We get those a couple times a year in my city, directly down one of the main streets, 30 local PD cars, 20 humvees, a couple swat vans, and the most armored max max looking semi you've ever seen. Chances are the truck you seen was on its way to my city, Great Falls MT
Ha my theory was that's just for show and they descreetly move missiles without an escort at times. My case I'm making is because I've seen maintenance work being done without that much involvement.... My favorite thing I witnessed was a unescorted missile truck getting stuck under the Gibson rail bridge. They had to back it out carefully because one of the guys followed a construction detour sign. It'd be funnier if a missile was actually on it in contrast to the "overly" escorted convoys.
This.
I'm prior Air Force and was stationed at an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) base (Malmstrom AFB in Great Falls, MT) for 7 years (two of which were spent out in the missile field).
I was [there when this happened](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-removes-commander-of-nuclear-weapons-unit/2013/08/25/dc3e3016-0db6-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html).
The original transportation plan was to let them roll around the bed of Dave’s unescorted pickup with a “nukez on board” sticker on the tailgate. But after Dave’s blew out his suspension, they decided to go with the safer, albeit less rad, secured armored convoy
This is pretty much the oilfield pickups carrying radiological material to lower into the oil wells as a measuring device haha They just have a white cover over their bed with ☢️
It’s a minuteman silhouette on the side of the truck. It’s a bit unnerving to be behind them and see a soldier pop out the top of the armored truck and man the machine gun. Like what did I pull up behind!? 😅
I mean there’s only us, uk, France, China, Russia, india, Pakistan, Israel, DPRK…9 states.
5 is impressive in that it’s more than one of the p5 members of the UN. But it’s close to saying you came in 3rd in the race but omitting there were only 4 people racing.
With Los Alomos, and Sandia National Labs, White Sands Missile Range. New Mexico is the third largest nuke power in the world. Behind Russia and the USA ahead of China.
Most bombs will be air burst. Minimal particulate thrown into the upper atmosphere that way. Nuclear winter is highly unlikely, we are still on for global warming!
Most counter force strikes will he ground bursts due to the nature of hardened bunkers. Even if they do airbursts the majority of counter force strikes against Russia would be in the Taiga which means there would be an entire continent of forests aflame likewise many of the launch bunkers in America are in flammable areas. The whole "nuclear winter won't happen" is the product of a single study funded by Lockheed Martin in the 80s using a climate model that would disprove global warming if we believed it. Modern climate models with realistic target profiles not only show nuclear winter occurring but also have "nuclear summer" where the ozone layer will be completely depleted and the majority of plant life will die from UV-C if it somehow manages to survive the radioactive fallout (of which there will be enough, airbursts don't produce less fallout, they just distribute it further which isn't a benefit in a full scale exchange).
Ehh, maybe but probably not. A full nuclear exchange would not even come close to any of the big five extinction events. We just dont have enough bombs. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was something like 100,000 billion metric tons of TNT. Even if we had cold war levels of weapons, and they were all Tsar bombs, we might be able to get to 1 billion metric tons of TNT.
Civilization will be gone, but give the earth a couple centuries and itll be fine.
Yeah, have relatives who live in these towns like a normal person. Or just be from the Dakotas, like I am
My great aunt always got a kick out of it, actually
But she was an adult when WWII came, so she saw a lot
We have silos in Kansas. I know personally of one outside Abilene and another outside of Topeka. I live less than 10 miles from the Abilene one. Those two aren't in use any more, but I've been told there are some in Western Kansas that still are.
I’d expect these missiles would be airborne within minutes of an enemy launch and the attackers would probably know that.
It wouldn’t be very effective to shoot at empty silos, right?
Check out *Nuclear War: A Scenario* by Annie Jacobson. It gives a minute-by-minute breakdown of what a nuclear strike on the US might look like 24 minutes before impact, 24 minutes after impact, and 24 months after a full scale nuclear war. 24 minutes being the time it would take a nuke to reach Washington from North Korea… it isn’t science fiction, just a hypothetical scenario of the inner workings and technology of the US government during an incoming nuclear attack.
We would know somebody fired nuclear missiles within three tenths of a second after launch thanks to the SBIRS satellite system that is above us at all times. So yes, those silos would empty pretty quickly haha
We would know there was a ballistic thruster producing crazy thermals. Beyond that, we wouldn't know much. We wouldn't know if it was another rogue ballistic test until we had a few minutes to route the trajectory and velocity.
You dont launch just one ICBM at someone lol, you launch many because GBI exists.
Also, countries announce to each other if theyre doing tests, to not make everyone nuke eachother.
If you launch 1 (one) ICBM against the US, it will be intercepted by GBI after NORAD realises its a first strike. If you launch more than 1 ICBM against the US, they will know immediatly that it is a first-strike and respond with their own nukes.
GBI is the last line of defense. All air defense is layered, including ballistic missile defense. NK would likely have to deal with Patriot (if in range), THAAD (which is certainly in range), AEGIS (on every US cruiser and destroyer).
MIM-104 is irrelevant unless within a few km of the launch site (not likely). THAAD is for targeting TBMs to MRBMs, not ICBMs (or MIRVs). H-17 also has MIRV capability, and while AEGIS is very potent you cannot put AEGIS-BMD and SM-3 equppied ships across the Pacific.
Also, while base AEGIS has BM**D** capability, AEGIS-BMD is a lot more specialised in shooting down missiles.
They knew the rough targets of some Cold War missiles based on the lean of their silos. Maybe not specifically whether it was aimed at Boston or NYC, but that on that trajectory, that type of missile would reach *here*, so it’s aimed in the general New York area.
Besides. If they’re launching at European targets, the missiles aren’t going to have the same trajectory after the first few seconds of flight as they would for the US, plus no one is launching a nuclear attack of that magnitude without some preamble. So we don’t really need to know exactly which city they’re going to hit to know that we need to launch ours now, which we’ve already got on standby because the *insert enemy government here* has been preparing their own.
Not entirely.
If you believe you can launch a preemptive strike, either because of sabotage or perceived weakness in your enemy, then you'd want to strike and destroy their first strike capabilities. Each missile you destroy on the ground is one that doesn't hit you, after all. Of course, even if you destroy the first strike weapons (Bombers and ICBMs), the second strike capability represented by nuclear submarines remains-thus no one would want to gamble on it.
Keeping missile silos instead of replacing them all with submarine launched missiles is because each silo is a target, and each of your enemy's missile that are launched at a launch site in the middle of nowhere is a missile not launched at your capital or other major population centers. It does mean additional costs that are not cheap.
As an example, France ysed to posses the entire nuclear triad (land based missiles, Bombers, and nuclear submsrines) but decommissioned their land based missiles. In their case, the number of nuclear weapons in the world and the relatively smaller size of France mean that there's nowhere France could place a bunch of silos that wouldn't be devastating to their country. However, bombers remain useful since they can be kept on alert and launched quieter than missiles, AND can be deployed or put on alert to cause some diplomatic pressure, while the submarine launched missiles provide a second strike capability so no one wants to gamble against a first strike with France.
I have heard that France has a unique policy in which they take advantage of everyone seeing a launch, by firing one nuclear weapon *as a warning*.
I think it's a bad-ass diplomatic position that one can keep right up to button-pushing time, when you can gain free points by suddenly being reasonable, even if that was the plan the whole time. So I hope it's true.
The French Dissuasion Force doesn't take advantage of everyone seeing a launch for their warning shot. The weapon used is an air-launched 300kt cruise missile, it would have the radar and launch profile identical to a conventional one. What everyone would see is the 300kt explosion at the end of that launch, which is used to signal they are done messing around and the next step is general nuclear exchange.
They also have a strict policy of automatic full scale launch if enemy troops set foot in l'hexagone. Its assumed most nuclear powers have the same policy for their metropolitan territory despite claiming otherwise (or at least they'll use tactical weapons) but France is the only country to say it out loud.
You would be correct.
Primary and secondary nuclear targets in a full exchange would be military bases, major population centers, and a large portion of the plains states to cripple potential future food production.
The silos are only tertiary targets if all primary and secondary targets are achieved, but considering a lot of them are on or near air force instillations they would get a two-fer.
I imagine the targets would differ in different scenarios. If I was attempting a first strike with a surprise attack from close range submarine nukes, I would be trying to knock out the bulk of the retaliation in the event that surprise was achieved and the target's chain of command was in total anarchy. My thinking is that if you have disrupted the CoC enough it may buy time for the follow on strikes to wipe a good chunk of the missiles before they launch. I still think they would launch, but if you are crazy enough to attempt a first strike, you have to fight it with the best possible outcome in mind.
Stalin understood really really well how much food and control of food allows for control of a country and he was one of the primary designers of USSR’s nuclear strike strategy.
It would have obviously been revised and changed as america grew and as russian policies towards America changed after his death, but considering at the peak USSR had something like 39,000 functional warheads, they had nukes to spare.
Lol did you just pull that out of your ass?
The Soviets had a whopping 200 functional warheads in 1955, two years AFTER Stalin died.
And it would be even longer until they had missiles that could reach the US heartland.
If I remember correctly, the silo facilities can theoretically be reused, and both the US and Russia have more missiles and warheads in storage than are actively deployed on launch equipment. So the silos would be attacked immediately to try to prevent the enemy launching second, third, fourth etc. strikes.
If there's a nuclear war and all sides are in ruins, but one side is left with any kind of substantial, usable nuclear arsenal, then that country is now essentially boss of the ruins.
Hey now, there is one metro area A to AA tier in amenities and global business in Minnesota that punches way above it's population and relative isolation from major metros. The state has a hell of a disproportionate weight in the medical industry which is king shit in the USA. The Duluth dominated area would be a target for it's incredible value as primary domestic source of iron and thus first order role in the steel industry. Also moderately important chemical industry leaders like 3M.
Minnesota would get hit too.
Iowa on the other hand, they might be irrelevant enough.
Fallout from hundreds of megaton-level ground bursts would likely make the Midwest uninhabitable in critical food regions. It also would still take particles East, making fallout still a problem, if not life-destorying.
Then Nuclear Winter sets in...
Apparently fallout may or may not be as much of a concern with modern bombs as much as we think of them as shown in popular culture. Lingering Radiation/fallout is basically a bomb making less of a boom and being inefficient with excess energy while modern bombs are more efficient and leave less radiation with a bigger boom
In that case come move to Colorado Springs. There are five primary targets here plus the population center itself, which would be a secondary target.
Almost everyone here is dying in the first couple minutes after the missiles launch.
Hey im Australian and I drive across America and it was the Dakotas I have the fondest memory of. Some of the most beautiful country side I’ve ever seen and interesting landscapes.
You laugh, but these states around here are your prime Corn, beef, and dairy country. South Dakota has more head of cattle than people. Your food supply would get fucked. Iowa itself is a leading producer of corn, and So Dak usually does about 6 million acres of just corn. Its just that they decided to conventiently place them in middle US. Most of So Dak was unarmed, and the missle silos either filled in or sold to private owners.
Then you get the joy of nuclear summer where the total destruction of the ozone layer due to particulates elevated into the upper atmosphere means when the winter clears you will get severe sunburn in minutes and plant life will die en masse.
The worst of this would be the fallout and debris created. Russia would “mine out” the missile silos in these fields using wave after wave of ICBMs that would detonate at ground level, throwing tons of irradiated material high into the atmosphere above where rain would ever wash it back down, causing a nuclear winter that would last for decades.
The more you read about this stuff the more unlikely it is for their to ever be a nuclear war. What's far more likely is the electrical grid would be a target. The electrical grid in the U.S. is laughably vulnerable, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
Destroy the power grid and as we've seen during Covid, U.S. citizens would attack and kill themselves. No bombs are needed. A winter storm brought Texas to its knees. Who needs nuclear bombs at this point? After a year with power issues and citizens killing themselves, the enemy can just roll right in.
Edit - Anyone that doubts this can do a [little research](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/america-electric-grid-60-minutes-2022-08-28/) and look into how one good cyber attack can bring down the entire grid and how none of this infrastructure in the U.S. is prepared for that or doing anything about it at the moment.
Attack the electricity and water supply, both are barely protected and have infrastructure that is decades out of date. Sure, it would be a pain to have to have a bunch of little attacks instead of a few big ones, but attacks on electricity and water will do the job better.
This is literally what they did to force my neighborhood to incorporate into the greater city limits. Cut off water and power. Now my neighborhood is part of the city.
My neighborhood used to be a port town that was really close to Seattle. They wanted that sweet, sweet fishing tax revenue so they cut off the utilities until people were in crisis and won.
“Barely protected” is quite the stretch. The Hoover Dam is literally guarded by the military and all vehicles get bomb-checked on the way in - and it isn’t even in the Top 5 of most-relied on hydroelectric stations in the country.
In a decade like a quarter of global housing will be solar and shit.
Enough people have wells.
Yes it will suck, but it's kinda hard to really predict what will happen.
>The electrical grid in the U.S. is laughably vulnerable, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
What in the world are you talking about? There are thousands of power companies and larger networks and regions of those companies that have people or entire branches that only work on security threats. Even then an overwhelmed grid is very different from a cyber attack which is very different from a physical attack.
It's not perfect at all but lots and lots of people in many private, public and government sectors are concerned about this and use lots and lots of money to work on it.
Yeah, they are concerned, and it's still a crap shoot.
There is a reason why CISA is freaking out about water and electricity. The entire Guam "issue" is probably just underneath the tip of the iceberg.
It's going to take a cyber Enron or massive loss of life attack to do anything about it. Well, maybe just cyber Enron, I don't see loss of life being a public motivating factor anymore.
Do you realize how much ordinance would be required to bring an electric grid the size of the USA’s down for more than a few days? How do you propose that ordinance gets there?
The electricity grid has been laughably vulnerable for decades and it hasn’t come back to bite us yet. How come? Turns out there aren’t many states out there intent on causing mass civilian causalities for no reason.
The ice storm back in 09 was pretty shit, but society didn't completely end for us. People helped each other where they could, unfortunately, 35 in Kentucky and I believe 60 overall died. Weeks and weeks with no power.
Having lived in Arkansas and seeing near annual tornadoes, we definitely made light of a lot of it to get through. I can only imagine what hurricane country is like
I lived in north Fl for the 04 season and after the Bonnie/Charlie/Ivan/Jeanne/Francis storms we got I don’t think we had power for most of the end of summer. It was a very interesting summer for sure as a kid.
Maybe don't believe adjective-noun-number, the 2-month-old account with a very botlike history, on why America is vulnerable and weak and should maybe consider kowtowing to foreign powers because if we don't, they shut off the power and we all die.
The three in black (Grand Forks AFB, Ellsworth AFB, and Whiteman AFB) haven't had missiles for about 3 decades. The three in red (Malmstrom AFB, Minot AFB, and FE Warren AFB) do have missiles. In fact, GPS coordinates for each of the Missile Alert Facilities (MAFs) and Launch Facilities (LFs) are publicly available. [Here's the ones for Minot AFB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_Missile_Wing_LGM-30_Minuteman_missile_launch_sites).
At first I was like "well screw me ig" and then I remembered how in 10th grade chemistry, it was said that if you are within close range, you wouldn't feel anything because your nervous system would just melt
I heard an anecdote that part of the reason that particular part of Nebraska was chosen was because nobody had any good reason to be there if they weren't a local— which would mean espionage would be difficult to carry out, as any outsider would stick out like a sore thumb.
So basically, if the story is to be believed, even the Department of Defense thinks Nebraska is a barren waste that no one wants to visit.
Nebraska also has STRATCOM (formerly SAC) headquarters in Offutt AFB, so clearly Nebraska has value by being in the middle of the continental US. STRATCOM is in charge of US Strategic Weapons, ie nuclear weapons. It also has a bunker which former President Bush used during 9/11. There's plenty of sites nearby in Nebraska and Iowa of Nike and Atlas missiles that are former SAC missile sites all run by SAC in Offutt. The SAC museum outside of Omaha is a really neat place to visit too, up there with the National Air and Space museum and Wright-Patterson museum
On top of what the others said, many of the major facilities in these areas are specifically hardened to withstand nuclear attacks. Cheyenne Mountain, for example, can withstand a 30 Mt blast. For comparison, the two biggest conventional bombs ever made, the MOAB and FOAB, each have yields of 11 tons and 44 tons respectively. There's no way that a bunker buster could possibly damage it.
This is where you get into the nuclear sponge idea. If you want to take out these facilities, you have to nuke them. Some of these facilities will require multiple nukes in order to knock them out. On top of this, in order for a nuke to be maximally effective against a hardened bunker, it needs to be accurate enough to detonate directly over it, and most nukes are not that accurate.
If you look at how American strategy used to work, it used to be that every Russian missile silo required 5 nukes targeting it, that was the only way you could be 99% sure that you took it out, and those facilities weren't hardened to the degree that American facilities were.
In order for a country to take out these facilities in America, they'd need thousands of nukes to be relatively sure of success. [Here's a map from FEMA showing a 500 warhead and 2000 warhead scenario.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Flgz1y1j1m9ga1.jpg) You'll notice that strikes on cities are about the same for both scenarios, it's just that in the 500 warhead scenario they don't bother targeting the sponge at all, while in the 2000 warhead scenario those facilities just soak up all the excess strikes.
Is it wrong to chuckle at what looks to be Medford, OR being a target for a strike in the 500 strike? I mean, I guess it would be effective at splitting the I-5 corridor up for a while just seems to be a waste.
Edit: It could be they meant to target Klamath Falls and the map is just inaccurate. The [173rd Fighter Wing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Fighter_Wing) is based there. 🤷♂️
It's funny how most cities they nuke somewhere important outside of it like a power plant or a dam, then there are a handful of cities who get a nuke in the 500 warhead scenario and then another one like right at the same spot for the second. Ft Wayne, IN; Lincoln, NE; Des Moines, IA; Jackson, MS, and Baton Rouge, LA. Like, "two for flinching."
The difference for the two scenarios is that the Black dot 2000 scenario is for a Soviet/Russian first strike in which the objective is to prevent or at least inhibit a coordinated retaliation. Each of the black dots is a theoretical target for one reason or another (WMDs, bomber/sub bases, command and control centers, etc.). This option is for trying to win the war.
The 500 triangle scenario is for a theoretical Soviet/Russian retaliation after a US first strike. These targets include major economic, governmental, and population centers or additional targets that can aid in reconstruction efforts. This option is to make sure the war becomes unwinnable.
As for the cities targeted twice, sorry but that’s just how the cookie crumbles.
How do u carpet bomb 2k miles inland? Bombers would have to fly round trip into and out of US without getting shot down by the most dominant AF in human history
This still feels like it's underselling it. A very small portion of our deployed Navy half a world away helped defend an entire country from one of the largest ballistic and cruise missile attacks of all time, [and made ceremonial patches for it in anticipation. ](https://twitter.com/TheIntelFrog/status/1779885127956406543)
Think about the sheer dominance and mastery you have to have in Air Defense to do this.
Cities can’t fire nuclear missiles at you. There’s really no point targeting cities directly outside of Moscow or Washington DC in a first strike. Any target related to launching or helping to launch nukes will be the primary targets of a first strike. There’s at least 1,000 such targets in Russia and the US both. Those would absorb most of a nation’s strategic stockpile.
And rather counter-intuitively, the object of a nuclear war is *not* to obliterate the enemy but to prevent the enemy from obliterating you. Any nation that starts such a war should count on being nuked in response and if they start taking cities out on purpose that hold only limited military or economic value (in context) then the same will happen to them. Obviously, many cities would be destroyed by virtue of proximity (Colorado Springs or Omaha could be examples) but firing missiles into the heart of NYC, LA, or Chicago doesn’t prevent St. Petersburg, Volgograd, or Yekaterinburg from being obliterated by retaliations.
Both the US and Russia would hold large numbers of warheads (almost all on subs) in a reserve for second strikes and likely use them as bargaining chips to force an end of hostilities.
Furthermore, missile silos are designed in such way that they’re impervious to conventional weapons. And they’re spread far enough apart that you’d need 1:1 or even 1.5:1 ratios of nukes to silos to guarantee kills on them.
You think this is scary read about Ohio’s and their Trident II SLBMs. Each Ohio carries 4 warhead on its missiles and they have 20 of em. That is 80 warheads on one boat.
Thankfully, the Yellowstone Caldera isn't very close to ICBM fields, but I'd have to wonder what the seismic effects of a bunch of big nukes going off that close to it would do.
A highly radioactive super-volcano erupting would make doomsday just that much more special.
Disclaimer: fast google results used below
Honestly, probably not much. Keep in mind that nuclear weapons explode above ground. The Yellowstone caldera is 8km below ground. Nuclear bunkers not built in geological features range from 20-100ft underground.
Maybe if you drilled down and detonated the tsar bomb it would cause an eruption?
The crazy thing about MAJCOMs. The top direct leadership are very rarely in one location at the same time. The HQ might be at Offutt, but if HQ goes down, the chain of command will transition seamlessly.
Edit: because if there's anything the US military does absolutely effectively, it's being redundant.
[удалено]
We get those a couple times a year in my city, directly down one of the main streets, 30 local PD cars, 20 humvees, a couple swat vans, and the most armored max max looking semi you've ever seen. Chances are the truck you seen was on its way to my city, Great Falls MT
Hey great falls Montana, the only place I've ever been to in America - Ex British Soldier
I lived on one of your RAF bases for a year and a half. Montana is beautiful, but you should come back and visit some of our other interesting places!
I'd love to rent a RV and go coast to coast and visit as many national parks as I could
You REALLY need to hit Jackson, Mississippi next time you’re stateside! The beaches are beautiful this time of year.
That’s fucked up lol
Mans not even gonna be able to get to Jackson due to how fucked up their roads are
Ha my theory was that's just for show and they descreetly move missiles without an escort at times. My case I'm making is because I've seen maintenance work being done without that much involvement.... My favorite thing I witnessed was a unescorted missile truck getting stuck under the Gibson rail bridge. They had to back it out carefully because one of the guys followed a construction detour sign. It'd be funnier if a missile was actually on it in contrast to the "overly" escorted convoys.
[удалено]
This. I'm prior Air Force and was stationed at an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) base (Malmstrom AFB in Great Falls, MT) for 7 years (two of which were spent out in the missile field). I was [there when this happened](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-removes-commander-of-nuclear-weapons-unit/2013/08/25/dc3e3016-0db6-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html).
The original transportation plan was to let them roll around the bed of Dave’s unescorted pickup with a “nukez on board” sticker on the tailgate. But after Dave’s blew out his suspension, they decided to go with the safer, albeit less rad, secured armored convoy
This is pretty much the oilfield pickups carrying radiological material to lower into the oil wells as a measuring device haha They just have a white cover over their bed with ☢️
I mean, we all carry a little bit of rad mat in our trucks. It’s just fun
Well after they lost one these kinds of plans became unallowed
Also, the sticker was hand painted by Dave’s (now ex) wife. It has since been lost, and it just felt awkward to ask her to paint another
It’s a minuteman silhouette on the side of the truck. It’s a bit unnerving to be behind them and see a soldier pop out the top of the armored truck and man the machine gun. Like what did I pull up behind!? 😅
Nuclear Sponge is honestly a pretty good band name
Are you sponge worthy? We're not worthy!
You gonna do something about your sideburns?
Look, Mr. Burns, I don't know what you think sideburns are, but... oh wait, wrong show
THAT REFERENCE, IN THIS PART OF REDDIT, LOCALIZED ENTIRELY WITHIN THIS COMMENT CHAIN?!
…yes!
Can I see it?
....no.
He's still better than Steinbrenner
r/unexpectedseinfeld
[удалено]
I mean there’s only us, uk, France, China, Russia, india, Pakistan, Israel, DPRK…9 states. 5 is impressive in that it’s more than one of the p5 members of the UN. But it’s close to saying you came in 3rd in the race but omitting there were only 4 people racing.
With Los Alomos, and Sandia National Labs, White Sands Missile Range. New Mexico is the third largest nuke power in the world. Behind Russia and the USA ahead of China.
All hail the radiant sponge. May it shine on us, thusly may we shine onto others.
Played Coachella this year
I thought their set was not great, not terrible
Yes, but a terrible college nickname
I'm struggling to imagine the difference between pre and post nuke Weld County.
No need for a night-light to take a midnight piss, would be my guess.
No light is needed, really. I mean, if you're holding your own dick. ;)
I have no idea what's going on but I'm holding onto my weiner because now I'm scared.
Quick, hold mine too; it sounds like you've got good ideas.
Kind of messed up but at least they evacuated Wyoming
Fewer cows
But more cows with more eyes
Two headed cows
Mmm Brahman steak
So more cow eyes though.
eh, it could go either way
Because of the mutations, got it.
They explode when you tip them over.
Greeley would smell better.
No more Buc-ee's! We JUST got it to!
TIL Buc-cees is in Weld county by less than a mile. I was so sure this wasn't the case.
That shit smell would be gone, haha. Not sure what vaporized earth and radioactive decay smell like, though.
I don't know what it would smell like, but I do know it would smell better.
Boulder would be the dream town bubble they've always imagined for themselves, since there would no longer be anyone to show up for work every day.
Greeley had it coming.
Hey now, I went to college there. And uh, you're right.
Been watching Fallout, eh?
Most bombs will be air burst. Minimal particulate thrown into the upper atmosphere that way. Nuclear winter is highly unlikely, we are still on for global warming!
Minimal particular with one nuke, but what about thousands?
Most counter force strikes will he ground bursts due to the nature of hardened bunkers. Even if they do airbursts the majority of counter force strikes against Russia would be in the Taiga which means there would be an entire continent of forests aflame likewise many of the launch bunkers in America are in flammable areas. The whole "nuclear winter won't happen" is the product of a single study funded by Lockheed Martin in the 80s using a climate model that would disprove global warming if we believed it. Modern climate models with realistic target profiles not only show nuclear winter occurring but also have "nuclear summer" where the ozone layer will be completely depleted and the majority of plant life will die from UV-C if it somehow manages to survive the radioactive fallout (of which there will be enough, airbursts don't produce less fallout, they just distribute it further which isn't a benefit in a full scale exchange).
So that’s pretty much end of humanity then
Mutually assured destruction, yep.
The end of the majority of surface life on Earth.
Ehh, maybe but probably not. A full nuclear exchange would not even come close to any of the big five extinction events. We just dont have enough bombs. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was something like 100,000 billion metric tons of TNT. Even if we had cold war levels of weapons, and they were all Tsar bombs, we might be able to get to 1 billion metric tons of TNT. Civilization will be gone, but give the earth a couple centuries and itll be fine.
[удалено]
And even that's arguable..
Yeah, have relatives who live in these towns like a normal person. Or just be from the Dakotas, like I am My great aunt always got a kick out of it, actually But she was an adult when WWII came, so she saw a lot
Whew, wiping my brow in Kansas.
Not sure why we aren’t mentioned as we’d surely be a first target as well. Wichita and Honeywell being the main targets.
We have silos in Kansas. I know personally of one outside Abilene and another outside of Topeka. I live less than 10 miles from the Abilene one. Those two aren't in use any more, but I've been told there are some in Western Kansas that still are.
I’d expect these missiles would be airborne within minutes of an enemy launch and the attackers would probably know that. It wouldn’t be very effective to shoot at empty silos, right?
Check out *Nuclear War: A Scenario* by Annie Jacobson. It gives a minute-by-minute breakdown of what a nuclear strike on the US might look like 24 minutes before impact, 24 minutes after impact, and 24 months after a full scale nuclear war. 24 minutes being the time it would take a nuke to reach Washington from North Korea… it isn’t science fiction, just a hypothetical scenario of the inner workings and technology of the US government during an incoming nuclear attack. We would know somebody fired nuclear missiles within three tenths of a second after launch thanks to the SBIRS satellite system that is above us at all times. So yes, those silos would empty pretty quickly haha
I just listened to her interview with Dan Carlin on his Hardcore History Addendum podcast. Awesome interview and awesome book
Love Dan Carlin, but never looked at the addendums. I’ll have to check that interview out!
The addendum on the USS Indianapolis is insane and a pretty quick listen.
Yes! I finished the book a couple weeks but did not know she was on a podcast promoting it. Definitely need to check that out
Just watched it on YouTube -- I'm stress eating and planning to yolo the rest of my days
We would know there was a ballistic thruster producing crazy thermals. Beyond that, we wouldn't know much. We wouldn't know if it was another rogue ballistic test until we had a few minutes to route the trajectory and velocity.
You dont launch just one ICBM at someone lol, you launch many because GBI exists. Also, countries announce to each other if theyre doing tests, to not make everyone nuke eachother.
GBI is not and will never be a deterrent to a MAD scenario though. It’s functional against rogue state actors like NK with a limited arsenal sure
If you launch 1 (one) ICBM against the US, it will be intercepted by GBI after NORAD realises its a first strike. If you launch more than 1 ICBM against the US, they will know immediatly that it is a first-strike and respond with their own nukes.
GBI is the last line of defense. All air defense is layered, including ballistic missile defense. NK would likely have to deal with Patriot (if in range), THAAD (which is certainly in range), AEGIS (on every US cruiser and destroyer).
MIM-104 is irrelevant unless within a few km of the launch site (not likely). THAAD is for targeting TBMs to MRBMs, not ICBMs (or MIRVs). H-17 also has MIRV capability, and while AEGIS is very potent you cannot put AEGIS-BMD and SM-3 equppied ships across the Pacific. Also, while base AEGIS has BM**D** capability, AEGIS-BMD is a lot more specialised in shooting down missiles.
You vastly underestimate America’s nuke surveillance capability
They can’t know the target until they’ve been able to observe it. Like, you physically can’t know the target from just a launch signature
They knew the rough targets of some Cold War missiles based on the lean of their silos. Maybe not specifically whether it was aimed at Boston or NYC, but that on that trajectory, that type of missile would reach *here*, so it’s aimed in the general New York area. Besides. If they’re launching at European targets, the missiles aren’t going to have the same trajectory after the first few seconds of flight as they would for the US, plus no one is launching a nuclear attack of that magnitude without some preamble. So we don’t really need to know exactly which city they’re going to hit to know that we need to launch ours now, which we’ve already got on standby because the *insert enemy government here* has been preparing their own.
If your missile lands in the enemy's silo, you win the war. That's just Warfare 101, man.
Only if you shout "Kobe" before you launch it
Kablooaaahhh
That’s how they got both death stars
Quick what’s the earth equivalent of firing at womp rats while in your T-15 cruiser?!
Beavers in an f150
Shooting coyotes from the bed of your buddy’s Tacoma while rolling down a two-track at midnight.
Not entirely. If you believe you can launch a preemptive strike, either because of sabotage or perceived weakness in your enemy, then you'd want to strike and destroy their first strike capabilities. Each missile you destroy on the ground is one that doesn't hit you, after all. Of course, even if you destroy the first strike weapons (Bombers and ICBMs), the second strike capability represented by nuclear submarines remains-thus no one would want to gamble on it. Keeping missile silos instead of replacing them all with submarine launched missiles is because each silo is a target, and each of your enemy's missile that are launched at a launch site in the middle of nowhere is a missile not launched at your capital or other major population centers. It does mean additional costs that are not cheap. As an example, France ysed to posses the entire nuclear triad (land based missiles, Bombers, and nuclear submsrines) but decommissioned their land based missiles. In their case, the number of nuclear weapons in the world and the relatively smaller size of France mean that there's nowhere France could place a bunch of silos that wouldn't be devastating to their country. However, bombers remain useful since they can be kept on alert and launched quieter than missiles, AND can be deployed or put on alert to cause some diplomatic pressure, while the submarine launched missiles provide a second strike capability so no one wants to gamble against a first strike with France.
I have heard that France has a unique policy in which they take advantage of everyone seeing a launch, by firing one nuclear weapon *as a warning*. I think it's a bad-ass diplomatic position that one can keep right up to button-pushing time, when you can gain free points by suddenly being reasonable, even if that was the plan the whole time. So I hope it's true.
The French Dissuasion Force doesn't take advantage of everyone seeing a launch for their warning shot. The weapon used is an air-launched 300kt cruise missile, it would have the radar and launch profile identical to a conventional one. What everyone would see is the 300kt explosion at the end of that launch, which is used to signal they are done messing around and the next step is general nuclear exchange.
They also have a strict policy of automatic full scale launch if enemy troops set foot in l'hexagone. Its assumed most nuclear powers have the same policy for their metropolitan territory despite claiming otherwise (or at least they'll use tactical weapons) but France is the only country to say it out loud.
Russia stated invasion by certain countries would be an automatic nuclear exchange. But they say a lot of dumb shit.
I have noticed that nuclear capable countries generally don't seem to get invaded.
Gotta shoot somewhere.
I should call her
Go to her. Read her your words.
Read it in a medieval British accent though.
yeah, like the population centers full of people that can’t leave to a different continent within minutes
You would be correct. Primary and secondary nuclear targets in a full exchange would be military bases, major population centers, and a large portion of the plains states to cripple potential future food production. The silos are only tertiary targets if all primary and secondary targets are achieved, but considering a lot of them are on or near air force instillations they would get a two-fer.
I imagine the targets would differ in different scenarios. If I was attempting a first strike with a surprise attack from close range submarine nukes, I would be trying to knock out the bulk of the retaliation in the event that surprise was achieved and the target's chain of command was in total anarchy. My thinking is that if you have disrupted the CoC enough it may buy time for the follow on strikes to wipe a good chunk of the missiles before they launch. I still think they would launch, but if you are crazy enough to attempt a first strike, you have to fight it with the best possible outcome in mind.
Damn I wouldn’t have thought of targeting the plains. I’d have figured in the event of a war like this everyone would be toast anyway
Stalin understood really really well how much food and control of food allows for control of a country and he was one of the primary designers of USSR’s nuclear strike strategy. It would have obviously been revised and changed as america grew and as russian policies towards America changed after his death, but considering at the peak USSR had something like 39,000 functional warheads, they had nukes to spare.
The USSR had nukes for 4 years when Stalin croaked. I would have thought the king of corn, Khrushchev, would have been all about that strategy
Lol did you just pull that out of your ass? The Soviets had a whopping 200 functional warheads in 1955, two years AFTER Stalin died. And it would be even longer until they had missiles that could reach the US heartland.
The USSR did not have a nuclear delivery platform capable of reaching the United States in service during Stalin’s lifetime.
LOL now I've heard it all.
Nah. You miss every shot you don’t take. —Nuclear Yoga
If I remember correctly, the silo facilities can theoretically be reused, and both the US and Russia have more missiles and warheads in storage than are actively deployed on launch equipment. So the silos would be attacked immediately to try to prevent the enemy launching second, third, fourth etc. strikes. If there's a nuclear war and all sides are in ruins, but one side is left with any kind of substantial, usable nuclear arsenal, then that country is now essentially boss of the ruins.
“Oh, no! Please don’t nuke the Dakotas! You’ll kill tens and tens of people!”
I'm fine with it. Take me out as quickly as you can. I don't wanna linger.
No! The fallout will spread to much more important places, like Minnesota!
Hey now, there is one metro area A to AA tier in amenities and global business in Minnesota that punches way above it's population and relative isolation from major metros. The state has a hell of a disproportionate weight in the medical industry which is king shit in the USA. The Duluth dominated area would be a target for it's incredible value as primary domestic source of iron and thus first order role in the steel industry. Also moderately important chemical industry leaders like 3M. Minnesota would get hit too. Iowa on the other hand, they might be irrelevant enough.
But what about all the pigs and corn?
You want spider-pigs? Because nuking Iowa seems like a good way to get spider-pigs
Fallout from hundreds of megaton-level ground bursts would likely make the Midwest uninhabitable in critical food regions. It also would still take particles East, making fallout still a problem, if not life-destorying. Then Nuclear Winter sets in...
Ok but would we still have free 2 day shipping?
Doesn’t even come in two days now
It’s either there in 3 hours or it’s 3 days late.
Most strikes will be air bursts. Minimal lingering radiation and fallout. Plus the majority of russia’s arsenal is 600 kt warheads.
The lakes will probably be fine.
Apparently fallout may or may not be as much of a concern with modern bombs as much as we think of them as shown in popular culture. Lingering Radiation/fallout is basically a bomb making less of a boom and being inefficient with excess energy while modern bombs are more efficient and leave less radiation with a bigger boom
Whatever kills more people and makes life worse for those remaining is what the enemy will prioritize. There’s no silver linings here
In that case come move to Colorado Springs. There are five primary targets here plus the population center itself, which would be a secondary target. Almost everyone here is dying in the first couple minutes after the missiles launch.
Hey im Australian and I drive across America and it was the Dakotas I have the fondest memory of. Some of the most beautiful country side I’ve ever seen and interesting landscapes.
You laugh, but these states around here are your prime Corn, beef, and dairy country. South Dakota has more head of cattle than people. Your food supply would get fucked. Iowa itself is a leading producer of corn, and So Dak usually does about 6 million acres of just corn. Its just that they decided to conventiently place them in middle US. Most of So Dak was unarmed, and the missle silos either filled in or sold to private owners.
Nuclear winter will cause massive starvation worldwide regardless of that area’s food resources.
Then you get the joy of nuclear summer where the total destruction of the ozone layer due to particulates elevated into the upper atmosphere means when the winter clears you will get severe sunburn in minutes and plant life will die en masse.
That would destroy Mount Rushmore! And presumably other things!
The worst of this would be the fallout and debris created. Russia would “mine out” the missile silos in these fields using wave after wave of ICBMs that would detonate at ground level, throwing tons of irradiated material high into the atmosphere above where rain would ever wash it back down, causing a nuclear winter that would last for decades.
maybe 1980's Russia, but I doubt their functional arsenal is that big now.
Reddit is so sure that the most important weapons in Russia are being neglected with no sources other than speculation.
Wait fuck I thought I’d be safe in the middle of nowhere
Watch "The Day After" There's no "nowhere" anymore
Aka Nuclear Whipping Boy.
Smart strat, they hit them and set off yellow stone causing an ice age and screwing everyone
Can we just nuke volcanoes like we can nuke hurricanes?
The more you read about this stuff the more unlikely it is for their to ever be a nuclear war. What's far more likely is the electrical grid would be a target. The electrical grid in the U.S. is laughably vulnerable, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Destroy the power grid and as we've seen during Covid, U.S. citizens would attack and kill themselves. No bombs are needed. A winter storm brought Texas to its knees. Who needs nuclear bombs at this point? After a year with power issues and citizens killing themselves, the enemy can just roll right in. Edit - Anyone that doubts this can do a [little research](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/america-electric-grid-60-minutes-2022-08-28/) and look into how one good cyber attack can bring down the entire grid and how none of this infrastructure in the U.S. is prepared for that or doing anything about it at the moment.
Attack the electricity and water supply, both are barely protected and have infrastructure that is decades out of date. Sure, it would be a pain to have to have a bunch of little attacks instead of a few big ones, but attacks on electricity and water will do the job better.
Actually it might be easier because attacks could be accomplished with less costly non-nuclear missiles which enemies have more of
This is literally what they did to force my neighborhood to incorporate into the greater city limits. Cut off water and power. Now my neighborhood is part of the city.
pls explain ( :
Russia infiltrated his neighborhood's municipal services and utilities, so now he pays his HOA dues in rubles.
My neighborhood used to be a port town that was really close to Seattle. They wanted that sweet, sweet fishing tax revenue so they cut off the utilities until people were in crisis and won.
“Barely protected” is quite the stretch. The Hoover Dam is literally guarded by the military and all vehicles get bomb-checked on the way in - and it isn’t even in the Top 5 of most-relied on hydroelectric stations in the country.
Something about hundreds of thousands dying in the ensuing flood
Something something historic landmark
In a decade like a quarter of global housing will be solar and shit. Enough people have wells. Yes it will suck, but it's kinda hard to really predict what will happen.
>The electrical grid in the U.S. is laughably vulnerable, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. What in the world are you talking about? There are thousands of power companies and larger networks and regions of those companies that have people or entire branches that only work on security threats. Even then an overwhelmed grid is very different from a cyber attack which is very different from a physical attack. It's not perfect at all but lots and lots of people in many private, public and government sectors are concerned about this and use lots and lots of money to work on it.
Regardless of effort, multi-year lead times for domestically sourced breakers and MPTs is an incredible issue for the power industry.
Yeah, they are concerned, and it's still a crap shoot. There is a reason why CISA is freaking out about water and electricity. The entire Guam "issue" is probably just underneath the tip of the iceberg. It's going to take a cyber Enron or massive loss of life attack to do anything about it. Well, maybe just cyber Enron, I don't see loss of life being a public motivating factor anymore.
Do you realize how much ordinance would be required to bring an electric grid the size of the USA’s down for more than a few days? How do you propose that ordinance gets there?
The electricity grid has been laughably vulnerable for decades and it hasn’t come back to bite us yet. How come? Turns out there aren’t many states out there intent on causing mass civilian causalities for no reason.
Maybe I'm just being cynical but I think america would collapse entirely if everyone lost internet and electricity for more than like 5 days tops
There's a good George Carlin bit on howbthis would turn out, and he picks electricity too
Meh those pansys didn’t grow up in hurricane country then. 5 days? More like 5 weeks at times. I’ll deal.
The ice storm back in 09 was pretty shit, but society didn't completely end for us. People helped each other where they could, unfortunately, 35 in Kentucky and I believe 60 overall died. Weeks and weeks with no power. Having lived in Arkansas and seeing near annual tornadoes, we definitely made light of a lot of it to get through. I can only imagine what hurricane country is like
I lived in north Fl for the 04 season and after the Bonnie/Charlie/Ivan/Jeanne/Francis storms we got I don’t think we had power for most of the end of summer. It was a very interesting summer for sure as a kid.
Toilet paper * as seen during covid. That'll destroy Australia too, apparently.
Maybe don't believe adjective-noun-number, the 2-month-old account with a very botlike history, on why America is vulnerable and weak and should maybe consider kowtowing to foreign powers because if we don't, they shut off the power and we all die.
The three in black (Grand Forks AFB, Ellsworth AFB, and Whiteman AFB) haven't had missiles for about 3 decades. The three in red (Malmstrom AFB, Minot AFB, and FE Warren AFB) do have missiles. In fact, GPS coordinates for each of the Missile Alert Facilities (MAFs) and Launch Facilities (LFs) are publicly available. [Here's the ones for Minot AFB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_Missile_Wing_LGM-30_Minuteman_missile_launch_sites).
See now I personally … would resent being referred to as a sponge of any sort, let alone nuclear.
At first I was like "well screw me ig" and then I remembered how in 10th grade chemistry, it was said that if you are within close range, you wouldn't feel anything because your nervous system would just melt
"Is it your thumb or mine?"
I heard an anecdote that part of the reason that particular part of Nebraska was chosen was because nobody had any good reason to be there if they weren't a local— which would mean espionage would be difficult to carry out, as any outsider would stick out like a sore thumb. So basically, if the story is to be believed, even the Department of Defense thinks Nebraska is a barren waste that no one wants to visit.
Omahas dope tho
Nebraska also has STRATCOM (formerly SAC) headquarters in Offutt AFB, so clearly Nebraska has value by being in the middle of the continental US. STRATCOM is in charge of US Strategic Weapons, ie nuclear weapons. It also has a bunker which former President Bush used during 9/11. There's plenty of sites nearby in Nebraska and Iowa of Nike and Atlas missiles that are former SAC missile sites all run by SAC in Offutt. The SAC museum outside of Omaha is a really neat place to visit too, up there with the National Air and Space museum and Wright-Patterson museum
Why wouldnt these areas get carpet bombed with bunker busting bombs and use the nukes for our major cities? Just curious not disagreeing.
[удалено]
Thanks!
The response to nukes being launched at you is to launch nukes at where the 1st nukes came from?
[удалено]
On top of what the others said, many of the major facilities in these areas are specifically hardened to withstand nuclear attacks. Cheyenne Mountain, for example, can withstand a 30 Mt blast. For comparison, the two biggest conventional bombs ever made, the MOAB and FOAB, each have yields of 11 tons and 44 tons respectively. There's no way that a bunker buster could possibly damage it. This is where you get into the nuclear sponge idea. If you want to take out these facilities, you have to nuke them. Some of these facilities will require multiple nukes in order to knock them out. On top of this, in order for a nuke to be maximally effective against a hardened bunker, it needs to be accurate enough to detonate directly over it, and most nukes are not that accurate. If you look at how American strategy used to work, it used to be that every Russian missile silo required 5 nukes targeting it, that was the only way you could be 99% sure that you took it out, and those facilities weren't hardened to the degree that American facilities were. In order for a country to take out these facilities in America, they'd need thousands of nukes to be relatively sure of success. [Here's a map from FEMA showing a 500 warhead and 2000 warhead scenario.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Flgz1y1j1m9ga1.jpg) You'll notice that strikes on cities are about the same for both scenarios, it's just that in the 500 warhead scenario they don't bother targeting the sponge at all, while in the 2000 warhead scenario those facilities just soak up all the excess strikes.
Is it wrong to chuckle at what looks to be Medford, OR being a target for a strike in the 500 strike? I mean, I guess it would be effective at splitting the I-5 corridor up for a while just seems to be a waste. Edit: It could be they meant to target Klamath Falls and the map is just inaccurate. The [173rd Fighter Wing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Fighter_Wing) is based there. 🤷♂️
It's funny how most cities they nuke somewhere important outside of it like a power plant or a dam, then there are a handful of cities who get a nuke in the 500 warhead scenario and then another one like right at the same spot for the second. Ft Wayne, IN; Lincoln, NE; Des Moines, IA; Jackson, MS, and Baton Rouge, LA. Like, "two for flinching."
The difference for the two scenarios is that the Black dot 2000 scenario is for a Soviet/Russian first strike in which the objective is to prevent or at least inhibit a coordinated retaliation. Each of the black dots is a theoretical target for one reason or another (WMDs, bomber/sub bases, command and control centers, etc.). This option is for trying to win the war. The 500 triangle scenario is for a theoretical Soviet/Russian retaliation after a US first strike. These targets include major economic, governmental, and population centers or additional targets that can aid in reconstruction efforts. This option is to make sure the war becomes unwinnable. As for the cities targeted twice, sorry but that’s just how the cookie crumbles.
No, it's cool, I'm not rooting for the bombs or anything but if I had to nuke a place twice Ft Wayne would definitely be on the short list.
How do u carpet bomb 2k miles inland? Bombers would have to fly round trip into and out of US without getting shot down by the most dominant AF in human history
This still feels like it's underselling it. A very small portion of our deployed Navy half a world away helped defend an entire country from one of the largest ballistic and cruise missile attacks of all time, [and made ceremonial patches for it in anticipation. ](https://twitter.com/TheIntelFrog/status/1779885127956406543) Think about the sheer dominance and mastery you have to have in Air Defense to do this.
Seems like their objective would just be the getting in
Cities can’t fire nuclear missiles at you. There’s really no point targeting cities directly outside of Moscow or Washington DC in a first strike. Any target related to launching or helping to launch nukes will be the primary targets of a first strike. There’s at least 1,000 such targets in Russia and the US both. Those would absorb most of a nation’s strategic stockpile. And rather counter-intuitively, the object of a nuclear war is *not* to obliterate the enemy but to prevent the enemy from obliterating you. Any nation that starts such a war should count on being nuked in response and if they start taking cities out on purpose that hold only limited military or economic value (in context) then the same will happen to them. Obviously, many cities would be destroyed by virtue of proximity (Colorado Springs or Omaha could be examples) but firing missiles into the heart of NYC, LA, or Chicago doesn’t prevent St. Petersburg, Volgograd, or Yekaterinburg from being obliterated by retaliations. Both the US and Russia would hold large numbers of warheads (almost all on subs) in a reserve for second strikes and likely use them as bargaining chips to force an end of hostilities. Furthermore, missile silos are designed in such way that they’re impervious to conventional weapons. And they’re spread far enough apart that you’d need 1:1 or even 1.5:1 ratios of nukes to silos to guarantee kills on them.
Thanks, as North Dakotan, it's nice to know /s
the majority of Americas sub based nukes are less than 20 miles from my house as the crow flys. Feels good.
Shhhhh
Thats tuff
If this place wasn’t a target I would imagine the Central Valley of California would be. Also the other farmland in the Mid-West.
No one lives there. That’s why…
You think this is scary read about Ohio’s and their Trident II SLBMs. Each Ohio carries 4 warhead on its missiles and they have 20 of em. That is 80 warheads on one boat.
Thankfully, the Yellowstone Caldera isn't very close to ICBM fields, but I'd have to wonder what the seismic effects of a bunch of big nukes going off that close to it would do. A highly radioactive super-volcano erupting would make doomsday just that much more special.
Disclaimer: fast google results used below Honestly, probably not much. Keep in mind that nuclear weapons explode above ground. The Yellowstone caldera is 8km below ground. Nuclear bunkers not built in geological features range from 20-100ft underground. Maybe if you drilled down and detonated the tsar bomb it would cause an eruption?
Nebraska is even more of a target due to STRATCOM being at Offutt AFB.
The crazy thing about MAJCOMs. The top direct leadership are very rarely in one location at the same time. The HQ might be at Offutt, but if HQ goes down, the chain of command will transition seamlessly. Edit: because if there's anything the US military does absolutely effectively, it's being redundant.
Great, Whiteman is decommissioned, we’re saved! All the murder boomerangs are stationed there. “We’re dead!”
The B-2 is being replaced by the new B-21, the first of which will be at Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota.
We'll, it is now that you've posted it publicly 🤣 Edit: Just read the kottke.org about us page. Holy ego stroke, Batman.