🌍 Key Insights from Experts

• United States: As a leading global military power and NATO member, the U.S. would be a primary target. Cities like Washington D.C., New York, and Los Angeles are considered high-risk due to their political, economic, and military importance.

• Europe: NATO countries, especially those close to ongoing conflicts (such as Eastern Europe near Russia and Ukraine), would be highly vulnerable. Capitals like London, Paris, and Berlin could face direct threats.

• Asia: Regions with existing tensions — such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan — are seen as potential flashpoints. Their strategic alliances and proximity to rival powers make them dangerous places in a global war scenario.

• Middle East: Long-standing instability and strategic oil reserves could make countries like Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia focal points of conflict.

• Surprising Risks: Even areas not traditionally seen as warzones could be unsafe if they host military bases, nuclear facilities, or critical infrastructure. For example, parts of Australia with U.S. bases or regions in Canada tied to NATO operations may be at risk.

🛡️ Safer Alternatives

Experts also highlight that neutral and geographically isolated countries are more likely to remain safe. Places such as Switzerland, New Zealand, and southern Argentina are often cited as potential refuges due to their neutrality, isolation, and low strategic value.

⚖️ Takeaway

The “worst places” are not only obvious global capitals but also unexpected regions tied to military alliances or resources. This means that safety in a global conflict depends less on wealth or development, and more on geopolitical positioning and neutrality.