Nuclear targets in America \ stacker news ~charts_and

pull down to refresh

Nuclear targets in America

1296 sats \ 33 comments \ @k00b 20 Nov charts_and_numbers

Source: https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1859199980264710247

Sad to see Austin in this one. I guess no one is sending one nuke if they're going to send nukes?

view all related items

235 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Nov

Have you ever looked into the fallout simulators? (not to be confused with the Fallout franchise)

27 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b OP 20 Nov

No but now might be a good time to.

47 sats \ 5 replies \ @plebpoet 20 Nov

wait what's special about now?

63 sats \ 0 replies \ @konstantin21 21 Nov

Ukraine has fired non-nuclear ICBM's which can only be operated with the help of US military and US satellites, so Putin has fired one back and had a clear "line in the sand" that nuclear powers entering the war means nuclear is on the table.

15 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Nov

Russia has expressed their right to use nuclear weapons if a nuclear armed power takes a more active role on Ukraine's side of the conflict.

54 sats \ 2 replies \ @j7hB75 20 Nov

Putin has been saber-rattling this stance since Russia invaded Ukraine which happens to be 1,000 days ago.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 20 Nov

I know, but every time there's a new mention of nukes people's ears perk up.

215 sats \ 0 replies \ @j7hB75 20 Nov

True.

My ears perk up as well because it's nothing to scoff at. I try to ignore it but will occasionally become too entrenched with the idea of nuclear war.

I'll go down a rabbit hole and get sucked into the prepper mindset, watch movies like The Day After and Threads, and ultimately become too anxious and paranoid in day to day life.

I try not to worry about it anymore because it's something that I can't control. Not to dox myself, but I live by a target that will most likely be one of the first hit and I'm at peace with dying.

See, I'm already starting to get sucked back into this paranoia. Haha. Damnit @k00b. :-)

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Nov

They take account of things like prevailing wind patterns and blast radius. I doubt we're actually very near to that, but it's better to be aware than not.

179 sats \ 4 replies \ @Aardvark 20 Nov

I don't think it matters where you are if the nukes start flying.

159 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheWildHustle 20 Nov

Might be better to be hit straight on

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 20 Nov

and be the first city to get hit

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheWildHustle 20 Nov

Take it on the chest. Jump into the thing, screaming something about freedom or whatnot.

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 20 Nov

Probably why underground bunkers and nuclear powered submarines fetch a premium

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 21 Nov

Map Unveils Safest Locations in the US for Surviving a Nuclear Apocalypse

https://historyenhanced.com/map-unveils-safest-locations-in-the-us-for-surviving-a-nuclear-apocalypse/

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 20 Nov

What about Alaska and Hawaii?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 21 Nov

I suspect they're fucked like everything else.

19 sats \ 0 replies \ @7e6e393a56 20 Nov

Unfortunately, the reality is that countries that have nuclear power have more autonomy in their decisions and are unlikely to be directly harassed... we have an example of this happening today with Russia

18 sats \ 1 reply \ @cascdr 20 Nov

@k00b is Nick posting.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 21 Nov

Nick is contagious.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 20 Nov

No one will be using nukes anytime soon, get over this, this is a suicide and they all know it. They rattle (or attempt to) some cages just to be heard. The world is over if even half of this is remotely true. Period. Ain't happening.... IMHO.

15 sats \ 0 replies \ @Butterfinger 21 Nov

I think its power is very overestimated, nukes cannot destroy taht much and be used in that number. Now they are more powerfull than hiroshima and nagasaki times, but search for some documentaries of people that survived both, some of them were like 2-3km away and nothing happened to them, imedialitely or long time because of radiation. States always try to figure it as total and complete destruction and that after it there's killer radiation everywhere.

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 20 Nov

64 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coyote_Cosmico 21 Nov

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @Butterfinger 21 Nov

What would be the targets in Europe? I saw some map of countries targeted by Russia, but would like to see cities and military basis, as the USA the colonizer of Europe has many bases there.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 21 Nov

I’m just sayin if they start firing them I will be happy to be in DC cause imma be vaporized ASAP and won’t have to deal with any uncertainty or drama 🤷🏼‍♂️

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 20 Nov

Isn’t it rich? The only sane one in this whole matter appears to be NOT our man, Vlad Putin!!! While the NATO creeps just cannot keep from swinging their dicks around at everybody else! When did dementia, insanity and psychopathy become the standard for leaders in the West? Can’t wait to see something different. Pulling out of NATO and the UN would be great.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Thwachi 21 Nov

Nice post

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 21 Nov

Ahh yes South Dakota!! Spared! Shocked to see Montana and North Dakota get hammered

200 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 21 Nov

Lots of missiles in NoDak and Montana, since they are closest to most targets in Russia. That’s why they are targets.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satoshi__Nakamoto 20 Nov

Seems really bad lots of nuce

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 20 Nov bot

https://xcancel.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1859199980264710247

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 20 Nov

deleted by author