As pointed out when they were first proposed, the “Silo Busters” are strictly a first-strike weapon - you don’t waste a missile blowing up an empty silo.
So, even if the silo busters are no longer around (I’d hope they were the first to go in SALT and SALT II), it comes down to "how fast can you re-target an ICBM?
Then there are the strategic bombers and, most critical, the “Boomer” subs - huge plus if you can hit one in port.
Then there is the question: Beyond military C&C*, do you go after military or population?
There’s not a whole lot of military targets in the SF Bay Area, but a “Neutron” bomb on the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge would take out about 6 million people, and kill off the current and next generations of “Silicon Valley”.
Much easier than trying to destroy Cheyenne Mountain**.
Again, a philosophical difference.
Command and Control. The “Internet” was the US DOD’s scheme to use the ATT network as a backup to its own communication network, which would have been about the first thing lost in a full scale, no holds barred, war between the US and USSR.
** - A granite mountain with a tunnel containing the SAC C*C systems. Better armor than the Bismark.
Historically we would have about ten days notice that the Soviets/Russians are gonna dance. There would be a lot of back and forth between warhead bunkers and dispersal area’s, as the munitions get certified. Their airforce starts realistic training, bringing up replacements and the Russian fleet, such as it is, will be generated for surges.
For all intents and purposes, its not going to go unnoticed. Which then means who gets ready firstest with the mostest. The bone fleet is no longer plumbed for nuclear weapons, due to treaty. So they are out of contention for the immediate time frame, and anything after that, people have signed papers saying they ain’t gonna say stuff, else Federal prison.
Since the peace dividend, I don’t have any confidence that the Nuclear Force is anywhere near the 70/80’s level of power projection, but also don’t have any sources to say how degraded it is currently, this was supposed to be the end of that era and stuff was only going to be kept for political purposes, not to actually use.
I think that the idea of a conflict betwixt Russia and the States is currently over blown, let alone going to a nuke escalation. We have to many other ways of degrading Russia.
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of strategic military targets aren’t “military” at all, but rather economic or command/control oriented. They’re things like rail yards, highway interchanges, petrochemical complexes, factories, telecommunications facilities, bridges, government buildings, etc…
I imagine a strike on those sorts of targets would effectively destroy cities, even if it didn’t involve directly dropping nukes on residential areas or residential communities.
So in the San Francisco/Bay Area, at a minimum I imagine they’d nuke the Golden Gate Bridge in some fashion, as well as the Port of Oakland and the airports, as well as all the minor military bases in the area (reserve/National Guard).
One of the advantages of ‘urban sprawl’ in the nuclear age was/is that a single nuclear warhead can’t ‘destroy’ a city any longer. It is just too spread out and redundant.
Given say, 1,000 warheads striking the continental USA and considering that the bulk of Russian ICBM warheads are 550kt and 750kt weapons with the sub launched weapons being 100kt and 200kt warheads, you’re going to see a fair (but not overall substantial) number of the heavy hitters aimed at US military targets and then much of the remainder carpet bombing (3-10 warheads each depending on yield) the larger urban areas. Smaller cities of 40-100k may be targeted depending on strategic value - are they transport hubs?
Well, what is in North Dakota? Nothing much. Fargo is only 105k, Minot is only 40k. But there’s a B-52 base near Minot and it is a transportation hub and close to the oil production. I’d bet money they’re not just targeting the Air Force base, but have another warhead aimed at Minot itself. City of 41,000 people. Not much, but strategically important.
Memphis would be a target to take out the main bridges over the Mississippi River. This would disrupt transportation between the east and west US. There used to be a massive army depot I’d always heard was a target but it’s been shut down. Taking out FedEx headquarters would also hurt.
This kind of map, frequently seen in various forms, shows fallout pattern from a hypothetical major nuclear attack on the US. The presumed goal of ‘digging out’ the US ICBM silo’s with huge megatonnage, as well as hitting the remaining bomber bases, which are basically all in the Plains states* covers almost the whole eastern US with shelter-requiring fallout, in addition to big clouds from hitting population centers. The largest area not affected is northern CA/southern OR, to windward of the prevailing winds and containing no large cities or military bases.
In terms of direct blast and thermal effect the great majority of the US by area would not be heavily affected, although a lot of the population lives in places that would be.
*to give them more warning time against missiles launched from off the coasts. At one time when SAC was bigger and had more shorter ranged a/c (which would stage through bases in Europe to hit the USSR) it had bomber bases on the coasts but not in late Cold War, for that reason. Some bomber bases were closed after this map; you can see a plume from Plattsburgh AFB in upstate NY which was closed in 1995. But that part of the country is still in line for fallout depending on specific weather.
