According to an alarming report released in June 2025 by the Federation of American Scientists, the world’s nuclear-armed states are actively refining how they would fight and win a nuclear war. This report, titled Planning for the Unthinkable, pulls back the curtain on one of the most secretive and chilling aspects of military strategy, how countries decide who gets hit when the missiles fly. This isn’t science fiction, it’s doctrine, and it’s happening quietly, in your name, without your knowledge. Today we explore how nuclear powers will choose their targets, and why it matters more now than ever.

The Dark Art of Targeting Nuclear targeting is one of the most secretive components of national security. Citizens don’t know if their cities are on a list. Lawmakers often vote on nuclear policy without knowing who or what will be struck. The level of secrecy poses a huge democratic challenge. The Federation for American Scientists’ new report, Planning for the Unthinkable, dives deep into the decision-making frameworks, doctrines, and targeting strategies of all nine nuclear-armed states. The basics of nuclear targeting Target selection usually follows two broad doctrines – counterforce, which involves targeting military assets, missile silos, command centers, and airfields, and countervalue, which targets cities, infrastructure, and industrial hubs.

Each of these doctrines has trade-offs. Counterforce is seen as cleaner in that it creates less collateral damage, but it requires more warheads and precise intelligence. Countervalue, on the other hand, can potentially lead to millions of civilian casualties, but requires fewer weapons, and is seen as a stronger deterrent. In practice, most states will blend both strategies. The United States The U.S. employs a flexible targeting strategy known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan, now replaced by the OPLAN 8010 series. In the case of nuclear war, the U.S. targets against its adversaries will fall into five tiers.

Nuclear forces This includes silos, submarines, and mobile launchers. Next, is command and control. This includes bunkers and leadership sites, the place where decisions get made. 3. Weapons of mass destruction infrastructure This could include things like biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities. 4. Conventional military forces like military bases, airfields, and naval ports. Lastly, are economic and population centers. These of course are a last resort. As you can see, the U.S. uses a blend of counterforce and countervalue targeting strategies. The U.S. planning is heavily dependent on satellites, cyber warfare, and real-time intelligence to conduct prompt global strike operations.

The aim is to decapitate the adversary’s command structure within the first 30 minutes. But the FAS does warn that decapitation strikes often miscalculate survivability, especially against countries like Russia and China. This miscalculation was perfectly exemplified in the Israeli-Iranian conflict, where despite having a significant portion of its leadership assassinated, Iran was able to close its ranks and reconstitute its forces. But the U.S. nuclear footprint is unique in that it’s not confined to its own soil. As part of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement, the United States currently deploys around 100 B-61 gravity bombs at bases across Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

These weapons can be delivered by dual-capable aircraft that are operated by both the U.S. and Allied pilots. The FAS has warned that these sites are pre-declared targets in any Russian nuclear war plan, and may be among the first hit in a European conflict. Critics actually argue that these forward-deployed weapons offer little added deterrence, but greatly increase the risk of miscalculation and a pre-emptive strike. Supporters, however, insist that they are a binding commitment, that an attack on Europe is without question an attack on America. Unlike the United States, Russian doctrine incorporates nuclear use early in a conventional conflict, especially to escalate to de-escalate.

This is a chilling phrase that attempts to be used to force adversaries to back down. It should be noted, however, that after three years of grueling conflict with Ukraine, and despite many red lines being overstepped by Ukraine and its NATO allies, Russia has been reluctant to employ this escalate-to-de-escalate strategy, likely because they don’t currently believe that there’s an existential risk to the survival of the state. According to the FAS report, Russia’s targeting categories are going to include NATO command nodes throughout Europe, forward-deployed U.S. forces, U.S. missile defense installations in Poland and Romania, and possibly urban centers in retaliation.

Russia’s vast network of mobile ICBMs, submarines, and hardened bunkers makes it difficult to fully neutralize in a first strike. What’s more is that the perimeter system, sometimes called the dead-hand system, can automate launch orders even if leadership is destroyed. China’s nuclear posture has shifted dramatically. They once committed to a no-first-use nuclear doctrine, now China’s signaling flexibility. The FAS report identifies that China is developing hypersonic glide vehicles to evade missile defenses, underground missile silos in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, and decoy and mobile tactics to preserve what’s called second-strike capability. This refers to a nation’s ability to absorb a first strike and retaliate.

China’s primary targets will be the following. U.S. bases in Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska, carrier strike groups throughout the Pacific, and urban industrial corridors on the U.S. West Coast. The report also notes that Beijing’s doctrine is actually evolving, that deterrence is no longer minimal, that it’s now about parity, at least regionally. North Korea’s nuclear doctrine is brutally simple, regime survival. With over 100 missiles now estimated to be nuclear-capable, Pyongyang likely is going to target places like Seoul, U.S. bases in Japan, Guam, possibly even the West Coast of the United States. This may even take the form of a high-altitude nuclear detonation with the intention of creating an electromagnetic pulse effect that would cause widespread shutdown in the U.S.

power grid. The FAS does warn that North Korea may use nukes preemptively if the war appears inevitable. That is, not as a last resort, but as a first move. India and Pakistan India maintains a no-first-use policy, but reserves the right to massive retaliation. Their warheads are currently stored separately from delivery systems in order to delay use. Pakistan, by contrast, and according to the report, is far more aggressive. It deploys tactical nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional superiority, even if it means using these weapons on their own soil. So what’s the nightmare scenario? A conventional border skirmish escalates into a tit-for-tat nuclear exchange that kills millions of people within the span of a few hours.

The report puts it plainly, South Asia remains the most volatile nuclear flashpoint on Earth, Israel and others. Among the world’s nuclear powers, Israel is unique in that its nuclear doctrine is shrouded in strategic ambiguity, but the message is unmistakable. If the state of Israel faces destruction, it will ensure that no enemy survives. This is known as the Samson option, a reference to a biblical figure who brought down a temple and himself with it to destroy his enemies. The FAS estimates Israel possesses 80 to 100 warheads, deliverable by Jericho III missiles, submarine-launched cruise missiles on Dolphin-class subs, and airdrop bombs from fighter jets.

Presumed targets include places like Tehran and Iranian nuclear sites, Hezbollah positions throughout Lebanon, and Syrian military installations. The FAS notes that Israel’s nuclear posture is not designed for warfighting, it is designed for final judgment. But Israel is not necessarily alone. There are several states that hover close to the nuclear threshold. For example, Iran is not yet officially nuclear, but they are edging close. Saudi Arabia is heavily invested in Pakistan’s program, and Crown Prince MBS has made it clear that if Iran gets the bomb, so will we. Turkey also possesses a latent ambition and growing capability.

Japan and South Korea are technically capable of going nuclear within months if security guarantees erode. Belarus is also host to Russian tactical nuclear weapons. France France’s nuclear doctrine is fiercely independent, deterrence of the strong by the weak. It follows a strict counter-value strategy. Their 290 warheads are deliverable by triumphant-class nuclear submarines and Raphael fighters with cruise missiles. President Macron has recently declared, our vital interests now have a European dimension. This means that France has extended its nuclear umbrella to its EU allies, and may retaliate on their behalf. Its doctrine is clear, any existential threat will be answered with overwhelming force.

The United Kingdom The UK operates a minimum credible deterrent. Four Vanguard-class submarines armed with Trident II D-5 missiles from a shared US pool. London’s doctrine is ambiguous, but counter-value. Recent policy has increased warheads’ ceilings from 180 to 260. The 2021 review stated that they will not use or threaten nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, except in extreme circumstances. The FAS notes that Britain’s deterrent is powerful, but entirely dependent on American logistics. In conclusion, each nation believes that it can control the fire, that it will strike decisively, precisely, and survive. The targeting maps are drawn, the warheads are ready, and the clock is always ticking.

If you found this video useful, please subscribe to stay informed, because knowledge is your fundamental survival tool. [tr:trw].

See more of Canadian Prepper on their Public Channel and the MPN Canadian Prepper channel.