A disturbing YouTube video has suggested five places around the world you’d least want to be living if WW3 erupted.
Global tensions have felt especially heightened in recent weeks, particularly since the US-Israel strikes on Iran began.
With conflict fears growing, more people are asking what an escalation could look like—especially given the added anxiety around nuclear weapons.
That backdrop may explain why a GeoMotion video on YouTube has been widely shared online, laying out which countries it believes would face the greatest danger if another world war were to start.
“If World War II starts tomorrow, which countries would be the most unsafe?” The narrator asks.
Here’s what the video claims.
The list places Japan at number five, citing its position in the Pacific alongside the presence of US military bases and its proximity to China and North Korea.
“Number five, Japan. US military bases, China nearby, North Korea next door. Any Pacific war puts Japan on the front line,” the narrator claims.
In fourth place, the video points to the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—because they sit on Russia’s border while also being part of NATO.
“Number four, the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, right next to Russia, and backed by NATO. One move here could trigger global war,” the video explains.
At number three is Pakistan, with the video arguing that ongoing friction with India makes the wider region particularly risky in a global conflict scenario.
They add: “Number three, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with constant tension with India. One mistake could mean catastrophe.”
Second on the list is Iran, which the video frames as a flashpoint due to the potential for rapid escalation in the Middle East.
“Number two, Iran. One spark in the Middle East and Iran becomes the center of a regional explosion overnight.”
And in first place, the video names the United States as the most dangerous place to be, saying its reasoning isn’t about vulnerability but about how broadly involved the country could be in a global conflict.
“And number one, the most targeted country in a world war. Not because it’s weak, but because it’s everywhere, the United States,” the narrator explains.
So, if nuclear weapons were used, where would actually be safest?
Peer-reviewed research published in Nature indicates that even a so-called “limited” nuclear exchange could still kill billions indirectly by pushing huge amounts of soot into the atmosphere, cutting out sunlight and triggering a “nuclear winter” worldwide.
The knock-on effects could devastate agriculture across the planet, raising the risk of severe global famine—though some experts argue a small number of locations could fare better than others.
Armageddon expert Annie Jacobsen, author of Nuclear War: A Scenario, told Steven Bartlett’s The Diary Of A CEO podcast: “Hundreds of millions of people die in the fireballs, no question.
“Places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years, and so agriculture would fail. When agriculture fails, people just die.”
Jacobsen added that research suggests New Zealand and Australia could be among the only places able to keep food production going through a prolonged nuclear winter, describing them as the “only places that could actually sustain agriculture”.