With The Threat of a Nuclear War Which Cities are at Risk?

  • [shareaholic app="share_buttons" id="10088959"]
  • We do everything we can to prepare for the worst. We stockpile food, water, medical supplies and the like but in all honesty, I don't know anyone who sits around actually wanting something to happen.

    Yet right now we find ourselves glued to our phones, tablets, and televisions wondering with the state of things in Syria, Russia, and North Korea how close we really are to an all out armageddon style battle with some very unstable world leaders.

    So who is really at risk should one of these tyrants decide to hit the launch button and send the world into chaos? Am I at risk? Are you?

    Let's take a look at which cities are actually within range and which ones are the most at risk should the worst occur.

    Next Page »


    1. Jay Gonzo said:

      I was hoping City Hall in Albuquerque would make the list 1

    2. Kris Hansen said:

      I’d be worried about places like the Savannah nuclear site. Stockpiles of nuclear materials. Hit a place like that the damage would stretch to Atlanta and more. We were supposed to have a majority of it shipped to the underground mountain until Obama cancelled it.

    3. Tucker Brooks said:

      Not worth worrying about it. You will either be vaporized in an instance before you even know what is happening (my preference), or you won’t and have to suffer from the aftereffects. Either way we are completely screwed if nukes are used but death isn’t what you should be afraid of, living with the aftermath is.

    4. Tom Tyler said:

      Depends. For fear factors, large populations of innocent people.
      For strategically important targets, any city near a military base.

    5. Tom Tyler said:

      Actually, I have always believed if there is enough warning, do you decide to drive toward or away from the target.

    6. Vivian Boaz said:

      Guess they’d have to restructure the electoral college votes…

    7. RL Johnson said:

      3 of those cities have family in them.. 🙁 – the only place that SHOULD be nuked is whereever t is at..

    8. Eric Turkleson said:

      Right.. just a list of major cities. Those would be places for a terrorist and a dirty bomb, however I’m willing to bet north Korea and Russia have a more tactical list. Military bases, known launch sites, NORAD, the drone remote base in Nevada, etc etc

    9. Marty Feigert said:

      I hope it’s LA and San Francisco. That will be about 5 million fewer liberals after they hit.

    10. Ronny Lillard said:

      This article is nothing short of aiding and abetting…It’s so blatant…And, you know it…a blueprint with directions…

    11. Aimo Salainen said:

      None. I am not so sure about the existence of nukes as we have been led to believe.

    12. Burt Gummerfan said:

      Like our enemies don’t already know this? Pretty sure they have access to Google.

    13. Cyndi Neumac said:

      News. Once again outsmarting yourselves by publicly pinpointing their best targets! Shut up!

    14. John Sigmon said:

      As long as mutual destruction is assured, it’s not gonna happen.

    15. Glen Smith said:

      Hard to believe New Orleans wouldn’t be on the list since it is a major shipping port.

    16. Chad Waldron said:

      None. Chubbo is not going to use nukes. He would not survive the outcome. He loves himself too much. There are people in his own government that are high enough to assassinate him if he tries. There would be no North Korea left. China does not want it either. Russia sure as hell doesn’t want it.

    17. PJ Pannesco said:

      We lose any cities on the west coast. .Not a problem. Seattle, Portland, SF, Oakland, Berkeley, Stanford..Who cares?

    18. Tom Ozment said:

      At least that nut job of a state, California, is closest to North Korea.