August M
A new nuclear war simulation has highlighted which parts of the United States might face lower levels of radioactive fallout if a large-scale conflict broke out.
The modelling, based on a potential Russian strike on U.S. missile facilities, suggests some regions could be less affected than others, though experts stress that nowhere would be truly safe, reports LADbible.
Nuclear strike model
According to LADbible, Newsweek created a map estimating how much radiation each U.S. state could receive after a hypothetical Russian attack on intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silo fields.
The simulation examined fallout over a four-day period following the detonations.
The missile fields targeted in the model are largely located in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota.
Researchers from Scientific American modelled explosions from one or two nuclear warheads of roughly 100 kilotons of TNT, considered powerful enough to destroy a missile silo.
Eastern states least affected
The study compared an average fallout scenario with a worst-case situation based on wind conditions recorded on a specific day in 2021.
States along the eastern side of the country were estimated to receive the lowest levels of radiation exposure.
Those included Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas were also among the states considered less affected in the model.
Other lower risk areas
Several other states across the West and South were also projected to experience lower fallout levels in the simulation.
These included Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, California and Utah.
Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas and Illinois were also listed among states expected to receive smaller radiation doses.
However, the findings depend heavily on weather conditions and the specific targets chosen during a conflict.
Experts issue warning
Despite identifying areas with potentially lower radiation exposure, experts emphasised that the consequences of nuclear war would still be devastating everywhere.
John Erath of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation told Newsweek that communities near military facilities or missile bases would likely face the most immediate destruction.
“Nowhere is truly ‘safe’ from fallout and other consequences like contamination of food and water supplies and prolonged radiation exposure,” he said.
He also referenced a long-standing warning repeated by world leaders.
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Possible global refuges
Some analysts believe a few remote regions outside the United States could be more resilient after a global nuclear conflict.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Annie Jacobsen said on the podcast The Diary of a CEO that New Zealand and parts of Australia might remain capable of supporting limited human life.
She explained that widespread agricultural collapse caused by nuclear winter would threaten most of the planet.
However, she said some remote areas in those countries could remain habitable, though survival conditions would likely resemble a “hunter gatherer” lifestyle.
Sources: LADbible, Newsweek, Scientific American
