Latest news with #AnnieJacobsen
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Where to go if nuclear war breaks out? 2 safest countries to be in, experts reveal a surprising answer
As global tensions rise from time to time and the spectre of nuclear conflict becomes more plausible, experts are weighing in on which parts of the world would be safest if such a catastrophic scenario unfolds. While many might expect powerful nations or heavily fortified regions to offer the best protection, the actual answer appears to be far from obvious—and rooted in geography and climate resilience more than military might. Why Nuclear War Could Impact Entire Planet Concerns over a potential nuclear war have intensified following escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Iran. With missile strikes exchanged and ceasefire agreements repeatedly tested, the risk of larger-scale involvement—including that of nuclear-armed nations—has caused widespread unease. Experts warn that if a global nuclear conflict were to erupt, the initial blasts would only mark the beginning of a much broader humanitarian and environmental crisis. In an interview last year on The Diary of a CEO podcast, investigative journalist and author Annie Jacobsen, known for her deep dives into defense and national security, detailed just how catastrophic a nuclear war could be. She cited research led by Professor Owen Toon in 2022, which estimated that around five billion people could perish—not just from the explosions, but from the devastating aftermath that follows. The Nuclear Winter Threat One of the greatest dangers post-detonation is the onset of nuclear winter. This phenomenon occurs when widespread fires caused by nuclear blasts send smoke and soot high into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and drastically cooling the Earth's surface. Temperatures could drop by as much as 40°F, and food systems across the Northern Hemisphere would collapse due to failed crops and dying livestock. Jacobsen explained that regions like Iowa and Ukraine, which are currently major food producers, would become uninhabitable snow-covered wastelands for up to a decade. Radiation exposure would make it unsafe to be outdoors, and people would be forced to live underground. In such conditions, the ability to grow food would determine survival—something only a few parts of the world might still manage. Why Australia and New Zealand Stand Out According to both Jacobsen and Professor Toon, Australia and New Zealand stand out as the two most viable refuges. These countries are located in the Southern Hemisphere, far from the main targets of nuclear-armed states, and are more likely to avoid the immediate fallout. Crucially, they also have the potential to sustain agriculture even during a nuclear winter, thanks to their geography and relatively isolated positions. Jacobsen explained that while most of the world would be fighting over dwindling food supplies, these two nations might still be able to grow crops and maintain basic living conditions. Ocean currents and wind patterns could further shield them from widespread radioactive contamination. What About the United States? For those in the U.S., Newsweek and Scientific American have mapped out regions least likely to be directly targeted in the event of nuclear strikes. Areas furthest from missile silos and military infrastructure—such as the northeastern and southeastern states including Maine, Florida, and the Carolinas—might offer a relatively lower risk of immediate attack. However, these locations would not be spared from the broader climate effects or food shortages. Fallout shelters, once relics of the Cold War, have seen renewed interest. While they may offer temporary protection from radiation, they do not address the long-term challenges posed by environmental collapse or food scarcity. Ultimately, the safest places in a nuclear war scenario aren't defined by their military strength or infrastructure. Rather, they are determined by their distance from conflict zones, capacity to grow food, and ability to avoid the worst of nuclear winter's effects.
Daily Mail
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Expert reveals the only two places that would be safe in a nuclear war
An expert has revealed the one region of the world where you may be able to survive a nuclear war. Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen explained why Americans looking to avoid the consequences of a potential World War III should considering escaping to Australia or New Zealand. On The Diary Of A CEO podcast, Jacobsen said that neighboring countries in the Southern Hemisphere would be the only place that could 'sustain agriculture' following a nuclear catastrophe in the northern portion of the world. SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO As the conflict in the Middle East drags on, fears of Iranian sleeper cells in the U.S. have Americans becoming increasingly worried that a weapon of mass destruction could go off at any minute. Nuclear powers Russia and China, allies of Iran, have already warned that the U.S. involving itself in the Middle East conflict could send the entire world spiraling into an all-out war leading to Armageddon. Jacobsen discussed the chilling consequences of a nuclear war while speaking with podcast host Steven Bartlett. She said: 'Places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years. So agriculture would fail and when agriculture fails, people just die.' Jacobsen continued: 'On top of that, you have the radiation poisoning because the ozone layer will be so damaged and destroyed that you can't be outside in the sunlight. 'People will be forced to live underground. So you have to imagine people living underground, fighting for food everywhere except for in New Zealand and Australia.' Before the crisis in the Middle East had escalated, Jacobsen had released a book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, which laid out in shocking detail how the end of the world would play out if World War III were to kick off. Speaking to Bartlett, Jacobsen said: 'Hundreds of millions of people die in the fireballs, no question.' However she added that a 2022 study by Professor Owen Toon in Nature Food claimed that the death toll would quickly consume the majority of the world's population. The expert said: 'Professor Toon and his team... sort of updated [the] nuclear winter idea based around food, and the number that they have is five billion people would be dead.' Nuclear winter describes the severe, long-lasting global cooling that could happen after a large-scale nuclear war. In a full-scale war, where many cities are hit by nuclear bombs, those explosions would cause huge fires, burning buildings, forests, and other structures. The smoke and soot from these fires would rise high into the sky and into a part of the atmosphere called the stratosphere, where it can stay for years as rain can't wash it away. This thick layer of soot would block sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface, like a giant shade over the planet. With less sunlight, the Earth would get much colder. The experts Jacobsen spoke to in her book predicted that temperatures in the U.S. would plunge by roughly 40 degrees Fahrenheit, making farming impossible. The cold and darkness would lead to huge food shortages and eventually starvation. Animals and fish would also struggle to survive, making food even scarcer. Bartlett weighed in and said: 'The population of the planet currently is what, eight billion? 'So there'd be three billion people still alive. Where shall I go to be one of the three billion? I was just in New Zealand and Australia.' Jacobsen replied: 'That's exactly where you'd go. According to Toon, those are the only places that could actually sustain agriculture.' Along with both nations being capable of producing food once the dust settles on a nuclear war, Australia and New Zealand have several other factors which make this part of the world safer from global destruction. They are far from the major nuclear powers which would likely spark a world war, the U.S., Russia, and China. Also, being island nations, their isolation in the Pacific and Southern Oceans limits fallout from nuclear detonations up north. This is because prevailing winds and ocean currents would carry much of the radioactive material away from these regions. The renewed threat of a global nuclear war has sparked a nationwide search to locate America's long-forgotten fallout shelters. Although they're not built to withstand the initial blast, extreme heat, and shockwaves of a nuclear explosion, they can act as a safe room for anyone who lives through the explosion to see the aftermath. As for what makes a good fallout shelter, shielding is the most important factor. Thick walls and a roof made of concrete or steel are necessary to block out the radiation produced by a nuclear explosion. Fallout shelters also need good ventilation with proper filters to trap radioactive particles in the air. Those inside will need enough food and clean water to last for weeks or months while waiting for the radiation to clear from the air, an area for waste disposal so clean supplies are not contaminated, and a comfortable place to sit or sleep.
Daily Mail
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Expert reveals only place that would be safe in a nuclear war
A nuclear war would be devastating and spread radiation to nearly every corner of the globe, but an expert has revealed the one place you may survive the apocalypse. Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen explained why Americans looking to avoid the dire consequences of World War III should considering escaping to Australia or New Zealand. On The Diary of a CEO podcast, Jacobsen said that the neighboring countries in the Southern Hemisphere would be the only place that could 'sustain agriculture' following a nuclear catastrophe in the northern portion of the world. As the conflict in the Middle East drags on, fears of Iranian sleeper cells in the US have Americans worried that a weapon of mass destruction could go off at any minute. Meanwhile, ceasefire talks between Iran and Israel appear at an impasse, with both sides already claiming the other has violated a fragile truce. Nuclear powers Russia and China, allies of Iran, have already warned that the US getting involved in the Middle East conflict could send the entire world spiraling into an all-out war than leads to Armageddon. Jacobsen discussed the chilling timeline in which a nuclear war would decimate most of Earth while speaking with podcast host Steven Bartlett. 'Places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years. So agriculture would fail and when agriculture fails, people just die,' Jacobsen warned. 'On top of that, you have the radiation poisoning because the ozone layer will be so damaged and destroyed that you can't be outside in the sunlight,' Jacobsen said during the 2024 podcast. 'People will be forced to live underground. So you have to imagine people living underground, fighting for food everywhere except for in New Zealand and Australia,' she continued. Before the crisis in the Middle East even escalated, Jacobsen had released a book entitled Nuclear War: A Scenario, which laid out in shocking detail how the end of the world would play out during World War III. 'Hundreds of millions of people die in the fireballs, no question,' she told Bartlett. However, Jacobsen added that a 2022 study by Professor Owen Toon in Nature Food claimed the death toll would quickly consume the majority of the world's population. 'Professor Toon and his team... sort of updated [the] nuclear winter idea based around food, and the number that they have is five billion people would be dead,' Jacobsen said. Nuclear winter describes the severe, long-lasting global cooling that could happen after a large-scale nuclear war. In a full-scale war, where many cities are hit by nuclear bombs, those explosions would cause huge fires, burning buildings, forests, and other structures. The smoke and soot from these fires would rise high into the sky, into a part of the atmosphere called the stratosphere, where it can stay for years because rain can't wash it away. This thick layer of soot would block sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface, like a giant shade over the planet. With less sunlight, the Earth would get much colder. The experts Jacobsen spoke to in her book predicted that temperatures in the US would plunge by roughly 40 degrees Fahrenheit, making farming impossible. This cold and darkness would lead to massive food shortages and starvation. Animals and fish would also struggle to survive, making food even scarcer. Steven Bartlett said he was happy to have taken a recent trip to Australia when fighting in the Middle East broke out in 2024. Renewed tensions in 2025 have taken the region to a nuclear tipping point 'The population of the planet currently is what, eight billion?' Bartlett said. 'So there'd be three billion people still alive. Where shall I go to be one of the three billion? I was just in New Zealand and Australia,' the host mentioned. 'That's exactly where you'd go. According to Toon, those are the only places that could actually sustain agriculture,' Jacobsen replied. Along with both nations being capable of producing food once the dust settles on a nuclear war, Australia and New Zealand have several other factors which make this part of the world a haven from global destruction. They are far from the major nuclear powers which would likely spark a world war, the US, Russia, and China. Being island nations, their isolation in the Pacific and Southern Oceans limits fallout from nuclear detonations up north. That's because prevailing winds and ocean currents would carry much of the radioactive material away from these regions. For those who can't afford a trip to Australia or New Zealand, the renewed threat of a global nuclear war has sparked a nationwide search to locate America's long-forgotten fallout shelters. Although they're not built to withstand the initial blast, extreme heat, and shockwaves of a nuclear explosion, they can act as a safe room for anyone who lives to see the aftermath. As for what makes a good fallout shelter, shielding is the most important factor. Thick walls and a roof made of concrete or steel are necessary to block out the radiation produced by a nuclear explosion. Fallout shelters also need good ventilation with proper filters to trap radioactive particles in the air. Those inside will need enough food and clean water to last for weeks or months as the radiation clears the air, an area for waste disposal so you don't contaminate clean supplies, and a comfortable place to sit or sleep.
India.com
23-04-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Nuclear war could kill 5000000000 people in just 72 minutes, but these two countries might survive deadly war due to..., they are...
Nuclear war could kill 5000000000 people in just 72 minutes, but these two countries might survive deadly war due to..., they are... Once dismissed as a relic of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war looms larger than ever, casting a shadow that could lead to unimaginable devastation. Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen explores this daunting reality, painting a harrowing picture of the catastrophic fallout that could ensue if global tensions spiral into a full-scale nuclear conflict. Astonishingly, she warns that such an event could obliterate up to five billion lives within a mere 72 minutes. Imagine this: the President of the United States would have only six minutes to make a life-and-death decision about launching a retaliatory nuclear strike, relying on the secrets locked within a classified document known as the 'Black Book.' Despite significant advancements in technology, the time it takes for intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach their targets remains uncannily consistent since the Cold War, roughly 26 minutes and 40 seconds from Russia to the U.S. East Coast. The immediate human toll of a nuclear exchange would be staggering, but Jacobsen urges us to consider the dire long-term consequences. The world could plunge into a 'nuclear winter,' where agricultural lands, once fertile lands like Iowa and Ukraine, become entombed in snow and ice for years. This chilling scenario could lead to widespread starvation, aggravating the already dire aftermath. But the destruction wouldn't end there. The explosions would wreak havoc on our planet's ozone layer, allowing deadly levels of solar radiation to bombard Earth. Survivors might find themselves seeking refuge underground, desperate to escape the lethal rays of sunlight. With most of the population and critical infrastructure annihilated, organised society could unravel completely. Yet amidst this grim outlook, there's a glimmer of hope. Jacobsen points to New Zealand and Australia as potential sanctuaries. Their geographical isolation places them out of range of likely targets, and their favorable climates and agricultural capabilities position them as possible havens for life amidst the chaos. While the specter of nuclear war may feel like a whisper from the past, Jacobsen's compelling research serves as a stark reminder that the threat is all too real. Her work resounds as both a warning and a call to action, urging our global leaders to prioritise nuclear de-escalation in an increasingly volatile world. The stakes could not be higher, and it's time we take this threat seriously.
Time of India
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Nuclear war could kill five billion in 72 minutes, but these two countries might survive: Here's what the expert says
If nuclear war were to erupt, an estimated five billion people could perish in just over an hour, according to nuclear war expert and investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen . She says only two countries stand a realistic chance of survival: New Zealand and Australia. In an interview on The Diary of a CEO podcast, Jacobsen laid bare the unimaginable timeline of destruction. 'It takes 26 minutes and 40 seconds for a ballistic missile to get from a launchpad in Russia to the East Coast of the United States,' she said. 'That was true in 1959-60 when [nuclear physicist and former Pentagon scientist] Herb York first had the analysis done, and it's true today.' 72 Minutes to Catastrophe Jacobsen, who was a Pulitzer finalist in 2016 for her investigative work on the Pentagon's research agency DARPA, says humanity would have less than 90 minutes before the world is radically altered. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Part of the terrifying truth about nuclear war, or if a nuclear exchange were to unfold, is the insane time clock that was put on everything from the moment nuclear launch is detected,' she explained. 'This is fact.' In the event of an attack, the U.S. President has only six minutes to decide on a counterstrike using a classified set of retaliatory options known as the "Black Book". 'And in that time, the Black Book gets opened; he must make a choice from a counterattack list of choices inside the Black Book,' Jacobsen said. Live Events Climate Collapse and Global Famine The devastation wouldn't end with the blast. Jacobsen cited research from Professor Brian Toon, an expert in atmospheric science, who warned that the global climate would suffer catastrophic damage. '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,' she said. 'Agriculture would fail, and when agriculture fails, people just die.' Even sunlight would become deadly. '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 fighting for food everywhere except in New Zealand and Australia.' Also Read: China's new weapon shocks the world: Is this Hydrogen bomb a game-changer for modern warfare? Why New Zealand and Australia stand alone Toon's analysis suggests that these two nations could endure a nuclear winter better than others. Their geographic isolation and stable climates might preserve food production systems in the wake of nuclear fallout . Jacobsen echoed this claim, saying the two countries 'can sustain agriculture,' which would become the most vital resource in a post-nuclear world. A race against physics, not technology Despite modern advancements in missile defence and surveillance, Jacobsen argues that little has changed in terms of the basic physics of nuclear warfare. 'Ballistic missile technology hasn't changed the laws of gravity. No matter what you do, that still is that window to launch to your target. Pyongyang is 33 minutes because it's a little bit different geographically,' she noted. Jacobsen, 57, is based in Connecticut and currently serves on a committee at Columbia University. She rose to prominence with her bestselling book The Pentagon's Brain, which examined secret military technologies developed by the U.S. government. Her focus has since turned to nuclear preparedness, protocol, and the terrifying truths most people are unaware of. Speaking to Politico last year, she warned that our modern systems still rely on Cold War-era response times and philosophies.
