re: Based on the new FEMA nuclear target map, how screwed are you?

I'd say South Dakota would be a pretty safe area to move to but i'd rather take the direct hit from the nuke.

How's upstate Michigan in the winter? Looks like a safe place to live. How's the demographics and culture?

I'm guessing the heavy black concentrations in the middle of no where are our ICBMs.

Well then we find out it was the fifth balloon. But it was the only one the public saw so it was shot down. They didn't say what happened to the others they tracked.

I’m good cause Russia might have half a dozen working intercontinental missles. So I think I’m good in lake Charles

That guy should still be wearing shrimp boots.

Damn what did Monroe ever do to anybody?

quote:

---

Based on the new FEMA nuclear target map, how screwed are you?

---

Probably pretty safe actually since it’s FEMA and the map will undoubtedly be incorrect

quote:

---

Thats pretty embarrassing for FEMA

---

I’m not convinced FEMA actually produced this.

The first place I can find this map anywhere online is in a 2002 article titled “Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services from Attacks by Russian Nuclear Forces,” published in Medicine & Global Survival.

The caption under the map says “map courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council.” NRDC is an environmental advocacy non-profit. This appears to be something they developed. I suspect the inclusion of “FEMA” in the map’s “sources” caption simply means they used some amount of FEMA data to create the target list. It’s (possibly intentionally) misleading.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

Another fun fact I’ve uncovered while researching this map: The 2,000 warhead scenario represents a first strike against the US, while the 500 warhead scenario represents a retaliatory strike under MAD principles.

If you’re going to launch a first strike against the US, your goal is likely to cripple our ability to respond. So you hit places like the ICBM fields up north, military bases, industrial centers, etc.

If you’re launching a retaliatory strike you don’t really care about hitting our ICBM fields as we’ve already launched. You also likely have less warheads available, as presumably our first strike took out a lot of those assets. So you’re launching a reduced number of warheads with the goal of inflicting as much pain as possible - meaning large population centers.

At least that’s the logic of the folks who generated the map. Whether that’s actually representative of Russian doctrine is a matter of debate; I have no idea.