Could the Upper Midwest be America’s haven from nuclear fallout, or is that just wishful thinking?
At a Glance
- The risk of a nuclear attack depends heavily on proximity to military facilities, ICBM silos, and major population centers.
- Experts warn that while some areas are safer from a direct blast, “nowhere is truly safe” from the effects of fallout and a potential nuclear winter.
- Real estate experts suggest that rural areas with favorable climates and access to water and farmland offer the best chances for survival.
- The Upper Midwest, while remote, is also home to numerous ICBM silos, making it a likely target in a major nuclear exchange.
- Historian Christian Appy has called the discussion of “safe havens” from nuclear war “morally repugnant.”
Geographic and Strategic Safeguards
The safety of U.S. states from a nuclear attack involves a complex mix of geographic and strategic factors. While states distant from potential targets, like parts of the Upper Midwest, might seem safer, the reality is far more complicated. Atmospheric conditions dictate the dispersion of radioactive fallout, and as John Erath from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation warns, “Nowhere is truly ‘safe’ from fallout and other consequences like contamination of food and water supplies.”
Living near military facilities, ICBM silos, or submarine bases poses the highest risk. As detailed in a recent analysis from Newsweek, a nuclear attack on silos in states like Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota would create a fallout pattern that could endanger much of the country.
Rising Fears and Expert Evaluations
Heightened fears of nuclear conflict, spurred by threats from Russia, have drawn new attention to potential safeguards. Real estate experts have chimed in, suggesting a shift in home-buying priorities. “What used to be important when purchasing a home… has now changed to warm climate, access to food, and access to water,” said real estate CEO Andrew Ragusa in a report covered by the Irish Star.
While states like California and Texas have been recommended for their rural stretches and access to resources, the Midwest remains a point of contention. While sparsely populated, its prevalence of missile silos makes it a high-impact zone.
Moral and Practical Considerations
The very discussion of “safe” locations in a nuclear war has drawn sharp criticism. Christian Appy, a historian at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told the New York Post that he finds it “morally repugnant to think about the safest places to survive a nuclear war” because a major exchange would likely cause a “nuclear winter” that could kill nearly everyone.
This necessary, if unsettling, examination struggles against the practical stance of those urging survival through informed selection of less vulnerable locales. While no location offers absolute safety, an awareness of strategic targets and fallout patterns provides some grim guidance. Yet, as the experts at the Center for Arms Control emphasize, any nuclear detonation would be bad for everyone, everywhere.
