Global geopolitical tensions—spanning conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and complex U.S. foreign relations—have quietly stirred public anxiety about the specter of large‑scale war. For many, this concern is more than abstract worry; it’s a “what if” scenario about the devastating consequences of a major conflict erupting between nuclear‑armed nations. While most experts still emphasize the importance of diplomatic deterrence and rational leadership, discussions about conflict risk remain top of mind for citizens globally. In that context, nuclear historian Professor Alex Wellerstein of Stevens Institute of Technology has examined which U.S. cities could be among the first targets if World War III were ever to escalate into a nuclear confrontation.
According to Wellerstein, the likely targets in such a scenario depend heavily on the attacker’s objectives. If a hostile nuclear power like Russia or China sought to disable U.S. retaliation capabilities, command centers and missile sites would be primary targets. In contrast, a rogue actor or state with less strategic intent might instead aim at symbolic or densely populated urban centers to cause maximum disruption and fear. This dual logic shapes his list of 15 U.S. cities at greatest risk.
What makes this list noteworthy is that some of the most vulnerable cities aren’t the large metropolises people usually think of first—but rather smaller regional cities tied to strategic military infrastructure. These places host nuclear missile command centers, major Air Force installations, or critical defense systems. For example, Great Falls, Montana, with a population of just over 60,000, sits near Malmstrom Air Force Base, which oversees hundreds of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile silos central to the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Similarly, Cheyenne, Wyoming is home to Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, a key site for controlling nuclear missile operations.
In the Rocky Mountain region, Ogden and Clearfield, Utah are grouped together because of their proximity to Hill Air Force Base—a major hub for Air Force nuclear weapons. In the South, Shreveport, Louisiana may not be a household name, but it’s adjacent to Barksdale Air Force Base, where B‑52 bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons are stationed. Hawai‘i’s Honolulu remains strategically important due to naval and air force bases like Pearl Harbor and Hickam, while Omaha, Nebraska, located near Offutt Air Force Base, has historical significance from the Cold War and still plays a central role in U.S. nuclear command logistics.
Other strategic military‑linked targets include Colorado Springs, Colorado, which houses NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command) responsible for defending continental airspace; and Albuquerque, New Mexico, home to Kirtland Air Force Base and one of the nation’s largest nuclear arsenals. These military sites, often situated near or within urban areas, elevate the risk profile of their surrounding cities in a worst‑case scenario.
Alongside these military‑oriented targets, many large American cities would almost certainly attract attention purely because of their economic, political, and symbolic importance. The nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., with the White House, Pentagon, and key government institutions, is widely regarded as a central target in any strategic nuclear exchange. Similarly, major urban centers such as Seattle, Washington, San Francisco, California, Houston, Texas, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, and New York City stand out because of their population size, economic influence, global connectivity, and critical infrastructure. These metropolitan areas are not just symbols of American society—they host major transportation hubs, technological industries, energy networks, and cultural institutions whose disruption would have far‑reaching implications.
Experts emphasize that a city’s vulnerability in a world‑war scenario isn’t solely about population figures. Strategic military installations, defense‑related command centers, and critical infrastructure often elevate smaller cities into higher‑risk categories. Places like Great Falls and Cheyenne might surprise many, yet their strategic significance makes them part of detailed planning scenarios used in defense analysis. In contrast, large population hubs—especially those with symbolic and economic value—would likely be targeted in a broader campaign aimed at demoralizing the nation and crippling its capabilities.
It’s important to note that discussion of nuclear targeting lists doesn’t imply inevitability. These analyses serve as explorations of potential risk based on historical doctrines of nuclear strategy, geographic positioning of military assets, and worst‑case war planning. The very fact that experts debate such lists reflects ongoing concerns about global stability, alliance cohesion, and the challenges posed by unpredictable geopolitical leadership. While deterrence and international treaties remain cornerstones of preventing large‑scale conflict, the hypothetical outlines of target lists remind citizens how warfare could unfold in the nuclear age—and why sustained diplomacy, arms control efforts, and robust international communication continue to be critical to global security.
