Which cities’ inhabitants should get the hell out should nuclear war take place in the next… um… let’s say four years or so?
Depends on who we are going to have a nuclear exchange with. If it’s an all out exchange between the US and Russia then you have potentially thousands of targets that could be hit on the US mainland (assuming the Russian nukes and launch systems actually work)…pretty much every major US city and military base would be a potential target. If it’s China that the US goes to war with then you have many less potential targets, but most likely the major cities would still be potential. If it’s North Korea then, again making some assumptions, you are talking about mainly west coast cities and only a handful (or less than a handful) possible.
Are we talking a full out nuclear war with Russia? Then the answer is “all of them”. Any city that is a transportation hub, or near a military base, or has any strategic value is going to get nuked by the Russkis.
If you want a more substantive answer, the Russians keep their list of targets secret, so it’s not like there’s a factual answer to the question. But if you just go “If I were going to destroy the United States, and I had a thousand nuclear bombs, where would I drop them?” And the answer is the top couple hundred or so cities, plus military bases, plus transport hubs, and don’t forget all of the same in Europe and Asia.
A quick search gives me some vaguely credible looking information saying there’s about 35,000 cities and towns recognized by the USGS. At the height of the Cold War, the USSR had enough nukes to target every single one of them and have a few thousand nuclear weapons left over, if they wanted to.
Today, Russia’s stockpile is probably considerably less, just as the US’s is, but if we then check with the Census Bureau, we find there’s only about 4,000 places with a population of over 10,000. I’d guess that Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to hit several thousand targets, and thus can probably target most places with a population of 10,000 or more if they so chose.
If their goal was to declare exterminatus on the US, then, the targets would, indeed, be basically ‘all of them’ as Lemur866 says, or at least as near to ‘all of them’ as would matter. Since we’ve never actually had a nuclear war, and most projections of nuclear war that I’m aware of assume that both sides are trying to wipe out the other side, starting with all military assets but often including the entire population, that doesn’t seem like an unreasonable goal to expect.
There may not be tens of thousands of nuclear weapons available anymore, but a few thousand is still quite sufficient.
Barksdale AFB
Minot AFB
The first target you want to hit is a country’s nuclear command network.
Abilene, Texas
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bangor, Washington
Bossier City, Louisiana
Box Elder, South Dakota
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Great Falls, Montana
Honolulu, Hawaii
Huntsville, Alabama
Knob Noster, Missouri
Minot, North Dakota
Norfolk, Virginia
Omaha, Nebraska
Severn, Maryland
St. Marys, Georgia
Washington, DC
There are only two Trident nuclear submarine bases in the US. Bangor, Washington for the Pacific Fleet and Kings Bay, Georgia for the Atlantic Fleet.
You probably don’t want to be near those.
San Diego is a biggie. Carrier base and submarine base.
I live in Colorado Springs. I don’t know if modern nukes can wreck Cheyenne Mountain, but they’ll do a real fine job of wrecking the city in the process of trying.
Sure, but there’s no point in actually nuking say… Minot, ND. The silos are spread out over a range of as much as 50 miles from town, and nuking the AFB itself isn’t going to take out the individual silos themselves.
I’d think the missile silos are priority targets, as are major seaports, airports, railyards and highway interchanges. Petrochemical refineries and chemical plants would also be a good thing to hit as well.
I’d also probably try and hit power plants if I had warheads to spare, as well as government buildings.
Keep in mind too that a thousand nukes doesn’t mean a thousand targets. There’s no way that Russia would target Washington, DC with just one nuke: High-priority targets will have multiple missiles aimed at them, to provide redundancy in case of missile defense or device failure.
And in the case of the Russians, they don’t actually know how many of their launchers and nukes are actually going to work. I imagine the uncertainty there is going to have them more than doubling up on the really high priority stuff because it might take 2-3 to do the job (as you say), but it might take a dozen (or more) to actually ensure that 2-3 get there to do the job.
In the case of everyone, really. Even on manned missions, where we’re willing to spend much more to get increases in reliability, rockets still have a depressingly-high failure rate. On unmanned missions, the cheapest way to get reliability is usually to just launch on a half-decent rocket, and if it fails, to just make another and launch it on another half-decent rocket.
Yeah, even in the US, which spends a hell of a lot more than everyone else combined on testing and maintenance of our nuke arsenel there isn’t 100% confidence in every launch vehicle or every nuke. The Russian’s, however, are really far down from that…they simply don’t have the budget to pour into high levels of maintenance, and a lot of their older stuff (they are making new weapons now, but not a ton of them) can range from maybe workable to ‘left in a hole in the ground with water for years without anyone looking in there to see what state it’s in’.
Really dude? They’re gonna tell you where the silos are? :rolleyes:
I’d want to be right at Ground Zero should anything like this happen. No way would I want to survive it.
This sounds like the early 1980s all over again. 
You could try to hide somewhere in the interior, though I’d guess the winds would carry radioactive dust and rivers would be full of toxic sludge anyway.
Estimates of current arsenals are in the 15k range, including all active, stockpile, and retired/scheduled for disassembly but still available weapons:
Federation of American Scientists Status of World Nuclear Forces
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Fact Sheet: Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories in 2015
Plowshares.org World Nuclear Stockpile Report
Note that this includes not only weapons on alert (ready for deployment upon command) and in active stockpiles (assembled and can be readied for deployment in a short period of days or weeks) but weapons in reserve stockpiles (available but not ready for operational deployment); it may not include weapons that are in a state of disassembly or materials which are in fabrication or refurbishment which could be made into nuclear weapons in an intermediate term (months).
Weapons would not be applied uniformly; there is little reason to strike, say, Joplin, MO, or Farmerville, LA, but an opponent would direct multiple weapons upon Dayton, OH, Colorado Springs, CO, or Vandenberg, CA for critical communications and control functions there. The attendant effects of a large scale strike would likely doom a good portion of the nation which survives the initial strike to famine, disease, and radiation poisoning from fallout.
The Cheyenne Mountain Complex is on “warm standby” (minimal maintenance and support crew) and NORAD and USNORTHCOM operations have been moved to an ordinary office building on nearby Peterson AFB. There is an alternate NORAD site in Canada (also in an unreinforced building) and most of the command, communications, control, and integration functions can be performed on mobile platforms like the E-4B.
Although space launch vehicles do have relatively poor reliability rates, the Minuteman ICBM fleet has been extensively tested at both component and integrated levels to provide a high degree of reliability even when launching in adverse conditions (inclement weather, seismic events, during an active nuclear attack). Redundancy is desired from the perspective of making sure that strategically critical targets are destroyed and aren’t intercepted, but the reliability of ICBMs is conservatively an order of magnitude improvement over most commercial launch vehicles.
Stranger
I think XT nailed it. If you’re worried that Trump is going to get us into a nuclear war, who do you think it’s going to be with? Russia seems like the least likely, which is fortuitous because they happen to have the most nuclear weapons.
North Korea perhaps? Well, don’t move to Seoul for sure, and maybe avoid the biggest cities on the west coast, assuming their missiles might be accurate enough to hit LA or San Fran (not something I’d bet money on, but better safe than sorry).
China maybe? Well, they’ve got more nukes, and a more capable missile program, so maybe move out of the 100 biggest cities in America, or at least the ones on the Western side of the country.
All of them.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk