What cities does the USA have targeted for nuclear destruction?
363804
Probably any country that we deem as a nuclear threat to us. That would be the best logical guess, because factually you'll probably never know, it's probably Top Secret. But I bet we are atleast aimed at China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba..haha...and places like those.\n\nI heard for every nuke that is shot at the U.S in a nuclear strike on our soil we will shoot seven for every one that the enemy shoots.
292582
In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited. And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been. \n\nThere are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union -- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas. \n\nBut there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Thus, there are vastly more nuclear weapons than are needed for any plausible deterrence of a potential adversary.
1162473
1.  Israel, because they don't honor their alliances (e.g. bombing of the USS Liberty) and often act impulsively in an overly-aggressive manner.  I think they would actually use their nuclear weapons without giving it a second thought.\n\n2. North Korea, because they've proven that they don't honor any agreements and that they have no problem with being duplicitous (e.g. getting aid for not developing weapons while secretly developing weapons).  Clearly they are determined to develop nuclear weapons, but I'm not so sure they would be willing to use them.\n\n3.  The US may pose the greatest threat to North America, since they are the only country that has actually used a weapon comparable to a nuke.  They have the means, and they are clearly willing.  Will their current policies lead to their use, which presumably would be followed by a counter-attack that would decimate parts of North America?
1004284
They have one ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile that has the capability of reaching California. The U.S. is deciding if they will destroy it before they test launch it or wait until they do and try and I mean try to blow it out of the sky with one of theirs, but have admitted that their not sure if they can hit it. This is why the U.S. just test launched a rocket over Alaska yesterday to knock a missile out of the sky.
449214
The only way to have "Mutually Assured Destruction" is to be opposed in your ability to destroy by an entity with equal ability as yourself. \n\nThe only country on earth with as much Nuclear Power to destroy us is Russia: and even their power is limited. \n\nBut - in the case of Iran (which is why I'm guessing you're asking about this) there is wisdom in the "MAD" doctrine, to the extent that it is a HUGE discouragement for our enemies to use Nuclear weapons if they fully believe that we will promptly and without delay wipe them from the face of the earth.\n\nBut - they have to believe we'd do it. \n\nAs Hamlet once said, "Ay, there's the rub."
345673
The USA,of course.\n\nThey want no one but themselves to have weapons of mass destruction.\nThey have absolutely no respect for other goverments from countries with different cultures.\nTheres no other country that  represents a bigger threat  to they world.
63595
The experts at NRDC estimate between 30-35 (2002 est.) with enough weapons-grade plutonium for 50-90 more nuclear weapons. \nThe website Armgeddon Online claims they have 70.
284278
It's really tough to answer that question.  You'll have chose where you get your answers from, Washington DC, media or here on ASK.  I can tell you the reason why the US is staring at Iran really hard is because they have THREATEN (Quendan, pay attention here) the use of Nuclear weapons.  I don't know about you but if I here someone wants to destroy my house just because they think they can, I will take action to prevent them.  Again Iran has threaten the use of Nukes, the last time I heard through the MEDIA is that we have weapons inspectors over there.  What does that mean for you and me?  Only time will tell.\nAbout America and Russia having nukes, you betcha.  Why?  For protection only.  The US has only used nukes (or atomic in this case) on Japan and that was it.  Quendan has one good statement, America and Russia only have a few hundred of nukes between the two.  That's because of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or the reduction of nukes.  This is coming from someone that use to work with "them".
328638
I recollect seeing 200,000 to 250,000 for both cities, including the aftermath.  The Hiroshima bomb was a low yield 15 kiloton device.  The strategic devices today are around 400-500, while the tactical nukes range from .3 to 200.  Some world we live in.
38378
You're just playing with us Jim; you don't want to nuke anybody anymore than you want them to nuke you. The real question is should we use cruise missiles to destroy Iran's nuclear reactor/s like Israel did with jets back in '81 to Iraq's reactor/s because they were making the bomb too?\n\nAnswer: No to the nukes, Yes to surgical strikes with cruise missiles, which I believe will eventually happen, unless Israel beats us to it!
183565
I'm not really sure, but they say that the Willamette Valley in Oregon is supposed to be the safest place to be in the US if there's nuclear war. Specifically Corvallis and Eugene.
253675
Nukes.  That way we don't loose any Americans and the enemy dies
849427
New York would most likely be considered a "high value target" because of the financial aspect. Most records and fincancial institutes are there. Wipe out wall street and wooooooo..\nAnd too think of how many people could be affected because they are concentrated.\nSecond would likely be Los Angeles for its population and then maybe Chicago.\n\nKind of morbid to think of it but that is a fact the US must consider.....
411648
The policy of the United Stated is that we will respond to any attack on us using weapons of mass destruction with our own weapons on mass destruction - in an irrational and overwhelming manner.\n\nIran knows this - and I seriously doubt that they want to go there.
929270
Diabolically, nuking Mexico will affect the US because of the radiation.  Likewise, it will drive more Mexicans to go north - USA.
74396
attack america before they decide to bomb or occupy my country [for example like in heroshima ,afghanistan ,veitnam,iraq ,and many many OTher countries who are vitoms to this super power which on LOTS of wepons of mass distruction
548164
Your question is a very good one and everyone here is trying to help. Let me wade in with what I hope is a clear answer or two.\n\nCommercial reactors do not have the configuration to do what a nuclear bomb does: go promptly critical and thus have a large-scale supercritical nuclear explosion. Even Chernobyl (may the 40 or so people who died from it rest in peace) was mostly a steam explosion with a burning of the graphite core. The RBMK reactors like Chernobyl have mostly been shut down now - folks in the former Soviet Union may chime in now as to their status. \n\nModern commercial nuclear reactors (unlike the RBMK design) have large concrete domes called containments over them. The containment structures are designed to hold large amounts of pressure to guard against an accidental release of radiation. Even if the reactor core (part with the nuclear fuel) should become uncovered and thus lose its cooling, the containment will hold most of the radioactive material inside. That is precisely what happened at Three Mile Island. Most of the fuel and fission products were in the containment basement and plated out on the walls.\n\nThe most credible accidents are practiced for often at every power plant. Drills exercise the staff from the control room to the folks who go out into the field to survey for radiation. Those drills are graded not just by the plant, not just by the NRC, but by the county and state. \n\nNuclear reactors do not become nuclear bombs. If you were to take used fuel from nuclear reactors and chemically reprocess it - separating out the plutonium that is made in small amounts in the fuel - you could eventually make a bomb. We do not do reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel in the US. There is a worry that some countries may do that. Of course, that is precisely what the military does do.\n\nMy job? I am a Health Physicist. I teach radiation protection, nuclear physics, and radiation chemistry. In the event of an accident, I read remote monitors and figure out what the pathway the radionuclides are taking out, how much, and what dose might be delivered to the population downwind. My predictions are used to advise the county about evacuation of persons living in a 20 mile radius of the power plant. I have a Bachelors of Science in biology from Baylor University, Masters in Applied Nuclear Science from Georgia Tech, and my PhD work was in leukemia research at Baylor Col. of Medicine. I was part of the Three Mile Island Recovery Team.