Fears of a global conflict have intensified in recent months, as tensions between the United States and Iran, along with other geopolitical hotspots, raise concerns about possible retaliation on U.S. soil. Former President Donald Trump acknowledged the risk, stating that when the nation goes to war, “some people will die.” While the situation remains uncertain, experts have begun analyzing which areas could be safer if a major conflict were to erupt.
Many people around the world share concerns about the potential for a new world war. A recent YouGov survey conducted in Europe and the United States found that roughly 45 percent of Americans believe a global war could occur within the next five to ten years. Additionally, most respondents expect that nuclear weapons could be used if such a conflict arises, with estimates ranging from 68 to 76 percent. These fears have led researchers to examine which regions might be less vulnerable to attacks and which could face greater danger.
Outside the United States, historically neutral countries like Switzerland, Ireland, and Austria are often viewed as safer options during global conflicts. Within the U.S., safety could depend largely on distance from military sites, missile silos, and major cities. States along the East Coast and Southeast, such as Maine, Vermont, and Florida, are often cited as less likely to be immediate targets, while central states like Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska could face higher risk due to nearby strategic military installations.
Experts emphasize, however, that no location is entirely safe in a nuclear scenario. Even areas considered lower risk could be affected because of the presence of critical infrastructure, military bases, and urban centers. Planning and awareness are essential, but specialists caution that in a large-scale global conflict, “no place is completely safe.”