As concerns grow over rising diplomatic tensions between the Middle East and the United States, some analysts have suggested that certain parts of the country could be less vulnerable than others if a large-scale conflict were to erupt. Over the weekend, the U.S. and Israel reportedly launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran in a campaign referred to as “Operation Epic Fury.” According to Sky News, several major Iranian cities were struck, including Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, Kermanshah, and Qom. Reports also claimed that the residence of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was hit, and that he was killed after more than three decades in power. While such developments remain subject to verification and rapidly evolving updates, the reports have intensified global anxiety about possible retaliation and escalation.

With geopolitical uncertainty rising, conversations about preparedness have resurfaced. For some, nuclear shelters appear to be a logical investment in times of instability. However, experts often emphasize that geography may matter as much as — or more than — access to underground bunkers. In the event of a nuclear exchange, likely targets would include strategic military assets, particularly intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silo fields. The United States is widely believed to maintain roughly 2,000 nuclear warheads, many stationed across northern and midwestern states such as Montana, North Dakota, and Nebraska, with additional installations in Wyoming and Colorado. If adversaries were to target these silo clusters, surrounding regions could face the highest immediate destruction and subsequent radioactive fallout.

Analysts cited by Newsweek have examined modeling that estimates potential fallout patterns in the aftermath of attacks on silo sites. Based on projected wind currents and radiation dispersion, states farther from these military concentrations could experience significantly lower radiation exposure. Much of the East Coast, along with parts of the South and Midwest, has been described in such models as comparatively “safer” in terms of projected fallout levels. States frequently mentioned in this context include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, as well as Georgia and Florida. Portions of the Midwest — including Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan — and western states such as Washington, Utah, New Mexico, and Illinois are also sometimes categorized as facing relatively reduced exposure in certain modeled scenarios.

These conclusions stem from radiation projection maps, including work produced by the Brown Institute for Media Innovation at Columbia University. The modeling estimates cumulative radiation doses over approximately four days following a hypothetical strike. In areas directly surrounding missile silo fields — including parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota — projected exposure could range from 1 Gray (Gy) to as high as 84 Gy. For perspective, exposure to about 8 Gy is generally considered lethal without advanced medical intervention. By contrast, states identified as less exposed in certain projections might experience levels between 0.001 Gy and 0.5 Gy, doses not typically regarded as acutely hazardous. These figures are theoretical and depend heavily on wind direction, weather systems, and the scale of any attack.

Warnings about the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of targeting U.S. silo fields have been raised before. In 2023, Scientific American outlined how a coordinated nuclear strike on installations in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota could devastate surrounding communities and contaminate agricultural land for years. The publication emphasized that beyond immediate blast zones, radioactive fallout could disrupt food systems, infrastructure, and public health across vast regions. Even areas considered “safer” in relative terms would still face nationwide economic shockwaves, supply chain disruptions, and potential long-term environmental effects. Experts consistently stress that no location would be entirely immune from the broader consequences of nuclear conflict.

Meanwhile, the regional conflict appears to be intensifying. Reports indicate that Iran has launched retaliatory strikes against Israel and several neighboring countries, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. According to BBC News, at least nine people were killed in a missile strike on Beit Shemesh. The Pentagon has confirmed casualties among U.S. service personnel stationed in the region. Additional reports from The Independent noted multiple attacks in Doha, while Gulf states reported interceptions of ballistic missiles targeting military installations. As diplomatic channels strain under mounting pressure, defense officials in Washington say they are preparing for further potential strikes on U.S. facilities in the Middle East. While strategic modeling can offer insight into relative geographic risks, experts underscore that the most effective protection remains de-escalation, diplomacy, and the prevention of conflict before worst-case scenarios materialize.