3 ms·
Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing a
by berberous 5y ago
Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing anything other than kick their wounds (NY, DC, LA)? I don’t see why they should want to destroy more minor cities as well (Baltimore, Miami, Charleston, etc) for no reason; seems like it doesn’t meaningful add protection when doing a first strike
- themadturk 5y agoDirectly targeting cities is hardly necessary to destroy them. Can you imagine Baltimore surviving weapons targeting the Washington DC area? Many cities of any size are near important military/industrial/infrastructure targets, probably targeted by multiple warheads. Even if they're not on the first-strike list, nukes will be targeting dams, factories, energy hubs, transportation hubs, airports, seaports, communications and commercial centers, as well as military targets (for example, in the Puget Sound region, we are royally screwed, even if they just hit a subset of Naval Base Bremerton, Naval Base Everett, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Naval Base Bangor, the Indian Island weapons depot, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Boeing's plants in Renton and Everett, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, Seatac airport...the list goes on). The "minor" cities you mention are all seaports, and all have international airports capable of hosting military aircraft.