U.S. Cold War Nuclear Target Lists Declassified for First Time: Civilians targeted

[Deleted]

Just stop...

Please.

Why? It's true that collateral damage is an euphemism, and that war crimes happen on a regular basis.

[Lochton]

how is it shocking?

the point of nukes is to wipe a country out

yes that includes the civilian population

Basically I agree, you write of any other things by using a nuke. I am pretty sure where it's targetted doesn't matter for it'll kill thousands anyways. That is why nukes are used as a last option.

[Schmeebs]

This just in:

A bomb capable of destroying entire cities was designated to be used against cities if it was to be used.

[Lochton]

This just in:

A bomb capable of destroying entire cities was designated to be used against cities if it was to be used.

Even at that, I am amazed at some reactions from something so old. I bet it is still a basic strategy if a nuclear war were to start, you need to cut off some limbs of the enemy fast, and cities is the fastest way.

[Dartz1979]

one word: Zombies

[ranzino]

Even at that, I am amazed at some reactions from something so old. I bet it is still a basic strategy if a nuclear war were to start, you need to cut off some limbs of the enemy fast, and cities is the fastest way.

Silly you. Between such large blocs a nuclear war means the end of its civilization. you cannot win such a war because you cannot survive it.

[apoe]

Not sure how this is surprising.

Interesting wiki article -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue

[Underverse]

Not surprised at all. You think people will care about human rights when nukes are in the air?

[Powerogue]

That's definitely a problem. The first time nukes were dropped we went to great effort to prioritize maximum military damage with minimum civilian damage. Hopefully being called out on it and glared at by Russia encourages them to alter that plan, rather than causing political unrest between the two. We do not need another cold war.

[I Push Buttons]

That's definitely a problem. The first time nukes were dropped we went to great effort to prioritize maximum military damage with minimum civilian damage. Hopefully being called out on it and glared at by Russia encourages them to alter that plan, rather than causing political unrest between the two. We do not need another cold war.

To be fair, this isn't our doctrine now... This report was prepared for (read: influenced by) Curtis LeMay while he was head of Strategic Air Command in the 1950s... You know... The guy who encouraged Kennedy to invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis, regardless of the consequences.

[Puri]

Well, I think it would be pretty hard not to hit civilian targets when using nuclear bombs.

[Yunru]

after playing red alert 2 for so many years I can tell you nukes do not discriminate. nor do super storms.

So true.

Well at least they stoped with nuke propaganda.

Like going under a table and pray so you dont get hit.

[Independent voter]

I'm sure we still have Moscow targeted and I'm sure the Russians have Washington targeted. If the missiles aren't already pointed at these two cities they can be re-aimed in a short time.

[Gheld]

So true.

Well at least they stoped with nuke propaganda.

Like going under a table and pray so you dont get hit.

Actually it's not completely useless because older bombs were fairly inaccurate. So you didn't know where exactly it would land and damage from it reduces exponentially from the point of impact. So if you are a few miles out from the initial blast hiding under a desk could save your life from minor structural damage.

Nuclear bombs surprisingly also obey the fundamental laws of nature.

[Skroe]

I'm shocked... SHOCKED!!!!.... that NATO actually did the Countervalue planning it said it did the entire time.

[Thekri]

Trust me, I do. I know almost every operation by name with at least one example. I also do understand what 15kt "means" (see Military Effects Test series, Grable event, wind effects). You just didn't try to understand what I was trying to say, and instead searched for errors. E.g. I didn't say "replace one 1kt weapon with one conventional weapon".

It isn't 100 more powerful then a standard bomb, it is 100 times more powerful then a giant bomb that is dropped from transport planes. That effect isn't really achievable, massed B-52s can cover more area, but it isn't really the same effect. You just can't get nuclear effects with conventional weaponry, but that is a good thing. There is a reason nobody has used them since 1945.

First error is on you, though: the 60MT "test" of the Tsar was without the final stage, it was a 100MT design. Duh.

Really? Did you get that from History Channel? The truth is that we don't know most of the details of that one, but we do know it was dropped from a T-95 that had its bomb bays cut off because it was already too big, adding more tertiaries could possibly get it up to 100 MT range. It certainly wouldn't be airdroppable if you added more. And adding more stages is like adding more sticks of dynamite, the "Design" just means rigging more blasting caps.

But it's okay, nitpicking is what most people on the internet do. Therefore I'll stick to one-liners:

No one would put a 1kt or even a 50kt nuke on a missile in a hypothetical (hot) cold war. The 0.5-1MT nukes (call them tactical, or strategic - that's not the point) will be the first strike weapons.

Edit: quotes for clarification

Again, this is a silly assertion, when both powers did field a large number of weapons on missiles in that range. Now if you clarified that with "Nobody would hit a city with a 1-50kt warhead" You are probably closer, at least with NATO vs. USSR. That doesn't necessarily hold true in the more likely scenario of India vs. Pakistan though. At the time this report was written, nuclear warheads were on a lot of things, from Anti-Aircraft, to Depth Charges, to Artillery, and so forth.

When the goal is to take out an obscured launch site that you don't have an exact location of, a 10-15kt warhead does a nice job of stopping the enemy from getting 5-10 larger missiles launched at your cities. And that is what first strike is actually aimed at, not cities.

[Deleted]

Don't make me laugh at you..
"What is particularly striking in the SAC study is the role of population targeting. Moscow and its suburbs, like the Leningrad area, included distinct “population” targets (category 275), not further specified. So did all the other cities recorded in the two sets of target lists. In other words, people as such, not specific industrial activities, were to be destroyed. "

"Besides, once you get to the point of "nuclear war" the rules of war don't matter much anymore." So what is terrorism again?

During the Cold War the West was facing a totalitarian and tyrannical ideology that, if given the chance, would have enslaved the whole planet without any moral restrictions.

Makes your striking hypocrisy even more disgusting.

[Tijuana]

Breaking news, it's now been revealed that mutually assured destruction would include destruction and mutual assuredness.

[Skroe]

More to the point I certainly hope we're still doing it.

If the West were facing strategic defeat, we should absolutely kill every living thing in Russia. Or anywhere else we were at war with.

[Blizzhoof]

You should target civilian centers in addition to military targets in war. That's how you win. You destroy their military bases and you destroy their will to fight. The citizenry will pressure the government to surrender when they realize that their lives are also at risk (not just the soldiers'). Hiroshima and Nagasaki are good examples.

War is ugly, nasty, heartbreaking, and should be avoided as much as possible. However, when you have to go to war, you should fight to win.