Global leaders have also voiced concern about the broader implications. Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, recently suggested in an interview with the BBC that the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine may already represent the early stages of a much larger global struggle.
He warned that the international community must act carefully to prevent further escalation.
Public Anxiety Reflects These Fears
Surveys show that many citizens share these concerns. A YouGov poll conducted across several European countries — including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain — found that between 41% and 55% of respondents believe another world war could occur within the next decade.
In the United States, roughly 45% of people expressed a similar concern.
Even more striking, a large majority of respondents believe that nuclear weapons could be used if such a conflict ever occurred. According to the survey, between 68% and 76% of participants expect nuclear arms would likely be involved in a future global war.
Which Locations Might Be Less Vulnerable?
Because of these concerns, researchers and analysts have explored which areas might face greater or lower risks in a worst-case scenario.
Outside the United States, historically neutral nations are often mentioned in discussions about relative safety during global conflicts. Countries such as Switzerland, Ireland, and Austria have long traditions of neutrality, which could make them less likely to be direct military targets.
Within the United States, however, safety would largely depend on proximity to military installations and strategic targets.
Some analyses suggest that many states along the East Coast and parts of the Southeast might be less likely to face immediate targeting in certain nuclear strike scenarios. These include states such as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
Several Midwestern states are also sometimes included in discussions about regions with lower immediate strategic value.
Areas Considered More Vulnerable
On the other hand, experts note that some states in the central United States contain key missile silo facilities. These installations form part of the country’s nuclear defense system.
States such as Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota host or are located near these strategic sites.
In a theoretical nuclear conflict, those locations could become priority targets because destroying missile silos early could limit a country’s ability to launch retaliatory strikes.
No Place Is Completely Safe
Despite these assessments, analysts consistently emphasize that geography alone cannot guarantee safety in a large-scale war.
With thousands of nuclear weapons still in existence worldwide, potential targets could include major cities, military bases, transportation hubs, and critical infrastructure.
For that reason, many experts caution that if a global nuclear conflict were ever to occur, the effects could reach far beyond specific target zones.
In simple terms, while some places may appear less vulnerable than others, specialists agree on one key point: no location can be considered completely safe in a full-scale nuclear war.
What are your thoughts on global preparedness and safety during major crises?
Share your perspective in the comments and pass this article along to keep the conversation going.