Map Shows US Cities Russia Would Strike First if War Broke Out

Newsweek ^ | 3/19/24 | David Brennen

[hardspunned]

A direct clash between Russia and NATO would put the world "one step away from a full-scale World War III," Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters this week as he celebrated a preordained victory in the country's presidential election and underscored his uncompromising Ukraine strategy.

The threat of nuclear escalation has been ever-present as the West continues to bolster Ukraine and frustrate the Kremlin's military campaign. For Moscow, the nuclear card has been useful in deterring deeper NATO involvement in the conflict. "Everything is possible in the modern world," Putin warned this week.

[Nachoman]

No problem. I learned in grade school to duck under my desk in case the apocalypse starts.

[Rinnwald]

As well as Indian Island Naval (nuke) Arsenal, where the boomers load up.

The Newsweek thing is just a list of fantasy first targets as if can we dip our toes into Global Thermonuclear War.

Jim Creek is Number one! We’re Number 1!

[Sirius Lee]

You know, all of this could be avoided if pootz the putz would simply nuke Davos then next time all the pedos are gathered there.

[apostoli]

Duck!

d:^)

[Rockingham]

The problem with using nuclear weapons is that they are like eating potato chips: it is hard to stop with just one, or even a few. Game theory and simulations show this, and nuclear strategists take it as a given that that a tactical or limited use of nuclear weapons by one power would soon escalate into a general nuclear exchange.

Putin knows this, so he in various ways he is now threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, that would lead to Russia's destruction as well. The political effect in the West though is to stimulate public sentiment for appeasement.

As during the Cold War, the proper response to Russian nuclear saber rattling is to amplify our own readiness and make clear privately that we are not going to be bluffed into concessions. Meanwhile, as with Reagan did against the USSR, we must build up our military forces and apply strategic pressure so as bring the Russian regime to its knees.

[Rinnwald]

...but it’s 15 miles from were I live.

Kirk: Time?

Saavik: Three minutes, thirty seconds.

Kirk: Distance from Reliant?

Chekov: 4000 kilometers.

Sulu: We're not going to make it, are we?

[Kirk turns to look at David, who slowly shakes his head]

[Svartalfiar]

plus let us not make the tragic mistake of ignoring the list of American cities that the Iranian dictators will destroy with their nuclear bombs on their ICBM’s

... Iran's longest-ranged ICBMs have a max range of 5-6 km. Barely able to hit these US, if at all. And the few that miiight reach us, would easily be shot down. Iran's only danger to the mainland is terrorists they snuck in over the border. That's it.

[faithhopecharity]

thanks for that. iran has been building icbm’s with longer and greater range every year. They an already nuke several European countries directly from bases in Iran. They don’t need longer range ICBM’s to hit their neighbors in the mid-east, so this rapid development of longer and longer range missiles is to hit longer-range targets. Their first priority is to hit USA, they’ve repeated stated this and nobody doubts it for a second.
They also have several successful space satellites already.
And the Russians have given them submarines and more are believed in the offing. (It would be quite unsurprising if Russia hasn’t already given Iran modern technology capable of hitting USA since Biden has authorized strikes into Russia’s heartland from the Ukraine...)

when evil dictators like in Iran threaten you, history teaches the wisdom of listening. Yes, USA still has vast military resources and yes, it could quite likely intercept any Iranian nukes targeted on American cities. Quite likely but NOT guaranteed!! Even some Fakestinian missiles manage to get through Israeli defenses and the IDF has the most advanced anti-missile technology in the world.

All I am suggesting is to be aware of the danger. There’s probably nothing you or I can do about it, anyway, so let’s move forward in life without debilitating fear. That Iran is a clear and present danger is, nonetheless, a fact of life.

[fatherofthree]

For all those who don’t want to survive a nuclear exchange (or say they won’t), can I get your address? That way when the nukes fly and you are still alive, I can put you out of your misery and take your stuff. Good grief people, stop listening to the media and do some research! Find out just how many bombs exist, the sizes and effect diameters and plan accordingly. Most people in the U.S. who won’t survive six months is because they are not prepared for anything. You don’t have to be a prepper with 10 years supplies of food to do some minimal prep for any type of disaster. As for hardspunned whom I replying to, if the closest target is 75 miles away, you will suffer no direct effects and fallout (if there is any from your nearest targets) is survivable, unless you want to go wallow like a pig in the stuff.