World War III fears are growing amid rising global tensions. But where would be safest in such a crisis? Experts say no place is completely safe. However, some regions have better chances due to their location, neutrality, and food self-sufficiency. Conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, Taiwan, and North Korea fuel worries about hybrid wars, cyber attacks, and nuclear threats. A study in Nature Food warns a nuclear conflict could starve billions worldwide by damaging food supplies. Some areas, especially in South America, Oceania, and isolated northern regions, might resist these effects better. New Zealand tops the list with its remote location and strong self-supply. Western Australia's Perth city is also safe due to isolation and food exports. Iceland ranks highly for peace, is far from conflict zones, and has geothermal energy. South American countries like Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay are protected by geography from Northern Hemisphere fallout. Botswana and parts of southern Africa are considered safe for their resources and distance from hot spots. In Asia, Bhutan's neutrality and location in the Himalayas help. Indonesia’s neutral stance and distance from US-China tensions add to its safety. Experts caution safety depends on many factors, including conflict type and fallout patterns. But these regions offer the best chances of enduring a global war’s effects better than others.