English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you live in one of those cities?

2007-11-10 07:33:36 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Josh.isa, calm down guy, it's just a question, and it is a possibility in our time. If it bothers you, don't read them, and don't respond.

2007-11-10 07:49:01 · update #1

15 answers

Washington DC, New York, LA, Chicago...In that order...

2007-11-10 07:36:53 · answer #1 · answered by Albert H 4 · 3 1

hmm
i find this in interesting question....
well that depends
its also (because its never happened a question of ones personal opinion)
there are nine countries that are in the that have detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be nuclear weapons states. Those five are Russia, of course, the USA, the UK, France, and china (biggest threat). the good news is were on some what good grounds with those countries. How ever India, Pakistan, and North Korea, have made nuclear weapons. Israel has the power to make them (so dose every other countries in the world. now then if the attack came from china it would be a cite on the west coast. more then likely they would want to attack the largest city (most population) in the shorts distance. making that...los angeles. now if it was an attack from on the east cost. The cite of chose would be Boston or some north state, new york is in the top 10. many have said D.C but that wouldn't make since. it dose however have the possiblest of being attacked. now if the attack came form Cuba (by somehow getting the bombs from china or somewhere) the cite of chose would be Miami. The mid west would be improbable, it would take too much time and in all realty could be distroyed

2007-11-10 16:29:55 · answer #2 · answered by poke 2 · 1 1

Would it really matter? You could pick Philadelphia because some foolish survey said? Truly once one goes the environment is so messed up it could possibly tilt it off the hundred years we have left before half species are extinct and we have a new ice age or melt down? No bomb shelter can prepare US for those catastrophic consequences. Just look at the toll nuclear testing took on our Polynesian islands. Still now after years ago. US & French testing. Having seen the Rainbow Warrior and been to these islands myself I know that the next one, next one will be for real.

I am in Florida for the winter, Hawaii is home. Either way I expect to be close to water.

2007-11-10 15:46:43 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 2 0

The US has two strategies for use of its nuclear missiles, namely:

Countervalue: SLBMs assured destruction
Counterforce: bombers and ICBMs damage limitation: offensive

In, brief, countervalue is to stike at the largest civilian populations and their infrastructure....while conterforce strikes at the command and control centers and enemy missile silos.

Information about nuclear weapon targeting is closely guarded, and information about the current U.S. nuclear war plan--the "SIOP" or Single Integrated Operational Plan that dictates how those nuclear weapons would actually be used--has been all but impossible to come by.

A review of the 12,500 targets in 1995 in the SIOP showed much redundency, including one target being hit 69 times (Pushkino radar facility on the outskirts of Moscow). Since then the number of targets have been reduced to 2,500.

(SLBM= submarine launched ballistic missiles)

The Reverse of the above scenario can be used for targets in the US. Your only worry is a full-scale nuclear exchange between the US and Russia and the likelihood of that happening is not very great. Our biggest worry is an accidental launch by the Russian....remember, we both believe in MAD>

2007-11-10 22:27:36 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 1

I can't say, but if I wanted to do the most possible damage (without regard to military targets, just people) and I thought that I might only get one bomb off, I would choose a large midwestern city - Chicago, St. Louis, or Dallas, - because the weather patterns would take all of the fallout northeast to DC, Philly, Boston and NYC for me rendering the largest part of America possible exposed to the radioactive fallout of one bomb..

2007-11-10 15:53:25 · answer #5 · answered by Yaybob 7 · 2 0

Washington, D.C.; New York City, Chicago, L.A., Norfolk, Va; San Diego, CA, Jacksonville, Fl, Pensacola, Fl (last 4 are big Navy bases). Throw in a few USAF bases (e.g. Dover, McGuire, Travis, Offut).
I live in S.E. Virginia (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach area) a big US Navy area.
Oh, who's going to send nukes over here? Something you know that we don't?

2007-11-10 20:45:04 · answer #6 · answered by AmericanPatriot 6 · 2 0

I've seen DC and NY a lot, and I see the logic. I think Detroit would be a close third, if not second, because of it's industrial nature. They make a lot of cars there, and in the past all those factories were converted to make tanks and planes.

2007-11-10 15:56:27 · answer #7 · answered by otrava925 3 · 2 0

No. (St. Paul, MN). I may be blind or naive, but I don't think that nuclear war is going to start. But if it did, I'd guess they'd take out Washington, DC or NYC first.

2007-11-10 15:38:40 · answer #8 · answered by colder_in_minnesota 6 · 1 1

DC; Omaha, NB; KC, MO; El Paso, TX; Colorado Springs, CO; Richmond, VA; Tampa Bay, FL; Knob Noster, MO; Cheyenne, WY; OKC, OK; Huntsville, AL; Houston, TX

2007-11-10 15:43:49 · answer #9 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 1 2

Depends on the targeting profile. If it is a population buster it will depend on the amount of people. If it is a counterforce strike it will depend on how close to a military asset your are. If it is an infrastructure attack it will depend on how close to a road net, airport, or port you are.

2007-11-10 15:38:40 · answer #10 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers