Australia May Be the Best Place to Survive a Global Catastrophe, Study Finds
Australia may be the best place to survive a global catastrophe, such as nuclear war, a massive volcanic eruption or a large asteroid impact, according to a new study.
Researchers examined which regions could be most resilient during global catastrophic risks—events capable of killing more than 10% of the world’s population over months or years.
“This type of catastrophe is understudied because of its low probability,” lead author Florian Ulrich Jehn, a researcher at FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany, told Live Science. “That makes these risks easy to ignore.”
Latest videos fromlive science
Although the likelihood of such an event is low, no country would be completely unaffected. Some regions, however, may be better positioned than others to withstand the disruption.
In a study published in the journal Global Challenges, researchers reviewed evidence from fields including food security, biological threats and volcanic activity. They also examined how communities have responded to previous disasters and consulted subject-matter experts to expand their database of potential risks.
The study identified three broad categories of global catastrophic risk. The first includes events that block sunlight, such as nuclear war or a major volcanic eruption. The second involves the destruction of critical infrastructure through events such as geomagnetic storms or large-scale cyberattacks. The third covers biological hazards, including natural or deliberately created infectious diseases.
These disasters could produce long-lasting global consequences, the researchers wrote. Many could trigger widespread famine by damaging crops, disrupting food production and collapsing international trade networks.
Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.
Why some countries are more resilient
No single location would be protected from every type of global catastrophe. However, some countries have characteristics that could help them protect their populations and maintain food supplies during a prolonged crisis.
The researchers found that wealthy countries with strong industrial bases and less dependence on international trade may be better equipped to withstand global disruption.
A diversified industrial economy can help a country manufacture essential goods domestically when imports become unavailable. Food production, energy infrastructure, effective governance and social cohesion may also improve a region’s resilience.
Geography is another important factor. Large islands may benefit from their relative isolation, but they also need economies that can remain at least partly self-sufficient. Japan, for example, could be especially vulnerable to a breakdown in global trade because of its dependence on imported resources.
Countries with nuclear weapons, including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, Russia, Pakistan and India, could face a higher risk of becoming involved in a nuclear conflict. This makes parts of the Northern Hemisphere more vulnerable than regions farther south.
The Southern Hemisphere may also have some advantages during a major volcanic eruption. Although it has fewer volcanoes overall, its larger ocean areas could help moderate climate disruptions caused by reduced sunlight and falling temperatures.
Australia ranked as the strongest potential location for surviving a global catastrophic event.
(Image credit: omersukrugoksu via Getty Images)
Why Australia may be the most resilient country
The researchers said democratic institutions, equality and effective governance can make countries more resilient during major crises.
When a catastrophe occurs, governments must make rapid and effective decisions. High inequality can weaken social cohesion, increase conflict and reduce a state’s ability to respond, the researchers noted.
Australia ranked highly because it is located in the Southern Hemisphere, far from areas considered more likely to experience nuclear conflict. It is also a major food producer with diverse climate zones, substantial energy infrastructure and the industrial capacity to manufacture some essential goods domestically.
However, the authors cautioned that Australia’s alliance with the United States could increase its exposure to geopolitical risks. The country would also face challenges from disrupted trade, climate extremes and other consequences of a global catastrophe.
Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand were identified as other potentially resilient locations. New Zealand ranked below Australia because of its active volcanoes, relatively small industrial base, exposure to tsunamis and dependence on imported goods. Brazil and Argentina face challenges linked to inequality and political instability.
Iceland could also offer some advantages, but its northern location may make it especially vulnerable to severe temperature changes if a large-scale event blocks sunlight.
The United States was not considered especially well-positioned to withstand every type of global catastrophe. The country faces risks from nuclear conflict and geomagnetic storms, while the researchers also highlighted the importance of political will and social cohesion during a crisis.
David Denkenberger, director of the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters and a researcher at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, said the study could improve understanding of how different regions would respond to a range of catastrophic events.
“No country can withstand every catastrophe. This is an important central finding,” Denkenberger told Live Science. He added that future research should compare the likelihood and severity of different disasters and examine how resilience factors can involve significant trade-offs.
How countries can prepare for global catastrophic risks
Although the probability of a global catastrophe is considered low, Jehn said governments should include these risks in national emergency planning. International trade agreements and contingency plans could be particularly important if countries need to reorganize how they produce, distribute and trade food.
Denkenberger agreed that regional resilience requires practical investment in food security, critical infrastructure, energy systems, emergency planning, collaborative trade and effective governance.
Jehn, F.U., Rössler, M., Kemp, L., Cassidy, M., Kallenborn, Z., Martinez, J.B.G., Mani, L., and Boyd, M. (2026). “No place to hide? Regional resilience and vulnerability to global catastrophic risks.” Global Challenges, 10(8), e70146. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.70146
Source: www.livescience.com