Which US cities are considered primary nuclear targets and their expected fallout zones?
Executive summary
Open-source reporting and declassified maps coalesce around a clear set of likely first-order U.S. nuclear targets—national capitals and major population, military and industrial hubs such as Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston and others—while expected fallout zones depend heavily on weapon yield, delivery point, and prevailing weather so that radioactive plumes can extend for miles to hundreds of miles downwind [1] [2] [3].
1. Primary targets named in public reporting
Multiple mainstream accounts and publicly circulated target maps repeatedly list Washington, D.C., New York City and Los Angeles among the top likely strike points, with other frequently cited high-priority metros including Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, Dallas–Fort Worth and Denver—reflecting the mix of political, economic and population value these places represent in open reporting [1] [2] [4].
2. Why those cities are singled out
Analysts say attackers would aim to decapitate political and military command and destroy critical infrastructure—targets therefore include the national capital, financial centers, ports, major military installations and nuclear weapons facilities (for example Offutt AFB, Peterson Space Force Base, Pantex), which explains inclusion of both big cities and specific bases or plants on public target lists [1] [1] [2].
3. How fallout zones are projected and why they vary
Maps that model blast and fallout make clear that radioactive fallout does not respect city borders: fallout cloud direction and distance depend on weapon yield and height of burst, seasonal and daily winds, and whether the detonation is surface or airburst—so predicted “downwind” contamination can range from localized heavy fallout near ground bursts to radioactive plumes stretching scores or even hundreds of miles under different weather scenarios [3] [5] [6].
4. Which regions might be comparatively less exposed — and the caveats
Several preparedness and mapping projects identify parts of the upper Midwest, Maine, West Texas and some sparsely populated pockets as lower-probability target zones in many scenarios, but experts quoted in these pieces warn that no place is truly safe from fallout or secondary effects such as disrupted food, water and supply chains—proximity to ICBM silos, submarine bases or missile fields can also invert any “safe” designation depending on targeting choices [7] [8] [9].
5. Limits of the public record and the agendas behind maps
Much of what circulates online stems from declassified Cold War target lists, simulations and private mapmakers; FEMA explicitly disavows issuing an official “target map” while media and commercial preparedness sites repurpose historical and modeled data to draw attention and sell guidance or products, so reported city lists and fallout diagrams mix empirical declassified data with modelling choices and sometimes commercial or sensational agendas [2] [3] [5].
6. Practical implications: what the maps can and cannot tell the public
Open-source target lists and fallout simulations are useful for general risk awareness—identifying likely high-value targets and illustrating how weather drives fallout—but they cannot predict a specific attack’s targets or exact plume paths; planners and citizens should treat the maps as scenario tools rather than deterministic forecasts and heed official preparedness guidance for sheltering, evacuation and radiation response rather than assuming any single map is definitive [6] [3] [8].