If every nuclear warhead is used on the planet, and include australia will be hit by a lot of warheads, and assuming fallout pattern remain functional, would nz be a better choice in this scenario?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
If every nuclear warhead on Earth were detonated, neither Australia nor New Zealand would be untouched — nuclear winter and global fallout would affect both — but available research rates Australia as overall better equipped to sustain large populations while New Zealand carries some strategic advantages that could make it relatively safer if Australia becomes a primary target [1] [2] [3]. Historical monitoring shows that Southern Hemisphere nations have received measurable fallout from distant tests, so atmospheric transport could still deposit radioactivity in New Zealand even if strikes concentrate elsewhere [4]. The real question is one of relative survivability: Australia scores higher on food, energy and infrastructure buffers, while New Zealand benefits from lower perceived targeting risk and strong exportable food capacity — neither guarantee safety in a truly global exchange [1] [5] [2].
1. The global-picture hazard: nuclear winter and worldwide fallout make “safe” relative, not absolute
A full-scale, planet-spanning nuclear exchange creates an “abrupt sunlight‑reducing catastrophe” — a nuclear winter — that would depress crop yields worldwide and disrupt climate in both hemispheres, so isolation alone cannot eliminate existential risk to either country [1] [3]. Experts warn that even Southern Hemisphere locales are not immune to fallout or atmospheric changes and that the biggest dangers in an extreme US–Russia style exchange would be agricultural collapse and economic breakdown rather than only direct blasts [3]. Therefore any assessment must start from the premise that survival prospects are comparative and contingent on many unknowns about targets, wind patterns and the scale of soot injected into the stratosphere [3] [6].
2. Australia’s strengths — vast buffers that matter in a long-term collapse
The Risk Analysis study and subsequent reporting rank Australia at the top because of gigantic food-supply buffers, energy surplus, robust infrastructure and greater capacity to feed extra people, factors that would help reboot society after a sunlight‑reducing event [1] [2]. Those material advantages — large-scale agriculture, manufacturing capacity and higher health security metrics cited by researchers — translate into practical resilience if food production and distribution remain possible despite climatic stress [2]. The trade-off is geopolitical exposure: Australia’s close military ties with the United States and the United Kingdom were flagged by the study as increasing the likelihood it could be a target in a nuclear conflict, a point that directly undermines its theoretical material strengths [1] [7].
3. New Zealand’s comparative advantages: lower targeting risk and efficient food economy
New Zealand scores highly because it combines strong agricultural productivity with remoteness and a long-standing nuclear‑free image that authors suggest could reduce the chance of direct targeting, while its efficient food-export economy could sustain its population even under large crop declines estimated for a prolonged nuclear winter [5] [2]. Researchers quoted in reporting said New Zealand could survive substantial reductions in crop yields — a 61 percent decrease in some scenarios — and still meet domestic needs because of its export capacity [5]. That said, New Zealand’s smaller size and lower energy/infrastructure surplus compared with Australia mean it has less slack to absorb massive migration or refugee flows, and would be vulnerable if fallout patterns or wind-driven contamination concentrate over the islands [2] [1].
4. Fallout reality check and historic precedent: Southern Hemisphere detection does occur
Empirical records from French Pacific atmospheric testing show that tropospheric fallout reached New Zealand and other South Pacific locations, demonstrating that distant detonations can and do transport radioactive material into the Southern Hemisphere — a direct reminder that geography reduces but does not eliminate exposure [4]. Contemporary commentary and expert interviews reiterate that prevailing winds and currents might carry fallout away from Australia and New Zealand in many scenarios, but such transport is variable and cannot be relied on as a protective guarantee in a planet‑wide exchange [8] [3]. The academic literature also emphasizes that predicting precise fallout patterns for a hypothetical, all‑warheads‑used scenario is inherently uncertain [6].
5. Verdict — New Zealand is not categorically “better,” but could be preferable in specific threat models
If the premise includes Australia being a direct, heavily struck target, New Zealand offers meaningful relative safety because of lower targeting probability and strong food resilience per capita; however, if the conflict pattern or atmospheric circulation places fallout or prolonged nuclear winter stresses over the South Pacific, Australia’s larger buffers could outperform New Zealand in sustaining survivors and rebuilding capacity [1] [5] [4]. Reporting and the underlying study therefore present two consistent but conditional narratives: Australia is best placed on material grounds, New Zealand is advantaged on targeting risk — neither claim negates the other, and both caveat that global climatic effects make any “safe haven” only relatively better, not safe in absolute terms [1] [3] [2]. The available sources do not allow a definitive probability calculation for either outcome; they only support a conditional, scenario‑dependent conclusion based on trade‑offs identified by researchers and historical fallout evidence [1] [4].