ADVERTISEMENT
The honest conclusion that this analysis supports is both specific and general. Specific: the states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa, and Minnesota face elevated immediate strategic risk because of the concentration of nuclear weapons infrastructure within their borders. General: in the scenario being discussed, nowhere in the United States, and arguably nowhere in the world, is truly beyond the reach of the consequences that a global nuclear exchange would produce.
The value of understanding this is not that it enables better personal decisions about where to live. It is that it provides a clearer picture of what is actually at stake in the diplomatic and strategic choices that governments make in the management of international tensions — and why, for all the complexity and frustration involved, those who argue for continued investment in diplomacy, arms control, and the careful management of escalation risk are not being naive. They are being, in the most practical sense, realistic about what the alternative looks like on a map.
ADVERTISEMENT
