A nuclear attack would most likely target one of these 6 US cities — but experts say none of them are prepared

Business Insider at Yahooooo ^ | December 18, 2019 | Business Insider (Aria Bendix)

[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.

[Track9]

Low yield then wash with water. Everything else will buff out.

[Buckeye McFrog]

World War III: A global thermonuclear confrontation that was won by the United States after Communist China made the fatal strategic miscalculation of nuking Washington, D.C., destroying along with it the entire bureaucracy of the Federal Government.

Freed from the constraints of an overreaching government, the American people quickly rebounded with unprecedented military production and economic growth which won the war in a few short months and ensured the United States continuance as the dominant global power for decades to come.

[Nifster]

Nope. In order of importance

Colorado Springs Colorado
Washington DC
Sunnyvale California

[rdl6989]

Berzerkley, California tops my list.

[PGR88]

If they hit Detroit, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

I was in Detroit recently and drove in big loop from downtown, to Hamtramck and around the West side, just to see where part of my Dad's family was originally was from.

An enemy would be foolish to waste any ordnance at all on that entire area.

[Seruzawa]

You get a 15 minute warning that a dozen 100kt nukes are about to blanket the area. WTF difference would it make?

[ETCM]

The article gives no reasons why they pick these 6 cities. Obviously, the selected targets would depend on who is attacking, their capabilities and goals. Pretty much worthless babbling by someone who had nothing much to say...

[Vaquero]

Not to denegrate but.....
....detonation of nuke over California cities would turn human street feces to glass.
Instant coprolites

[rdl6989]

Points 6 and 7 are the key.

[StormEye]

I think with most the cities mentioned the Russians or
the ChiComms would be wasting their nukes. They only
need to wait and watch the Democrats finish wrecking them.

[Clutch Martin]

Wrong,

Try large military bases and harbors first.

Maybe DC as well.

[z3n]

Okay, I didn’t click the link to dig in, but this is an odd topic for an article.

Would would those cities be the ‘most likely’ target? Just because they are most populous?
Who is doing the nuking?

Wouldn’t it be DC and the Pentagon for strategic purposes, plus Norad and SAC?

NY makes sense for how it would hurt the economy, and SF (if it included silicon valley) would hurt a lot for how it would possible effect internet, communication, and social media, as well as population. Seattle for Boeing maybe? No military or airforce bases? Ship yards? Panama canal?

How about Detroit to hit the automotive giants?
.... oh wait... I guess that would be mexico city. heh

[DesertRhino]

Houston would be kinda sad because of the oil infrastructure, but it has gone hard left lately. We can rebuild it.
That list gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

[SaveFerris]

They’ve cut back from the huge bombs, I think. A lot of today’s weapons seem to be 500kt or smaller (from what I’ve seen).

Used to be the W-78 was around 375kt. The Trident D-5, I believe, had a warhead around 475kt.

I think most of the big megaton weapons are gone.

Not that 475kt couldn’t ruin your day........

Hiroshima was 7kt-15kt (also from what I’ve read).

Nagasaki was larger yield, of course.

[Jamestown1630]

4. Duct tape and plastic sheeting

(isn’t that what Homeland Security told us?)

[GOPJ]

Wait, what about Detroit? Detroit produces cars and could produce tanks. Our enemies need to put Detroit on the list... And Seattle. Very high tech city. And the suburbs of Washington... how can they leave those off?

OK, I’m just kidding. We don’t want any of our cities destroyed. None of them. We need to protect our cities AND our borders.

If we reelect Trump he can put this on his list - and he’ll work at making our cities safer. I suspect this is part of the reason for the Space Force...

[Sacajaweau]

We learned 6 & 7 when I was in the 8th grade. We had drills all the time. That was in 1957.

[SaveFerris]

[ The article gives no reasons why they pick these 6 cities. ]

yep

[grey_whiskers]

Well, if they want to take out large resevoirs of blue votes (for the popular vote; let alone possibly gaining President Trump a new state)...

as well as rallying the entire F'ING COUNTRY around the Commander-in-Chief...

(and if it's DC, draining the swamp *themselves*)...

[A Navy Vet]

Stupid. Of course there is little that can be done once a city is nuked. FEMA and other agencies and first responders can plan every minute of the day - there's very little they could do.

I sleep well knowing that our Tridents are cruising the oceans and every nation in the world know they are out there, but never know where they are. Not even the crazies like Iran or the Norks would dare strike a US city. Sure they could sell their nukes to smaller players, but our nuke experts can tell where a certain uranium or plutonium is processed and originated from.

Glad to see Pres. Trumps vision of a Space Force being realized. That's where the next cold war will occur.