- Russian media on Sunday made a shocking threat by saying the country’s military could vaporise various locations in the US with new missiles.
- But Russia’s list included some strange choices, like military bases that had been closed for decades.
- The likely targets of a Russian nuclear strike would be counterintuitive, and places like New York and Los Angeles may be spared for more high-value targets in North Dakota or Montana.
Russian state media on Sunday made a shocking threat, even by its own extreme standards, that detailed how Moscow would annihilate US cities and areas after a nuclear treaty collapsed and put the Cold War rivals back in targeting mode.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened a new Cuban Missile Crisis with deployments near the US’s borders and to aim missiles at the cities that command armed forces – but Russia’s media took it a step further by naming their new targets.
Hyping up a new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, Russian state TV on Sunday evening said the Pentagon, Camp David, Jim Creek Naval Radio Station in Washington, Fort Ritchie in Maryland, and McClellan Air Force Base in California, would be targets, according to Reuters.
But the latter two have been closed for about two decades, making them strange choices for targets.
With most everything from the Russia or its heavily censored media, it’s best to take its claims with a grain of salt. Instead of taking Russia’s word for it when it comes to nuclear targets, Business Insider got an expert opinion on where Moscow would need to strike.
Since the Cold War, the US and Russia have drawn up plans on how to best wage nuclear war against each other; and while large population centres with huge cultural impact may seem like obvious choices, a smarter nuclear attack would focus on countering the enemy’s nuclear forces.
So although 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 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 centres, 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 5 to 15 minutes.
But a strike on a relatively sparsely populated area could still 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 centres. But if you happen to live next to an ICBM silo, fear not.
There’s a “0.0% 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 added, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn’t worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon.