The author of this piece ignores cultural and social targets and focuses simply on military targets. While that is useful, it doesn’t fully embrace the mindset of war. If every single nuclear-armed submarine can’t be located and destroyed, the ability of the armed forces to strike back devastatingly against an attack cannot be fully nullified.
A better plan for any enemy would then be to use nuclear terror to either decapitate the government in a strike on Washington D.C., or to destabilize it through attacks on population centers such as New York and Los Angeles in order to demoralize the rest of the country. Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and key military targets such as Cheyenne Mountain, Omaha, the Pentagon, San Diego, and Norfolk would take the U.S. out of any fight which required more than pushing a button, due to the scale of the loss and disruption of local and regional authority as the federal government was overwhelmed.
If you are within fifty miles of any city with a population of over 50,000, or 100 miles of a city with 100,000, you are at risk from displaced refugees and diminished resources once the power grid goes down and deliveries of fuel and groceries come to a halt. That’s why we encourage you to act NOW to follow the ShieldWall Plan for Project New America, and network with like-minded White Nationalist preppers in real life, before the next ballistic missile warning isn’t a false alarm.
by Alex Lockie, Business Insider
Since the Cold War, the US and Russia have drawn up plans on how to best wage nuclear war against each other — but while large population centers with huge cultural impact may seem like obvious choices, a smarter nuclear attack would focus on countering the enemy’s nuclear forces.
So while people in New York City or Los Angeles may see themselves as being in the center of the world, in terms of nuclear-target priorities, they’re not as important as places in states like North Dakota or Montana.
According to Stephen Schwartz, the author of “Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940,” as the Cold War progressed and improvements in nuclear weapons and intelligence-collection technologies enabled greater precision in where those weapons were aimed, the emphasis in targeting shifted from cities to nuclear stockpiles and nuclear war-related infrastructure.
This map shows the essential points Russia would have to attack to wipe out the US’s nuclear forces, according to Schwartz:
This map represents targets for an all-out attack on the US’s fixed nuclear infrastructure, weapons, and command and control centers — but even a massive strike like this wouldn’t guarantee anything.
“It’s exceedingly unlikely that such an attack would be fully successful,” Schwartz told Business Insider. “There’s an enormous amount of variables in pulling off an attack like this flawlessly, and it would have to be flawless. If even a handful of weapons escape, the stuff you missed will be coming back at you.”
Even if every single US intercontinental ballistic missile silo, stockpiled nuclear weapon, and nuclear-capable bomber were flattened, US nuclear submarines could — and would — retaliate.
According to Schwartz, at any given time, the US has four to five nuclear-armed submarines “on hard alert, in their patrol areas, awaiting orders for launch.” Even high-ranking officials in the US military don’t know where the silent submarines are, and there’s no way Russia could chase them all down before they fired back, which Schwartz said could be done in as little as five to 15 minutes.
But even a strike on a relatively sparsely populated area could lead to death and destruction across the US, depending on how the wind blew. That’s because of fallout.
The US has strategically positioned the bulk of its nuclear forces, which double as nuclear targets, far from population centers. But if you happen to live next to an ICBM silo, fear not.
There’s a “0.0 percent chance” that Russia could hope to survive an act of nuclear aggression against the US, according to Schwartz.
So while we all live under a nuclear “sword of Damocles,” Schwartz said, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn’t worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon.