Is nz really safer than Australia in full scale nuclear war late 2025 as some argue?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
New Zealand may be relatively safer than Australia in some nuclear‑war scenarios because island isolation and local agricultural resilience reduce vulnerability to northern‑hemisphere fallout and global crop collapse, but “safer” is relative — not absolute — and depends on targeting, alliances and huge scientific uncertainties [1] [2] [3]. The academic models that put Australia and New Zealand near the top for post‑apocalyptic survivability emphasize food and energy capacity, while commentators warning New Zealand is uniquely safe mix those findings with speculation and selective storytelling [1] [4] [5].
1. Geographic isolation and food production: why both Antipodean states score well
Researchers ranking countries for survivability after an “abrupt sunlight‑reducing catastrophe” found Australia and New Zealand near the top because both are robust agricultural producers and are distant from likely northern‑hemisphere nuclear targets, meaning they could produce food locally when global agriculture collapses [1] [2] [6]. The Risk Analysis study compared 38 island nations on factors including food production, energy self‑sufficiency and climate impact, and concluded Australia overall performed best with New Zealand close behind — not because either would be comfortable, but because they might still grow crops when much of the globe could not [1] [4].
2. The targeting problem: why Australia’s alliances matter
The same research and reporting explicitly flag Australia’s close military ties to the United States and United Kingdom as a significant liability: such ties increase the chance Australia could be targeted in a strategic exchange, making its theoretical agricultural advantages less decisive in practice [1] [2] [4]. New Zealand’s longstanding nuclear‑free policy is repeatedly cited as a comparative advantage in that respect, an argument that underlies repeated media narratives positioning New Zealand as less likely to be a direct target [1] [2].
3. Modeling limits and expert caveats: survivability is probabilistic, not guaranteed
Authors such as Annie Jacobsen and the academic teams behind the Risk Analysis paper caution that these scenarios are models and not forecasts: nobody can know precisely how a full‑scale nuclear exchange would unfold, and terms like “safest” mean relative survivability rather than safety from immediate blast, radiation or long‑term ecological collapse [3] [1]. The studies deliberately model “abrupt sunlight‑reducing” events and crop impacts, not the myriad political, logistical and public‑health failures that would follow a global nuclear war [1] [2].
4. Media narratives, amplification and the billionaire bunker subplot
Journalists and commentators have amplified the survivability message into headline claims that New Zealand (and parts of Australia) would be the only places left standing, with some outlets embellishing or simplifying the science for shock value; investigative narratives about wealthy individuals planning to flee to New Zealand — reported in multiple outlets — add a sensational angle that can skew public perception [5] [7] [8]. Such coverage mixes legitimate model findings with anecdote and speculation, creating an implicit agenda favoring attention‑grabbing conclusions over nuance [7] [8].
5. Practical realities: logistics, capacity and social breakdown
Even if New Zealand were less likely to be directly targeted, survivability depends on the capacity to feed, house and govern a population in a world of disrupted trade, irradiated supply chains and mass displacement; studies highlight that Australia’s higher absolute production might feed many more people, but that advantage can be nullified if the country becomes a target or suffers infrastructure collapse [1] [2]. Media reporting rightly notes that “safest” refers to the potential to sustain agriculture and reboot civilisation, not to comfort or immunity from radiation, disease or social collapse [1] [6].
6. Bottom line: relative, conditional — and highly uncertain
The evidence in reporting and the cited study supports the claim that New Zealand is relatively safer than many northern‑hemisphere locations in a catastrophic nuclear‑winter scenario, and that New Zealand may have some advantages over Australia specifically because of perceived lower targeting risk; however, this is conditional on scenario assumptions, alliance dynamics and large scientific uncertainty, so portraying New Zealand as definitively “safe” compared with Australia is an overreach [1] [2] [3]. The most reliable takeaway from experts and academics is that political action to reduce nuclear arsenals and prevent escalation remains the only true safeguard — survival planning alone is marginal protection [3].