in the event of a massive nuclear attack on the usa. how many of our major cities could be destroyed?

This is an extremely difficult question --- so many variables.

The other two responders were absolutely correct.

Okay, first of all, there would not just suddenly out of the blue be hundreds of craft coming from out of --- wherever --- and the drop nuclear bombs on the country.

It wouldn't work that way.

This would be an entire other question.

Also -- a total nuclear bombing would be ridiculous - making the US a total wasteland for years.

You want to be able to USE it after you take it.

It would probably be much smaller nuclear devices strategically placed along with synchronized bombing of other paces.

We CAN take a look at what the major US targets would be --- targets that would cripple the abilities of the country to function properly.

Washington DC --- not because the president is there --- he would NOT be there -- it's the IDEA of the matter.

Like 911 taking down the World Bank -- the world continued to function quite well without the world bank --- b ut it was the idea of someone being able to take it down!

Anarchy at its finest.

Most of Virginia.

Why?

It's the home of the largest military installation in the world - Army, Navy, Air-force, Marine, Coast Guard.

We cannot forget the CIA Headquarters, NASA, the Navy SEALS, Deep Creek (where the Navy hides its dirty little secrets), the nuclear subs, the Navy and Air-force airfields.

It's also a major seaport.

Likewise San Diego, California.

It's the west coast's version of Virginia.

San Diego and Virginia would have to knocked out FIRST and SIMULTANEOUSLY.

I was told back in the Army that those three cities would be the top three attack targets.

That would be followed by New York - gotta get those major sea ports - cripple Boston at the same time.

New England also holds the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve in Connecticut.and New Jersey.

Chicago, LA, Seattle, Atlanta (National Disease Control Center).

Texas / Oklahoma would not require nukes --- just fire bombs -- and they will light up like Christmas trees with all the oil wells and storage facilities.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve at four sites on the Gulf of Mexico, Texas and Louisiana -- you will also nail the Texas sea ports.

Around 1,150 seaports dot Texas's coast and employ nearly one-million people and handle an average of 317 million metric tons.

Texas ports connect with the rest of the U.S. Atlantic seaboard with the Gulf section of the Intracoastal Waterway.

The Port of Houston today is the busiest port in the United States in foreign tonnage, second in overall tonnage, and tenth worldwide in tonnage.

The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, an area on the Alaska North Slope --- that would have to go.

Knock out the government collective and scatter it.

Knock out the military staging areas east and west.

Knock out major military bases.

Knock out major sea ports.

Knock out the oil supply.

Then knock out major transportation civilian airports --- LAX, Denver, Atlanta - Hartsfield, Chicago - OHare and Mid, New York.

Please keep in mind though --- knocking out DC will not knock out the US govt --- only cripple them, the main bulk of the US govt will be sitting in some mountain somewhere.

There are unbelievable amounts of small military bases and US military bases worldwide than the general public even realizes.

Those ships in all those US sea ports are FOREIGN --- OUR ships are in other ports worldwide.

Most of the US Navy is out to sea.

A great deal of American business are already overseas or operating at some level in Europe and Asia.

We still use oil from other sources -- that's why we call OUR oil RESERVES.

You can't knock out all American airfields or planes -- people will still fly.

And what about Canada and Mexico?

The US in land size is enormous compared to the world -- with minor exceptions of China, Russia, Canada, Brazil, Australia.

Who exactly is going to take on a daunting job of this magnitude?

One major target hit -- okay.

A second major target hit --- not likely.

A third major target hit --- nah.

And no one would instigate a massive nuclear attack and render North America (Mexico, the US, and Canada) uninhabitable for years and years

There are two very different questions here.

Any of the major nuclear powers is far enough away that the US would have time to launch a retaliatory strike. Within minutes of the alert of an incoming attack, the US would be getting critical government officials either into secure bunkers or airborne in mobile command centers to avoid the attack, so the government could function as long as some of those facilities survive.

The President is always accompanied by a military officer carrying "the football," a briefcase that contains the needed communications and codes to releasing the US nuclear arsenal for use.

The US early warning radar systems, designed to detect a strategic missile launch, are still up and running, so the warning would still be given. They actually may be more precise than ever, with the addition of military satellites to augment their information.

As far as a massive nuclear attack, life in the US would end as we know it. There are enough nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the major nuclear powers to wipe out the planet several times over, so merely wiping out the US (barring those in the protective areas) would be easy.

EDIT:

Apparently Nathan has never heard of the plans for succession of the US government in the case of an attack. There are dozens of people that can become the acting President if Washington is destroyed, and they legally will be empowered to activate the nations nuclear arsenal.

A massive nuclear attack?? By this you mean the use of strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical.

In thirty minutes 1.1 billion souls can be lost in the northern hemisphere from a massive nuclear exchange, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan; another 1 billion will die soon after from radioactive fallout, the northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarism. Soon after, the nuclear winter catches up to the southern hemisphere and all plant and animal life eventually die off.

There will be survivors, those in deep shelter who are away from direct hits, but the question for them is how much food and water did they stock up on...will it outlast the nuclear winter above ground?

The arsenals of Russia and the US are enough to destroy a million Hiroshimas. But 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. Our biggest threat is from an accidental launch by the Russians.

At the point of global suicide, it doesn't matter who is on what side....where you go to hide, or how long you can survive. In a nuclear age the only true enemy is war itself.

Not much credence. It's been almost 2 decades since the takedown of the Berlin wall, the Iron Curtain, and de-escalation of the associated nuclear bomb programs. To my knowledge there are no ICBMs programmed and ready to be launched at our cities at the push of a red button. I think most people these days do not have "nuclear anxiety." What we may have is an awareness of the potentail for more 9/11 events.

Under current U.S. doctrine the retaliation would happen before the first missiles hit U.S. soil.

However, oddly enough, the Russians plan was to take the U.S. as economically whole as they could.

Major military centers would be destroyed, but not economic ones. It was not a idea of wholesale slaughter like is usually depicted.

Current Islamic philosophy is not so restrictive. They plan on going out in a blaze of glory, the world be damned.

In a nuclear war with Russia, it is likely that all major US cities would be destroyed by warheads ranging from 100-KT to over 1-MT in yield. Russia has a stockpile of almost 10,000 nuclear warheads and in a nuclear war between Russia and NATO two missile salvos (groups) are likely.

The first would be the smallest (and of a lower yield) and would hit NATO military targets and probably every single NATO military base, communications centre, control centre etc. would be targeted by at least one bomb.

The second salvo would come a few minutes after and would be aimed at priority economic targets such as communications and energy along with all major centres of population and major cities. These warheads would be higher in yield (500-KT to maybe 2-MT) they would hit in almost every single enemy city in NATO causing hundreds of millions of fatalities and many more casualties.

Too many variables.

1. Size of nuclear bomb.

2. exact location of attack.

3. time of day

A nuclear bomb also produces an Electro Magnetic Pulse or EMP that could shut down the ENTIRE electrical grid in the United States.

Cities totally destroyed would be everything with in a 60 to 80 mile radius, death out to 100 mile radius, and nuclear fall out thousands of miles depending on the wind.

All of them

Our nuclear arsenal isn't stored in cities or even entirely in the USA. Every city could be destroyed and the silos in rural North Dakota would still rain down hot death on our enemies. The USA could be wiped from the face of the earth and still destroy any enemy using just it's foreign stationed bomber groups and submarine weapons.

i do Not believe cities will be attacked but military installations its in no one's interest to destroy civilian targets on purpose as they achieve nothing by doing so cities near military installations will be damaged/destroyed cause of their location

washington .

only the us president has the codes to the us nuclear stockpiles and they can only be activated from washington so the cia and the army couldnt do anything