4 ms·

Makes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York. Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC

Makes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York. Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC and NYC. The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

mhog_hn 2y ago
Similarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.
morkalork 2y ago
Just avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!
hypeatei 2y ago
You won't want to live anywhere after nukes start flying. Even if your location isn't hit directly, you're dealing with a complete collapse of society as we know it. Not to mention things like nuclear winter. > The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Russia has ~5500 warheads, so maybe not every square inch but certainly several cities and other locations in each state.
- tombert 2y ago
  You know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones
glass-z13 2y ago
I know you're half joking but if someone were to give an honest answer i think you need to take into consideration resources in the region, water supply, rivers that could carry radioactive material and so on. I would assume (they) would've already thought about this kind of thing where you would map what's the most damaging areas to nuke that would affect the most area. Grim times ahead for sure but i'm not that stressed considering that something like 70% of russia's population is in the west of the country, very, very close to europe
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? First, nuclear forces: ICBM and IRBM silos and their C2, nuclear weapons storage, strategic airfields and ballistic-missile submarine bases. (This is why nuclear arsenals escalate against each other. The defensive role of missile silos is both deference and to soak up the enemy’s nukes.) Second, leadership: command posts and communication. Third, other military: barracks, supply depots, marshalling points, airfields, ammunition storage, tank and vehicle storage. Fourth, military industry: ammo, tank, APC factories; refineries; railyards and repair facilities. Steel, aluminum and power generation. Fifth, population centres. (You don’t want to nuke New York if that could have taken out a silo that will flatten a dozen of your cities.) In summary, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere :). https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-319fs.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-319fs.pdf page 22
- Retric 2y ago
  That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless. So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.
  - StrauXX 2y ago
    You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos
    - Retric 2y ago
      The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory. By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pqtyw 2y ago
Why do you think France or Britain would nuke New York? And there isn't that much point for Russia to nuke their new ally either.
- tombert 2y ago
  I don't think it's super likely, though if our president decides to declare war to try reignite American imperialism, then it seems like it could happen. He's already talked about invading Greenland, what's to stop him from trying to invade somewhere else, somewhere with more firepower to fight back? All it would take is Fox News or OAN to start running stories about how the US is actually entitled to the land of France. It's not like it matters if there's any truth to it.
  - Vilian 2y ago
    Isn't US military well independent? So they would just refuse in contrast with authoritarian militaries like russia where they don't have that power
    - pqtyw 2y ago
      > Isn't US military well independent? Is it? I mean I don't think they could legally refuse (if use of force was authorized by the president and congress)? So it would still effectively be a military "coup" and those can obviously still happen in authoritarian countries.
- tim333 2y ago
  Do you think us Brits just calmly accepted our loss in the war of independence?
quackscience 2y ago
New Yorker here. Last year one of my meditation teachers here in the city casually mentioned that in some sects of Tibetan Buddhism there's a prophecy of some sort of catastrophic global event between 2026 and 2032, and a former monk friend of his advised him to leave NYC by 2030. From some casual googling it seems like the text is "The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come". I'm a non-believer when it comes to these sorts of things, but if anything was to convince me otherwise it'd be watching Trump speed run us towards another World War these past few weeks.
- endofreach 2y ago
  How is trump speed running towards another world war? To me– a non-us citizen– it does seem like quite the opposite.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Well he has talked repeatedly about taking Greenland "by force", which in itself wouldn't be a world war, but of course is still terrible. I think the concern is that telling Ukraine to surrender their land after they were invaded by Russia will give Russia the confidence to start attacking other European countries. Traditionally, NATO would have protected us from that happening, but with Trump upsetting all our NATO partners, I'm kind of concerned that that won't help this time.
    - m4rtink 2y ago
      Well, this is how yout tell anynone feeling like fixing like they might be in a position of fixing old grudges or grabbing some land - go for it! :P Not very safe and can get out of hand very very quickly...
    - quackscience 2y ago
      This, basically. He's said that we're going to take Greenland one way or another, is talking about taking the Panama Canal, is basically telling Russia we're on their side and Europe can deal with it themselves, and China is ramping up activities around taking Taiwan [1]. He's also classified the cartels as terrorist organizations and has talked about sending in elite US forces to take them out, which Mexico has said they would view as a violation of their sovereignty. I've been listening to a lot of French news lately and France is already talking about needing to build more nuclear weapons and to extend nuclear protections across Europe, as the US has in a short few weeks completely alienated all of our allies from the past 80 years [2]. So, I don't know, seems like we're closer to everything going to shit globally than in any other time in my 40+ years. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-advance-reunification-with-taiwan-premier-2025-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-a... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-frances-offer-extend-its-nuclear-umbrella-2025-03-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-france...
sva_ 2y ago
I sometimes heard vague theories of rich people on the east coast having their jets ready to fly to New Zealand, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be in such a scenario.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > fly to New Zealand It's a 7700nmi trip: * http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA Not many private jets (or even commercial ones) can do non-stop: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800
  - kdmtctl 2y ago
    That is why those models are in high demand. Not only for a doomsday scenario, but as a general convenience to fly non-stop.
- hedgeho 2y ago
  Billionaires such as Zuckerberg are also building luxury bunkers [1]. Kinda wish they tried to prevent apocalypse instead... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
  - archagon 2y ago
    All they’re doing is making rich, delicious oysters for those left on the surface to shuck.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Idaho National Lab (the leading center for nuclear energy research and development) is 200 miles from Boise. Not a direct hit but still not fun. https://inl.gov/ https://inl.gov/
throw0101d 2y ago
> Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice. There's a handy map in this article: * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-would-take-the-brunt-of-an-attack-on-u-s-nuclear-missile-silos/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-would-take-th... * https://www.newsweek.com/safest-us-states-nuclear-war-attack-us-silos-1995408 https://www.newsweek.com/safest-us-states-nuclear-war-attack... In the US, the west coast and Florida seem to be the best candidates from fallout. See also perhaps: * https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/nuclear-attack-map https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/nuclear-attack-map * https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yc0ho2/us_cities_and_locations_that_are_the_most_likely/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yc0ho2/us_cities_a...
tim333 2y ago
The patriot missiles have been quite effective at taking out Russian missiles. I'd wait till that stuff happens before packing up and driving west. Typing this from central London which also gets Russian threats. I think it's unlikely the Russians would nuke somewhere like that as they only have two decent cities which would be hit in retaliation. It's more likely if they went nuclear that they'd hit troops in Ukraine. Biden issued a lot of threats to Putin if they did that but under Trump I'm not sure much US retaliation would happen.

mhog_hn 2y ago

Similarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.

morkalork 2y ago

Just avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!

hypeatei 2y ago

You won't want to live anywhere after nukes start flying. Even if your location isn't hit directly, you're dealing with a complete collapse of society as we know it. Not to mention things like nuclear winter. > The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Russia has ~5500 warheads, so maybe not every square inch but certainly several cities and other locations in each state.

tombert 2y ago
You know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...
CamperBob2 2y ago
If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.
TiredOfLife 2y ago
Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones

glass-z13 2y ago

I know you're half joking but if someone were to give an honest answer i think you need to take into consideration resources in the region, water supply, rivers that could carry radioactive material and so on. I would assume (they) would've already thought about this kind of thing where you would map what's the most damaging areas to nuke that would affect the most area. Grim times ahead for sure but i'm not that stressed considering that something like 70% of russia's population is in the west of the country, very, very close to europe

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? First, nuclear forces: ICBM and IRBM silos and their C2, nuclear weapons storage, strategic airfields and ballistic-missile submarine bases. (This is why nuclear arsenals escalate against each other. The defensive role of missile silos is both deference and to soak up the enemy’s nukes.) Second, leadership: command posts and communication. Third, other military: barracks, supply depots, marshalling points, airfields, ammunition storage, tank and vehicle storage. Fourth, military industry: ammo, tank, APC factories; refineries; railyards and repair facilities. Steel, aluminum and power generation. Fifth, population centres. (You don’t want to nuke New York if that could have taken out a silo that will flatten a dozen of your cities.) In summary, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere :). https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-319fs.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-319fs.pdf page 22

Retric 2y ago
That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless. So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.
- StrauXX 2y ago
  You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos
  - Retric 2y ago
    The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory. By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pqtyw 2y ago

Why do you think France or Britain would nuke New York? And there isn't that much point for Russia to nuke their new ally either.

tombert 2y ago
I don't think it's super likely, though if our president decides to declare war to try reignite American imperialism, then it seems like it could happen. He's already talked about invading Greenland, what's to stop him from trying to invade somewhere else, somewhere with more firepower to fight back? All it would take is Fox News or OAN to start running stories about how the US is actually entitled to the land of France. It's not like it matters if there's any truth to it.
- Vilian 2y ago
  Isn't US military well independent? So they would just refuse in contrast with authoritarian militaries like russia where they don't have that power
  - pqtyw 2y ago
    > Isn't US military well independent? Is it? I mean I don't think they could legally refuse (if use of force was authorized by the president and congress)? So it would still effectively be a military "coup" and those can obviously still happen in authoritarian countries.
tim333 2y ago
Do you think us Brits just calmly accepted our loss in the war of independence?

quackscience 2y ago

New Yorker here. Last year one of my meditation teachers here in the city casually mentioned that in some sects of Tibetan Buddhism there's a prophecy of some sort of catastrophic global event between 2026 and 2032, and a former monk friend of his advised him to leave NYC by 2030. From some casual googling it seems like the text is "The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come". I'm a non-believer when it comes to these sorts of things, but if anything was to convince me otherwise it'd be watching Trump speed run us towards another World War these past few weeks.

endofreach 2y ago
How is trump speed running towards another world war? To me– a non-us citizen– it does seem like quite the opposite.
- tombert 2y ago
  Well he has talked repeatedly about taking Greenland "by force", which in itself wouldn't be a world war, but of course is still terrible. I think the concern is that telling Ukraine to surrender their land after they were invaded by Russia will give Russia the confidence to start attacking other European countries. Traditionally, NATO would have protected us from that happening, but with Trump upsetting all our NATO partners, I'm kind of concerned that that won't help this time.
  - m4rtink 2y ago
    Well, this is how yout tell anynone feeling like fixing like they might be in a position of fixing old grudges or grabbing some land - go for it! :P Not very safe and can get out of hand very very quickly...
  - quackscience 2y ago
    This, basically. He's said that we're going to take Greenland one way or another, is talking about taking the Panama Canal, is basically telling Russia we're on their side and Europe can deal with it themselves, and China is ramping up activities around taking Taiwan [1]. He's also classified the cartels as terrorist organizations and has talked about sending in elite US forces to take them out, which Mexico has said they would view as a violation of their sovereignty. I've been listening to a lot of French news lately and France is already talking about needing to build more nuclear weapons and to extend nuclear protections across Europe, as the US has in a short few weeks completely alienated all of our allies from the past 80 years [2]. So, I don't know, seems like we're closer to everything going to shit globally than in any other time in my 40+ years. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-advance-reunification-with-taiwan-premier-2025-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-a... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-frances-offer-extend-its-nuclear-umbrella-2025-03-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-france...

sva_ 2y ago

I sometimes heard vague theories of rich people on the east coast having their jets ready to fly to New Zealand, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be in such a scenario.

throw0101a 2y ago
> fly to New Zealand It's a 7700nmi trip: * http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA Not many private jets (or even commercial ones) can do non-stop: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800
- kdmtctl 2y ago
  That is why those models are in high demand. Not only for a doomsday scenario, but as a general convenience to fly non-stop.
hedgeho 2y ago
Billionaires such as Zuckerberg are also building luxury bunkers [1]. Kinda wish they tried to prevent apocalypse instead... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
- archagon 2y ago
  All they’re doing is making rich, delicious oysters for those left on the surface to shuck.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Idaho National Lab (the leading center for nuclear energy research and development) is 200 miles from Boise. Not a direct hit but still not fun. https://inl.gov/ https://inl.gov/

throw0101d 2y ago

> Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice. There's a handy map in this article: * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-would-take-the-brunt-of-an-attack-on-u-s-nuclear-missile-silos/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-would-take-th... * https://www.newsweek.com/safest-us-states-nuclear-war-attack-us-silos-1995408 https://www.newsweek.com/safest-us-states-nuclear-war-attack... In the US, the west coast and Florida seem to be the best candidates from fallout. See also perhaps: * https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/nuclear-attack-map https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/nuclear-attack-map * https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yc0ho2/us_cities_and_locations_that_are_the_most_likely/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yc0ho2/us_cities_a...

tim333 2y ago

The patriot missiles have been quite effective at taking out Russian missiles. I'd wait till that stuff happens before packing up and driving west. Typing this from central London which also gets Russian threats. I think it's unlikely the Russians would nuke somewhere like that as they only have two decent cities which would be hit in retaliation. It's more likely if they went nuclear that they'd hit troops in Ukraine. Biden issued a lot of threats to Putin if they did that but under Trump I'm not sure much US retaliation would happen.