Posted on 12/18/2019 12:32:40 PM PST by SaveFerris
A nuclear attack on US soil would most likely target one of six cities: New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Washington, DC.
But public-health experts say any of those cities would struggle to provide emergency services to the wounded.
The cities also no longer have designated fallout shelters to protect people from radiation.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
The chance that a nuclear bomb would strike a US city is slim, but nuclear experts say it's not out of the question.
A nuclear attack in a large metropolitan area is one of the 15 disaster scenarios for which the US Federal Emergency Management Agency has an emergency strategy. The agency's plan involves deploying first responders, providing immediate shelter for evacuees, and decontaminating victims who have been exposed to radiation.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
They used the ultimate dirty bomb...the fallout looks just like human turds.
‘Wait, what about Detroit? Detroit produces cars and could produce tanks.’
Not so much any more....
“In other news, the helmets fighter pilots wear don’t protect you when you hit a mountain at 600 knots.”
So thats why they fly with Advil packets.
Strategic sites with possible military retaliation would be imperative first strike. Selective EMP strikes on majority Democrat cities (Memphis, St. Louis, Detroit) would result in the local populace destroying the infrastructure on their own within a few days due to lack of food and the lack of morality possessed by the locals.
Exactly...
And it would be one of the easiest.
A nuclear weapon can be brought in by ship/boat downtown and detonated.
Lots of foreign ships in and out of Boston as they are in other East Coast cities. -Tom
Exactly. They’d be literally eating their own.
They sound almost hopeful for a nuclear attack.
Or the economy crashing. It’s what they want.
Since Her Thighness lost.
True.
And NY is itself trying to crash the economy here.
And they’re succeeding at crashing NY at least.
While those targets may be on a list, except for DC they are probably not top priority. The targets at the top of the hit list are probably sites and facilities across the country that few people even know much about. Some are fairly obvious if you think about it and have a little working knowledge but others not so much unless you work in the defense industry.
Yes ... that’s why I posted that.
You seriously don’t think every important military production and logistical facility wouldn’t be wiped out in a first or second strike ??? That is not realistic.
Yeah. It’s to stir up the Democrats to vote for Joe.
I’m sure the Soviets (and now the Russians) have had each of those cities on their A-bomb carrying intercontinental bombers and then their ICBMs came on line. Followed by the ChiComs once they developed functioning ICBMs. I ate many meals at the “Ground Zero Cafe” in the courtyard of the Pentagon during my assignments there. And we figured that we’d be the first to go in a Soviet nuclear strike. Thus terrorists targeting these same cities is not exactly new.
clear it out and rebuild from the ground up.
Why nuke population centers that have already self-destructed? Do they just want to bounce the poop?
The old Civil Defense books from around 1960 showed lots more targets.
Silly article, a nuclear attack would likely target all of these cities and many more.
If you’re outside the initial blast area, save a bullet for yourself, as the radiation poisoning death is too terrible to go thru.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.