certainly the mid-latitudes, would be covered in sheets of ice...places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years."

This comes with its own problems, as agriculture would fail, and the few of us would start starving to death. If that wasn't enough to deal with, Jacobsen added: "On top of that, you have the radiation poisoning because the ozone layer will be so damaged and destroyed that you couldn't be outside in the sunlight. People will be forced to live underground."

Which two countries are 'safest' during a nuclear war?

Five billion people could be dead in just 72 minutes (Pixilated Planet / Getty)

Teaming up with climate expert Professor Brian Toon, he and Jacobsen decided that Australia and New Zealand are the best bet to live out the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse. When Bartlett grilled her on where to go to be one of the 'lucky' three billion left and said he'd just got back from Australia and New Zealand, Jacobsen reiterated: "That's exactly where you'd go. Although according to Toon, those are the only places that could actually sustain agriculture."

Referring to Iran's April 2024 attacks on Israel, Bartlett added: "I pulled up a map, and I was trying to see how far away I was from everything. World War III started trending on Twitter, I was thinking if it does break out now, I think I'm probably pretty well placed."

In terms of why Australia and New Zealand, Jacobsen's hypothesis is based on a 2022 academic study shared by Nature. The peer-reviewed article maintained that Australia has enough wheat to feed its population, also contributing to nearly 50% of the country's calorie intake: "After we turn off international trade, wheat contributes almost 50 per cent of the calorie intake in Australia, and production of rice, maize and soybean in Australia are less than 1 per cent that of wheat.

"Therefore, the wheat response to simulated nuclear wars largely determines calorie intake in Australia."

New Zealand was also said to be similarly unaffected due to its location relatively far away from the rest of the world, although both are warned that they'd likely be flooded by a massive intake of refugees who are displaced from their own war-ravaged countries.