Strategic targets in a nuclear conflict
If nuclear weapons were used against the United States, experts say the goal would not simply be to hit large cities. Military strategy would focus on weakening the country’s ability to respond. As the article explains, target selection would involve “far more than simply attempting to maximize civilian casualties.” Instead, planners would likely aim at military infrastructure such as command centers, radar systems, and missile facilities that are essential for national defense.

The role of missile silos
Intercontinental ballistic missile silos are a key part of the U.S. nuclear triad, along with submarines and strategic bombers. These land-based missiles ensure that the country could still respond to a nuclear attack. Because they are central to deterrence, they are considered highly important targets. The article notes that these silos are “forming the backbone of the nation’s nuclear deterrent strategy” and are mainly located across the central United States.

Possible fallout and environmental impact
Scientists have studied how radiation could spread if these missile sites were attacked. Simulations show that the most severe contamination would occur near the missile fields, particularly in states such as Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota. However, radioactive debris could travel far beyond those areas. Winds might carry dangerous particles hundreds or even thousands of miles, spreading contamination across large regions.

States most at risk
More recent research has identified states that could face higher exposure to radiation if missile facilities were targeted. Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota were highlighted as especially vulnerable. Other parts of the country might experience lower exposure, but experts warn that indirect effects—such as economic disruption, supply problems, and environmental damage—could still be widespread.

Why no place would be completely safe
Specialists emphasize that the consequences of nuclear war would reach far beyond the initial targets. As policy expert John Erath explains, communities near military sites would face immediate destruction, but fallout and long-term radiation could spread widely. The broader lesson, analysts argue, is that nuclear conflict would have devastating and lasting global effects, reinforcing the importance of deterrence and preventing nuclear war.