Six US Cities most likely to be nuked first

[Truebeliever]

I feel thats all Bullshit. i think that military bases will get hit first. They will let the fallout kill the rest of us.

Fallout in a limited exchange would be limited. Most of the effects would dissipate in two weeks. The long term would be horrific too but not in a span of time we usually think of . It would be like long term 9/11 effects just at more locations .

 

[Truebeliever]

nailed it, Military will get hit first, along with communication, then major populations.

But lets not forget, we will be hitting back. if it comes to nukes, the planet if fucked

That depends on who is doing the nuking. And how many nukes. If your country can only launch on 6 to 12 targets, what would damage the US the most? Hitting the cites or petroleum refinery areas would be my guess.
Or make it EMP most of the country.

 

[spat]

Yes.

The majority of surface bursts which generate the most fallout are expected to hit the Dakota's Montana and Wyoming to take out our missile silos.

The rest of the non hardened targets like cities, interstate junctions, railyards, military bases will likely be air bursts ( much less radiation)


I think the point was just that nuclear war is more survivable (if you survive the initial blast) than the majority of the people have been led to believe. If you survive the first month your greatest threat is the breakdown of society and starving.

A nuclear attack by a developed nuclear power would use airbursts.

But they would hit a lot more than 6 cities too.

Nobody is going to nuke only 6 US cities unless that's all they can do. Because we sure as hell aren't going to stop at 6 of theirs in retaliation.



A limited attack like that would be far more likely to be a terrorist attack, and that is going to be a ground burst even against a city.

The initial damage from a ground burst would be far less. Most of a big city would still be standing.

But the fallout would be far worse, and could force long term abandonment of areas hundreds of miles down wind.

 

[spat]

Fallout in a limited exchange would be limited. Most of the effects would dissipate in two weeks. The long term would be horrific too but not in a span of time we usually think of . It would be like long term 9/11 effects just at more locations .

There is no such thing as a limited exchange.

You nuke 1 US military target or city and you are going to be removed from the map. There won't be an armistice agreement because there won't be anyone left to sign it.

Everybody knows this, so everyone knows if you are going to launch, you launch everything you've got right out of the gate, or you do nothing.

There isn't anything in between.

 

[Truebeliever]

There is no such thing as a limited exchange.

You nuke 1 US military target or city and you are going to be removed from the map. There won't be an armistice agreement because there won't be anyone left to sign it.

Everybody knows this, so everyone knows if you are going to launch, you launch everything you've got right out of the gate, or you do nothing.

There isn't anything in between.

You are thinking about Russia or China. A limited exchange could be from another country who have a limited nuclear ability like North Korea and possibly Iran in a few years .

 

[spat]

You are thinking about Russia or China. A limited exchange could be from another country who have a limited nuclear ability like North Korea and possibly Iran in a few years .

That's not a limited exchange then. It's still everything they have.

Russia is the only country with enough warheads to even theoretically match us in a nuclear exchange, and that's assuming theirs work.

Everybody else has a couple hundred is all, even China.

N Korea is likely to have that many soon too. What they lack is a delivery method.

But a suicide bomber in a canoe up the Potomac works too, and we seem to want to ignore that route and pretend if it's not a billion dollar missile program it can't deliver.

 

[Truebeliever]

That's not a limited exchange then. It's still everything they have.

Russia is the only country with enough warheads to even theoretically match us in a nuclear exchange, and that's assuming theirs work.

Everybody else has a couple hundred is all, even China.

N Korea is likely to have that many soon too. What they lack is a delivery method.

But a suicide bomber in a canoe up the Potomac works too, and we seem to want to ignore that route and pretend if it's not a billion dollar missile program it can't deliver.

I think they could just but it on a few passenger airline jets and have them blow up as they approach the airports.

How long would it take figure out who set them off.
And all it would take is one or two launched and detonated at a high altitude above the US to cause major damage to the USA. Fiction and non fiction Books are written on this scenario.
A country might try that as their doomsday option if the US ever came to their shores. Would we respond with tactical nukes against an EMP? Or would we just EMP them too?

 

[CaseHardened]

Other than the nuclear fallout issues, anyone else not terribly upset about the possibility of loosing those cities?

Not at all.

 

[Truebeliever]

Not at all.

Wall Street and the exchange in Chicago. There are a female movie actors I would like to see more of too-lol

 

[Acer-m14]

Are Free Glow Sticks included so we can glow in the dark .. LOL ..

 

[CaseHardened]

If Trump had not had the 2020 Election STOLEN from us, real americans, of every color and culture, this would all be moot.

 

[Acer-m14]

i also wonder .. with all the atomic and nuke bombs testings .. did the earths axis shift ?

why we have this BS called Global Warming / Climate Change

and its not the from the gas / diesel autos and wood stoves ..

 

[CaseHardened]

Man-Made Climate Change is a HOAX.

Full Stop.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

There is no such thing as a limited exchange.

You nuke 1 US military target or city and you are going to be removed from the map. There won't be an armistice agreement because there won't be anyone left to sign it.

Everybody knows this, so everyone knows if you are going to launch, you launch everything you've got right out of the gate, or you do nothing.

There isn't anything in between.

I would launch all but 1, just in case.

 

[GOYABEAN]

With the clown show in charge now they'll probably launch any counter attack against ourselves in their woke thinking counter strikes would be considered racist

 

[spat]

I think they could just but it on a few passenger airline jets and have them blow up as they approach the airports.

How long would it take figure out who set them off.
And all it would take is one or two launched and detonated at a high altitude above the US to cause major damage to the USA. Fiction and non fiction Books are written on this scenario.
A country might try that as their doomsday option if the US ever came to their shores. Would we respond with tactical nukes against an EMP? Or would we just EMP them too?

Commercial airliner flys too low to generate an EMP IIRC.

I don't think you get anything large below about 20 miles. The air is too thick, so the physics doesn't work out. It's like having too short an antenna on a transmitter.

And they cruise too high for the blast effect to do much.

But, they would make an excellent delivery vehicle if they were detonated during a landing.

Of course you could do the same with a Cessna too.

Basically anything used to smuggle bulk drugs into the country makes a functional nuclear delivery mechanism. But it's not as sexy to fight as building missile interceptors, so it doesn't get the attention.

Plus, I'm not even sure *how* you would fight that. They can try scanning cargo, but you can just detonate the nuke at the port of entry.

Imagine what 500kt would do at Long Beach or New York sitting in the line to be scanned.

It would be like someone setting off a bomb at the security line in the airport.

As for who set them off, we would know within the hour. Nukes have a very tracable fingerprint. Well, we would know who built it anyway, and no matter who sets it off I assume we would hold the builder responsible.

Putin wouldn't get a pass just because he decided AlQueida was the delivery method he wanted to use.

 

[spat]

I would launch all but 1, just in case.

In practice the US wouldn't be able to launch all.

Nuclear detonations interfere with each other. You can't detonate 2 or more nukes in the same area at the same time. The flash of radiation from the 1st will cause the core of the second to enter an excited state that prevents it from detonating properly for several minutes.

So, while you may want to hit Moscow with a dozen nukes, just to be sure, you have to very carefully plan out when they will arrive.

We have way more nukes than viable targets in most countries, so even if we get to the "glass the bitch" stage, we may be forced to hold back due to physics.

You could send a second round and nuke the glass that's left from the 1st, but it's just a waste at that point.

 

[Keyzard]

You're right. If the weather wasn't miserable and it was in a better state it would be near ideal to make a homestead.

We moved to north central PA in October. So far I've had to brush off the vehicles once and have yet to see more than an inch or so of snow on the ground. Unless you really hate winter, it's not so bad here.

 

[dsdmmat]

Why would the enemy hit the cities where most are unarmed, stupid, and Communist ?

The populations in those areas would be hard to control once they were starving. POWs and Refugees take resources to manage and when fighting a war you have limited resources. It is easier to kill them all.

 

[dsdmmat]

I feel thats all Bullshit. i think that military bases will get hit first. They will let the fallout kill the rest of us.

Hit the military bases and kill the civilian population centers around them. Then hit the major population centers, shipping ports and you effectively take out 30% -50% of the us population while taking out the ability to fight and train new fighters.

leave the heartland so you can grow food when the fallout has dissipated.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

We moved to north central PA in October. So far I've had to brush off the vehicles once and have yet to see more than an inch or so of snow on the ground. Unless you really hate winter, it's not so bad here.

That's not bad at all. That's way less misery than where I'm at.

Where about in central PA? I've been up and down 15 a few times. What are property taxes like?

 

[Keyzard]

That's not bad at all. That's way less misery than where I'm at.

Where about in central PA? I've been up and down 15 a few times. What are property taxes like?

Emporium, about 30 mins East of St Marys, 45 mins south east of Bradford.

My property taxes dropped to about half of what we were paying in Cheektowaga. The new house is more than double the size of the old, and the lot is 6 times the size.

The trades offs are nothing moves quickly here, and not everything is open on Sunday. FWIW, I've heard one siren since we moved in, and it was the local ambulance company. In this little borough things are pretty quiet.

 

[fresch]

That's not a limited exchange then. It's still everything they have.

Russia is the only country with enough warheads to even theoretically match us in a nuclear exchange, and that's assuming theirs work.

Everybody else has a couple hundred is all, even China.

N Korea is likely to have that many soon too. What they lack is a delivery method.

But a suicide bomber in a canoe up the Potomac works too, and we seem to want to ignore that route and pretend if it's not a billion dollar missile program it can't deliver.

The demonrats will get the delivery system to them; like Clinton did with the Chinese.
Just ask Ron Brown.

 

[tirwin1]

That's not a limited exchange then. It's still everything they have.

Russia is the only country with enough warheads to even theoretically match us in a nuclear exchange, and that's assuming theirs work.

Everybody else has a couple hundred is all, even China.

N Korea is likely to have that many soon too. What they lack is a delivery method.

But a suicide bomber in a canoe up the Potomac works too, and we seem to want to ignore that route and pretend if it's not a billion dollar missile program it can't deliver.

At the rate we're going a suicide bomber that takes out Washington DC might be doing us all a favor.

Yes, I'm joking.

Maybe.

 

[Jmac00]

At the rate we're going a suicide bomber that takes out Washington DC might be doing us all a favor.

Yes, I'm joking.

Maybe.

actually, I think you maybe spot on

 

[Pissed Off Patriot]

Hiding under a school desk will fully protect you. That's what they told us back in the 50's.

I'm prepared, with my in person 60's training. I got the latest and greatest!

 

[Truebeliever]

Commercial airliner flys too low to generate an EMP IIRC.

I don't think you get anything large below about 20 miles. The air is too thick, so the physics doesn't work out. It's like having too short an antenna on a transmitter.

And they cruise too high for the blast effect to do much.

But, they would make an excellent delivery vehicle if they were detonated during a landing.

Of course you could do the same with a Cessna too.

Basically anything used to smuggle bulk drugs into the country makes a functional nuclear delivery mechanism. But it's not as sexy to fight as building missile interceptors, so it doesn't get the attention.

Plus, I'm not even sure *how* you would fight that. They can try scanning cargo, but you can just detonate the nuke at the port of entry.

Imagine what 500kt would do at Long Beach or New York sitting in the line to be scanned.

It would be like someone setting off a bomb at the security line in the airport.

As for who set them off, we would know within the hour. Nukes have a very tracable fingerprint. Well, we would know who built it anyway, and no matter who sets it off I assume we would hold the builder responsible.

Putin wouldn't get a pass just because he decided AlQueida was the delivery method he wanted to use.

I assumed a missile launch for the EMP.

Yes, the nuke fingerprint could tell you a source if that source material was on file( which reactor created it). But what if it’s not on file ? Or was a Soviet era device ( refurbished). Are we going to launch against Russia not knowing if it was stolen when the Soviet Union collapsed. Or if Russia would launch more, regardless if they had something to do with it or not? ( we probably would do a B2/B21/cruise missile thing -but who knows) . Mutually Assured destruction isn’t as clear cut as it used to be.

 

[spat]

I assumed a missile launch for the EMP.

Yes, the nuke fingerprint could tell you a source if that source material was on file( which reactor created it). But what if it’s not on file ? Or was a Soviet era device ( refurbished). Are we going to launch against Russia not knowing if it was stolen when the Soviet Union collapsed. Or if Russia would launch more, regardless if they had something to do with it or not? ( we probably would do a B2/B21/cruise missile thing -but who knows) . Mutually Assured destruction isn’t as clear cut as it used to be.

I believe we know with near certainty. We would also know if it was a stolen Soviet warhead.

We can even tell by flying a plane near an underground test hours after it happens. The technique is that sensitive and we spend a lot of money and manpower to build and maintain a comprehensive database.

Even for pure uranium weapons that never touched a reactor, we know who refined them.

People frequently talk about "well, if it's just one, do you want to go all out in response", but all the wargaming everyone has ever done shows that 100% it *will* turn into a full exchange eventually, and you are better off escalating as fast as possible.

Think of it like this, if you are arresting Bonnie and Clyde and you *know* they are going to resist with fully automatic gun fire, you do not yell "drop your weapons" and wait for them to shoot first.

 

[Truebeliever]

I believe we know with near certainty. We would also know if it was a stolen Soviet warhead.

We can even tell by flying a plane near an underground test hours after it happens. The technique is that sensitive and we spend a lot of money and manpower to build and maintain a comprehensive database.

Even for pure uranium weapons that never touched a reactor, we know who refined them.

People frequently talk about "well, if it's just one, do you want to go all out in response", but all the wargaming everyone has ever done shows that 100% it *will* turn into a full exchange eventually, and you are better off escalating as fast as possible.

Think of it like this, if you are arresting Bonnie and Clyde and you *know* they are going to resist with fully automatic gun fire, you do not yell "drop your weapons" and wait for them to shoot first.

I can definitely see it escalating to a full exchange with Russia or China but what of North Korea and Iran ? We could melt them into slag but they could only make a limited exchange compared to us or the other two near peers.
But just think of the damage of just one used by a terrorist group . We would evacuate other cities just in case they had more. The economic damage would be tremendous. It would make hurricane Katrina and 9/11 look tame by comparison.

 

[spat]

I can definitely see it escalating to a full exchange with Russia or China but what of North Korea and Iran ? We could melt them into slag but they could only make a limited exchange compared to us or the other two near peers.
But just think of the damage of just one used by a terrorist group . We would evacuate other cities just in case they had more. The economic damage would be tremendous. It would make hurricane Katrina and 9/11 look tame by comparison.

N Korea has a few dozen nukes at least. They have recently announced the intent to make a bunch more. Since even China only has a few hundred the main difference between even those 2 is delivery capability.

The truth is, once you develop the capability to produce a nuke, you have the ability to produce an assembly line for them. You can have hundreds in a few years, even if you're N Korea.

As for evacuating the cities, where do you evacuate cities *to* ?

You could maybe with great expense evacuate *a* major city. That alone would have devastating economic consequences. But where would you evacuate several to ?

I can see the idiots in charge attempting this. It would make the covid nursing home disaster seem like a minor oops in comparison.