What Us Cities Are Most Likely To Be Nuked

What Us Cities Are Most Likely To Be Nuked
What Us Cities Are Most Likely To Be Nuked Image link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_nuclear_strike_map.svg
C O N T E N T S:


  • North Korea could potentially fit such a missile with a nuclear warhead and reach most major U.S. cities.(More…)
  • That requires holding at risk targets of great importance to potential attackers, particularly U.S. cities.(More…)
  • For perspective, a 10 KT bomb is a little smaller than the size of the bomb the U.S. government set off over Hiroshima, and is equivalent in strength to around 5,000 Oklahoma City truck bombs. (North Korea’s nuclear bombs are thought to be around that same size range as well.)(More…)
  • “North Korea has been developing its nuclear weapons and missile capabilities, but is not believed to have perfected either enough to pose a credible threat to major U.S. cities,” the veteran journalist noted.(More…)


  • The first targets Russia would hit would be early warning systems and submarine bases, and then many of the U.S. silos and nuclear storage facilities to reduce the damage from any U.S. attack on Russia.(More…)
  • With 125 glide-delivered warheads on the way, there are enough to strike each U.S. silo in Montana and North Dakota at least once, with warheads to spare to paste a stealth bomber airbase in Missouri, as well as a nuclear bomb and cruise missile stockpile in Louisiana.(More…)
  • If the U.S. wasn’t afraid of nuclear brinksmanship with the USSR, it certainly won’t be afraid of China, which (generously) has 10% of the strategic power Russia has today, and probably like 1% of the power the USSR had its height.(More…)
  • Because of these and other developments, there is a view emerging in the U.S. intelligence community that North Korea has “probably” miniaturized a nuclear warhead, as officials told CNN in recent days.(More…)



North Korea could potentially fit such a missile with a nuclear warhead and reach most major U.S. cities. [1] Thinking that there are only 30 cities is ludicrous. with the START treating “limiting” U.S. and Russia to 450 ICBM-style missiles each (to speak nothing of tactical nukes), 30 cities is just no. [2]

Las Vegas is a significant city in western U.S. mainland, and somewhat nearby is Area 51, making either/both of them a target for North Korean missiles. [3] They said North Korea’s latest Hwasong-14 ICBM, equipped with a nuclear warhead about as powerful as the one used by the U.S. military against the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, could perhaps deliver what would be by far the deadliest attack in the history of the U.S., and have warned that the military is not properly equipped to counter it. [1] The Soviets launch their counter-force, the U.S. responds in kind (hoping to rebuff and simultaneously blunt the next Soviet strike), the Soviets launch their counter-value and wipe out almost every city with a six digit population. [4] The list is purely based on city boundary population based on U.S. census data. [2] It scares me that we have ratheon here they make nuclear weapons for the u.s. it’s always been a good economy source for the city. [2]

The U.S. nuclear triad would swiftly make any country that nuked us not exist anymore. [5] A nation acting under the guise of such an organization might want to target the U.S. The amount of economic self-harm the U.S. inflicted in response to 9/11 was pretty intense; we?d do much worse if we got nuked — particularly if there was no obvious target we could nuke in response. [5]

If Kim Jong-Un gets a hold of a true ICBM, he?ll probably just want to do as much damage to human life as possible, since he?s totally irrational and unhinged, and probably has no interest in actually occupying the U.S. In that case, he?d probably start with major West-coast cities due to proximity and population density. [5] As a former U.S. Federal Police Officer for U.S. Dept of Energy, and into prepp-ing since 1987 the target-ed cities would fall into several value items, not just population centers. [2] The analysis was fairly straight-forward and only accounts for the population of the cities themselves, according to U.S. census data. [2] Hitting U.S. cities would mean annihilation of North Korea. [2] If all these U.S. cities are attacked,China will be erased off the world map. [2] Baghdad was torn apart by sectarian violence after the U.S. invasion; Aleppo, Damascus and the other cities of Syria have fared even worse. [6]

North Korea’s latest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch Friday probably burned out before hitting the waters near Japan, but its unprecedented height and range demonstrated a level of performance that experts say places U.S. population centers such as Los Angeles, Chicago and possibly even New York City within Kim’s scope. [1]

Cities such as New York and Chicago are financial and economic hubs, while a port city like Houston is crucial for our nation’s oil supply and transportation of goods (Food, weapons, ammo etc.) [2] The first line of the article reads, “After all of the military command and control centers have been nuked, have you ever wondered which cities would be nuked first?”. [2]

That requires holding at risk targets of great importance to potential attackers, particularly U.S. cities. [7] With a metropolitan population of over 13 million, L.A. is America’s second biggest city, the biggest U.S. manufacturing center west of the Mississippi, and the de facto capital of our popular culture. [7]

At this point, many experts remain doubtful Kim Jong-un has the technology he would need to launch a nuclear bomb far enough to hit the North American mainland. (Although last Friday, Jong-un did launch a non-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile whose height and range indicated that major U.S. metropolises like Chicago, LA and even New York City could be within reach, according to Newsweek.) [8] The 10- kiloton nuclear device would most likely be assembled near a large U.S. city. [9] In a naval conflict, China could nuke Guam and Okinawa and claim they are pure military targets, more so than Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, The U.S. would have to show resolve (maybe blow off a nuke near a major city), but would be have to be careful about setting off full exchange. [10]

A rogue nation or terrorist group could make demands and if the U.S. did not comply they would begin detonating nuclear devices in other cities. [9] Stephen Schwartz, the author of ” Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940,” says that after the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia shifted from targeting each other’s most populous cities to targeting each other’s nuclear stockpiles. [11] At worst, U.S. cities on the West Coast would have to deal with the prospect, however remote, that they might be struck by a North Korean atomic weapon. [12] It’s theoretically possible that the Russians could launch such an overwhelming first strike that the conventional U.S. military response would be muted but that means the nuclear submarines would respond by destroying most Russian cities. 50 million Russians would be dead in an hour. [10] His ultimate ambition, however, is to be able to hit U.S. cities on the West Coast, most likely from a submarine that could hide itself at sea. [12]

When you?re talking about flattening entire cities in just a few seconds, it wouldn?t really matter if the nuclear warhead exploded over one city block or another city block. [13]

For perspective, a 10 KT bomb is a little smaller than the size of the bomb the U.S. government set off over Hiroshima, and is equivalent in strength to around 5,000 Oklahoma City truck bombs. (North Korea’s nuclear bombs are thought to be around that same size range as well.) [14] Anchorage is the major U.S. city probably most easily reached by a North Korean missile. [15] Notice anything missing? Washington, DC, perhaps prime-of-prime targets for any terrorist organisation with a nuke (or 20) to spare, is the 22nd largest city in the U.S. on its own, and so not on the list. [16] Any launch of a NK missile at a U.S. city would result in the erasure of NK from the map 30 minutes later. [17] If North Korea were extremely lucky, there might be a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city. [18] Based on current information, today’s missile test by North Korea could easily reach the U.S. West Coast, and a number of major U.S. cities. [17] Calculating the range of the missile in the direction of some major U.S. cities gives the approximate results in Table 1. [17] The loss of those cities would be far more devastating to the U.S. than the first 20. [16] The U.S. capital is relocated to Denver, due in part to the destruction of the nation’s historical, alternate capitals, its distance from the attacked cities, and the area’s high number of Federal employees and major Federal installations. [16]

Compare one really large bomb on New York City (a B-83, 1.2 megatons, the largest single warhead in the U.S. arsenal). [16]

Government agencies are always refining the safety responses to nuclear threats–coordinating agency responsibilities, and even running models of what a nuclear detonation would look like in large cities such as LA and Washington DC. Just recently, a government grant was awarded for a computational modeling project at George Mason University looking at how individual people would react in the first 30 days following a nuclear attack on New York City. [14]

“North Korea has been developing its nuclear weapons and missile capabilities, but is not believed to have perfected either enough to pose a credible threat to major U.S. cities,” the veteran journalist noted. [19] David Wright, physicist and co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program, said he thinks North Korea’s July ICBM test shows that Kim’s regime now is capable of launching missiles that can reach the U.S. West Coast, as well as several major U.S. cities. [20] An accidental Russian launch against one or more U.S. cities remains a real threat. [21]

No deterrence means the only reason Washington, D.C. –or any other U.S. city for that matter–still exists is because Kim Jong Un does not think it is in his interest to destroy it. [19] Seattle is also the closest major U.S. city to Pyonyang, an important factor when calculating accuracy. [22]


The first targets Russia would hit would be early warning systems and submarine bases, and then many of the U.S. silos and nuclear storage facilities to reduce the damage from any U.S. attack on Russia. [5] Any country that would launch this many nuclear missiles towards the U.S. (again, only China or Russia would make sense and have the capability) would a.) know it was all out war b.) know that they would be wiped out and c.) would not be preparing for invasion. [2] These are less important now than they were in the 1960s but the U.S. still has substantial stocks of nuclear gravity bombs and nuclear capable air-launched cruise missiles. [4] The U.S. has strategically positioned the bulk of its nuclear forces, which double as nuclear targets, far from population centers. [23] If we were talking about an attack from North Korea with their probable 10 warheads total that would be important, but when you speak of an opponent with more warheads than us, who still has ground based tactical nuke capability (we no longer do) to deal with the NATO forces, we should here in the U.S. expect, once a go ahead decision is made, a first wave of 2 or 3 thousand incoming warheads, covering all the bases. [2] Most analysts agree that Kim’s decision to nuke the U.S. would effectively be a suicidal one, but the fear of foreign invasion is exactly what prompted North Korea to develop such destructive weapons in the first place and Trump’s pursuit of increased military on North Korea’s doorstep has exacerbated an already tense situation. [1] In response to North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic weapons development, President Donald Trump has expanded the U.S. military’s presence in the Asia-Pacific region, where tens of thousands of U.S. troops are already stationed. [1] Lets say it doesn’t work out that way; let’s say that the U.S. wants to convince the world that all of that talk about nuclear deterrence was serious stuff and orders a retaliatory strike. [4] What other answers are missing, is that if Russia and the U.S. went to nuclear war, they would also hit each other?s industrial areas, communications networks, airports that can be used to launch bombers (including civilian ones) and train lines with whatever nukes they have left over after hitting each other?s bases. [5] If a nuclear war happened today with its reduced arsenal, if Russia had a lot of spare nukes, they might drop one on a supply depot in Rhode Island, and maybe at the Port of Providence which could be used to resupply some U.S. industry, but otherwise the state would not be a target. [5]

Am I to assume that if there is a war that what ever country attacks the U.S. will consider the population and base their attack atrategy on how many Americans thay can annialate with each warhead as opposed to military considerations. [2] India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and the Russians would either stop the attacks with the U.S. in ruins, or continue to rage war with each other. [2] Our panel estimated the risk of U.S. fighting China as 14 percent, with a 2 percent chance of nuclear conflict. [6] Home for U.S. Strategic Command who control U.S. nuclear forces. [5] Experts say North Korea’s nuclear ICBM threat to the U.S. is now a grim reality, however, there may be an even more urgent flashpoint. [1] Faced with mounting U.S. military pressure over his rapidly developing nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal as well as persistent accusations of human rights abuses, the third-generation North Korean leader has successfully developed a weapon capable of delivering mass destruction across the globe, the likes of which the U.S. has dealt to others, but has never before received. [1] North Dakota and parts of Montana would be hit hard (that is where the bulk of the U.S. silos are), so the central U.S. and Canada would be at higher risk of radiation. [5] For example North Korea has no way to prevent a U.S. submarine based missile counter strike that could make South Korea a virtual island. [2] The major targets in CONUS (CONtinental United States) are U.S. command and control, missile bases, and bomber bases. [4] By the time it would take to launch secondary strikes at smaller targets, enemy launching capabilities would be expended due to the retaliatory strike from the U.S. If (and this is a definite big IF with our current administration) we enact a planned retalitory strategic plan, once any more than say five preemptive launches are detected, the U.S. would launch a massive counter strike that would cripple any secondary targeting effort. [2] It?s also possible Russia would nuke the closest airports to it along the Arctic Circle in Canada, to stop U.S. bombers carrying the tertiary strike from using Canadian runways to them. [5] Observers say Trump’s willingness to flex the U.S. military’s dominance in the region and refusal to engage Kim using diplomatic channels may form the catalyst for what could potentially be the deadliest, most destructive attack ever to take place on U.S. soil, even if it means Kim’s ultimate downfall. [1]

A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber (top) flies with South Korean fighter jet F-15K fighter jets over the Korean Peninsula in a move aimed to counter North Korea’s missile test, July 30, 2017. [1] The Hwasong-14, which was tested twice last month, is believed to be capable of transmitting a roughly 500-kilogram warhead with the capacity to produce an explosion equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT, comparable to the so-called “Little Man” atomic bomb that was dropped by the U.S. Air Force on Hiroshima, killing over 75,000 people at the end of World War Two. [1] The U.S. feared this kind of attack so much in the early cold war that we kept armed bombers aloft 24×7 so that an attack would not prevent the bombs from getting through. [4] During a telephone conference call Monday, 38 North co-founder Joel Wit noted that “the situation is bad now and it?s going to get worse in August” due to major military drills planned between the U.S. and South Korea, with which North Korea has technically been at war with since the 1950s. [1] Putin is not playing the New World Order game and is in a tiff with Jacob Rothschild.If the U.S. (the NWO hammer) keeps meddling in Russia’s affairs, we are SCREWED. Russia has a lot of military might and superiority. [2] The largest European arsenal by far – and the second largest in the world – belongs to Russia, with an estimated 1780 deployed strategic nuclear weapons (the U.S. has roughly 1900, the Federation of American Scientists says). [6] I think most of this discussion is irrelevant, since there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that the current president of the U.S. would ever use nukes against an aggressor, especially a communist or Islamic one. [2] Scary to think anyone could nuke these sites in the u.s and the economy would then crumble anyway, thus starving and killing more. [2] Sorry Indy, but I don’t think that would be a major target from any enemy of the U.S. in regards to nuclear war. [2] U.S. Command and Control is going to be Washington DC, Pearl Harbor, Norfolk VA, and NORAD under Cheyenne Mountain (though that’s moved now so that’s probably not a target these days). [4] In 1990 FEMA published a report (NAPLAN 90) on what a 6,139 warhead nuclear strike on the U.S. would look like, with casualty estimates, maps of the U.S. based on fallout, and how risky an area would be from shock waves in PSI. [5] In general, in the U.S. most people living in suburban areas would survive the initial blast, and most would probably survive the radiation but it depends a lot on the area. [5] Strikes there have the potential to disrupt the U.S. chain of command and might keep launch orders from reaching the missile crews. [4] Ok, so the Soviets/Russians/Chinese have hit U.S. C&C, missile bases, and bomber bases. [4] Schilling told Newsweek last month that “U.S. missile defenses under ideal circumstances work about 50 percent of the time,” noting that the sudden launching of multiple, unknown ICBM’s would be much more unpredictable than the usual test conditions. [1] Most reports show that they would have a hard time, if not an impossibility all together, trying to even reach the west coast of the U.S. (let alone anywhere else in the U.S. such as east coast targets). [2] The retalitory strike from the U.S. to N. Korea, may come close to zero survivors there. [2] If anything launched out of N Korea, that was determined to be capable of reaching U.S. soil you can bet the hesitation factor for error would be reduced almost to no hesitation. [2] Get the U.S. drawn into a massively self-destructive war that, combined with the attack itself, would break the back of the U.S. economy. [5] The bombs fall there next in the hope that a successful attack there will reduce the effectiveness of a U.S. response. [4] I think a cyber attack against key computer systems followed closely with a nationwide EMP attack would greatly cripple the U.S. so much that we would have to withdraw energies from the rest of the world just to take care of ourselves. [2] All that think North Korea are the pawns, you have forgotten who hates the U.S. the most because how they are treated. [2] What would happen if North Korea followed up on its threat and launched a nuclear strike against the US? How would the U.S. respond (2013-17)? W. [5] It costs North Korea, Iran, and whoever almost nothing to saber rattle while it costs the U.S. massively to prepare to defend everything. [2] Some religious fundamentalist terrorist group managing to get a few working nukes into the U.S. would probably love to nuke Las Vegas and maybe the Mustang Ranch too. [2]

In a worst case all-out nuclear engagement, we might consider that all cities could be hit given the number of nukes that are available to countries like Russia and even China. [2] During one of the hottest periods of the Cold War, the UK was so paranoid about an attack from the USSR, they drew up a top-secret list of cities and towns they believed were the most “probable nuclear targets”. [24] This list is a joke, who would just nuke the cities? Any sane country would attack military targets, and let the chaos run wild in the cities. [2] Russia also used to have a dead man switch on there nuclear arsenal that if it picks up atmospheric changes and seismic activity at key cities and interprets an attack and no one responds it launches ‘all’ weapons as a last line of attack, kinda like well no one wins type thing. [2] To answer the question about Indianapolis we must also ask, Who cares enough about Pittsburgh to nuke it? Well every one Pittsburgh and many other cities between the North East and Mid West are manufacturing focused. [2] The cities on the list of potential nuclear targets include: Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Manchester, Southampton, Leeds, Newcastle/Gateshead, Bristol, Sheffield, Swansea, Hull, Teesside, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent, Belfast, Huddersfield, Sunderland, Gillingham, Rochester, Chatham, and Maidstone. [24] I didn’t read all comments so I hope I’m not repeating here, but as to the debate of would we be hit in smaller communities with military bases, rail junctions, etc I tend to agree first targets would be high population cities for maximum human loss and even more strategically motivated to bring transportation, supplies, and the economy to a crushing halt. [2] Depending on the engagement (who, what, and to what end), military and/or key infrastructure targets may likely be hit first, but it won’t be long down the target list until major cities may be taken out. [2]

Many cities (metro areas) could be hit multiple times, depending on the high value targets located within. [2]

I don’t think so and I might add that there are other cities in North America with populations greater than over half of those on this list. [2]

Unless there is a smaller, single kiloton nuke detonated by some terrorist group in a single city, say NYC or Washington DC, the likelihood of a nuclear attack will mean all out war, and complete annihilation of the U.S., the country that initiated the missiles, which would be Russia or China, and most likely much, if not all of the northern hemisphere. [2] The nation’s only gov’t subsidized Nuclear Museum, although not a target in its own right, is also located in the city. [2] It’s actually reassuringly difficult to imagine circumstances under which one of the existing nuclear power’s would target a major African or Latin American city such as Lagos or S Paulo. [6] Which city or location they would pick for their single and only nuclear explosion would possibly depend just as much on which terrorist group we are speaking of. [2]

The odds are since time to initial launch and target destination is around 12 minutes initial launches ( preemptive and retalitory) would probably end up being close to equal with retalitory getting the possible edge with the “launch everything” natural psychological mentality. End point being, there won’t be time for smaller “surgical” initial or secondary launches on the smaller city targets. [2] It would be an interesting exercise to analyze this deeper and account for the population of the burbs added to the city population, the value of one target over another, values of major manufacturing centers (what’s left of them), military targets, political, etc., and it all changes somewhat with regard to motive and intended outcome or purpose (e.g. how much infrastructure to keep intact, or is that even relevant). [2] The media has claimed China would target some city on the west coast and let fallout take care of the rest. [2] The bad news for South Korea, though, is that North Korea still retains enough heavy artillery to be able to do catastrophic damage to the Seoul-Incheon metropolitan area – the world’s fifth-largest city, according to Demographia, home to some 23 million people – with conventional artillery alone. [6] Green Lantern comes from Coast City while other fictional cities like Fawcett City, Hub City and Bludhaven dot the DC map of the USA. [6] As well as being a place where there was plenty of crime to face off against, the mean streets where heroes could prove their mettle against mean men, the city was also a place of glamour: a place where lazy rich guys like Bruce Wayne and mild mannered reporters like Clark Kent could spend their time between encountering gangsters, jewel thieves and mad scientists. [6] Regarding the OP of which city would be first, well it would depend on the scenario. [2]

Detroit is losing people, why would they nuke a dying city. [2] They would hit Omaha, Kansas City, Charleston, San Antonio, Colorado Springs, all the missile silos in the mid west and west. [2]

Of course, a lot has changed since the 1970s: the world?s geopolitical order has had a big mix-up, nuclear capabilities have become more advanced, and the importance of UK cities has changed dramatically. [24] I have included the locations of any operating nuclear power plants that happen to be located within any of the MSA’s and cities listed. [2] As in India and Pakistan, the region contains some truly enormous cities where even a single nuclear detonation could inflict casualties on an unprecedented scale. [6] What would be targeted, per what this article uses as its reasoning for its targets, are the most populous cities and regions of the country, period. [2] Presumably, the likely targets for such attacks would include the world’s most prestigious cities: New York, London, Washington DC, Paris and elsewhere. [6] Yeah sure everyone wants to talk about nuking cities or missile bases to destroy military weaponry. [2] “based on a number of factors while looking at other maps and data including military installations, nuclear weapons storage and silo locations, bases, cities, etc.” [2] While we all live under a nuclear “sword of Damocles,” Schwartz added, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn’t worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon. [23] If there is a major attack like this, taking out multiple cities, it is the end of the world. [2] An evil, corrupt government nukes it’s own cities, lies about it, uses mercenaries to enforce its orders, and patriots become the enemy. [2] Along with the 24 civilian towns and cities, the document also cites 14 centers of government, 23 Royal Air Force bases, and over 20 military control and communications facilities. [24] I am glad that there are no big military bases and no huge cities any where near me. [2]

The cities of Atlanta and Miami are apparently not in the top 30 of population (Atlanta #40, Miami #44) although if I had accounted for all of the surrounding burbs and metro areas outside of each of the cities themselves, this list would be different in some ways, yes. [2] The following is a map highlighting the Top 30 most populated cities (and Metropolitan Statistical Areas MSA) in the United States, followed by the population list for each. [2] States with heavy population density and particularly those with large cities: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, DC, Florida, etc. [5]

To quantify the deadly effects of a nuclear strike, nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein developed the aptly named NukeMap, which allows users to calculate various nuclear scenarios, including preset coordinates of major cities around the world and different types of weapons of various yields. [1]

Now the U.S. has a choice: it can retaliate with the weapons it has remaining (and it will have a lot) or it can accept its losses and demure. [4] Kim could happily bomb the U.S. capital and the rest of us. [3] One thing is certain: In a full-on nuclear attack from Russia, the U.S. has little chance to defend itself and millions would die almost instantly. [23] Putin may be overselling it, but Russia certainly has the nuclear-offensive capabilities to destroy much of the U.S., and there’s nothing the U.S. can do to stop it. [23] Neither Russia or the U.S. (especially the Oligarchy) would stand for loss of power. [2] Eliminating the U.S. economy would do no favors to Russia; the Chinese will never do it as long as we owe them money. [2] Other experts have already labeled most of the U.S. mainland as a viable target. [1] According to Schwartz, at any given time, the U.S. has four to five nuclear-armed submarines “on hard alert, in their patrol areas, awaiting orders for launch.” [23] In the 1950s and 60s the U.S. legal strategy was to deny any fallout spilled outside the test areas. [2] Considering it is the ONLY production AND decommissioning facility in the U.S. for our own nukes. [2] Seriously guys, nobody but a moron would waste a nuke on D.C. or N.Y. All nukes would rain down Between the top of the Sierra/Rockies and the Appalacin chains (where the U.S. has it’s nukes). [2] Even if every single U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile silo, stockpiled nuclear weapon, and nuclear-capable bomber were flattened, U.S. nuclear submarines could — and would — retaliate. [23] In PDA District 1 a high percentage of the U.S. population depends on oil and gas for heat in the winter, as well as to run their automobiles. [2] It would be mutually assured destruction too, as the U.S. would wipe them out as well. [2] No worries, the U.S. has more than anyone else and will use them right back. [2] Why is this? For a start, like a lot of American publishing the major U.S. comic book publishers were based in New York. [6] Ah, but who is first? Was it Macao or Toronto or Buenos Aires? No it was someplace in the U.S. Someplace both famous and strategically important. [2] Now, obviously we know that a retaliatory strike is coming but we know that because the U.S. government has been talking a tough game for decades now. [4] They actaully have built another U.S. stock market room.its idenicle in every way. [2] The U.S. public better lynch the guys who started the nuclear war ie the U.S. president and his henchmen/women. [2] Jeffrey Yohai was was booked last week in Los Angeles and faces charges for a grift that took unsuspecting real-estate investors for millions of dollars, according to the U.S. attorney?s office in Los Angeles. [1] If the goal was to cripple the U.S. military, the targets are probably Honolulu, San Diego, Seattle, and Norfolk. [5] Even high-ranking officials in the U.S. military don’t know where the silent submarines are, and there’s no way Russia could chase them all down before they fired back, which Schwartz said could be done in as little as 5 to 15 minutes. [23] That is unlikely to be the goal?you only want to cripple the U.S. military if you are in a shooting war. [5]

While the population within the city limits of Atlanta is small, the Atlanta Metropolitan Area would place #2: 5,475,213 (2009 est.) in the 28-county Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area, designated by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. [2] The comic book city is a place of adult thrills and adult dangers, as understood by young readers, including those who live out in small towns or rural areas. [6] A city is limited by city boundaries, while an MSA reflects a metropolis and includes areas outside the city. [2]

With Superman flying up among the rooftops or Galactus stomping between the towers of Manhattan, the more detailed artwork in modern superhero comics uses the city as a special effect on the page. [6] Elsewhere in the DC Comics universe, Green Arrow is usually based either in the real Seattle or fictional Star City, while different versions of the Flash have worked out of both Keystone City or Central City, which are either in separate universes within the multiverse or just over the bridge from each other depending on the current state of continuity. [6] My city is a small town with a large Air Force base involved with pilot training and air cargo. [2] In it of itself, it is not too much (it is stil a larger city) but a Tsar on it would get Cincinnati along with Dayton where there is Wright Pat airforce base along with a good amount of other industry city’s. [2]

Reading the early Superman stories by Siegel and Schuster, or the first Batman strips by Bob Kane, Bill Finger and their associates, you can feel the trickle down of 1920s and 1930s movies and pulp storytelling, of the city as a place where fedora wearing gangsters lurk in every alleyway. [6] Why waste a nuc on one city -maybe 100 square miles- when you can mess up 10,000 square miles by detonating at 150 miles high? And you don’t have to aim too well, either. [2] This current initial list is derived strictly from population within city limits. [2] Cincinnati is #62 regarding population within its city boundaries. [2]

While supehero comics have always used the city to provide a – sometimes wonky – sense of scale to the storytelling. [6] The relationship between that city and the genre is a whole different article, but for now let?s just say that the editors, writers and artists in the early days of comics were telling stories about the skyline outside the window of their offices and studios. [6]

Anyway, let?s just hope those cities have a few nice pubs where we can have a nice cold pint and wait for all this to blow over, just like last time. [24] Yeah I know it’s not one of the 30 most populous cities, but with NORAD, Cheyenne Mountain, Peterson AFB, Fort Carson, etc., it’s just as much of a target as Denver. [2] I agree with the author that these major cities would likely be 2nd or 3rd volley targets, but that they would most certainly be targeted. [2] Which is why most targets arent going to involve major cities. [5] In any event, it was an interesting exercise to document and map the top 30 cities and metro areas of the country hopefully a set of data that some might find useful. [2] Nick, the way I read it, the cities on the list are the top 30 most populated cities in the country. [2] I don’t care how many MSAs you assign to a map, you’re not going to blow through 450 missiles for 30 cities. [2] There will of course be cluster nukes incoming to all the cities along the Eastern Seaboard. [4] Apart from the usual finance and known militarily strategic cities you would be surprised at some cities with essential utilities or military reserves. [4] The metro areas themselves are located in the middle of the yellow highlighted regions, and some of them overlap with the cities from the top-30 list (red). [2] Actually though, the map highlights “the thirty most populated cities in America and the thirty largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA)”. [2] Regardless of publisher, American superheroes live in American cities, and while those cities have different moods and characters they?re all modern American cities with everything you would expect: skyscrapers in the middle, suburbs around the edge, industrial areas in between. [6] They do want to hit us hard in major locations,wipe out some big cities and ports. [2] If those cities are hit it would favor the Republican Party. 75% of the Democrats would be wiped out. [2]

To cause most maximum economic damage though, they would hit New York City, the financial capital, and it just so happens to have the highest population density as a bonus. [2] The second tower of the World Trade Center explodes into flames after being hit by an airplane, New York City, September 11, 2001 with the Brooklyn Bridge in the foreground. [1]

The first sentence of the article reads, “After all of the military command and control centers have been nuked,”. [2] Anchorage is not a threat, America would probably not get nuked first. [2]

We would be nuked before more populated areas because of the Air Force Base. [2] Come to think of it, the entire Hampton Roads area would be nuked. [4]

New Mexico would be nuked as well, and it is not just about population, but intelligence. [2]

With 125 glide-delivered warheads on the way, there are enough to strike each U.S. silo in Montana and North Dakota at least once, with warheads to spare to paste a stealth bomber airbase in Missouri, as well as a nuclear bomb and cruise missile stockpile in Louisiana. [25] The purpose of a U.S. retaliatory attack would be to create so much destruction on North Korea?s military chain-of-command, its minuscule economy, its hereditary political system, and its physical existence as a nation that Kim Jong-un wouldn?t continue throwing nukes at the problem. [26] Perhaps pundits don’t think Kim would ever have a reason to launch such a suicidal attack, or that U.S. missile defenses in Alaska and California could intercept the handful of long-range weapons he controls. [7] Putin turns to his new wonder weapon to hit the U.S. nuclear silos before they get orders to launch. [25] I’ll postulate that only one missile manages to penetrate U.S. defenses, and that its payload consists of a single thermonuclear warhead in the 500 kiloton range. 500 kilotons — the equivalent of 500,000 tons of conventional high explosives — was a typical yield for Russian missile warheads built during the closing days of the Cold War, and Pyongyang has undoubtedly secured designs for constructing such weapons. [7] How safe is the U.S. from a North Korea nuclear attack? North Korean missiles have the U.S. mainland in range, but placing warheads on them remains a challenge. [27] The month of June in North Korea is known as the “Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism Month” and it’s a time for North Koreans to swarm to war museums, mobilize for gatherings denouncing the evils of the United States and join in a general, nationwide whipping up of the anti-American sentiment. [27] A North Korean soldier looks at the south side while U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was visiting the border village of Panmunjom, which has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War, March 17, 2017. [27]

Kim Jong-un would likely be scurried away in a bunker somewhere with his sister and his senior generals long before Washington gave the order to the men and women who manage the U.S. nuclear triad to execute a launch, but that wouldn?t really matter. [26] Putin may be overselling it, but Russia certainly has the nuclear offensive capabilities to destroy much of the U.S., and there’s nothing the U.S. can do to stop it. [28] Imagine that by the time that fateful decision is made, the North has a dozen nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast and hitting within a quarter mile of intended targets. [7] North Korea said its latest ballistic missile tests trialled detonation devices for possible nuclear strikes on U.S. targets in South Korea and were personally monitored by supreme leader Kim Jong-Un. [27] “Given a hypothetical target set of 200 hardened missile silos, a 1985-era U.S. ICBM strike — with two warheads assigned per target — would have been expected to leave 42 surviving silos. [25] Why Los Angeles? Because in the jargon of military planners, it is the most “lucrative” U.S. target within reach of Pyongyang’s missiles. [7]

What would happen if the U.S. was hit by one? Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historian, created a tool that shows the impact and aftermath a nuclear device would have anywhere in the world. [28] With airfields of U.S. nuclear bombers struck, silos knocked out and submarines neutralized, Putin’s unlikely gamble has paid off. [25] The U.S. also has missile defense systems in Asia, including ship-based radar and interceptors and THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) systems, which are deployed in South Korea and the U.S. territory of Guam. [27] Perhaps Washington should start thinking in more concrete terms about what it will mean for America when North Korea’s unpredictable leader has a missile force and arsenal of warheads capable of destroying major U.S. urban centers, because that day is not far off. [7] North Korean missiles have the U.S. mainland in range, but placing warheads on them remains a challenge. [27]

For weeks, North Korea has threatened to attack the U.S. and South Korea for holding joint military drills and for supporting U.N. sanctions. [27] Assume, if you will, that the U.S. at some time in the future elects to undertake military action against North Korea aimed at removing Kim’s regime. [7]

It’s obvious, then, that the first targets for Russian nukes are U.S. nukes. [25] Getting all U.S. nukes before America has the chance to strike back is not likely, so Putin’s goal is to make the exchange of warheads as uneven as possible. [25] “To destroy U.S. ICBMs on the ground, an adversary would need to launch a precisely coordinated attack with hundreds of high-yield and accurate warheads. [25] A children’s pop-up book, displayed by a teacher March 9 at at Kaeson Kindergarten in Pyongyang, depicts a U.S. soldier killing a Korean woman with a hatchet. [27] A North Korean soldier passes by roadside propaganda depicting a North Korean soldier killing a U.S. soldier in Pyongyang. [27] A painting, depicting North Korean soldiers ambushing and killing U.S. troops hangs on a gallery wall at an art exhibition Friday in Pyongyang. [27]

North Korea is the most difficult of targets for the U.S. intelligence community to unearth. [26] “Fewer submarines would make it easier for a potential adversary to track and target U.S. forces,” the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2013. [25] All of this–the Pentagon’s report, Putin’s gloating, and years of observations by defense analysts and reporters–allows us to imagine what Russia’s arsenal could do in a real first strike against the U.S., in a future where Russia’s modernization has peaked but the U.S. has not progressed. [25] An ethnic Korean U.S. citizen was sentenced to 10 years in jail for espionage. [27] Cyberattacks rattle the U.S. grid and social media is flooded with disruptive reports of UFO invasions, the Rapture, space weapons tests from China, warnings of solar flares–anything to sow confusion and chaos. [25] Kim has said repeatedly that he needs a nuclear-strike capability to deter any military moves by the U.S. to topple his dictatorial regime. [27] Putin’s sneak attack ensures the U.S. has no way to confirm what’s coming next. [25] A radar screen in northern Canada, run by the U.S. and Canadian Air Forces, watches for such an attack. [25] Its productive output is two dozen times greater than that of all North Korea, making it an engine of growth for the U.S. economy. [7] One thing is certain, in a full-on nuclear attack from Russia, the U.S. has little chance to defend itself, and millions would die in an instant. [28] It is also not hard to imagine the under-funded U.S. missile defense system failing to be 100% effective. [7] The U.S has a sophisticated network of high-power radar scanning the skies for missiles. [25] The range offers customers the opportunity to shoot a number of North Korean and foreign-made firearms, most of which have been modified to fire.22 caliber ammunition which costs one U.S. dollar per round. [27] Malfunctions and confused signals from space put the Americans on high alert, but the U.S. is not ready to start a war over dead satellites. [25] The U.S. keeps an eye on these, but there’s no easy or guaranteed way to detect if an enemy satellite sidles up to these early warning spacecraft. [25] There probably wouldn?t even be a debate with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, or U.S. Strategic Command commander Gen. John Hyten. [26] The U.S. Air Force operates infrared satellites in geostationary orbit that scan the globe for telltale plumes of rocket launches. [25]

Full-on war would be virtually guaranteed to bring an attempted North Korean nuclear strike against a major American city. (This assumes North Korea can mount a warhead on a missile, but we have little reason to doubt that it can.) [29] North Korean children carrying brooms walk on a sidewalk in Pyongyang on their way to help tidy up the area around bronze statues of the late leaders as the capital city prepares to mark the April 15 birthday of its founder Kim Il Sung. [27] We do, however, know one thing for certain: in the crazy scenario whereby Kim Jong-un orders his nuclear forces to launch a nuclear-tipped ICBM towards an American city (one, by the way, that would rest on the supposition that Kim is a lunatic who believes Washington would back down after an attack), President Donald Trump wouldn?t hesitate to retaliate with the “fury and fury” of America?s nuclear weapons arsenal. [26]

Scientists and other officials involved in the North’s underground nuclear test on Feb. 12 arrived in the capital city Feb. 20 to a celebration. [27] Pyongyang, the capital city where millions live, would be the obvious target for a retaliatory nuclear strike. [26] A group of North Korean tourists stand before the city skyline atop the Juche tower in Pyongyang Sept. 20, 2017. [27] North Koreans carry bundles on their backs as they cross a frozen lake north of the capital city of Pyongyang on Feb. 24. [27] North Korean commuters ride on a city trolley bus in Pyongyang. [27] Two North Korean boys hop a ride on the back of a city tram March 14 to cross a bridge in Pyongyang. [27] North Koreans cross a railroad bridge over a riverbed south of Mount Myohyang, and north of the capital city of Pyongyang. [27] North Korean women push their cart and bicycles over a bridge in Hamhung, the second-largest city and the capital of South Hamgyong province in North Korea. [27] No, North Korea is probably not going to nuke your city out of the blue. [29] Men ride on a make shift raft to transport logs down the river that divides North Korea from China near the Chinese city of Lingjiang in northeastern China’s Jilin province, Aug. 30, 2017. [27]

A North Korean soldier uses his binoculars on the banks of the Yalu river near Sinuiju, opposite the Chinese border city of Dandong April 14, 2017. [27] Let’s consider what a single North Korean warhead delivered against downtown Los Angeles might mean for that city, and for the nation. [7] Despite abundant evidence of the progress Pyongyang’s program is making, there has been almost no public discussion of what a North Korean nuclear attack might mean for a major American city. [7] A North Korean soldier stands on the bank of the Yalu river near the North Korean town of Sinuiju, opposite the Chinese border city of Dandong, in China’s northeast Liaoning province on Sept. 4, 2017. [27] North Korean soldiers walk on a highway near the North Korean city of Kaesong. [27] The city trolley is one of the more common forms of public transportation among North Koreans living in the capital city. [27]

A hostess cooks clams using gasoline, at the West Sea Barrage beach outside the coastal city of Nampho, southwest of Pyongyang on July 22, 2017. [27] A group of men look toward the West Sea Barrage beach outside the coastal city of Nampo, southwest of Pyongyang, on July 22, 2017. [27] A photo taken on July 22, 2017, shows beachgoers dancing at the West Sea Barrage beach outside the coastal city of Nampo, southwest of Pyongyang. [27] Workers repair a section of the ‘West Sea Barrage,’ outside the coastal city of Nampo, southwest of Pyongyang, July 22, 2017. [27] A view of the sunrise over the city of Pyongyang from Koryo hotel in Pyongyang, Sept. 19, 2018. [27] Tour guide Ju Hye Yon poses for a portrait on a viewing deck of the Arch of Triumph, before the city skyline of Pyongyang, June 16, 2018. [27] This is the Pyongyang city skyline and the Taedong river, April 4, 2018. [27] These two ride a bicycle as they pass along a street before the city skyline of ‘Mirae Scientists Street’ in Pyongyang. [27]

A boy runs with the national flag along the Pyongyang-Wonsan highway in Wonsan, which is about 125 miles from the capital and is a port city located along the eastern side of the Korean Peninsula, Feb. 11, 2017. [27] If it were irrational enough to send a nuke towards an American city, then it better anticipate its demise as a nation. [26] Organizing first responders with the core of city government gone would be very difficult. [7] Citizens of the capital lined the streets to wave pink and purple pom-poms and cheer a convoy of buses carrying the specialists into the city, and toss confetti over them as they walked into Kim Il-Sung Square. [27] The city health department, the Long Beach airport and fire department might not be; they are all somewhat protected by a hilly area that is likely to halt the initial blast wave. [30] High rise apartments are a common form of accommodation for people living in the capital city. [27]

While we all live under a nuclear “sword of Damocles,” Schwartz said, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn’t worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon. [28] Street stalls that offer North Koreans a place to spend — or make — money on everything from snow cones to DVDs are flourishing in Pyongyang and other North Korean cities, modest but growing forms of private commerce in a country where capitalism is officially anathema. [27] Past tests demonstrated that North Korean missiles could reach major West Coast cities in the United States. [29]

Australia has the geographic size of the USA, but all the major cities and are based in the South-Eastern part of the country. [31]

So the city can, tentatively, think about setting up a center of emergency operations. [30] In a photo taken on Nov. 18, 2017, a woman carrying cabbage rides a bicycle past a beach in North Korea’s eastern port city of Wonsan. [27] In a photo taken on Nov. 21, 2017, a man pushes a bicycle past a factory in the industrial city of Chongjin on North Korea’s northeast coast. [27] This photo taken on Nov. 19, 2017 shows cyclists passing along a road on the outskirts of the industrial city of Chongjin on North Korea’s northeast coast. [27]

Hundreds of missiles, each now configured to carry multiple warheads, will make sure those silos as well as other U.S. military command and control centers are out of commission. [25] Even high-ranking officials in the U.S. military don’t know where the silent submarines are, and there’s no way Russia could chase them all down before they fired back, which Schwartz said could be done in as little as five to 15 minutes. [28]

Ever since the 1960s, America’s fields of intercontinental ballistic missiles have promised mutually assured destruction to anyone who nuked the United States or its allies. [25]

If the U.S. wasn’t afraid of nuclear brinksmanship with the USSR, it certainly won’t be afraid of China, which (generously) has 10% of the strategic power Russia has today, and probably like 1% of the power the USSR had its height. [10] Trump’s threats apparently came in reaction to recent U.S. intelligence showing North Korea has managed to fashion miniaturized nuclear warheads that can fit inside missiles. [8] At the very least, a North Korea armed with nuclear submarines would hugely complicate the calculus for any U.S. president handling a crisis on the Korean peninsula itself. [12] The Army Chemical Corps would bring CBRN or Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear units to decontaminate survivors of an attack as well as personnel, vehicles and equipment entering and leaving the contamination area. 24 Additionally, the U.S. Army could bring in CCMRF Units. [9] To be honest, since Russia has the largest nuclear payload in the world with the U.S. being second, I believe that those two nations will use their nuclear capabilities to govern how each nation interacts with each other at each side of the globe. [10] Though bombs aren’t the only nuclear threats; last year, hackers targeted a U.S. nuclear plant. [32] “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” U.S. President Donald Trump said from the clubhouse of his New Jersey golf course on Tuesday afternoon. [8] After the American president’s golf course outburst, North Korea announced via its government-controlled news agency that it was “examining the operational plan” to launch a missile strike and “enveloping fire” on the Pacific island of Guam, a U.S. territory with an Air Force base. [8] China will not use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. because the U.S. will nuke them back and nuke them first. [10] The U.S. will respond with a dozen nukes targeting North Korea in flight before the Korean nuke ceases lighting the sky launched from subs in the Pacific. [10] Update: The NRC on March 19 released answers to frequently asked questions about risks to U.S. nuclear plants from earthquake or tsunami. [33] The NRC database of active nuclear reactors in the U.S. Each reactor name links to technical and safety documents. [33] Look at the problems the U.S. is having maintaining alertness and professionalism in its nuclear cadre. [10] With the real possibility on the U.S. withdrawing from NATO, I’m sure the UK and France will continue or even expand their nuclear capabilities. [10] If the worst does happen, know at least that the U.S. has poured millions of dollars into technologies and treatments to help you survive a nuclear event. [32] If a nuclear device were to destroy the heart of Washington, D.C., most of the leadership of the U.S. would be destroyed with it. [9] A nation doing so would face an incredible backlash in the form of an invasion or even a nuclear counter response from the U.S. or its allies. [9] Mike Segar / Reuters Where’s the U.S. nuclear power plant with the greatest risk of being damaged by an earthquake? Not on the Pacific coastline. [33] It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. [33] Military forces would also quickly construct a communications network. 26 The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers would be able to help construct temporary shelters for the injured and emergency responders as well as to determine the soundness of structures damaged in the attack such as bridges, dams or large buildings that have the potential to become a hazard. [9] The DOD maintains command of the U.S. Armed Forces but lends its support with guidance from FEMA. Title 10 forces are then activated under DSCA the Defense Support of Civil Authorities. 23 This would allow military forces to supplement emergency responders in the disaster area. [9]

A criticism would be if the U.S. were to blame the wrong country or group and attack the wrong target if no one came forward to claim responsibility. [9] The risk of those weapons inflicting massive casualties is one of the key factors that has deterred multiple U.S. administrations from considering the kind of preemptive strike on Pyongyang’s weapons programs that the United States has threatened against Iran. [12] Your post contains a bunch of nonsense but I would like a citation that the U.S. was the first to use cyberweapons. [10] Putin’s generals have also not ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and now with Trump in office he probably expects no U.S. retaliation. [10] U.S. leadership or the government was not threatened in any way by Japan, and it has since been argued that Nuclear weapons were not vitally needed to win the war. [10] If not, the U.S. is wasting $50 billion per year keeping 700 nukes constantly active ready to launch in 10-15 minutes, along with the spy sats and constant monitoring to anticipate launches. [10] Only that the sitting U.S. President will be killed in the initial attack, and someone who isn’t an idiot orders a second-strike with the submarine fleet (assuming the Joint Chiefs don’t just launch a coup on the spot when the President refuses to retaliate). [10] Well, you have to ask yourself, “Why don’t we overthrow N Korea right now?” The world would certainly cheer if the U.S. or a coalition over-threw N Korea, and their army is a shambles so the death toll would be small, and S Korea would love to re-unify and help them. [10] The bombs were dropped more because of the shock value and for increasing U.S. geopolitical influence, and less for reasons of military strategy. [10] Japanese officials said what appeared to be a conventional Musudan rocket, which theoretically has the ability to reach Japan and the U.S. territory and military base of Guam, exploded either as or shortly after it left its launcher. [12] The biggest crowds are in flyover country and the U.S. and Russia become BFFs. [10] What could happen with NATO’s weapon sharing program? Will one of these countries with borrowed U.S. weapons develop one for themselves? Yes, Turkey. [10] “The North Korean threat is real,” U.S. Air Force General Lori Robinson – previously head of U.S. air forces in the Pacific – told lawmakers. [12] In April, South Korean and U.S. officials said a North Korean submarine successfully launched a ballistic missile that traveled some 18 miles — a major step forward. [12] It’s likely that for the U.S. to lose more than 2 fleet carriers. the Chinese would have either used nuclear weapons or have developed some qualitatively superior secret weapon. [10] That certainly used to be true because of EMP effects, but U.S. systems are all hardened enough now that the advantage of 50’s era tech is no longer the case. [10]

Ten years ago, around 20 percent of U.S. submarine warheads had this capability. [13] That was taking advantage of the institute?s new 8,600-core cluster, recently donated by NASA. Last year, the U.S. Threat Reduction Agency awarded them $27 million to speed up the pace of their analysis, so it could be run in something closer to real time. [32] The U.S. now has a $40 billion missile interception system ; total annihilation is not presupposed. [32] A modern fleet carrier’s task force (could be U.S. or soon China) is engaged in hostile action. [10] I also consider the risk between Pakistan and India to be greater than China and the U.S. risk. [10] What does that say Carlos? And if you think the U.S. has a problem remotely as bad as Pakistan, well, so much for your opinion. [10] I think the U.S. would wipe their regime off the face of the earth if they did such a thing. [10] It would be the U.S. invasion that triggers the nuke MAD response. [10] The scenarios are hypothetical, but the U.S. has a knack (whether in terms of military or elections) to turn the most far-fetched imaginations into reality. [10] The “minor island of Okinawa” is a part of Japan, like Florida is a part of the U.S. No one need have died in a fight through the main Japanese islands. [10] A recipe for disaster The U.S. government relies on an agent-based model to predict the effects of a nuclear attack in downtown Washington, D.C. The model contains many layers–infrastructure, transportation, weather–and hundreds of thousands of “agents” interact in this virtual landscape, changing their behavior in ways thought to mimic actual human behavior. [34] Ensuring that the U.S. would have minimal oil supplies is a winning war strategy, as demonstrated by the U.S. in WWII, particularly against the Japanese. [10] It also allows the U.S. to deal with the catastrophe, defend itself and to begin fighting a war that it would find itself in. [9] U.S. scientists with a full-scale cut-away model of the W48 155-mm nuclear artillery shell, a very small tactical nuclear weapon with an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton). [9] I doubt Israel would not retaliate due to with U.S. troops invading and getting hit. [10] When she testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, the incoming head of the U.S. Northern Command – responsible for defending the mainland United States – delivered a stark warning. [12] U.S. Geological Survey Based on 2008 data, a map of earthquake damage risk in the United States. [33] In a nutshell, the circumstances where a nuclear exchange might occur involve situations where the logic of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that prevented a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War have broken down. [10] They figure the U.S. won’t respond with a full-blown nuclear war. (America, if it lost a comparable naval battle, is more likely to just turn tail and run, at least in the short run.) [10] After a nuclear strike the U.S. would adopt a kind of hostage mentality. [9] Yeah, the lesson of Iraq, Libya and Pakistan is that the only really effective insurance policy against being attacked by the U.S. is a nuclear arsenal. [10]

The question becomes, if N Korea attacks a city in Japan, are you willing to lose Seoul and a big chunk of S Korea when you retaliate? Because there is no way you can stop that from happening (not to mention a possible nuke strike on Tokyo as well). [10] All information comes courtesy of the NYC Emergency Management Department, whose spokeswoman notes that a nuclear event in the city is, at this time, still considered “very unlikely.” [8] Nuclear signaling would not entail nuking NEAR a city, but nuking an ACTUAL city: Kiev was apparently the city of choice. [10] Instantly, most of a city block vanishes in a nuclear fireball two-thirds the size of the one that engulfed Hiroshima, Japan. [34] My first pick is a scenario where North Korea bombs a Japanese city, perhaps Hiroshima or Nagasaki. [10] Will ISIS nuke us, or render part of a city uninhabitable with a dirty bomb? Yes, if they can. [35]

They can use it to model synthetic populations of the whole city of DC–and make these unfortunate, imaginary people experience a hypothetical blast over and over again. [32] “Fallout from a nuclear weapon looks like sandy particles that fall from the sky,” the city says. [8] What would be the point in using “tactical” nuclear weapons against a Syrian city? You’d get just as much damage by using a FAE and no fallout. [10] Using a van or SUV, the device could easily be delivered to the heart of a city and detonated. [9]

That’s scary because it means that if my nuclear force is entirely in silos on the ground, I have to launch my missiles when I detect your launch, not in retaliation after you’ve nuked me. [10] If a nuclear armed country gets nuked, somebody else is going to be nuked as well, whatever the evidence. [10]

The party using a nuclear weapon might plausibly imagine that they will not be nuked off the planet if they do so, and might even imagine that using a nuclear weapon was the only way to defend itself from an imminent nuclear attack from the target. [10]

This is a temporary solution because these points would become quickly overloaded and more permanent care facilities are designated in nearby cities and states. 21 Civilian air lines, commercial trucking, buses, trains and, in case of an attack near a coastal area, cruise lines all have set aside roughly ten percent of their fleets to help transport injured persons during an emergency. 1 Injured persons would be given color-coded tags called triage tags or DIME tags. [9] Al-Qaeda operatives never ceased daydreaming about diverse plots and targets: bombing gas stations; crop-dusting cities with napalm; snipping suspension cables on the Brooklyn Bridge; sinking oil tankers; and many other plots that we never heard about. [35] If the country’s poor people are mostly packed into cities, that price rise could hurt badly. [34] Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. [33]

Reactor, nearby city, state: Chance each year of core damage from an earthquake, showing NRC estimates based on 2008 USGS data. [33] An explosion in a large city would result in an estimated 450,000 to 700,000 displaced persons flooding into nearby states. [9]

Most of the city was destroyed as well as the neighboring areas. [33] Most towns in the damage area reported city walls collapsed, most to all houses collapsed and many of the towns reported ground fissures with water gushing out. [33]

We here at Patch have no inside information indicating a nuclear event in New York City may be near, aside from the fact that two man-toddlers with tempers almost as large as their egos are currently engaged in a playground squabble with Planet Earth as their sandbox. [8] The reactor with the highest risk rating is 24 miles north of New York City, in the village of Buchanan, N.Y., at the Indian Point Energy Center. [33]

This time it cost 150,000 lives and destroyed the largest city in the northwestern section of the country. [33] In case you have to evacuate or flee, pack what the city calls a “Go Bag” ahead of time. [8]

On top of that is dynamic data, like how traffic flows around the city, surges in electrical usage, and telecommunications bandwidth. [32] The city water supply is unlikely to become substantially contaminated with radiation by way of water main breaks, but is likely to suffer from small amounts of radiation and large amounts of debris. [9] Watts Bar 1, Spring City, Tenn.: 1 in 27,778 chance each year. [33] South Texas 1, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. [33]

“Schools and day care centers understand how to keep children safe,” the city says. [8]

The U.S. military would not even need presidential approval to use tactical nuclear weapons. [10] Even if America didn’t respond with a nuclear strike, a nuclear weapon detonated over a U.S. military base would result in an overwhelming response. [10] The initial rescue would be from U.S. Army helicopters stationed around the Capitol. 17 Additional rescue personnel would begin flooding into the affected area from U.S. military sources, FEMA and civilian volunteers. [9] Sure, the U.S. military could pretty much guarantee a relatively small 250-pound conventional bomb would enter a house through just the right window to kill an enemy. [13] During the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, for example, the Virginia Tech group used an agent-based model to help the U.S. military identify sites for field hospitals. [34]

Fortunately, unlike an attack from a nuclear peer state like Russia, North Korea’s less-advanced missiles would only be expected to hit a few key targets in the U.S. And even that limited attack would still take North Korea years to prepare for, since it still needs to perfect its missiles engines with more tests, in addition to guidance systems. [36] According to foreign policy analysts at George Washington University Law School, if spies were sure North Korea was arming a missile with a nuclear warhead and aiming it at the U.S., the U.S. could launch a preemptive strike, and be confident that it could justify the strike later to the UN as a response to an “imminent armed attack.” [18] Recent analysis suggests that in 2020, North Korea will have a ” reliable ” nuclear armed missile that could hit U.S. soil. [18]

A North Korean propaganda photo from 2013 showing Kim Jong Un reviewing documents before a missile launch (pictured to the right) may have inadvertently leaked the planned targets for a nuclear attack on the U.S. On the wall beside Kim and his men, there’s a map with lines pointing towards some militarily significant locations. [36] Even if the launch goes well, it’s by no means certain that a North Korean missile would get anywhere near U.S. soil. [18]

If Kim ever shot a nuclear-armed missile the U.S.’s way, before the missiles even landed, U.S. satellites in space would spot the attack and the president would order a return fire likely before the first shots even landed. [36] Baker told me there’s no real certainty about just where in the U.S. North Korea would want to strike, and that reachable locales like Hawaii and Los Angeles aren’t the only areas Kim Jong-un has threatened. [18] The U.S. continues to warn of military action against North Korea, despite the near-certainty that no U.S. strikes could guarantee the elimination of Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. [15] For one thing, Baker said if you think the U.S. would just push all the big red buttons at its disposal, and turn North Korea into a crater, you’re probably not a very good military strategist. [18]

Let’s say one of the worst-case scenarios from one of those government models did happen, and somehow a 10 KT nuclear bomb was detonated without the U.S. having advance warning. [14] While the largest bombs ever tested hit yields in the 10s of megatons (and some weapons were designed with theoretical yields of 100 megatons – 5,000 times more explosive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) the majority of weapons currently in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals are in the few hundreds of kilotons. [16] Inside of South Korea, the U.S. has been planning for some time now to install a missile defense system called THAAD, but given the political instability of the last few weeks in South Korea, it’s by no means certain that the THAAD system will be put in place. [18] It did not take long for the U.S. to lay blame for the attack at the feet of Pakistan, due to their failure to cooperate with the international community in the hunt for the stolen nuclear weapons, and the military has begun planning its response. [16] In retaliation for such attacks, North Korea has threatened in turn to strike the U.S. A similar dynamic could emerge from a cycle of provocation that spiraled uncontrolled into conflict between the two sides. [15] San Diego is PACOM’s home port, where many of the U.S. Navy ships that would respond to a North Korean attack base when not deployed. [36] It’s not out of the question–but it appears unlikely–that the U.S. would knowingly let a North Korean missile leave the ground. [18] A nuclear strike has not been definitively ruled out, although Iran, Russia, and China all warn – with deep sympathies to the millions killed, of course – of consequences should the U.S. launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. [16] New U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, they say, would deter Russia from even considering such an option. [37] Gen. Norton Schwartz, the former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, is on the record saying that a smaller nuclear weapon with “improved accuracy and lower yield is a desired military capability,” strongly implying that they would serve a role beyond deterrence. [37] Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana holds the U.S. Air Force’s Global Strike Command, the entity that would be responsible for firing back with the US’s Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. [36] They haven’t invaded any country for the last 50 years, the history has dozens of wars involving the U.S. as the aggressor. [17] During the Cold War, the prospect of a nuclear attack on the U.S. was viewed in apocalyptic terms. [15] The U.S. did not have trouble convincing its allies in NATO, ANZUS, and others, to supporting its declaration of war. [16] The U.S. has THAAD radars on South Korea, and AEGIS radars on the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier group. [17] Neither the U.S. nor USSR ever deployed such a large weapon outside of a test. [16] Due to their particular capabilities, retired Gen. James Cartwright, the former top commander of U.S. nuclear forces, has stated that smaller nuclear weapons are “more thinkable” in combat. [37] The U.S. and its allies quickly overwhelm Pakistan’s armed forces, their dual mandate to remove the government and quell the Taliban insurgency; and in the latter case, the U.S. forces are particularly harsh in executing on their mandate. [16] If the missile successfully crosses the Pacific Ocean, responsibility for knocking them out falls to the U.S. missile defense system in Alaska. [18] Baker pointed to multiple-warhead missiles–some of which are terrifying super-weapons of almost unfathomable sophistication–as a potential dodge of the U.S. missile defense system. [18] It also needs to build and deploy enough of them to survive U.S. missile defenses. [36] “Very quickly after the North Koreans carry out a test, there are statements from the U.S. and Japan about whether the test was successful or not, and that’s because they’ve been monitoring the entire thing, even when the North Koreans do a surprise test with the mobile systems,” Baker explained to me. [18] Months after the attack, and the U.S. economy has begun to show signs of life. [16] Earlier this year, Baker’s team at Stratfor wrote a detailed analysis of how the U.S. might attempt to wipe out North Korea’s arsenal, and what Pyongyang’s retaliation strategy would be. [18] I can think of a reason why the U.S. would pitch them on the high side this makes the situation much more urgent and threatening for the defenders of the U.S., and puts pressure on Congress to fund more defense preparations. [17] If RoK, Japan and U.S. all agree on the figures, why did they start off by saying it was an IRBM, only to change their minds after the Pentagon did “further detailed analysis”? As U.S. clients they could hardly disagree with the Pentagon, could they? But it would need a few days to get their stories sorted out. [17] With President Donald Trump?s call to “expand” the U.S. nuclear arsenal, there is a growing possibility that these recommendations could turn into reality. [37] In Hawaii, one of the closest targets to North Korea, the U.S. military bases Pacific Command, which is in charge of all U.S. military units in the region. [36] The other locations I would suspect could be a target is any U.S. military of U.S. government facilities ( white house, federal buildings, air-force bases, etc. ). [38]

“They’re probably now capable of striking the United States,” he said, and added that analysts within the U.S. military are now “operating under the assumption that North Korea has the capability, even if it’s not fully demonstrated.” [18]

The First 15 Seconds If you’re still alive, you’re probably at least a mile from where the bomb went off: A 10 KT nuke won’t level an entire city, but it will cause significant damage, especially near the blast site. [14] The ongoing crisis with North Korea, and the possibility that the Pyongyang regime possesses a handful of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching at least some parts of the U.S., presents a very different prospect: that of a nuclear strike against a single American city. [15] Given this, it is prudent to consider the consequences of a small nuclear strike on the U.S., on the order of a single weapon on one city, and how the nation might better prepare to deal with this possibility. [15]

Whereas the one big bomb definitely does damage, the seven smaller bombs’ overlapping shockwaves will do exponentially more damage across a larger area, thus more completely wiping out the city using 58% of the yield of the one bomb. [16] Wiping out an American city, much less the largest ones, requires either blast yields well beyond the capability of any terrorist organisation, or numbers of nuclear weapons that would make the terrorist organisation one of the largest nuclear powers on the planet. [16] Here’s a timeline of how that nightmare would likely play out in a major city like New York or Washington DC–and your odds of making it out alive. [14] The center of an office building, a cement underground parking garage, or deep in the bowels of the subway system in a city like New York will also offer excellent protection. [14] Just like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, city life will eventually return to normal. [14]

Cities have emergency preparedness plans, but they are scoped for natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes, or man-made ones like chemicals spills, but that energy is dispersed over vast areas and across stretches of time ranging from many seconds to days. [15] Health services have been overwhelmed with the injured, law enforcement spread thin, and cities and States outside of the targeted areas struggling to manage the displaced and panicked masses. [16] The 120 million people – more than one in three Americans – who live in the affected metropolitan areas are now desperately trying to get anywhere else but the cities they call home. [16] The atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were airburst bombs, and both cities were inhabitable shortly thereafter. [39] People voluntarily evacuate other cities as rumors and fears of additional bombs spread. [16] In an all-out exchange with the Soviet Union — the only sort of nuclear war that most analysts generally considered plausible — thousands of weapons would have detonated across American territory, including over and near hundreds of cities and towns. [15] The untold story behind this year?s water scandal is that D.C. has been turning its back on America?s crucial water systems, leaving cities and states with the bill. [37] The question asks about the 20 largest cities, but American cities are greater than their defined areas. [16] Even though most of the cities’ areas remain intact due to the low yields of the blasts, their downtowns have ceased to exist – and fires are ignited well across the metropolitan areas. [16]

The best ways to avoid a threat is to not live in a major city. [38] Radiation levels all over the city will be elevated for some time, but the threat of poisoning will pass. [14]

By default, the bomb blast is set to New York City, which would endure over 7.5 million fatalities and another 4.2 million injuries as a result. [40]

Because of these and other developments, there is a view emerging in the U.S. intelligence community that North Korea has “probably” miniaturized a nuclear warhead, as officials told CNN in recent days. [19] His shocking threat came as U.S. spooks confirmed Kim can now miniaturise nuclear warheads for use on his ICBMs. [41] Naval Base Kitsap reportedly has roughly 1,300 nuclear warheads — almost one-quarter of the U.S. arsenal — making it the largest stockpile of nukes in the world. [22]

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES(41 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)

1. (84) The First Cities To Be Nuked

2. (41) North Korea: How safe is U.S. mainland from a nuclear attack?

3. (40) What is the most likely use of nuclear weapons in the near future? – Marginal REVOLUTION

4. (18) What would happen if the 20 biggest cities of the U.S. were destroyed by Nuclear Weapons? | HuffPost

5. (18) What Putin Would Nuke

6. (17) If the US were to be nuked, which states would likely be hit first? – Quora

7. (17) Which cities are at greatest risk of nuclear war? | CityMetric

8. (16) A North Korea Attack Would Take Out Los Angeles, Chicago or New York, And Be The Deadliest In U.S. History

9. (16) National Response Scenario Number One – Wikipedia

10. (14) [Serious] What cities in the United States would be targeted by a nuclear attack first? : AskReddit

11. (13) What Would Happen in the Minutes and Hours After North Korea Nuked the United States? – VICE

12. (13) US nuke plants ranked by quake risk – World news – Asia-Pacific | NBC News

13. (13) What A Single North Korean Nuclear Warhead Could Do To Los Angeles

14. (9) Hey, NYC: Here’s What To Do If We Get Nuked | New York City, NY Patch

15. (8) Commentary: How long before North Korea can nuke a U.S. city? | Reuters

16. (8) How to Survive the First Hour of a Nuclear Attack – Tonic

17. (8) Dallas and other cities should make emergency plans in case of a North Korean nuclear attack | Commentary | Dallas News

18. (7) North Korean ICBM Appears Able to Reach Major US Cities – Union of Concerned Scientists

19. (7) Areas in US most likely to be struck in a nuclear attack by Russia – Business Insider

20. (7) 1.5 Million Dead: This Is What Would Happen If America Nuked North Koreas Capitol | The National Interest

21. (7) Here Are The US Targets North Korea Most Likely Wants To Nuke

22. (6) Scientists Know How You?ll Respond to Nuclear War–and They Have a Plan | WIRED

23. (5) The Secret Government List Of Cities Most Likely To Get Nuked | IFLScience

24. (5) Putin just said Russia has unstoppable nukes — here are the areas in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack – Beaumont Enterprise

25. (5) The huge risk of small nukes

26. (4) What if a nuke goes off in Washington, D.C.? Simulations of artificial societies help planners cope with the unthinkable | Science | AAAS

27. (3) https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-americas-new-nuke-upgrades-would-be-an-endgame-for-1793260891

28. (3) North Koreans Just Threatened to Nuke D.C.–And They Can Actually Do It

29. (3) Seven Critical Truths About North Korea – The New York Times

30. (2) North Korea’s closest major US city, Seattle, wants to plan for possible nuclear attack | Fox News

31. (2) Top Ten Cities Most Likely to Be Nuked by North Korea – TheTopTens

32. (2) ‘How do we survive?’: fearful Californians prepare for nuclear attack | US news | The Guardian

33. (2) Why Hasn?t ISIS Nuked America Yet? – The Atlantic

34. (2) Nuclear Explosion Map – Find Out If Youre Safe?

35. (1) Here are the most likely US targets for a nuclear attack – We Are The Mighty

36. (1) What Countries Are Most at Risk? – Is North Korea Equipped to Attack the United States? | HowStuffWorks

37. (1) One Nuclear Explosion over Denver (2008) | Union of Concerned Scientists

38. (1) warfare – What countries would most likely be targeted in a total-nuclear war? – Worldbuilding Stack Exchange

39. (1) What would happen if Phoenix was nuked? | 12news.com

40. (1) Map shows what your city would look like after a nuclear bomb

41. (1) Top 4 U.S. cities targeted by North Korea