Rising tensions between the United States and Iran have renewed fears about a possible global conflict and even retaliation on U.S. soil. During discussions about potential war, former president Donald Trump acknowledged the human cost, saying that when a nation goes to war, “some people will die.” While the situation remains uncertain, analysts have started examining which places might be safer if a large-scale conflict were to occur.

Public concern is growing. A recent survey by YouGov found that about 45 percent of Americans believe a world war could happen within the next five to ten years. Many respondents also fear that nuclear weapons could be involved. Estimates from the poll suggest that between 68 and 76 percent of people think nuclear weapons might be used if such a conflict begins.

Some countries are often viewed as safer during global crises because of their long-standing neutrality. Nations like Switzerland, Ireland, and Austria are frequently mentioned as possible refuges due to their political positions and limited involvement in military alliances.

Within the United States, safety could depend on distance from major cities, missile silos, and military bases. States on the East Coast and in the Southeast—such as Maine, Vermont, and Florida—are sometimes considered less likely to be immediate targets. In contrast, central states like Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska could face greater risk because of nearby strategic military facilities.

Still, specialists warn that any nuclear conflict would have widespread consequences. Infrastructure, military installations, and major cities make many regions vulnerable. As experts caution, in a global nuclear war, “no place is completely safe.”