When people think about nuclear war, one of the first questions that comes to mind is chillingly simple: “Would my city be targeted?”

It’s a fair question—and one rooted in more than just fear. Whether a location is at risk in a nuclear exchange depends on a strategic framework developed over decades. From Cold War doctrine to modern first-strike simulations, the process of building a nuclear target list is both methodical and brutally pragmatic.

Let’s explore how these lists are made—and what that means for you.

Counterforce vs. Countervalue: The Core Doctrines

At the heart of nuclear targeting strategy are two primary doctrines:

• Counterforce targets enemy military assets—missile silos, submarine bases, command centres, and airfields.
• Countervalue targets civilian infrastructure—major cities, industrial hubs, and population centres.

Most countries claim to prefer counterforce strikes. The logic is simple: destroy the enemy’s ability to strike back. However, counterforce targeting is imperfect. Even a precise strike might leave enough of the enemy’s arsenal intact for massive retaliation.

That’s where countervalue strategy enters the equation—not because it’s preferred, but because it’s threatened. The idea is to deter an enemy from launching a first strike by making clear that any such move will result in their cities being annihilated.

In reality, most nuclear target lists blend both doctrines.

What Gets You on a Nuclear Target List?

Here are the criteria typically used when selecting targets:

1. Strategic Military Value

These are the obvious targets—nuclear missile silos, bomber airfields, naval submarine bases, and command and control bunkers. In the United States, that includes sites like:

• Malmstrom AFB, Montana (ICBMs)
• Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia (SSBNs)
• Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado (command bunkers)

Russia and China maintain similar facilities—and they know each other’s coordinates well.

2. Industrial and Economic Hubs

Cities that produce war materiel or critical economic output—steelworks, energy plants, transport networks—are often prioritised. In the UK, cities like Glasgow, Birmingham, or Liverpool could be targets based on industrial significance, not just size.

3. Population Centres

Some cities make the list simply due to their sheer population, as striking them would cripple morale and infrastructure. Think New York, Moscow, Beijing, or Tokyo. These are countervalue targets of the highest order.

4. Political Leadership Sites

Capitals and government bunkers are often early targets. Washington D.C., Beijing’s Zhongnanhai compound, or Moscow’s Kremlin would all be on such a list. These are “decapitation strikes,” intended to cripple leadership.

Who Makes the List?

In the United States, nuclear targeting is managed by U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in coordination with the Pentagon and the National Command Authority (i.e. the President and Secretary of Defence). The current operational target plan is known as OPLAN 8010.

The United Kingdom’s targets are planned in coordination with NATO, but as a submarine-only deterrent, the UK’s targeting capability is more limited and likely focused on retaliation, not first strike.

Russia’s General Staff maintains its own extensive list of Western targets, with evidence suggesting use of both counterforce and countervalue models.

Would They Really Strike Cities First?

Not necessarily.

In a limited nuclear conflict—say, a regional clash between NATO and Russia or China—leaders may avoid immediate strikes on civilian cities, hoping to maintain escalation control. Initial strikes might be confined to military targets, or even demonstration shots in uninhabited areas.

But escalation is notoriously difficult to control. Once the threshold is crossed, there’s immense pressure to go all-in before the enemy does. This is where the logic of “use them or lose them” kicks in—and cities inevitably enter the equation.

The danger of nuclear war is not always in the intention to strike first, but in the fear of being struck first. Most strategic planning revolves not around what one wants to do, but what one must do to avoid being caught off guard.

So… Is My City a Target?

Possibly.

If your city has any of the following, it may appear on a nuclear target list:

• A major military base
• Defence contractors or weapons manufacturers
• Key transportation hubs (ports, railway junctions, major highways)
• Centres of government or finance
• Nuclear power stations

Even cities far from national capitals—such as Omaha, Nebraska (home to STRATCOM), or Yulin, China (a nuclear submarine base)—are likely higher-priority targets than many realise.

What Can You Do?

This isn’t about panic. It’s about being informed.

Knowing how and why target lists are formed helps the public better understand the stakes of deterrence, escalation, and diplomacy. The more transparent these discussions become, the less likely world leaders are to stumble into catastrophe by miscalculation.

And in the event deterrence fails, knowing whether you’re in a potential blast zone or fallout path could save your life.

The DEFCON Warning System continues to monitor these risks and analyse the evolving landscape of nuclear strategy. You can follow updates, including public threat assessments, at www.defconwarningsystem.com.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay prepared.