If a water supply chain attack happened, we would just distribute bottled water for drinking, and people would go without washing for a few days whilst the issue was sorted.
Bottled water production is already big enough that delivering a bottle a day per person in new York is within the scale of the current production and retail networks scope.
It wouldn't cause the mass casualties an enemy might assume.
> Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of consumptive use in the United States
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/water
Maybe if we're worried about running out of water, we should prioritize getting the water we do have to actual people. Could the problem be that we're trying to grow avocados in a literal desert? Nah, it's the dang citizens taking too many showers again.
You know, I said that as a joke, but...
It's getting hard to tell jokes from reality with this administration (excluding roasts at the WHCD).
You would have to fire your entire nuclear arsenal and commit mass genocide.
Even then, you may not be able to destroy the missile cities, many of them were built to be nuclear resistant.
Look at what 9/11 did - for quite a while after the attack, which was heinous but in the grand scheme of things nothing compared to the scale of destruction that was visited upon Iraq and Afghanistan afterwards; And at least for a few years, very many Americans were in favour of those conflicts.
The only thing I can see is some political crony company getting a big payment from the federal budget to take on the "burden" of doing so. But then not actually distributing enough water so they can still price-gouge individuals because we wouldn't want people to become entitled, right?