THE UNTHINKABLE CALCULATION: NUCLEAR EXPERT REVEALS 15 AMERICAN CITIES MOST LIKELY TO BE TARGETED IN WORLD WAR III

In an era marked by escalating global tensions, resurgent nationalism, and increasingly sophisticated military technologies, one of humanity’s darkest possibilities continues to cast a shadow over international security discussions. While modern warfare has evolved to encompass cyber attacks, economic sanctions, and proxy conflicts fought through allied nations, the terrifying specter of nuclear warfare remains a very real and present danger that military strategists, policymakers, and ordinary citizens cannot afford to ignore.

As diplomatic relationships strain under the weight of competing national interests and ideological differences, a question that haunted the Cold War era has returned with renewed urgency and relevance: If World War III were to erupt into full-scale nuclear conflict, which American cities would find themselves in the crosshairs first? This isn’t merely an academic exercise in strategic thinking—it’s a sobering analysis that could inform everything from civil defense planning to diplomatic priorities in an increasingly unstable world.

THE STRATEGIC MIND BEHIND THE ANALYSIS

Professor Alex Wellerstein, a distinguished nuclear historian and weapons policy expert at the Stevens Institute of Technology, has dedicated his career to understanding the complex calculus that governs nuclear strategy and targeting decisions. His expertise extends far beyond theoretical frameworks to encompass the psychological, political, and military factors that would influence targeting decisions in the event of nuclear conflict.

Wellerstein’s analysis represents more than academic speculation—it’s grounded in decades of research into nuclear doctrine, military strategy, and the historical patterns that have shaped how nations approach the ultimate form of warfare. His work draws upon classified documents that have been declassified over time, strategic planning documents, and the evolving nature of nuclear doctrine as it has developed since the dawn of the atomic age.

The professor’s approach to identifying potential targets reflects a sophisticated understanding of how different types of adversaries might approach nuclear conflict. Rather than simply assuming that the largest cities would be hit first, his analysis considers the strategic objectives that different attackers might pursue and how those objectives would translate into specific targeting decisions.

This nuanced approach recognizes that nuclear warfare, despite its destructive power, remains a tool of policy—albeit the most extreme one available. The targets chosen would reflect the political and military objectives of the attacking nation, whether those objectives involve disabling American military capabilities, creating maximum psychological impact, or achieving some combination of strategic goals.

THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF NUCLEAR TARGETING

The urgency of this discussion has been heightened by recent developments in international relations that have strained diplomatic relationships and increased the potential for military conflict between major powers. President Donald Trump’s authorization of strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities has created a cascade of regional tensions that have drawn in other major powers and tested the stability of existing alliance structures.

Russia’s response to the Middle Eastern crisis, combined with its ongoing military operations in Ukraine, has created a complex web of international tensions that multiplies the potential for miscalculation and escalation. President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric and Russia’s demonstrated willingness to use military force to achieve political objectives have raised concerns about the potential for broader conflict that could eventually involve nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the relationship between the United States and China continues to deteriorate across multiple fronts, from trade disputes and technology competition to military posturing in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. These tensions have created additional stress points in the international system that could potentially escalate into direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed superpowers.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations, combined with the development of new delivery systems and the potential for nuclear materials to fall into the hands of non-state actors, has further complicated the strategic landscape. The possibility of nuclear conflict no longer involves only the superpowers that dominated Cold War thinking but potentially includes a broader range of actors with different motivations and strategic objectives.

THE PSYCHOLOGY AND STRATEGY OF NUCLEAR TARGETING

Understanding why certain cities might be targeted in nuclear conflict requires appreciating the complex psychology and strategic calculation that would govern such devastating decisions. Professor Wellerstein’s analysis distinguishes between different types of potential attackers and how their objectives would influence targeting decisions.

If the attacking nation were a major nuclear power like Russia or China, the primary objective would likely be to disable America’s ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This strategy, known as a counterforce strike, would prioritize military installations, command and control centers, and nuclear weapons storage facilities over population centers. The goal would be to achieve strategic victory by eliminating America’s nuclear capabilities while minimizing the civilian casualties that might provoke maximum retaliation.

However, if the attacker were a smaller nuclear power or a non-state actor with limited nuclear capabilities, the strategic calculation would be entirely different. Such actors might lack the nuclear arsenal necessary to target multiple military installations and would instead focus on creating maximum psychological impact through attacks on symbolic targets or densely populated areas. The objective would be to inflict maximum damage with limited resources while achieving the greatest possible disruption to American society and government.

These different approaches to targeting reflect fundamental differences in strategic objectives and available resources. A major power engaged in nuclear conflict would be thinking about post-war scenarios and the need to limit retaliation, while a smaller actor might be focused primarily on inflicting maximum immediate damage without concern for long-term consequences.

THE SURPRISING GEOGRAPHY OF NUCLEAR VULNERABILITY

One of the most striking aspects of Professor Wellerstein’s analysis is how it challenges common assumptions about which American cities would be most vulnerable in nuclear conflict. While major metropolitan areas like New York City and Los Angeles certainly appear on the list, some of the highest-priority targets are relatively small cities that most Americans would never consider to be at risk.

The Small Cities That Could Determine America’s Fate

Great Falls, Montana (Population: 60,422) exemplifies how America’s nuclear infrastructure is distributed throughout regions that most people would consider remote and safe. The city’s proximity to Malmstrom Air Force Base, one of the nation’s key intercontinental ballistic missile hubs, makes it a critical target despite its small size. The base manages hundreds of missile silos spread across the Montana plains, representing a significant portion of America’s nuclear deterrent force.

A successful strike against Malmstrom would eliminate a substantial portion of America’s land-based nuclear weapons, significantly reducing the country’s ability to retaliate against an initial attack. This makes Great Falls a higher priority target than many cities with millions of residents but no strategic military value.

Cheyenne, Wyoming (Population: 65,168) faces similar vulnerability due to its proximity to Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, another crucial component of America’s nuclear command structure. The base serves as a command post for U.S. nuclear operations and houses additional missile silos that form part of the Air Force Global Strike Command.

The targeting of these relatively small cities reflects a sobering reality: in nuclear warfare, population size matters less than strategic value. The residents of these communities live in the shadow of military installations that make them among the highest-priority targets for any nation seeking to disable America’s nuclear capabilities.

Ogden and Clearfield, Utah (Combined Population: 121,737) represent another example of how America’s nuclear infrastructure is embedded in communities that might otherwise seem far removed from global conflicts. These twin cities sit adjacent to Hill Air Force Base, a crucial logistics and nuclear support hub that maintains America’s airborne nuclear readiness.

The tranquil setting near the Great Salt Lake belies the area’s critical role in national defense. In the event of nuclear conflict, this peaceful region would become a primary target due to its outsized role in maintaining America’s nuclear capabilities.

Strategic Military Installations in Larger Cities

Shreveport, Louisiana (Population: 177,959) gains its place on the target list through its proximity to Barksdale Air Force Base, home to B-52 bombers capable of delivering nuclear payloads. These aircraft represent a crucial component of America’s nuclear triad, providing the flexibility to deliver nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.

A strike against Barksdale would attempt to ground America’s long-range nuclear bombers before they could participate in any retaliatory strike. The base’s strategic importance far exceeds what its location in Louisiana might suggest to casual observers.

Colorado Springs, Colorado (Population: 488,664) houses one of America’s most critical military installations: the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), operating from a fortified mountain bunker. This facility plays a crucial role in early-warning systems and airspace defense, making it an essential target for any nation seeking to blind America’s ability to detect incoming attacks.

The elimination of NORAD would severely compromise America’s ability to track incoming missiles and coordinate defensive responses, making it a high-priority target despite the facility’s heavily fortified nature.

Omaha, Nebraska (Population: 483,335) might seem an unlikely target, but its proximity to Offutt Air Force Base makes it one of the most strategically important cities in America. The base serves as the command center for U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for America’s nuclear forces.

As a central node in America’s nuclear command-and-control system, Omaha would likely be among the earliest targets in any nuclear conflict. The successful elimination of Strategic Command headquarters would significantly disrupt America’s ability to coordinate nuclear retaliation.

COASTAL VULNERABILITIES AND SYMBOLIC TARGETS

The Pacific and Atlantic coasts present different types of vulnerabilities that reflect both military installations and symbolic value. Honolulu, Hawaii (Population: 341,778) carries historical significance dating to Pearl Harbor while maintaining its role as a crucial Pacific military staging ground. The city’s military installations and its strategic location between Asia and the American mainland make it a valuable target for any Pacific-focused conflict.

Seattle, Washington (Population: 737,015) faces threats due to its proximity to Naval Base Kitsap, home to nuclear-armed submarines and warhead storage facilities. The base represents a crucial component of America’s sea-based nuclear deterrent, and its elimination would significantly reduce America’s nuclear capabilities. The city’s geography, surrounded by water and mountains, would make evacuation and disaster response particularly challenging in the event of an attack.

San Francisco, California (Population: 873,965) presents a different type of target, combining limited military significance with enormous symbolic and economic value. While not housing major military installations, the Bay Area’s role as a technology and economic powerhouse makes it a high-impact target for creating maximum disruption to American society and economy.

The region’s concentration of technology companies with defense contracts adds another layer of strategic value, as these firms play crucial roles in maintaining America’s technological military advantages.

THE ULTIMATE TARGETS: AMERICA’S MEGACITIES

The largest American cities combine massive populations with symbolic significance and economic importance that would make them attractive targets for any attacker seeking maximum psychological impact.

New York City (Population: 8.8 million) represents America’s economic, financial, and cultural center. A nuclear strike on New York would inflict casualties on a scale that would fundamentally alter American society while devastating the nation’s financial sector. The psychological impact of destroying America’s most iconic city could be as strategically significant as the immediate physical damage.

Los Angeles (Population: 3.8 million) combines enormous population with symbolic value as the center of American entertainment industry and a major aerospace hub. Beyond the massive loss of life, a strike here would deliver a psychological blow that would resonate around the world.

Chicago (Population: 2.6 million city, 9.6 million metro area) serves as America’s transportation hub and a major financial center. Its destruction would disrupt commerce and transportation networks across the Midwest while inflicting enormous casualties.

Houston (Population: 2.3 million) represents a different type of strategic target due to its role as America’s energy capital. The city’s extensive oil refining infrastructure and port facilities make it a crucial component of America’s economic and energy security.

THE EVOLVING NATURE OF NUCLEAR THREATS

Modern nuclear threats differ significantly from those that dominated Cold War strategic thinking. While the United States and Russia continue to maintain massive nuclear arsenals capable of destroying civilization, the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations has created new types of threats that require different strategic responses.

North Korea’s nuclear program, while limited in scope, represents the kind of threat that could target American cities for maximum psychological impact rather than strategic military advantage. A North Korean attack would likely focus on major population centers rather than military installations, seeking to inflict maximum casualties and psychological damage with limited nuclear resources.

Iran’s nuclear program, despite recent setbacks from American military action, continues to represent a potential future threat that could develop along similar lines. The recent escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran has highlighted how regional conflicts can potentially escalate to involve nuclear weapons, either directly or through the involvement of nuclear-armed allies.

The possibility of nuclear terrorism adds another dimension to the threat landscape. Non-state actors with access to nuclear materials or weapons would likely target major population centers or symbolic locations rather than military installations, seeking to maximize casualties and psychological impact rather than achieve specific strategic objectives.

DEFENSIVE MEASURES AND CIVIL PREPAREDNESS

Understanding potential nuclear targets is only the first step in developing comprehensive civil defense strategies that could save millions of lives in the event of nuclear conflict. Modern civil defense planning must account for the reality that some American cities face significantly higher risks than others due to their proximity to strategic military installations.

Communities near major military installations require specialized emergency planning that accounts for the likelihood of being targeted in nuclear conflict. This includes developing evacuation plans, emergency communication systems, and fallout shelters that could protect residents in the immediate aftermath of nuclear attacks.

The federal government has gradually improved its emergency alert systems and civil defense capabilities since the end of the Cold War, but many experts argue that these improvements remain inadequate for the scale of potential nuclear threats. The development of missile defense systems provides some protection against limited nuclear attacks, but these systems would likely be overwhelmed in the event of large-scale nuclear conflict.

Public education about nuclear threats and protective measures remains limited despite the continued existence of nuclear weapons and the potential for their use. Many Americans lack basic knowledge about nuclear effects, protective measures, and emergency procedures that could be crucial in the event of nuclear conflict.

DIPLOMATIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Professor Wellerstein’s analysis of potential nuclear targets serves purposes beyond academic interest or emergency planning. Understanding how adversaries might approach nuclear targeting can inform diplomatic strategies and arms control negotiations that seek to reduce the likelihood of nuclear conflict.

The concentration of nuclear targets in relatively small communities near military installations highlights the importance of these facilities in deterrence calculations. Arms control agreements that limit or eliminate certain types of nuclear weapons could potentially reduce the vulnerability of these communities while maintaining overall deterrent capabilities.

The analysis also demonstrates the continued relevance of nuclear weapons in international relations despite the end of the Cold War. Recent international tensions have highlighted how quickly diplomatic relationships can deteriorate and how nuclear weapons continue to influence the behavior of major powers.

Understanding targeting priorities can also inform decisions about military infrastructure and the geographic distribution of strategic facilities. The concentration of nuclear command and control facilities in certain regions creates vulnerabilities that could potentially be addressed through different basing strategies or improved protective measures.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

The targeting analysis reveals important insights into the psychology of nuclear deterrence and how different types of threats require different defensive strategies. The effectiveness of nuclear deterrence depends partly on adversaries believing that they cannot achieve their objectives through nuclear attack without suffering unacceptable retaliation.

However, deterrence calculations become more complex when dealing with different types of potential attackers with varying objectives and risk tolerances. A major nuclear power engaged in strategic competition might be deterred by the prospect of devastating retaliation, while a smaller nation or non-state actor might be willing to accept such consequences in exchange for inflicting maximum damage on the United States.

The changing nature of nuclear threats requires corresponding evolution in deterrence strategies and civil defense planning. Traditional approaches developed during the Cold War may be inadequate for addressing the diverse range of nuclear threats that could emerge in the coming decades.

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE THREATS

Advances in nuclear technology and delivery systems continue to evolve the landscape of nuclear threats and potential targeting strategies. Hypersonic weapons, submarine-launched missiles, and other advanced delivery systems could potentially alter targeting calculations by making certain installations more or less vulnerable to attack.

The development of smaller, more precise nuclear weapons could also change targeting strategies by making it possible to attack military installations while limiting civilian casualties. Such weapons might lower the threshold for nuclear use while creating new types of strategic vulnerabilities.

Cyber warfare capabilities add another dimension to nuclear threats, as attacks on command and control systems could potentially compromise nuclear deterrent capabilities without requiring nuclear weapons. The integration of computer systems into nuclear command structures creates new vulnerabilities that adversaries might exploit.

CONCLUSION: PREPARING FOR THE UNTHINKABLE

Professor Wellerstein’s analysis of potential nuclear targets serves as a sobering reminder that nuclear warfare remains a very real possibility despite the end of the Cold War. The identification of 15 American cities as likely targets in nuclear conflict reflects the continuing relevance of nuclear weapons in international relations and the need for comprehensive civil defense planning.

The analysis reveals that nuclear vulnerability is not simply a function of population size or political importance but depends heavily on proximity to strategic military installations and symbolic value. Some of America’s smallest cities face the highest risks due to their role in the nation’s nuclear deterrent, while major metropolitan areas face threats due to their economic significance and population density.

Understanding these vulnerabilities is essential for developing effective emergency preparedness, diplomatic strategies, and arms control policies that could reduce the likelihood of nuclear conflict. While the prospect of nuclear warfare remains horrifying, informed discussion of these possibilities is essential for preventing them from becoming reality.

The 15 cities identified in this analysis represent more than potential targets—they represent the human cost of nuclear conflict and the importance of continued efforts to prevent such conflicts from occurring. Whether through diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, or improved civil defense measures, reducing nuclear risks remains one of the most important challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.

The residents of these communities, from Great Falls, Montana to New York City, deserve policies and preparations that acknowledge their vulnerability while working to ensure that these targeting calculations never move from theoretical analysis to tragic reality. In understanding the unthinkable, we become better equipped to prevent it from ever happening.