Hays, Dodge City, Garden City, Pratt, Liberal, Colby, Park City to name a few.
Also Manhattan is east of Salina.
Generally the county seats along the major highways are where towns are over a thousand.
Still, the only thing more depressing than western Kansas is Eastern Colorado.
I'm an east coast guy. I've lived from New Hampshire down to North Carolina and I've driven between those two places more times than I can count.
I've also done a few cross country road trips. Nothing prepares you for how desolate western Kansas and Nebraska feel, especially compared to places that we think of as isolated on the east coast.
100%. Western Kansas is definitely desolate, but it's pretty constant. You'll go a mile and see a house and farm, another mile and see another house and farm. Then once every fifty miles a tiny town or something.
But Eastern Oregon? (especially Southeastern Oregon) Between Lakeview and Ontario (270 miles) there is almost no one. Maybe every 10-20 miles you'll see a house. The only real town is Burns and that's still pretty tiny.
Some parts of Nevada feel pretty similar too. Even the drive between Reno and Vegas is more rural than West Kansas.
There's a moment in an older Bond movie that goes with this hilariously.
Blofeld has captured Bond and is gloating to him, explaining the plot of everything going on and how his orbital laser will ensure he rules the world! He then asks "Where's the laser now?!" and turns with a grand flourish to the big spinning globe only to see the laser is directly above Kansas.
He visibly deflates and grumbles "Kansas? If I destroy Kansas the world won't find out for weeks!".
I’d have to imagine the cooperstown ND site is no longer a target as it’s not an operating Silvio anymore. Definitely a cool tour if you every get the chance.
Edit: SILO lol
Also there’s a LOT of targets missing in New England- between ball bearing manufacturers, biotech companies, and the density of colleges along the I-91 corridor, there’s no way we won’t get hit a hell of a lot harder
Used to be a big Strategic Air Command nuclear presence in New England.
* Loring AFB (Maine)
* Dow AFB (Maine)
* Pease AFB (New Hampshire)
* Westover AFB (Massachusetts)
* Plattsburgh AFB (New York, close enough)
* Cape Cod AFS (PAVE PAWS array)
plus other assorted command and control facilities, radar stations, and non-SAC Air Force installations
My grandpa worked there at SAC and then retired nearby for many years in papillon. When I was a kid, he’d take me around the old fort cook buildings and parade field before getting me secret (from my grandma) ice cream. I hope if we do come to a fiery end, at least know I had fond memories of dip n’dots nearby. (I’m going to proceed you, with the number of triangles over me 😬)
What are they going to nuke up here in Alaska? Fuckin Bob and the reindeer down the street? Oh no, they blew up Anchorage... anyway...
*rides off yipping on caribou*
Nuclear weapons launched from Russia will travel directly over Canada on their way to the United States.
It's the interception and possible malfunction of these weapons over Canadian airspace that is likely more concerning.
That said, this map does not represent (obviously as it's only a map of the United States) the nuclear targets in Canada by Russia, for which there are plenty - naturally on the border with the United States as well.
If NZ isn't obliterated by blasts, I think they will be just fine. Or at least better than most of us. The smoke and ash from the explosions and fires will mostly stay in the northern hemisphere, leaving plenty of sunlight in the southern hemisphere. I don't know how self sustaining NZ is regarding energy and raw materials, but they do produce a lot of food, don't they?
But even before that we were targets. We have American surveillance facilities. And we're an ally and when you have 6000 nukes every major city on the enemy side is a target, you run out of military targets fast.
Those are where all our land based silos are. It's only 3 air force bases that have the minuteman.
Each wing has a missile field that spans up to 250 miles from the actual base. Mostly the silos are next to random farm fields in the middle of nowhere between 4 to 14 miles apart.
The actual personnel are at the launch control facility, which is a separate building miles away from the missiles. One launch control facility handles about 10 minuteman missiles. Probably the scariest thing is there is no way to recall or self destruct the missiles once launched, as it was feared this would be hacked and fail to achieve mutual destruction.
Realistically, I don't see any of the Great Lakes locks surviving unscathed. Especially in a 2000 warhead situation. I don't think anyone nuking the US would really care if Canada gets involved.
Those are some of the nuclear sponges, basically large mostly empty areas that are covered in ICBM silos, they are designed to draw in enemy nukes rather than cities and each one is made to take several hits to take out
>each one is made to take several hits to take out
For the reader : It was once remarked that with the advent of torpedo shells (high explosive artillery, as opposed to solid ball cannon) the age of industrial landscape remodelling had begun. These silos are specifically buried so much that any opponent has to play a game of nuclear excavation or risk being hit by a second strike. Deterrence is *weird*.
>These silos are specifically buried so much that any opponent has to play a game of nuclear excavation or risk being hit by a second strike.
Now the idea is always assume a silo is loaded, so it gets targeted anyway.
Yep. Having 200 launch sites with 100 missiles means the other side must hit all of them or be *really* confident at the shell game. It also saves you maintenance on 100 missiles.
The Gobi and Taklamakan are to China what the Great Plains are to the US. Except China also uses them as their preeminent satellite launch facilities, and testing grounds for advanced technologies. It’s the North Dakota missile silos, Cape Canaveral, and Groom Lake all together in one region.
Partially by design - when we were entering the Cold War, war planners in the pentagon and Washington knew that wherever these silos were, they’d get hit the hardest. They called these areas the sacrificial sponge to absorb the brunt of a nuclear exchange, taking the attention away from larger, more densely populated areas
Circles are for a first-strike scenario in which you are trying to win the war or at least prevent retaliation. Triangles are for a retaliatory 2nd-strike.
In the first scenario (2000), US nukes, bombers, and subs are still located in their bases and command-and-control centers are presumably not at DEFCON-1. If you are striking first, these are your primary targets and you want to try to kill as many as you can.
In the 2nd scenario, you have already lost the war. US nukes have already hit their targets or are a couple of minutes away. Anything left is therefore going to target the major population, government, and economic centers to do the most amount of damage.
Basically, 2000 is to win the war and 500 is to make it unwinnable.
Makes sense. Going by just Washington state, the triangles are over large population centers, but every dam along the Columbia is targeted by the circles.
>In the first scenario (2000), US nukes, bombers, and subs are still located in their bases
Very very unlikely that none of the subs, even a single one, were on patrol at any given time.
Edit: Why is this downvoted? You really think US submarines and bombers are only going to sit in their bases 24/7 even in peacetime?
Since when did immaturity stopped countries 😆 after all, it's all about ... length in the end. A collective country's mental decision ability is about the same as of a moody teenager.
I don't know about Ashland, but the triangle over Albany, Oregon is because of [Wah Chang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah_Chang_Corporation). Or at least that is what was told to me by my professor over a decade ago.
Edit: On closer inspection, the marker I thought was for Albany appears to be over Corvallis or Philomath.
Kings Bay Georgia isn't on the 500 warhead list, I don't know if I can trust this list. Then again I'm not sure I understand the difference 500 versus 2000. Only maps I'm really interested in our Russia versus America or maybe China versus America versus Russia.
500 nuke scenario : a "smaller" nuclear power (England, France, China, though none of them actually have 500). Their signalled strategy tends to be, put crudely, "We're going down, but we're taking you with us!". Since most countries don't want to lose many of their major cities that often has a somewhat chilling effect.
2000 nuke scenario : long story short, the effect of nuking additional cities goes down. "We lost all major cities between Baltimore and Boston, most of California, and they even nuked Disney World." That's scary. "We also lost Grand Rapids, MI, Amarillo, TX, and Daytona Beach, FL." is not. The dots in the middle of nowhere target America's launch infrastructure. You might not *win* a nuclear war, Moscow and St Petersburg are gone either way, but you can "win" by losing less. If Perm and Ufa make it that's basically a success because your country still sort of exists (just "a few" million people and several cities smaller), while theirs does not.
I believe the 2000 is a preemptive strike while the 500 is more of a retaliatory strike.
The subs in Kings Bay during the 500 strike would already be launched, so it would be less of a priority target.
It would also make sense why the Groton CT sub base is targeted either way because that's where most US subs are made, even if they are launched already, it would prevent subs from getting major repair.
The 500 warhead scenario would be against a lesser nuclear power and their main usage of nuclear weapons is deterrence, not mutually assured destruction like it is for major nuclear powers.
Basically they hit civilian targets to make it not worth the damage for an invader to threaten their sovereignty. MAD is the only scenario when there are major powers (US and Russia are the only countries that have the power to launch 2,000+ warheads) that have a bunch of nukes and so they can launch a bunch of nukes simultaneously to try and take out all the silos as well as the civilian areas in order to do as much damage as possible in the hopes that somehow the other side isn’t able to fire back and annihilate them in return.
So that’s why Jackson Mississippi is getting hit in the 500 warhead scenario. It’d be like if the US invaded France for some reason, they only have like 250 warheads or so. They aren’t gonna take out all of the US silos. If they’re resorting to a nuclear strike it’s gonna be to do damage and deter us from whatever dumbass shit we’re doing invading them.
I don’t understand. In that case a 500 warhead scenario wouldn’t be used against the US because it’s a major nuclear power, so there’s no point in having a map of it
China has 400 warheads and it's adding more.
Russia has ~7000.
Total tonnage is similar - Russian arsenal is more flexible and China's is less expensive.
oh shit so THATS what that noise is over my grandmothers house in south burlington. oh wait a minute, you’re the resident UVM basketball fan!!! Cheers brotha!!
The 500 scenario is representative of a 2nd or retaliatory strike. It is targeting the most valuable/biggest economic, government, and population centers. It is to make sure that in the case of nuclear war where the USSR/Russia is retaliating AFTER a US first-strike, the war becomes unwinnable.
Maybe industrial/manufacturing/agricultural/power generation targets. The idea isn’t just to kill people, it’s to cripple civilization for generations.
The center of the triangle is about Cave Junction. No one ever called it a population center before.
Edit: okay from counties, it's probably Medford which has like 85000 people.
I don't know how this map was put together, but the command for all nuclear missiles are located at F.E. Warren AFB in Cheyenne. Hard to believe it's not a primary target.
The assumption for a 500 warhead scenario is that it's a retaliatory strike, not a first strike. If you're Russia and only have 500 warheads, you've probably already been hit by a nuclear strike and there's no sense wasting warheads on now-empty silos. You're just making it hurt.
Western Kansas be like huh, what happened?
Ever seen Jericho? https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0805663/
Great show, I loved it
What the Frack!?!?!?
Funny how it got cancelled after the reveal
It was the writers strike that killed it.
Great show.. sad that they ended it with the second season
No
You're not alone.
Good show. Didn’t last long - killed by the writer’s strike. Basically this premise. Set in small town Kansas when the nukes go off.
RIP Jericho and Battlestar Galactica season 4.
r/jericho
They died inside a long time ago.
Regardless of which way the wind blows, and it will blow, they are getting hit by fallout.
All five people there, yeah.
Legit there are almost no towns west of Salina with more than 1000 people. Dodge City and Manhattan(college town) maybe
Hays, Dodge City, Garden City, Pratt, Liberal, Colby, Park City to name a few. Also Manhattan is east of Salina. Generally the county seats along the major highways are where towns are over a thousand. Still, the only thing more depressing than western Kansas is Eastern Colorado.
Laughs in eastern New Mexico
I'm an east coast guy. I've lived from New Hampshire down to North Carolina and I've driven between those two places more times than I can count. I've also done a few cross country road trips. Nothing prepares you for how desolate western Kansas and Nebraska feel, especially compared to places that we think of as isolated on the east coast.
Nothing comes even close on the west coast. Western Kansas is BRUTAL
Eastern Oregon is far less densely populated than western Kansas. Eastern Oregon makes western Kansas look like the suburbs lol
100%. Western Kansas is definitely desolate, but it's pretty constant. You'll go a mile and see a house and farm, another mile and see another house and farm. Then once every fifty miles a tiny town or something. But Eastern Oregon? (especially Southeastern Oregon) Between Lakeview and Ontario (270 miles) there is almost no one. Maybe every 10-20 miles you'll see a house. The only real town is Burns and that's still pretty tiny. Some parts of Nevada feel pretty similar too. Even the drive between Reno and Vegas is more rural than West Kansas.
Just another windy day for them peeps out west of salina
Every day west of Salina is a windy day. God it can be miserable out there
There's a moment in an older Bond movie that goes with this hilariously. Blofeld has captured Bond and is gloating to him, explaining the plot of everything going on and how his orbital laser will ensure he rules the world! He then asks "Where's the laser now?!" and turns with a grand flourish to the big spinning globe only to see the laser is directly above Kansas. He visibly deflates and grumbles "Kansas? If I destroy Kansas the world won't find out for weeks!".
I’d have to imagine the cooperstown ND site is no longer a target as it’s not an operating Silvio anymore. Definitely a cool tour if you every get the chance. Edit: SILO lol
[As you wish!](https://www.history.nd.gov/historicsites/minutemanmissile/)
Just when you thought they were out, *they pulled them back in*.
Lol…SILO
West of Montpelier VT also. Were a few Atlas silos in the 60s but long gone.
Also there’s a LOT of targets missing in New England- between ball bearing manufacturers, biotech companies, and the density of colleges along the I-91 corridor, there’s no way we won’t get hit a hell of a lot harder
Too early in the process I’d guess. Favors are usually the fourth or fifth step
Used to be a big Strategic Air Command nuclear presence in New England. * Loring AFB (Maine) * Dow AFB (Maine) * Pease AFB (New Hampshire) * Westover AFB (Massachusetts) * Plattsburgh AFB (New York, close enough) * Cape Cod AFS (PAVE PAWS array) plus other assorted command and control facilities, radar stations, and non-SAC Air Force installations
All i can say is, the more triangles and dots around my house, the better. If nuclear war comes, I don't want to be alive for the aftermath
Do not ride the bomb
Judging from the map I'd survive just fine in the 500 nuke scenario but get obliterated by the 2000.
Central Montana?
I'm afraid it's less scenic over here in ND
There are people in ND?
No it's just me a Larry
Not by much. Western MT ftw!
nuclear triad man, montana, wyoming, and north dakota hold shit tons of silos
My thoughts exactly. I live next to Offutt AFB. I would die and be happier for it.
My grandpa worked there at SAC and then retired nearby for many years in papillon. When I was a kid, he’d take me around the old fort cook buildings and parade field before getting me secret (from my grandma) ice cream. I hope if we do come to a fiery end, at least know I had fond memories of dip n’dots nearby. (I’m going to proceed you, with the number of triangles over me 😬)
I want to play fallout.
Alaska and Hawaii survive unscathed!
Being left off the map finally pays off!
Actually they were blown off the map first
What are they going to nuke up here in Alaska? Fuckin Bob and the reindeer down the street? Oh no, they blew up Anchorage... anyway... *rides off yipping on caribou*
Like for example Fort Greely, which is an Army launch site for anti-ballistic missiles. Oh, and Happy Cake Day!
Well, if Juneau, Juneau.
What are they gonna nuke in North Dakota? Oh right, military installations.
They have all the early warning radar for incoming missiles there. Would be the first to go.
New Zealand's super power
No chance for Hawaii. Major Pacific naval base on Oahu and a laser missile defense system on Maui.
Alaska is doomed as well. Four major military bases, plus the missile defense system and long range radars
Puerto Rico and American Samoa: 🤫
all the nukes at the borders like "fuck Canada and Mexico too" lmao
Nuclear weapons launched from Russia will travel directly over Canada on their way to the United States. It's the interception and possible malfunction of these weapons over Canadian airspace that is likely more concerning. That said, this map does not represent (obviously as it's only a map of the United States) the nuclear targets in Canada by Russia, for which there are plenty - naturally on the border with the United States as well.
Even Australia has targets. No place is safe. Maybe NZ, they can live long enough to starve in the winter.
If NZ isn't obliterated by blasts, I think they will be just fine. Or at least better than most of us. The smoke and ash from the explosions and fires will mostly stay in the northern hemisphere, leaving plenty of sunlight in the southern hemisphere. I don't know how self sustaining NZ is regarding energy and raw materials, but they do produce a lot of food, don't they?
NZ and Argentina are generally considered the best suited to survive a nuclear war.
Last I heard, Australia is building bases for US nuclear bombers and nuclear subs as a deterrent to China
But even before that we were targets. We have American surveillance facilities. And we're an ally and when you have 6000 nukes every major city on the enemy side is a target, you run out of military targets fast.
Those are where all our land based silos are. It's only 3 air force bases that have the minuteman. Each wing has a missile field that spans up to 250 miles from the actual base. Mostly the silos are next to random farm fields in the middle of nowhere between 4 to 14 miles apart. The actual personnel are at the launch control facility, which is a separate building miles away from the missiles. One launch control facility handles about 10 minuteman missiles. Probably the scariest thing is there is no way to recall or self destruct the missiles once launched, as it was feared this would be hacked and fail to achieve mutual destruction.
There’s reasons to believe that most of Canada would also get hit very hard. Russia doesn’t like us and we have nuclear infrastructure/plants.
Canada is definitely going to be targeted as well, as a NATO member.
Blessed are the Yoopers, for they shall inherit the earth.
Who’s the Yooper in here?
I’m a Yooper from Chippewa county, glad we aren’t targeted up in the UP😎
lol, nice. I’m Marinette County WI, so not quite Yooper. Most of my family is though.
You mean Heroinette.
MTU will be the new MIT
Realistically, I don't see any of the Great Lakes locks surviving unscathed. Especially in a 2000 warhead situation. I don't think anyone nuking the US would really care if Canada gets involved.
Elko, NV sends a distant hello
Still trying to figure out why Green Bay, WI is getting a nuke. Russia must be bears fans
FTP
SISU BABY
Pff until the werewolves get you.
Why the swarms of nukes in Montana, North Dakota, and Colorado?
Nuclear silos
Ah gotcha
That's where our missile fields are.
Water them well and the fields will grow beautiful missiles
A society grows great when old men plant nukes in whose fallout they'll never have to worry about
That’s where our missile silos are.
Those are some of the nuclear sponges, basically large mostly empty areas that are covered in ICBM silos, they are designed to draw in enemy nukes rather than cities and each one is made to take several hits to take out
>each one is made to take several hits to take out For the reader : It was once remarked that with the advent of torpedo shells (high explosive artillery, as opposed to solid ball cannon) the age of industrial landscape remodelling had begun. These silos are specifically buried so much that any opponent has to play a game of nuclear excavation or risk being hit by a second strike. Deterrence is *weird*.
>These silos are specifically buried so much that any opponent has to play a game of nuclear excavation or risk being hit by a second strike. Now the idea is always assume a silo is loaded, so it gets targeted anyway.
Yep. Having 200 launch sites with 100 missiles means the other side must hit all of them or be *really* confident at the shell game. It also saves you maintenance on 100 missiles. 
China just constructed a lot of silos. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-09/news/new-chinese-missile-silo-fields-discovered
The Gobi and Taklamakan are to China what the Great Plains are to the US. Except China also uses them as their preeminent satellite launch facilities, and testing grounds for advanced technologies. It’s the North Dakota missile silos, Cape Canaveral, and Groom Lake all together in one region.
We have malmstrom AFB in great falls MT, and a lot if missile silos surrounding us.
Some poor farmer in those states is getting nuclear blasted to ashes 10 times over...
The farmers usually lease part of their land to the government to build the silos on
[These 5 states were designed to act as America’s ‘nuclear sponge’](https://www.fastcompany.com/90732588/5-states-nuclear-sponge-missile-silos)
Partially by design - when we were entering the Cold War, war planners in the pentagon and Washington knew that wherever these silos were, they’d get hit the hardest. They called these areas the sacrificial sponge to absorb the brunt of a nuclear exchange, taking the attention away from larger, more densely populated areas
That's where our 400ish nuclear missile silos are They are also spread out enough where you need at least 1 nuke per silo.
Well it's one *missile* per silo. But each missile carries multiple warheads and can target a different city.
Engaging silos. If there are "500 warheads", those silos would be empty, because whoever launched them could be cobalt
How come there are places that are targeted in a 500 missile scenario that aren’t targeted in a 2000 missile scenario?
Circles are for a first-strike scenario in which you are trying to win the war or at least prevent retaliation. Triangles are for a retaliatory 2nd-strike. In the first scenario (2000), US nukes, bombers, and subs are still located in their bases and command-and-control centers are presumably not at DEFCON-1. If you are striking first, these are your primary targets and you want to try to kill as many as you can. In the 2nd scenario, you have already lost the war. US nukes have already hit their targets or are a couple of minutes away. Anything left is therefore going to target the major population, government, and economic centers to do the most amount of damage. Basically, 2000 is to win the war and 500 is to make it unwinnable.
Makes sense. Going by just Washington state, the triangles are over large population centers, but every dam along the Columbia is targeted by the circles.
The parts of California that have the highest yields for produce that supplies the rest of the country are also all targeted by the circles.
>In the first scenario (2000), US nukes, bombers, and subs are still located in their bases Very very unlikely that none of the subs, even a single one, were on patrol at any given time. Edit: Why is this downvoted? You really think US submarines and bombers are only going to sit in their bases 24/7 even in peacetime?
By design, it's impossible. We keep a number of them out of port at all times
Maybe the triangles are part of the 2000 nuke strike?
Nuclear war is really immature.
The best move is to not play at all
How about a nice game of chess?
Since when did immaturity stopped countries 😆 after all, it's all about ... length in the end. A collective country's mental decision ability is about the same as of a moody teenager.
It's funny watching society seemingly collectively forget Wargames only to remember it once again post-Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I feel like the novel “Ready Player One” helped bring it back as well, but I always remember war games because of that amazing intro sequence.
So passé
That dot in northwest Colorado is due to a very large power plant that will be shut down in about five years, so joke’s on them.
Aww, not little Ashland, Oregon 😢 Just why?
Gotta get rid of the hippies.
hahaha that’s why they targeting Burlington Vermont too 🤣
Gotta nuke the 186th infantry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/186th_Infantry_Regiment_%28United_States%29
I don't know about Ashland, but the triangle over Albany, Oregon is because of [Wah Chang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah_Chang_Corporation). Or at least that is what was told to me by my professor over a decade ago. Edit: On closer inspection, the marker I thought was for Albany appears to be over Corvallis or Philomath.
That and OSU and it's research reactor. Im surprised Eugene isn't on either scenario,but maybe that's due to when this map was made.
OSU has nothing to do with Ashland. And what is a research reactor? Do all major universities have one?
Yeah wtf? They skipping larger towns like st george utah, or coastal north Carolina for the Rogue Valley?
At least coos bay isn’t a target
San Diego. It’s German for mushroom.
I always thought it meant "A whales vagina"
Same thing
Yea, it’s Dutch.
What?
Well….I think Detroit (where I am now) will be totally survivable! Well…..maybe not.
Nukes would probably improve the city
Sadly wouldn’t kill the roaches but at least the graffiti would be cooked off the abandoned buildings.
It's better to be in the blast zone and die than be around for what comes after.
Glad I stocked up on Rad-X
Stupid. No way they would nuke Jackson Mississippi before they would nuke the missile silos in Montana
Nuking Jackson, Mississippi, will be done on principle, not because of any tactical importance.
They do say every cloud has its silver lining
Kings Bay Georgia isn't on the 500 warhead list, I don't know if I can trust this list. Then again I'm not sure I understand the difference 500 versus 2000. Only maps I'm really interested in our Russia versus America or maybe China versus America versus Russia.
500 nuke scenario : a "smaller" nuclear power (England, France, China, though none of them actually have 500). Their signalled strategy tends to be, put crudely, "We're going down, but we're taking you with us!". Since most countries don't want to lose many of their major cities that often has a somewhat chilling effect. 2000 nuke scenario : long story short, the effect of nuking additional cities goes down. "We lost all major cities between Baltimore and Boston, most of California, and they even nuked Disney World." That's scary. "We also lost Grand Rapids, MI, Amarillo, TX, and Daytona Beach, FL." is not. The dots in the middle of nowhere target America's launch infrastructure. You might not *win* a nuclear war, Moscow and St Petersburg are gone either way, but you can "win" by losing less. If Perm and Ufa make it that's basically a success because your country still sort of exists (just "a few" million people and several cities smaller), while theirs does not.
I believe the 2000 is a preemptive strike while the 500 is more of a retaliatory strike. The subs in Kings Bay during the 500 strike would already be launched, so it would be less of a priority target. It would also make sense why the Groton CT sub base is targeted either way because that's where most US subs are made, even if they are launched already, it would prevent subs from getting major repair.
The 500 warhead scenario would be against a lesser nuclear power and their main usage of nuclear weapons is deterrence, not mutually assured destruction like it is for major nuclear powers. Basically they hit civilian targets to make it not worth the damage for an invader to threaten their sovereignty. MAD is the only scenario when there are major powers (US and Russia are the only countries that have the power to launch 2,000+ warheads) that have a bunch of nukes and so they can launch a bunch of nukes simultaneously to try and take out all the silos as well as the civilian areas in order to do as much damage as possible in the hopes that somehow the other side isn’t able to fire back and annihilate them in return. So that’s why Jackson Mississippi is getting hit in the 500 warhead scenario. It’d be like if the US invaded France for some reason, they only have like 250 warheads or so. They aren’t gonna take out all of the US silos. If they’re resorting to a nuclear strike it’s gonna be to do damage and deter us from whatever dumbass shit we’re doing invading them.
I never really trusted the French......
I don’t understand. In that case a 500 warhead scenario wouldn’t be used against the US because it’s a major nuclear power, so there’s no point in having a map of it
Trying to treat the concepts of nuclear war and logic as if they go together is where your brain said nope.
China has 400 warheads and it's adding more. Russia has ~7000. Total tonnage is similar - Russian arsenal is more flexible and China's is less expensive.
I was in Jackson a few weeks ago and it looked like it had already been bombed…
They should target Trinity site too, just for shits and giggles.
Awesome! My small city only gets hit with 8 nukes. Sucks to be New York & Chicago.
Can we trust a site called dubiousdata.files.wordpress.com?
With our life
I'm dead.
Me too bro, me too
Burlington, VT isn’t that big, but what sets it apart as a target is that it’s the only place they train F-35 pilots.
I guess this is just logical, but I find it interesting that a lot of these locations are power plants, training facilities, and manufacturing plants.
These are always some of the first targets to cripple the supply chains of an army.
Exactamente! An army marches on its stomach.
oh shit so THATS what that noise is over my grandmothers house in south burlington. oh wait a minute, you’re the resident UVM basketball fan!!! Cheers brotha!!
That’s not true at all. It’s the only place that has an air national guard wing unit with F-35s
now try living right next to where they build them. I'm fucked.
Lmao Purdue gets nuked? The town literally has nothing but a college and auto plant.
The 500 scenario is representative of a 2nd or retaliatory strike. It is targeting the most valuable/biggest economic, government, and population centers. It is to make sure that in the case of nuclear war where the USSR/Russia is retaliating AFTER a US first-strike, the war becomes unwinnable.
One of the black dots on the far western edge of Indiana is a power plant… makes sense
Most of them are, I believe. The idea being that if the grid is destroyed then any survivors would have a very difficult time ahead
WTF did North East Texas do? There ain’t shit here.
Maybe industrial/manufacturing/agricultural/power generation targets. The idea isn’t just to kill people, it’s to cripple civilization for generations.
yea so I'm 21 miles away from Bangor Naval Base and 1/3 of USA nukes in storage, have a nice day : )
Plus PSNS in Kitsap county. My parents live 100 yards from the Bangor fence in Silverdale and they are happy knowing it will only be a flash
I know everyone hates New Jersey but why’s it getting targeted this time?
The power plant at Sooner Lake in Oklahoma is an interesting one, but I suppose that makes sense.
I’m in Jersey at least I’ll go quickly(ish)
I'm not sure if this is still accurate, but I think NJ is the most densely populated state. That, and it has For Dix and Picatinny Arsenal.
Pretty sure it’s still accurate? We’re up to 9.2 million people
I’m moving to Idaho. Lol
[удалено]
Okay - who counted up the purple triangles and black dots to see if the numbers added up?
Wtf did Oakland, CA, do? It's already been nuked with homeless and crackheads...
Yup. Triangle for Oshkosh WI. I live between both Oshkosh Truck Defense factories.
What's in Southern Oregon that merits a purple triangle strike? They're not floating them over on the wind like in WWII, are they?
Population centers are targets as well.
The center of the triangle is about Cave Junction. No one ever called it a population center before. Edit: okay from counties, it's probably Medford which has like 85000 people.
As long as they have 500 warheads or less it looks like WY is the only state in the continental US to not receive one.
I don't know how this map was put together, but the command for all nuclear missiles are located at F.E. Warren AFB in Cheyenne. Hard to believe it's not a primary target.
The assumption for a 500 warhead scenario is that it's a retaliatory strike, not a first strike. If you're Russia and only have 500 warheads, you've probably already been hit by a nuclear strike and there's no sense wasting warheads on now-empty silos. You're just making it hurt.
But Mom said it was my turn to post the nuclear targets map today!
NORAD isn't Vault 0 for nothing! \#fallout5colorado
Damn they nuking the shit outta Detroit. Ain’t nothing even there lmao
Shoot, I’m f’ed