
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Target List from the Cold War Declassified for the First Time - ourmandave
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-nuclear-weapons-target-list-from-the-cold-war-decl-1749527500
======
kennon42
One of the most unintuitive concepts in thinking about Cold War strategy is
the assertion that explicitly targeting the opponent's civilian instead of
military targets was _morally superior_ : targeting military first
(counterforce targets
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce))
would potentially prevent retaliation and thus allow an aggressive first
strike. Targeting civilian (countervalue targets
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue))
would ensure destruction and thus be inherently defensive.

It makes my head (and heart) hurt to think about it and I'm glad that I didn't
have to make those kinds of decisions. I can see how it can (and did) lead to
madness and the kind of irrational thinking satirized in Dr Strangelove and
other stories.

~~~
scurvy
I think the US command was still very aware of the lessons learned from WWII
and particularly, those of how the Soviets defeated the Germans in Operation
Barbarossa. The Soviet army might have pulled the triggers, but it was the
Soviet people who ultimately won the battles and the war for them. They were
resolute and could not be broken, even in facing the most daunting of
environmental, emotional, and physical challenges. The Soviet army was largely
a joke at the start of the war due to Stalin's purges of the military. They
were soundly beaten time and time again by the Nazis. It was the sieges of
Stalingrad and Leningrad where the people, ordinary citizens, made the
difference. This bought the Soviets enough time to properly regroup, retrain,
and rearm to end up fielding the largest, and later one of the most effective,
armies of all time. If the people had given up or evacuated, the Soviet Union
probably would have collapsed or been beaten back too far into Siberia to
matter. The civilians were their ultimate weapon. I think the US command still
remembered this when picking targets. You can shroud that however you want in
terms of moral superiority -- a quick blow to the populace vs long years of
sieges and urban warfare.

Aside: The excellent documentary "The World at War" is available on YouTube.
Especially check out episodes 5, 9, and 11 to see how the Soviet people, not
the army, beat the Nazis.

~~~
rwissmann
Stalin's military lacked in organization, tactics and strategy due to the
purges and was surprised by Operation Barbarossa's timeline, but it was well
armed and well equipped. Case in point being the Soviet tank forces, which
were much more numerous and advanced than German intelligence had suspected.

The population's ability to bear sacrifices and Stalin's willingness - matched
by Hitler's - to sacrifice millions of civilians alongside the soldiers were
instrumental, but it certainly was the military - rather than civilian
resistance - that ultimately broke the German war machine.

~~~
scurvy
Your ordering is off. Their initial tanks were old and ineffective. It was
after the sieges that tank production in the east ramped up with T34's. If the
civilians had not taken the brunt and fought back, there wouldn't have been
enough time to produce any tanks on the other side of the country. The Soviet
tank forces of 39-40 couldn't hold a candle to the later version.

------
highstep
too bad the cold war isn't over: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-34797252](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252) (2015)

~~~
Synaesthesia
The threat of nuclear weapons is still very much alive, with intercontinental
missiles being upgraded and maintained.

------
13thLetter
I'd be curious to know if the Soviet Union's target list has ever been
released to the public.

~~~
dan1234
There is a list of what the British government thought would be likely UK
targets (pretty much anywhere populated).

[0][http://robedwards.typepad.com/files/probable-nuclear-
targets...](http://robedwards.typepad.com/files/probable-nuclear-
targets-1972-national-archives.pdf)

------
ascorbic
Better link: [http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-
Nuclear-T...](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-
Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/)

------
dogma1138
The last paragraph is a bit dramatic while a nuclear exchange would've killed
many people it would not come close to destroying the plnanet.

The map is also a good reminder to why Russia is so paranoid.

Russia is like a larger Seoul for all intents and purposes everything of any
importance is a stone throw away from its borders.

On the side note its interesting that Russia concentrated its nuclear arsenal
in its populated areas while the US did the exact opposite, I wonder if that's
is the case or did this list did not included first strike targets or did the
US had gaps in its intelligence as locating a launch site in the Siberian
tundra is quite hard to do.

------
methodover
That map is interesting. There are fewer targets on the middle and eastern
part of the country than I imagined. For whatever reason I figured we would
have just carpeted the entire country with nukes, but I guess that doesn't
make sense now that I think about it.

------
atemerev
Just a usual all-inclusive war plan. Both sides were producing them
prolifically.

------
kiiski
What on earth does that site try to do with JS? When I open it in Firefox (43)
on an old low end laptop running Ubuntu (15.04) it completely freezes the
whole system (had to shutdown with the power button). With NoScript on it
works fine.

