I see South Africa on your map of "Countries Deemed 'Safe" When World War 3 Starts." Well, my country is a bit of a conundrum. It is the only country to ever voluntarily destroy its nuclear arsenal - making the choice of SA sensible since it is unlikely to participate in a nuclear conflict. South Africa is, of course, also so far South that its unlikely to be affected by a nuclear conflagration where it is most likely to occur, in the North - making it perhaps safer than even Greenland, equal to your number one, Argentina and only less safer than your other likely safe hideout in World War 3, Antarctica. (You didn't really consider Antarctica's own hostile environment and unsuitability as a hideout). RSA is also a productive country with a strong agricultural sector though unemployment is high and I am unsure whether we would be able to handle and feed an influx of nuclear refugees. Finally, two points against the Republic of South Africa: 1) It has a nuclear reactor called Koeberg and I honestly don't know how secure it is (South Africans are too bloody laid-back to manage a nuclear reactor in my eyes and I won't be surprised to wake up some morning to find out the Western Cape province has been blown up/irradiated in a Chernobyl-like meltdown overnight because someone had spilt cookie crumbs into the power station's main console), which defeats RSA's suitability as a place of refuge. 2) South Africa is not impartial politically and diplomatically - it has favored Russia in the Russian-Ukraine conflict to the great unhappiness of many other countries like the USA and Great Britain and the rest of Europe - by which I mean to say that we are not Switzerland. Oh, and the cheese here sucks.
