Why Australia and New Zealand could be the best place to survive a nuclear war - but not everyone agrees

By MAX AITCHISON, POLITICAL REPORTER, AUSTRALIA and LIV CASBEN FOR AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: | Updated:

A top investigative journalist has claimed Australia and New Zealand would be the only places you could survive a global nuclear war. 

American author Annie Jacobsen published a post-apocalyptic work of non-fiction, entitled 'Nuclear War: A Scenario' earlier this year.

She spent years interviewing ex-secretaries of defence, the former nuclear sub-commander, members of the secret service, nuclear academics and examining hordes of declassified documents before coming to a terrifying conclusion.

The book, which presents the ramifications of a hypothetical missile attack on the United States by North Korea, concludes that within 72 minutes of the first strike, five billion people would be dead. 

Steven Bartlett, who hosts the wildly popular 'Diary of a CEO' podcast, suggested to Ms Jacobsen that Australia and New Zealand would be a viable place to go for the three billion-odd survivors.

'That's exactly where you would go,' Ms Jacobsen responded. 'They are the only places that could sustain agriculture.' 

A video of the interview was shared to TikTok where social media users were quick to crack jokes about Australia and New Zealand being a safe haven.

'3 billion in Australia. We can't even house all of our 30 million,' one wrote.

Australia and New Zealand would be the only places you could survive a global nuclear war , according to a top investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen

Australia and New Zealand would be the only places you could survive a global nuclear war , according to a top investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen

'Sorry due to impending nuclear war New Zealand will be closed for the foreseeable future.'

A third added: 'Housing market is already way too competitive in Australia.'

Some New Zealanders were quick to suggest Australia could house the bulk of the remaining population.

'On behalf of New Zealand, we would like to offer our brother in arms, Australia, to anyone who needs a home,' one wrote. 

Ms Jacobsen based her hypothesis on a 2022 academic journal article published in Nature which outlined the likely impact on global food supplies in the event of a nuclear winter.

It found that, unlike other countries, Australia produces enough wheat, which contributes almost 50 per cent of the country's calorie intake, to feed its population.

'After we turn off international trade, wheat contributes almost 50 per cent of the calorie intake in Australia, and production of rice, maize and soybean in Australia are less than 1 per cent that of wheat,' the peer-reviewed academic article stated.

'Therefore, the wheat response to simulated nuclear wars largely determines calorie intake in Australia. 

Her book, which presents the ramifications of a hypothetical missile attack on the United States by North Korea , concludes that within 72 minutes of the first strike, five billion people would be dead (pictured: North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un)

Her book, which presents the ramifications of a hypothetical missile attack on the United States by North Korea , concludes that within 72 minutes of the first strike, five billion people would be dead (pictured: North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un)

'Because spring wheat is used to represent wheat, and simulated spring wheat there shows increasing or small reductions under nuclear war scenarios in which more favourable temperatures occur for food production, the calorie intake in Australia is more than other nations.'

The researchers said New Zealand would also see smaller impacts than other nations.

However, they warned that such a scenario could see both nations being flooded by 'an influx of refugees from Asia and other countries experiencing food insecurity'.

The researchers found that massive fires and soot in the atmosphere would lead to food shortages and famine.

In almost all other countries, livestock and aquatic food production would be unable to compensate for reduced crop output.

If you live in Britain, the likelihood of starving to death would be 90 per cent. 

The study found even war on a regional scale would devastate global food supply, and see a decrease in food production by seven per cent for several years.

Ryan Heneghan from Queensland University of Technology's mathematical science school was among the international team which examined scenarios ranging from regional conflict to global holocaust.

'A relatively small nuclear war would be a global catastrophe in terms of food supply,' he told AAP.

The team used computer models to simulate the impact of smoke from fires generated by nuclear war on climate and crops.

The research paper concluded most nations would have calorie intake lower than resting energy expenditure, with Australia and New Zealand both exceptions.

'Australia has enough food to be self-sufficient ... although while we can produce enough food for our own population, it's another question of being able to get it to major urban centres,' Dr Heneghan said.

'We (Australians) would be eating wheat, so we would be able to keep growing enough wheat to sustain us,' he said.

Ms Jacobsen was at pains to point out that her meticulous research revealed how horrifyingly real a nuclear war really is.

‘We are one misunderstanding away from nuclear apocalypse,' she told the podcast. 

'And yet you have presidents threatening nuclear war. In fact, the President of the United States doesn’t need to ask anyone to launch a nuclear missile.’

TikTokSteven BartlettNorth KoreaNew Zealand

Most watched News videos