Nuclear missiles pointed at Washington state?

Question

During the Cold War, I always assumed that Washington state, with its nuclear missiles and military bases, was high on the Soviet's list of nuclear targets.

Now that the Cold War is (ostensibly) over, are anyone's nuclear missiles still aimed at the Evergreen State?

I know that nuclear missiles can be re-aimed, and that nukes on submarines are mobile, but what I mean is...is Washington state still considered a valuable target for a nuclear strike to anyone with sophisticated nuclear delivery capability -- ICBMs, tactical short-range nukes, etc.? (I'm not talking about terrorists with "dirty bombs.")

No one can definitively know the answer to this question, of course, but I'm inviting educated guesses.

Answer 1

Considering the situation of the former USSR, I suspect that many missiles may still be pointed at various parts of the US including Washington State, although not through any level of threat, rather than simply not bothering to deactivate or re-aim missiles due to budget constraints and a lack of qualified personnel. China may maintain a few nuclear missiles pointed at the United States, although the number of which is questionable. Probably fewer than before, although a handful would not be out of the question simply due to our massive nuclear arsenal.

North Korea is the most likely to point missiles at the United States. In fact, I would suspect that for every ten missiles North Korea obtains, nine would be pointed at the US. However, Kim Jong-Il knows he cannot overcome the US nuclear arsenal, so any missiles would be pointed at population centers for maximum terror, such as Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and other large cities on the coast, depending on the range he has.

Honestly, there's nuclear facilities deep in the Rocky Mountains in Wyoming that far overshadow anything in Washington State. Of course, they also have natural barriers extremely difficult to penetrate. It may be a question of how easy a site is to strike as opposed to how worthwhile it is to strike.

So, Washington state is probably a viable target for hostile powers still, but there are few powers actively hostile enough that they would actively aim missiles at the most strategic points. If any missiles are aimed at Washington, it's probably because they just haven't been re-aimed or decommissioned.

Answer 2

1) The chances of a nuke hitting DC are extremely low. If we get hit, it will probably be New York or LA, simply because they are major coastal cities with large shipping ports. It would be much easier to get a bomb into one of those ports by hiding it in a shipping container on a cargo ship. Even that is very unlikely in any given day. The US would not preemptively nuke another country and I don't think any nuclear armed countries would nuke the US. It would be suicide. The US would probably respond with a massive strategic nuclear strike that would obliterate the aggressor nation. But yes, if we were attacked with nuclear weapons, I am confident there would be a violent response via a nuclear sub. That is what those "boomers" are there for. They prowl around the oceans waiting for the order to launch their missiles. The biggest nuclear threat the US (and the world) faces is the possibility that a rogue element (terrorist group, etc) would get their hands on a nuclear weapon and use it. Their is concern is that there are old soviet nukes that have gone missing since the fall of the USSR. Other possible sources are N. Korea, Pakistan, and soon Iran. That is one of the reasons the US gives so much financial and military support to Pakistan. We don't want to see Pakistani nukes fall into the hands of terrorists if the Pakistani gov't falls. The nation in the most danger of nuclear destruction is Israel. They are in a region where almost every nearby country is unfriendly, and some have called for Israel's destruction. That is the most probable source of a nuclear exchange. Everyone in the world believes Israel has at least 100 nuclear devices (though they neither confirm or deny this). It is also known that Israel has purchased 3 German missile subs. Israel could be nearly destroyed by a single nuclear attack on their soil. They know this. If Israel gets hit, the gloves will come off and they will destroy Iran, Syria, and anyone else they see as an enemy. Nobody is quite sure what happens from there.

Answer 3

I suppose these days that ANY country with viable long range missles can point them toward any place. It isn;t that hard anymore. That's why the big deal with North Korea was news.

The real question is "why would someone nuke Washington state?". You're right, there are better US targets these days. Terrorists focused on Washington DC and New York on 9/11. I suspect they would have gone through California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania and dozens of other states before Washington made their list.

The world is different now than in the cold war. We don't have the nuclear ICBM hanging over ours heads from USSR or perhaps China. Each of those are trading partners and we have dependencies now that preclude such nonsense.

The real threat is terrorism from those with grudges on the US for merely existing. Such threats are random and irrational, but also news making. For a terrorist to take out Tacoma with a dirty bomb seems unlikely when better publicity targets are available. Even so, there is a minor urgency to prepare and be alert.

Answer 4

The nations which most wish to do the US harm don't have long-range capability....at least, not yet.

The former Soviet Union stands to gain nothing by striking at the Pacific Northwest, since their economy and security would be at risk. Same with China.

The only potential of future possibility of danger to Washington state may come from North Korea, but hopefully before Kim Jung Il gets a long-range missle and an actual bomb, the global community will have removed him as a threat.

Answer 5

My guess is yes, they are still aimed at you....you have a major submarine base there which most likely would be a primary target just like the one on the East Coast.

But nowadays I'm more concerned with 'dirty bombs' than a nuke strike by the Soviets!

Answer 6

The only potential aggressor for the State of Washington is NorKor, only because of their limited range of ICBM technology. They can barely hit the middle of the Pacific Ocean (based on their latest tests), but the west coast is within their reach. As you say, the Russians can re-target at the stroke a keyboard punch, but that's another story.

I almost forgot about the Chinese, although their current threat is economic as they're about to take over the world's markets.

Answer 7

Comrade,

The Utopian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not nor ever have aimed nuclear weapons at the Capitalistic Warmonger nation of America.

That is a filthy dirty capitalistic propaganda plot thought up by your imperialistic masters.

Sincerely,

Colonel General
Boris Karloff
USSR
Motherland Protection Rocket Forces

Answer 8

CHINA!!!!!!!!!!