# What's the largest city that would survive a nuclear apocalypse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 5, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957 "2013-04-05T21:42:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/41 "2013-04-07T16:57:49Z")
Which is relevant when you only have a small number of bombs. The US and Russia did not have a small number of bombs; they had enough to throw some even at the low priority targets. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/42 "2013-04-07T17:38:10Z")
Once you’ve destroyed the enemy’s C3, who do you talk to about stopping the war? You can’t negotiate with 100 individual Gen. Jack D. Rippers. Or was limited nuclear war never an option? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/43 "2013-04-07T17:38:39Z")
I think we’re saying the same thing- my point was that with the number of strategic nukes that the US and USSR had, you hit all sorts of stuff that wouldn’t normally be thought of as targets, and therefore, no city was really safe. Back to the OP though… if there had been a Cold War style full-out nuclear exchange, I’d think that the largest cities would be non-aligned ones in Europe, like say… Stockholm, Helsinki or Geneva, or anywhere in Africa, Asia or S. America. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/44 "2013-04-07T18:28:55Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That comment doesn’t even make sense and is kind of ignorant. By “war plans” I mean things like the old [SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan), not some other kind of plan. I understand that. I was pointing out that having a plan to do something is not the same as actually doing it. One side had a plan to destroy the opposing side’s cities and the opposing side had a plan to prevent its cities from being destroyed. Obviously both of these plans weren’t going to come true. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/45 "2013-04-07T18:40:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Which is relevant when you only have a small number of bombs. The US and Russia did not have a small number of bombs; they had enough to throw some even at the low priority targets. > [@bump](#): > > I think we’re saying the same thing- my point was that with the number of strategic nukes that the US and USSR had, you hit all sorts of stuff that wouldn’t normally be thought of as targets, and therefore, no city was really safe. That’s the whole point of the targeting plan I’ve described. If the problem is your opponent has enough warheads to blow up everything in your country, then you try to develop a plan so he doesn’t have all those warheads. My enemy has a thousand warheads right now and can blow up every city in my country. But if I hit him before he launches his attack, I can destroy nine hundred of his warheads on the ground. Now he’s only got a hundred warheads and he can no longer destroy all my cities. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/46 "2013-04-07T19:39:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Now he’s only got a hundred warheads and he can no longer destroy all my cities. Yes. Bit at lets say 2-3 warheas per urban area, he can fuckup your country for 2 generations. 100 warheads detonating (lets presume an average yield of 500 KT) is about 25-40 million killed outright. Nothing is worth that, not even his complete destruction. If, in more realistic senario, he has upto 50% of his warheads still surviving, then thats 500 warheads and over 100 million killed. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/47 "2013-04-07T19:57:34Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s the whole point of the targeting plan I’ve described. If the problem is your opponent has enough warheads to blow up everything in your country, then you try to develop a plan so he doesn’t have all those warheads. > > My enemy has a thousand warheads right now and can blow up every city in my country. But if I hit him before he launches his attack, I can destroy nine hundred of his warheads on the ground. Now he’s only got a hundred warheads and he can no longer destroy all my cities. Which is, in turn, why your enemy is not going to wait to see if the high-priority targets were destroyed before launching at the low-priority ones. ---
**Author:** ![auntlohimein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/74df32/32.png) [@auntlohimein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/auntlohimein)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/48 "2013-04-09T05:06:12Z")
I have a de-classified book on nuc warfare from the GAO, bump is right, it shows hits wjth mirv’ed warhds as overlapping on detroit, moscow, worse than one biggie and end of book is an “accounting” of how a small town in VA. is doing up to a year post DC nuke, not to well and “refugees” a problem! I didn’t sleep well for many nites, I am an RN and my dad a US Army colonel my mind ran with all combo’s of hell! ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/49 "2013-04-09T16:03:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Do you really think decisions to launch a full nuclear attack get made in ninety seconds? Or even ten minutes? Oh, I’m quite positive that the decision to launch can be made in 10 minutes, or even 90 seconds. > [@](#): > > Look at all of the [times](http://www.cracked.com/article_19790_6-tiny-mistakes-that-almost-ended-world_p2.html) we’ve come close to a nuclear war. Something happened that made people think there might be a nuclear attack but they weren’t sure. In every case there was paralysis and confusion. Which was a good thing because none of these were actually an attack. But what if one of them had been an attack? A lot of warheads would have been hit on the ground while people were still trying to figure out if they should launch them or not. The reaction in none of those cases was paralysis, the reaction _without fail_ was to prepare to launch before the error was detected. Additionally, only one of those cases appeared to be a major attack, the one where a readout erroneously stated 220 inbound missiles, the others only single glitches. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Then it appears we are talking about something different. Primary targets are not anything that has a flag painted on it. Primary targets are targets that can fire nuclear weapons or can give orders for nuclear weapons to be fired. If I wasn’t clear earlier, priority targets are those targets assigned the highest priority in the targeting order. Primary targets are the targets that are assigned the most warheads. In the Cold War that primary target was cities, or if you prefer economic and infrastructure targets. Having flags painted on it has nothing to do with anything. > [@](#): > > You don’t waste time shooting at any other targets until you’ve hit all of those. (Or until you know the target has carried out its mission. You don’t waste weapons on sites that have already launched their weapons or given their orders. Nobody would bother shooting at a known empty silo - it’s just a hole in a field now.) As you yourself have said, the flight time of an ICBM is 30 minutes. You may not know for certain if the missile is still in the silo when you launch at it, and there are far more than enough warheads available to assign one to the silo anyway (who knows? Maybe you’ll get lucky), but I can guarantee you the silo will be empty and its missile fired by the time your own warhead arrives. And of course you fire at all of those other targets; you aren’t going to have the missiles to fire on those targets later if the enemy is sending thousands of warheads at your own nuclear capable forces. Again, the situation is use it or lose it, and the best, easiest, and really the only way to protect your ICBMs is to fire them. > [@](#): > > All other targets come afterwards. There isn’t going to be an afterwards. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My enemy has a thousand warheads right now and can blow up every city in my country. But if I hit him before he launches his attack, I can destroy nine hundred of his warheads on the ground. Now he’s only got a hundred warheads and he can no longer destroy all my cities. The fatal flaw in this plan is that he is going to launch all one thousand of those warheads when he sees you firing your arsenal at nine hundred of his warheads. This of course ignores that facts that 1) even if it were to work, him being ‘only’ able to destroy 100 of your cities isn’t much of a victory and 2) the number of warheads available to each side during the Cold War was much greater than a thousand. Oh, and 3) there’s still the problem of all of those SLBMs which would survive any plan for taking out all of those ICBMs that could actually work. The SLBMs on their own have more than enough firepower to lay waste to every city in the enemy country. Hence the use of the word overkill and the phrase MAD. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/50 "2013-04-09T16:49:18Z")
> [@Soulcatcher](#): > > The enemy might see pictures of Detroit and assume it has already been nuked and therefore avoid targeting it. Or perhaps even conclude that a nuclear blast would increase property values. Come on, that’s just mean. Seriously, tho. Detroit could be a strategic target because it is a major economic corridor between the US and Canada. But it would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list. Covert sabotage teams targeting the Ambassador Bridge and the Windsor Tunnel could accomplish the same thing. Bit like others have said, the only really sensible targets for nukes are military installations and centers of government. If we imagine North Korea aiming nukes, the most obvious targets would be the US military bases in Guam, Diego Garcia, and Okinawa. These would be strategically important in a war. (Actually, they could reach Okinawa now, and might be able to reach Guam.) Seoul is easily within range of conventional artillery, so there’s little reason to point a nuke at it. If they had ICBM’s, then Washington, DC and it environs would be a legitimate target, as would Los Angeles, San Diego, Honolulu (military jumping-off points), Colorado Springs (the military’s post-nuclear doomsday command center), and that place in Nebraska where the B-2 bombers are based. It’s hard to imagine why they would want to nuke New York, Chicago, Detroit, or really any other big city in the US. Too little gain for throwing away a very valuable weapon. ---
**Author:** ![This\_Just\_In\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@This\_Just\_In\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_Just_In_2)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/51 "2013-04-09T17:31:51Z")
I always assumed that in a full scale exchange any airport capable of servicing military aircraft would be targeted. Consequently, most cities would be hit on account of having an airport. The city center might be left mostly intact depending on how far it is from the airport(s). ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/52 "2013-04-09T18:22:34Z")
> [@This\_Just\_In\_2](#): > > I always assumed that in a full scale exchange any airport capable of servicing military aircraft would be targeted. Consequently, most cities would be hit on account of having an airport. The city center might be left mostly intact depending on how far it is from the airport(s). The city **is** the target. Actually, all of the civilians living in the city are the target; that they all live bunched up in the city just makes it more convenient to target and kill them. That’s total war theory; every single enemy civilian is a target. The guy working at the armament factory is supporting the war effort by producing the weapons and ammunition that will wind up on the front lines. The guy selling him his lunch is supporting him in supporting the war effort. The truck driver delivering the produce to the guy selling lunch to the guy working in the weapons factory is supporting the war effort. They are all targets, as are you and as am I. From wiki on [total war](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war), bolding mine: > [@](#): > > In the mid-19th century, “total war” was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, **there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all** , as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957/53 "2013-04-10T01:40:48Z")
There is no sane target for North Korea to nuke. Even assuming they had some way of delivering them, their handful of nukes would barely put a dent in the US’s ability to wage war, and so the US would immediately come down on them like a ton of bricks on a bug. When people worry about North Korea with a nuke, they’re worried about insane targets, and who knows what those would be? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-largest-city-that-would-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse/654957.md?page=2)