Which U.S. States Could Be Most at Risk in a Hypothetical Nuclear Conflict?

While no global war is underway, defense analysts and scientists have long run scenario models to understand what could happen in a large-scale nuclear conflict. These exercises are not predictions, but tools for policymakers and emergency planners to assess potential risks and plan accordingly.

Key Factors in Risk Modeling

1. Strategic Military Assets

• Land-based missile silos, part of the U.S. nuclear triad, are fixed and publicly documented.

• Five states host the majority of silos: Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado.

• These areas are often highlighted in models due to the potential for high radioactive fallout if targeted.

• Surrounding states like Minnesota, Iowa, and Kansas may also experience significant fallout depending on wind patterns.

2. Nuclear Fallout Modeling

• Researchers use weather data, atmospheric transport codes, and computer simulations to model how radioactive particles could spread.

• Fallout could extend far beyond silo locations, affecting regions across the U.S., and even parts of Canada and Mexico.

• Models emphasize relative risk, not complete safety — even distant states could face contamination, infrastructure disruption, and supply chain impacts.

3. Areas Often Modeled as Lower Relative Risk

• States farther from silo fields (East Coast, Southeast, parts of the West Coast) may receive comparatively lower direct fallout. Examples include:

  • Northeast & Mid-Atlantic: Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc.

  • Southeast: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, etc.

  • West Coast: Washington, Oregon, California

• “Lower risk” does not mean no risk; systemic effects could still be profound.