Cold War Nuclear Target Lists Declassified For First Time (gwu.edu)

HughPickens.com writes: Scott Shane writes in the NY Times that the National Archives and Records Administration has released a detailed list of the United States' potential targets for atomic bombers in the event of war with the Soviet Union, showing the number and the variety of targets on its territory, as well as in Eastern Europe and China. The Strategic Air Command study includes chilling details. According to its authors, their target priorities and nuclear bombing tactics would expose nearby civilians and "friendly forces and people" to high levels of deadly radioactive fallout. Moreover, the authors developed a plan for the "systematic destruction" of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted "population" in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.

The target list was produced at a time before intercontinental or submarine-launched missiles, when piloted bombers were essentially the only means of delivering nuclear weapons. The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big. "We've known the general contours of nuclear war planning for a few decades," says Stephen I. Schwartz. "But it's great that the details are coming out. These are extraordinary weapons, capable of incredible destruction. And this document may be history, but unfortunately the weapons are not yet history."

Comments

Beijing? Surely you mean Peking

[Anonymous Coward]

As in Duck! and Cover!

East Berlin, really?

[It doesn't come easy]

And the US military posts in West Berlin were OK with that?

Re:East Berlin, really?

[YrWrstNtmr]

By the time things escalated that far, the US military in Berlin would probably have already ceased to exist.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the US military posts in West Berlin were OK with that?

You do know that yields were small and that the effects of fallout and low to moderate doses of radiation were poorly understood in the '50s, right? Some of the radiation experiments on humans considered ethical in that period would probably appall you.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Nidi62]

And the US military posts in West Berlin were OK with that?

If a Cold War confrontation got to the point that nukes were needed, those soldiers stationed in West Berlin would probably all have been dead already anyway. In the event of a surprise attack, the soldiers station all along the border would be tasked with defensive actions, holding the line as best as possible while stateside troops were mobilized and linked up with prepositioned equipment. Given the standard Soviet style of attack, that role would most likely have been not much more than "try not to die for as long as possible", especially if you found yourself in the schwerpunkt. In any case, the war would have had to have ground to a WWI style war of attrition or gone so poorly that the front lines were knocking on the gates of Paris or Moscow before nukes would have been used, and they would have most likely been used in a tactical role first (which would have quickly escalated to a full on strategic exchange).

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And no doubt the troops along the Iron Curtain understood this, on both sides. The pertinent question at the time, apparently, was what to do in the event of a massive conventional assault; in particular if the potential for nuclear escalation was sufficient deterrent to, say, the soviet's fearsome tank divisions. In Western Europe there was a real anxiety about them rolling right up to the North Sea.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

People on the front line expect to be among the first casualties if a war breaks out.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the radiation experiments on humans considered ethical in that period would probably appall you.

Certainly. But then so do some of the tactics considered ethical, by those in command, today.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Funksaw]

What was interesting is that the U.S. Military posts in West Berlin were not necessarily there to actually stop any real Soviet advance into the city, but to be used as effective human shields. That is, if the Soviets invaded West Berlin, the death of American troops (a certainty) would give America the justification it would need to go to war with the Soviets. Therefore, since the Soviets didn't want a full-scale war with America, they would not start a small-scale war against West Germany. It was the geopolitical equivalent of letting your opponent know that you'll go all-in if he tries to steal the pot.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure they weren't consulted

Re:East Berlin, really?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Not even a 'human shield', but rather a tripwire. They weren't going to shield or stop anything.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[geoskd]

And the US military posts in West Berlin were OK with that?

The entire point of this exercise was that we had so damn many of these weapons, even by that time that we needed to invent places to drop them all. The USSR was just as bad. The Japanese demonstrated quite effectively that you could drop any number of these things in an unoccupied place and no one will care. It wasn't until the demonstrated ability to continue hitting targets that the Japanese surrendered. The USSR would have been just as stubborn, if they weren't in fact crazy enough to strike first...

In the end, the only sure path to "victory" was to ensure that we could keep hitting targets until either the Russians surrendered, or there wasn't anyone left to fight, whichever came first. No doubt, their plan was identical.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Going off your track record in wwi and ww2 then ww3 would have already been over by the time you lot got round to being 'fashionable late'.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using US forces as a tripwire is still policy today. In other words the US soldiers and sailors are being offered up as sacrificial lambs to trigger a full US military response. People like to complain about US military bases in foreign countries but the fact is the bases are all there at a countries request. There have been several cases where a host country has asked the US military to leave their country and in every instance the US has complied. The Philippines is one example of a country who asked for the US to close their bases and the US left. However, they are now trying to get a US military and Naval presence back in their country to deter China. Even Vietnam is trying to initiate military ties with the US for the same reason as the Philippines.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[KGIII]

So, do you want us to be the World Police or not? And, frankly, some of us know history well enough to know that the US contributed greatly to both of those wars. Less so in WWI than in WWII but that really wasn't our problem. We even left you alone to resolve it at the end and look at what you did. We didn't even partake in the whole League of Nations thing (though a lot of people really seem to think we did) and we even encouraged you to not go full retard with the treaties and reparations. You're mad that the baby sitter didn't spank you soon enough?

Re:East Berlin, really?

[houghi]

I knew some higher officers in the German army ad they told me the life expectancy in case of the different types of was.

Basically it mend that if there was a war, Europe would have been a wasteland to protect our allies, the USofA and Russia.

Depending on the type of war (ABC) the survival time would be days to hours.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[eric_harris_76]

If you're going to "wave the bloody shirt", there needs to be blood in the shirt.

The quartermaster provided the shirts.

The GI's would provide the blood.

The Russians would effect the transfer of the blood.

Re:East Berlin, really?

[Jack Griffin]

So, do you want us to be the World Police or not?

Is too much to ask for a police force to not be the Keystone Cops?

Re:East Berlin, really?

[KGIII]

Unfortunately, yes. Why? Humans are generally stupid, herd-based, beasts who get panicky and stampede. Fortunately, most of their time is spent grazing and little harm is done - unless you're the grass beneath their feet. If you and your country can do better than it'd behoove you to *do* better. I simply ask that you not blame me, I didn't vote for them.

Either way, happy holidays! I'm happy. My son flew up from Peru and then drove down to Florida and brought his g/f. My daughter managed to get some time off from the hospital and came down by plane with her affianced. On the subject of governance, both thanked me profusely for paying their way via charter this year. The Boy Child seems to have finally stopped getting taller and the Girl is still the most beautiful creature on the planet. They are all wise enough to be disgusted with the TSA.

Read the book: Command And Control

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788

We were fucking lucky we never blew ourselves up or kicked off our own automatic response plan built with no way to de-escalate.

Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

The article associates recent statements made by Republicans about carpet bombing cities with our past plans of dropping nuclear weapons on populated cities. It is all very chilling, but mostly because we no longer live in a world where modern societies are willing to wage this form of warfare. Less than 100 years ago we were, and we did carpet bomb cities and nuke cities into the ground.

Our new-found humanity prevents us from committing some horrible atrocities, but it also means complete victory like we had in World War 2 will rarely happen again. If we fought against Al Qaeda and ISIS like we fought against Germany and Japan, those organizations would not exist and new similar organizations would not take there place. But it would likely take the slaughter of tens of millions of innocents, which we are no longer able to accept.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy you're so confident of that.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[rubycodez]

You spew nonsense, of course cities would be targeted in all out nuclear war, they have to be to take out underground telecom for example. Unbelievable your level of naivety.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Our new-found humanity prevents us from committing some horrible atrocities

Dumbest thing I've read all day. Atrocities and genocides have been happening in war torn areas of the world right up to the present day; it's just that nobody reads the news anymore.

If the West gets into a total war situation again, you'll see the same atrocities that happened in WWII and WWI re-enacted on a grand scale.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[bkmoore]

....Less than 100 years ago we were, and we did carpet bomb cities and nuke cities into the ground....Our new-found humanity prevents us from committing some horrible atrocities...

In the Second World War, we were fighting enemies who also carpet bombed cities and targeted civilian populations. Two examples: the Germans carpet bombed Rotterdam then later London. The Japanese carpet bombed Chongqing in China. The British didn't start targeting German cities until after the London Blitz.

If we fought against Al Qaeda and ISIS like we fought against Germany and Japan, those organizations would not exist and new similar organizations would not take there place.....

That is an assumption that you are making. As you stated, we are not fighting nation states, but we are fighting a political ideology that is promoted by several terrorist organizations and lots of self-radicalized individuals. I don't see how targeting civilian populations in the middle east would ensure peace. It would for one thing result in a mass exodus of refugees headed to Europe and it would wreck the already fragile economies in these countries. Paradoxically it would strengthen ISIS and other similar organizations; they would proclaim themselves to be the protector, and would have no opposition once the educated middle class (who knows better) packs up and leaves. What is needed to end these conflicts are legitimate political solutions, not incoherent tactics based upon false assumptions.

But it would likely take the slaughter of tens of millions of innocents, which we are no longer able to accept.

That is a good thing. Especially if the slaughter of innocents has no benefit whatsoever.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Nidi62]

....Less than 100 years ago we were, and we did carpet bomb cities and nuke cities into the ground....Our new-found humanity prevents us from committing some horrible atrocities...

In the Second World War, we were fighting enemies who also carpet bombed cities and targeted civilian populations. Two examples: the Germans carpet bombed Rotterdam then later London. The Japanese carpet bombed Chongqing in China. The British didn't start targeting German cities until after the London Blitz.

The Allies didn't start targeting German cities until after the Blitz because they could only do so once the Luftwaffe had gutted itself on the Blitz and Operation Barbarossa/ subsequent Western Front campaigns. The Luftwaffe lost over 2200 aircraft during the Blitz and had an additional 2700 aircraft tasked for Barbarossa (there were only 2-3 months between the 2 events). With all of those aircraft at the Luftwaffe's disposal they would have made the Allies' bombing campaigns much more difficult. During the Blitz and the early years of the war England was focused solely on defense. It was never about morals or ethics, it was about realities and capabilities.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[milkasing]

The British didn't start targeting German cities until after the London Blitz. The Blitz was specifically a retaliation for an RAF raid on berlin

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

of course cities would be targeted in all out nuclear war

This document isn't about an all out nuclear war. This is describing what a nuclear country would do to a country that could not effectively retaliate with nuclear weapons. In 1956 the US still had a massive nuclear advantage and far more access to air strips that could hit the heart of the USSR. There were no intercontinental missiles or nuclear equipped submarines on either side yet.

Eventually it made sense for the US to target civilian centers as part of mutually assured destruction. But in 1956 the United States using nuclear weapons on Russian non-military targets would have been little different than them using nuclear weapons on Iraq in the 90's.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[rubycodez]

But we were expecting the soviets to target cities in late 50s with bombers and missiles, hence the Nike Hercules program

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

Atrocities and genocides have been happening in war torn areas of the world right up to the present day; it's just that nobody reads the news anymore.

I am not aware of military atrocities even close to the scale of nuking cities committed by western nations, let alone the United States, in the past 50 years. And I do read the news.

If the West gets into a total war situation again, you'll see the same atrocities that happened in WWII and WWI re-enacted on a grand scale.

I guess my point is that the US of 1945 would have nuked Vietnam, but the US of 1960 did not. The US was not in total war against a country threatening invasion in either situation, but the tactics used were very different.

When the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, they were arguably no longer in a total war situation with Japan. They simply needed to get a crippled country to completely capitulate. Going after primarily civilian targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not the type of tactics the western world uses anymore to get enemies to surrender. We don't even carpet bomb cities with standard munitions like we did in both Japan and Germany after the outcomes of both wars were decided.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Anonymous Coward]

But it would likely take the slaughter of tens of millions of innocents, which we are no longer able to accept.

That is a good thing. Especially if the slaughter of innocents has no benefit whatsoever.

Destroying a civilian population ends resistance, you just need to make sure you can kill enough of them. Scorched earth and genocide are legitimate tactics in war, and have been practiced for centuries.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

That is an assumption that you are making. As you stated, we are not fighting nation states, but we are fighting a political ideology that is promoted by several terrorist organizations and lots of self-radicalized individuals.

People forget we were fighting a very religiously radicalized country in WWII as well. ISIS atrocities are hardly even comparable to those committed by Japan during WWII. Japan killed millions of Asians, perhaps even over 10 million (estimates vary). Their fanaticism rose to the level not only mass murder of civilians but also suicide bombing.

I agree I can only make assumptions, but history shows even fanatics can be beaten into submission by a determined enough enemy.

That said, I think it would be unthinkable for the United States to do whatever it takes to defeat Islamic terrorism for good. Perhaps hundreds of millions would ultimately need to be killed this time. The United States would become the great Satan their enemies already think they are. My only point was that tactics used by the United States in the 1940's, and apparently had plans to do in the 1950's, are from a different time when the targeting of civilians was treated differently than today. Faulting the use of nuclear bombs 60 years ago is similar to faulting men like Jefferson for owning slaves.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[mikael]

The only reason nukes aren't used now, is that cruise missiles and other guided munitions reduce the size of warhead required to destroy a particular target. Taking out power stations, power lines, bridges, refineries, airfields and telephone exchanges is all they need to do in order to send a country back to the stone age.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

But we were expecting the soviets to target cities in late 50s with bombers and missiles, hence the Nike Hercules program

From my understanding, the Nike Hercules program started as a defense against jet bombers in general, not long range nuclear bombers specifically. By the late 1950's there was a real threat of Russian nuclear weapons being used against the US homeland, but not in 1956 when the document in question was written (other than easy targets like Alaska and the Northwestern US). I could be wrong though.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[citylivin]

"Faulting the use of nuclear bombs 60 years ago is similar to faulting men like Jefferson for owning slaves."

Similar in that both actions are morally reprehensible and inexcusable? Your demonetization of japan is simply a rationalization for america unnecessarily murdering millions with atomic bombs. The only country ever to do so.

Perhaps you have heard the phrase, two wrongs don't make a right? Except if you get to write the history books and indoctrinate your citizens for the next 70 years that is.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

"Faulting the use of nuclear bombs 60 years ago is similar to faulting men like Jefferson for owning slaves."

Similar in that both actions are morally reprehensible and inexcusable? Your demonetization of japan is simply a rationalization for america unnecessarily murdering millions with atomic bombs. The only country ever to do so.

I never made this claim. My claim was that acceptable treatment of civilians in warfare has changed since 1945, just like acceptable treatment of minority races has changed since 1800. People who lived hundreds of years ago were not inhuman monsters for having slaves; they were a product of their times. I also do not think individual Japanese or Nazi soldiers were evil men simply because their indoctrination caused them to do horrible things.

I think the usage of nuclear weapons by the United States was unfortunate, but not out of character for any of the nations involved in WWII (or for major nations in the 1000's of years prior). Trying to characterize the United States as the good guys and the Axis as the bad guys is a lazy way of looking at history, even if this war was a rare case where that simplistic narrative was mostly true. Carpet bombing civilian areas to break the will to fight was not a new or original tactic. It simply became more effective with improved technology. Not until the Geneva Convention did nations start to agree this was not an acceptable way to wage war.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[MachineShedFred]

Truman weighed heavily the decision to use the bomb on Japan. He ended up going for it.

Truman also weighed heavily the decision to use the bomb on North Korea and China during the Korean War, as some generals wanted to. He opted out. The world is better for it.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[thesupraman]

The German 'carpet bombing' of Rotterdam killed less than 1000 people, and involved 90 bombers...
The Blitz in London (which never even got close to 'carpet bombing' killed less than 500 people.

Our lovely Americans killed around 100,000 Japanese in Tokyo with incendiary raids (basically burnt them to death), Hiroshima and Nagasaki averaged about 100,000 each also, but of course those were single bombs.. Other 25,000 in Dresden, pretty much the same method, 40,000 in Hamburg. While the British assisted on such raids, they were very much American designed and lead. There failure is also well documented (it was supposed to 'break' the Germans, instead of course it just strengthened their resolve), but the lessons have pretty much been ignored.

For the Germans you would have been better to perhaps actually learn some history, Warsaw and Stalingrad were their big cases of bombing,although neither was at all typical carpet bombing (more a long sustained attack over weeks), and a large number of the casualties there are considered secondary (disease, starvation, exposure, etc) (around 25,000 and 40,000, similar to Dresden and Hamburg, however fatalities from actual bombing are estimated to be closer to 1/3 of those numbers).

Sorry to let facts get in the way..

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The British actually did the first targeting of civilians as a reprisal for a mistaken German raid. The RAF always had better long range bombers (though with worse bomb sights which meant they couldn't do accurate targeting) than the Germans who completely fucked up their heavy bomber strategy. Read The Bombing War and learn something.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Gavagai80]

If we fought against Al Qaeda and ISIS like we fought against Germany and Japan, those organizations would not exist and new similar organizations would not take there place.

If you nuke Al Qaeda -- which would necessarily mean nuking a non-belligerent city full of civilians and a few dozen Al Qaeda operatives (let's say Karachi) -- it's certain that Al Queda would greatly expand its enrollment as a result and become much more dangerous. What survivor or neighbor wouldn't join them? There'd be nothing left to lose and every reason to die trying to revenge instead of die an uninvolved coward.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[angel'o'sphere]

The "Geneva Convention" (surprisingly the american tourture camp soldiers claimed they never had heard about it) is a series of 4 or 5 treaties, only the latest one was crafted/refined after WWII.

However you are right, the emphasizes on protecting civilians came after WWII.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[angel'o'sphere]

I am not aware of military atrocities even close to the scale of nuking cities committed by western nations, let alone the United States, in the past 50 years. And I do read the news.

Then you missed Vietnam.
You missed Angola.
You missed Algeria.
You missed Tunisia.
You missed Zimbabwe ...

To late here to count all the countries you missed.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[cold fjord]

Some of your figures are a bit off, and you omit some important data.

The Blitz in London (which never even got close to 'carpet bombing' killed less than 500 people.

The Blitz killed far more than that. Just the first attack killed almost that many.

... by the end of the Blitz, around 30,000 Londoners would be left dead, with another 50,000 injured.-- The Blitz

-------

The German 'carpet bombing' of Rotterdam killed less than 1000 people, and involved 90 bombers...

The German bombing of Rotterdam occurred while the Dutch were negotiating surrender. The only reason it killed so few people (~900) was that there had been evacuations. As it was the bombing destroyed about 2.5 square km of city, and left many thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) homeless.

Other 25,000 in Dresden, pretty much the same method, 40,000 in Hamburg. While the British assisted on such raids, they were very much American designed and lead.

You've pretty much got that wrong. The UK and US teamed up for "around the clock" bombing, but it was the British that concentrated on "area" bombing at night while the Americans strove for precision bombing during the day. RAF Air Chief Marshal "Bomber" Harris was a key driver in planning bombing campaigns. RAF bomber command attacks often dwarfed the associated American attacks in size. For bombing Hamburg during Operation Gomorrah the RAF typically sent 780-790 +/- to bomb at night, and the USAAF managed 100-150 to bomb during the day (although it attempted more). For Dresden it was RAF 722 and USAAF 527.

There failure is also well documented (it was supposed to 'break' the Germans, instead of course it just strengthened their resolve), but the lessons have pretty much been ignored.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the Japanese will to continue the war. As to Hamburg,

"It was quite a surprise to us when the first Hamburg raid took place because you used some new device which was preventing the anti-aircraft guns to find your bombers, so you had a great success and you repeated these attacks on Hamburg several times and each time the new success was greater and the depression was larger, and I have said, in those days, in a meeting of the Air Ministry, that if you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse." – Albert Speer – The Secret War

The carpet-bombing of Hamburg killed 40,000 people. It also did good

But however terrible Operation Gomorrah was, it did serve a purpose in the end. It changed the attitude of many Germans, who may hitherto have been unaffected by the war, discrediting a leadership which was unable to ‘protect’ the population. As tales of the bombing spread throughout Germany, it provoked something called the ‘November mood’ of growing antipathy to the regime. Operation Gomorrah and the devastation of German cities meant that there could be no ‘stab in the back’ myth, as there was after 1918 when it suited people to believe that Germany had not lost the war fairly, but had been betrayed by their own home front. In this sense, Germany’s modern democracy was built on the rubble of its cities.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[the_saint1138]

mod parent up. GP is way off on his facts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

Apparently you missed the "even close to the scale of nuking cities" part. Not sure how many times the US killed millions of civilians in a single encounter in any of those countries. There will always be cases of civilian deaths in wartime, whether by accident or by small groups of soldiers acting out. The worst thing the US military has done in those wars that I can think of is the My Lai Massacre, and at most 500 civilians dead in that encounter (more likely closer to 400). That is 3-4 orders of magnitude less atrocious than a nuclear bomb.

I'm not sure if there is any way to put large numbers of soldiers in such a stressful situation and never have them act out. Civilian deaths, and soldiers treating civilians as combatants, becomes far more likely during guerrilla wars like Vietnam. I doubt any advancements in society will stop these minor atrocities from happening in warfare until warfare is done away with all together.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Talderas]

Going after primarily civilian targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not the type of tactics the western world uses anymore to get enemies to surrender.

Hiroshima served as the headquarters for the 2nd Army which was responsible for defense of southern Japan. It was also a communications hub, storage point, and assembly points for troops. The harbor there was used to ship out troops with frequency. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima neutered the command structure for the 2nd Army as well as basically caused the Japanese to write off three divisions. Nagasaki's military importance was due to it having one of the largest ports as well has industrially providing a large variety war material.

Strategic bombing in WW2, which nuclear bombs would fall under, had evolved towards targeted industrial production or military targets but not every bomber commander held that view. Bomber Harris, in particular, had no issue with bombing residential areas while James Doolittle frequently protested against hitting residential targets.

There is also a severe misunderstand as to the reason why residential areas were targeted in carpet bombing in Japan. Japanese war production was not styled like Germany. There were numerous small shops littered throughout cities that were used for small arms production rather than large assembly line style factories as were favored by Germany. So while plane, tank, and truck factories could be bombed, a large portion of the production for the common soldier was not easily bombed.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[angel'o'sphere]

The US Massacred civilians in Vietnam every day by napalm bombing their towns and villages.
If it is important for you that this happened over a course of time and not on a single day ... that was not clear from your post.

Re:Tactics of a different time

[Jack Griffin]

Apparently you missed the "even close to the scale of nuking cities" part. Not sure how many times the US killed millions of civilians in a single encounter in any of those countries. .

No-one said anything about only the US doing the killing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki totalled about 200k deaths compared to say the genocide in Rwanda of up to 1 million, or the Cambodian genocide of over 2 million.
Shit is still happening...

Re:Tactics of a different time

[ranton]

The US Massacred civilians in Vietnam every day by napalm bombing their towns and villages.
If it is important for you that this happened over a course of time and not on a single day ... that was not clear from your post.

Most of the civilians massacred in the Vietnam war were killed by the Communist forces, not weapons like Napalm. Total civilian deaths caused by US / South Vietnam total between 50,000 and 70,000, while total civilian deaths caused by North Vietnamese forces totaled 360,000 to 720,000. Literally ten times as many. This is the difference between the morality of modern nations and the 3rd world.

And again, 6000 civilian deaths per year in Vietnam is nothing compared to the bombing campaigns in WW2. And considering Vietnamese were fighting a guerrilla war, you would think civilian deaths would have been much higher in Vietnam. Using civilians as human shields tends to cause civilian deaths.

1st world nations continue to improve though, and I doubt that will change any time soon. Napalm for instance is another weapon no longer used the same way as it was in Vietnam.

They are not history

[Etherwalk]

A nuclear weapon is an effective deterrent. Without them, you can be invaded or can be subject to total war, which is almost unthinkable if you have them. With them, invading you is a much, much bigger risk. The stockpile is too big--the sheer size creates a security nightmare--but you want at least some. Whether you need enough to make nuclear war unwinnable is a closer question.

Also, the world should probably always have a few, even if they're locked in a drawer somewhere. Because aliens.

Re:They are not history

[smooth wombat]

Which is precisely why Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a good thing. It would deter Israel from its constant aggression and would bring some semblance of stability to the Middle East since neither would want to do anything stupid to tick the other off.

Re:They are not history

[njnnja]

Because aliens.

And asteroids

Re:They are not history

[zlives]

yes but you are forgetting the current rhetoric of muslims can't be reasoned with. though it is interesting to gloss over pakistan.

Re:They are not history

[__aaclcg7560]

If Iran (Shiite) gets the bomb, than the rest of the Middle Eastern (Sunni) countries will have to get the bomb. In the grand scheme of things, Israel isn't that much of a threat to the Arabs. A nuclear war is more likely to break out between the Iranians and the Arabs.

Re:They are not history

[wyHunter]

How many nuclear bombs have the Israelis dropped? How many invasions has the State of Israel conducted? (Hint: I'm not discussing military action after being hit by rockets from somewhere outside their country). Oh wait! The answer is ZERO!

Re:They are not history

[Nidi62]

Whether you need enough to make nuclear war unwinnable is a closer question.

You don't. The key is to have just enough nukes and (this is the key point) the capability to reliably deliver them so that, even if the other side wins, their government cannot remain in power. You don't truly need MAD, or hundreds of missiles on deadman switches; you just need enough nukes to hit a few population/economic centers or the state's capital (if they are properly prepared you won't get the head of the government but you will get most of the bureaucrats and functionaries of the government which is just as good). Every government has one goal: remain in power. Every other goal, every policy or action, is subservient to that one central priority. It does not matter how total your victory was, if you sowed enough salt into the soil of your enemy that you can set land speed records over their territory, if a large percentage of your population is dead or relocated and your economy is in shambles, your administration will not survive. A few well placed nukes can topple any government without leading to nuclear winter. That is the true deterrent against nuclear weapons: not that everyone will be dead, but that if you make a decision that leads to a nuclear exchange your days in charge are numbered.

Re:They are not history

[DarkOx]

I agree with grand parent, the great grand parent is crazy. Iran getting the bomb would massively raise the stakes in the Middle East. The outcome isn't like to be an uneasy peace via MAD like we had with the Soviet Union.

The central conflict there is Shiite vs Sunni with some other sects and groups playing 'the enemy of my enemy' type games. The national boarders while control and organize the conflict somewhat are not the drivers of it. We have already seen with Iraq and Syria, and may of the North African conflicts the boarders melt away quickly when things heat up.

If a Shitte group gets the bomb the Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia will want it and shortly their after ISIS will get one somehow.

Re:They are not history

[Jawnn]

yes but you are forgetting the current rhetoric of muslims can't be reasoned with. though it is interesting to gloss over pakistan.

Christ on a crutch! Stereotype much? Might as well throw "Christians" under that broad brush, because the "evidence" of their inability to reason is all around us.

Re:They are not history

[mwehle]

How many invasions has the State of Israel conducted? (Hint: I'm not discussing military action after being hit by rockets from somewhere outside their country). Oh wait! The answer is ZERO!

The UN disagrees with you, see for instance United Nations Security Council Resolution 228. Do you rationalize the Six-Day War as not an invasion, but "military action after being hit by rockets"?

Re:They are not history

[zlives]

woosh

Re:They are not history

[jedidiah]

Clueless liberals think that everything would be all lovey-dovey over there without "western interference" or " Israeli imperialism" fail to acknowledge the history and culture of the region. These are "countries" that can't stay together without brutal military dictactorships to keep the warring factions in line. Their idea of democracy is that it's a means to "sieze power" and abuse every other faction.

These people are at each others throats without a conqueror to keep them in line. With a conqueror to keep them in line they are a constant threat to the rest of us.

The whole region is at least 500 years behind politically.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Clueless liberals think that everything would be all lovey-dovey over there without "western interference" or " Israeli imperialism" fail to acknowledge the history and culture of the region. These are "countries" that can't stay together without brutal military dictactorships to keep the warring factions in line.

You mean these are "countries" arbitrarily delimited by the British after they were done with the ottoman empire. For such a loud-mouthed cretin, you sure don't know the history of the area yourself. Go push your victim-complex agenda back to stormblr.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of very few things that would be less good for the stability then Iran having nuclear weapons. Isreal is mostly sane when it comes to things, Iran not so much.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Clueless libruhls think that everything would be all lovey-dovey over there without "western interference" or " Israeli imperialism"

"Hurr, durr, clueless conservatives think that everything would be all lovey-dovey over there if we just overthrew every single democracy and bombed every single hospital."

Does that sound stupid to you? That's how stupid you sound.

BTW, look up what "liberal" actually means. Hint: It's pretty much the opposite of what Fox News tells you.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just target the government and not the civilians. You don't kill as many civilians, if any, you target at least one life they care about, you remove any political benefit they might gain, you probably don't need nukes, and you get a better government.

Re: They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives always have to blame somebody else for their own screwups. The favorite tactic is to come up with an exaggeration, apply it to 'liberals' as if they'd actually said it, and then argue against it. Classic strawman arguing.

Their brains don't even process the contradictions, like how they claim Obama is a Muslim and yet go on about the rantings of his Christian minister from 20+ years ago. Doesn't even register how clueless it sounds.

The middle east was invaded by economic interests some time ago. As a rule, liberals tend not to do stuff like depose the elected ruler of a nation so as to guarantee profits for corporations like we did with Iran in the 1950s. That's good old fashioned conservative policy right there.

They also can't process that even if those nations somehow need strong dictators to keep the peace that the people in those nations wouldn't especially have a problem with us if we hadn't been meddling in their affairs to the detriment of common folk for a long time now.

It's much easier for simple minds to believe they hate us for our freedom, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Re:They are not history

[MagickalMyst]

"How many nuclear bombs have the Israelis dropped?"

More importantly, how many nuclear bombs does Israel have? And why do they continually refuse to declare their nuclear arsenault or sign the NPF?

Israel has created what it calls "the Samson option" - which is the largest military threat to humanity that the world has even known.

Essentially, Israel has placed nuclear weapons in - or pointed them at - major cities in North America, Europe and elsewhere in the world. The purpose is to be able to destroy the entire planet should Israel's existence be seriously threatened. The Zionist agenda is to not just take over Palestine, but ultimately, the entire world. They are basically saying that "if we cannot rule the world then nobody can."

And for Israel to demand that Iran stop developing nuclear energy whilst hoarding it's own, undeclared stockpile is complete hypocrisy.

I would be very interested in seeing Israel's nuclear target list...

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel protects it's own. And they are very good at it. The Arab militaries have been reduced to calling the Israeli's names since every time they have manned up for a military confrontation it has ended up in humiliating loses. It's that humiliation, and not the Palestinians, that has created the never ending conflict. Jordan and Egypt abandoned their citizens in the West Bank and Gaza for the specific purpose of foisting difficulties on Israel. If there were a 100 Mexicans launching fireworks over the US southern border demanding the return of Texas they would have been buried in an afternoon and any one yammering about peace negotiations would be buried right along side of them. End of story. The world has seen how Russia deals with any country on their borders who doesn't toe the soviet line. China grabbed Tibet to squash any dissent from that area and now has it's eye on several of it's neighbors. Turkey still occupies Cypress which they took by military force but that is a ancient history and hardly worth discussing and hardly anyone does. The Israeli's don't ask for permission or seek approval from countries thousands of miles away and certainly not from any surrounding countries. The US traveled 5000 miles to fight Arab militants in Afghanistan and Iraq using the justification that it is better to fight them over there than on US shores. Israel is surrounded by it's enemies with no room for retreat in a military operation. Their backs are literally against the wall. The world should rightly fear Israel being overrun by the Muslim hoards because if that happens Israel would make sure nobody could live in that area for a few hundred years. If you got a look at Israel's target list you would probably see every important city throughout the Arab world targeted for retaliatory attacks if military defeat is on the horizon. Every single Muslim religious site would be blasted into beaded glass and that would probably end up in the plus column for the world at large. Iranian nukes would just force every country in the ME to get their own nuclear weapons. And looking at the history in that region shows putting nuclear weapons in the hands of people who preach death and destruction on a daily basis might not be a good idea. And if push comes to shove Israel can replace the US UN veto with one from China or Russia. Israel is currently restricted from selling some of it's advanced military technology to certain countries at US request. The US drone technology originated in Israel. The missile defense systems have been a joint US-Israeli venture and the last thing the US needs is for that technology to be sold without restriction. Israel can also shift the bulk of it's economic and trade relations to India and Asia instead of putting up with those feckless Europeans who do not realize how vulnerable they have made themselves over the past few years.

Re:They are not history

[DigiShaman]

In nuclear war, the end-game is who survives the aftermath the longest. Either side in conflict would be lucky if if a standing army sticks around let alone a fully functional command and control center. And we haven't even begun to talk about the theoretical logistics of feeding the men and protecting their families; if they're still alive.

All that said, should a nuclear exchange commence between Sunni and Shia, there's nothing stopping Iran from lobbing one into Israel for ideological reasons. Why? Because they can, and that's all that matters in conflict.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

The "promised land" is all the land between a river in Egypt and the Euphrates. Also chaos in the ME creates safety for Israel. For instance the crisis in Syria allowed Israel to drill for oil in Golan without any significant challenge and the Iraq war removed it's long range missile capability.

If religiously inspired Zionists (which do exist and are gaining strength as far as I can see) ever became a major force in Israel or if Israel were to use it's resources to foment chaos in it's neighbors for it's own security they would be a massive danger to Arabs.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Sunnis already have the bomb: Pakistan.

Re:They are not history

[__aaclcg7560]

That's a different kettle of fish. Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and hair-trigger alerts to use against each other.

Re: They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

They also can't process that even if those nations somehow need strong dictators to keep the peace that the people in those nations wouldn't especially have a problem with us if we hadn't been meddling in their affairs to the detriment of common folk for a long time now.

It's much easier for simple minds to believe they hate us for our freedom, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Germany and Japan bombed until the rubble bounced. Japan nuked. Panama invaded and Noriega overthrown.
Lots of other interference in Latin America.

Do any of them have "Death to America" engraved into their Parliament building for interference that happend 60+ years ago?
Are we on the lookout for militants from those countries to come kill us?

The Middle East is different; Islam is different. Those who want to kill us are like that because we are not Muslim, but blasphemous
unbelievers and idolaters. They say it themselves.

Re: They are not history

[operagost]

Conservatives always have to blame somebody else for their own screwups. The favorite tactic is to come up with an exaggeration, apply it to 'liberals' as if they'd actually said it, and then argue against it. Classic strawman arguing.

Yeah, I hate straw man arguments.

Their brains don't even process the contradictions, like how they claim Obama is a Muslim and yet go on about the rantings of his Christian minister from 20+ years ago. Doesn't even register how clueless it sounds.

Like that one.

Re:They are not history

[dsmatthews9379]

You can't be invaded successfully if you secretly immunised +80% of your population against something nasty and you have enough stockpiles of the (viral) pathogen to ensure that most of an invading force is going to be killed off by it. If you are particularly Machiavellian you make it genotype specific and the ill soldiers returning to their home country ensure it is also devastated without it spreading to all humans quickly. The delay is enough to cripple the aggressor while you release the science on the immunisation and make it available to the world. So it is a one shot solution, but so is M.A.D. nuclear warfare. There are far more evil things than hydrogen bombs, things that let small genetically diverse nations very effectively protect themselves from large less diverse bullies.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, how many nuclear bombs does Israel have? And why do they continually refuse to declare their nuclear arsenault or sign the NPF?

Because they're not stupid. The rest of that post indicates that you really need to get back on your meds and stop reading the conspiracy theory boards.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

either do you it seems

Re:They are not history

[AmiMoJo]

That's what the GP is saying. Pakistan has nukes for defence and uses them rationally (I.e. as a deterrent).

In fact the only country to ever use an atomic weapon on another was Christian.

Re:They are not history

[AmiMoJo]

It's Israel they are most concerned about. Israel has nukes and continually expands its borders.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not Israeli imperialism anymore. It most certainly is Israeli apartheid.

Re: They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

if Israel refuses to disclose how many nukes they have, just how is it you know they have enough to rip the world a new one, no less what their specific targets might be, and why would they visit a new holocaust on North America and Europe when more Jews live in each of those places than all of Israel?

Extraordinary claims need to be backed by extraordinary evidence. Either that, or seek psychological help. Why, they even have non-Jew head Shrinker's these days!

Re:They are not history

[rtb61]

There is only one reason and one reason only why nuclear wars do not break, the rich douche bag fuck head psychopaths in charge who do not give a crap about the rest of us beyond how they can exploit, use and abuse us, would also be killed. If you think for a second that those posing douche bags would willingly spend their lives in a bunker, hole in the ground instead of posing about in yachts and mansions, you are really naive.

This is exactly why they have banned political assassination, instead they prefer all out war with the poor dying, in a game of political assassination the douche bag psychopaths would be the first to die. Just like in nuclear war but when it comes to the rest of use suffering and dying in their wars, they basically get off on being able to get us to kill each other.

Take terrorists all over the world, they can not be that stupid as to not realise that it is the rich and greedy who exploit their countries and yet they never attack the rich and greedy, just run around killing poor and middle class who have very little to do with the conflict. It is seems really suspect, that terrorists always attack nobodies and continually ignore the rich and greedy who actually would have real influence on those outcomes in those regions that produce terrorists.

Re:They are not history

[angel'o'sphere]

And they did not use it on other Christians.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it was those clueless liberals who decided it would be a great idea to topple the government of Iraq and replace it with a democracy. Oh wait, no it was neocon retards like yourself. Why don't you do everyone a favor and exercise your second amendment rights with the business end in your mouth?

Re:They are not history

[cavreader]

How in the hell could Israel cause any more chaos in the ME? That's the one thing the Arab's are quite capable of all by themselves. And Israel does represent a massive danger to the Arab countries and the Arab countries have experienced that danger up close and personal. The Arab's are also aware that Israel doesn't ask for permission or forgiveness when launching military attacks to protect it's interests. That level of decisiveness scares the hell out of countries who rely on delaying political strategies and manufactured public opinion to hide behind.

Re:They are not history

[jez9999]

Also, the world should probably always have a few, even if they're locked in a drawer somewhere. Because aliens.

How's that gonna work then? Nukes are designed to land on Earth. Even if you found a way to launch them at a space target the nuclear fallout would probably fuck over everybody on Earth anyway, doing the aliens' job for them.

Re:They are not history

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Christian Germans slaughtered Jews and Russians alike. Got mit uns!

Re:They are not history

[mysidia]

A nuclear weapon is an effective deterrent. Without them, you can be invaded or can be subject to total war

Also, without the use nuclear weapons, Japan would have torn us up at the end of WWII, many millions more lives would be gone, and today the US would be a conquered nation subservient to the Russian empire.

Re: They are not history

[MagickalMyst]

"how is it you know they have enough to rip the world a new one"

Because they have admitted it:

Martin Van Creveld (Israeli military historian): “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. . . Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

And here:

Golda Meir (former Israeli prime minister): "Israel would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it... What would serve the jew-hating world betting in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a nuclear winter?"

"you really need to get back on your meds and stop reading the conspiracy theory boards."

This is not conspiracy theory; it is conspiracy fact. Try doing some research for a change instead of name calling and spewing your ridiculous prattle.

Here are some good places to start:

Samson Option by Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer prize winner.
Mordechai Vanunu by Peter Hounam

The world is being blackmailed by Israel and her "Samson option". Israel poses the greatest threat to the world, bar none.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Re:They are not history

[__aaclcg7560]

Israel has a nuclear deterrent and its borders — Lebanon to the north, Syria and Jordan to the east, and Egypt to the south — haven't changed in decades.

Re:They are not history

[MagickalMyst]

"Israel has a nuclear deterrent and its borders...haven't changed in decades."

Wrong! You forgot to mention the illegal occupation Palestine and the theft of their land.

Nice try.

Re:They are not history

[MagickalMyst]

And you are missing the fact that Israel wants to wipe Arabs off the face of the earth. If you have pledged destroy Arabic people then Israel will support you.

All one has to do is to read the comments section of the Jerusalem Post. Quite telling.

Re:They are not history

[__aaclcg7560]

Wrong! You forgot to mention the illegal occupation Palestine and the theft of their land.

Your forgot to mention that the Jordanians surrendered the West Bank to Israel after the 1967 war. The only significant border change since then was the Sinai Peninsula returned to Egypt under the 1978 Camp David accords.

Re:They are not history

[KGIII]

You could have asked him which law, specifically, is Israel in violation of in their "illegal occupation of Palestine."

Re: They are not history

[KGIII]

Slashdot and Stormfront have similar letters and both begin with the letter "S." I can see how you'd be confused.

Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

the fallacy of placing nuclear silos in large circles centered around large cities

The enemy may target the silos, but the ground strikes needed to close up hardened silos (you may not destroy it, but sealing the doors shut is just as good as a kill) kick up a large plume of radioactive dust, which prevailing winds then spread over the city that the silo is close to

Shucks

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[rubycodez]

not a concern since the cities will be targeted anyway (laughing at some rose-colored glasses wearers here to think that is still not doctrine for all out war)

You do know in warfare the silo doors are blasted open with explosives, not mechanically opened?

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I knew the person at Huachuca who presented the case to the Army and that by the time the silos around Tucson were decommissioned the Army had accepted his analysis

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[rubycodez]

look it up, minuteman missile silos for example had explosive charges to horizontally move the door away before launch

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying that in the early 80's the US expected the USSR to not use air-bursts over their silos, but ground strikes instead

The ground strikes would limit the range of direct effect of the air-burst, so they felt confident building silos relatively close to cities because the horizon would limit blast effects. Later analysis showed that the dust kicked up from a ground strike could be just as destructive (in terms of fallout) as an air burst could be from direct radioactive exposure

fyi, just because the USSR had 'lots' of warheads does _not_ mean that they could waste them on civilian targets because they were sooooo darn evil

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[rubycodez]

no Soviets (or Russians now) would be using nukes on our civilian targets because we'd be doing the same to them, evil on both sides

not news that ground bursts make fallout, look at projections made in 80s and 90s of the high and heavy rad areas from silo busting. plenty of big cities killed, to say nothing of most our farmland rendered useless for a while

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that fits with the time-frame (early 80's) that I heard about it

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear detonation powered welding would defeat that easily.

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Matheus]

I recall back in the day we fully expected to have civilian population centers targeted.

The general rule was (on top of every other specific military target):
1) Capitols.
2) Technology Centers
3) Population Centers.

That's for each of the 50 states. 150 (or more if multiple warheads were specified for each) detonations that are almost entirely taking out civilians.

The fact this article (and the summary) seem to make a big deal of us targeting population centers the other direction seems extremely naive.

The truth of the matter is both sides had(have) enough nukes to flatten both countries completely the specific target sites on the way to that result are just the minutia of "when in doubt where should I go first". If it makes your conscience feel any better population centers are not at the top of the list... that's after you've already taken out the majority of your high-value targets unless you find yourself in a "I'm going down so take out the nearest target before I do" situation.

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

What "large cities" have ICBM silos encircling them? Most of the US ICBM fleet is in the Great Plains and other areas where your definition of "large city" would need to be anything with a population greater than 1000.

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tucson likes to think of itself as a large city, nowhere near the midwest either

There is a good chance that you do not know what you think that you know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce

Re:Weather modeling exposed...

[rubycodez]

we were talking of the past; it is not the case now

Chilling? More like "obvious"

[Jack9]

> The Strategic Air Command study includes chilling details

This faux pearl-clutching is a joke or just the side effect of ignorance. Every country's targets have included high-population areas that include infrastructure and manufacturing, as described. Why would this be chilling? It's pragmatic.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[rubycodez]

indeed that includes the buried telecom switching hubs the major cities have; cities will not only be targeted with air bursts but have ground bursts to take out certain buried infrastructure like generators, water distribution, aforementioned telecom.

All out nuclear war isn't pretty folks, there is no notion of "naughty things we won't do because we're more humane now"! HA!

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[wyHunter]

That's what I thought too. In the event of an all out nuclear war total destruction of the enemy is implicit.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[DarkOx]

Well I expect when things like this get published its all a little more real to some people. Maybe it checks their 'rah rah, lets turn them into glass' attitudes and forces them out of denial and to confront the very real potential consequences of nuclear war.

You are right though none of this is really a surprise. What did people think we going to raise some wheat fields in rural Ukraine? Obviously a finite number of super weapons would be deployed to where they would have the greatest negative impact on the enemies ability to make war.

While destroying low population bread basket targets might be effective those areas are two large and dispersed to be totally destroyed by a short-term strike even with nukes. Hitting them also might not immediate cripple the retaliatory strike capability, which is also very very important in a possible nuclear exchange.

The only reason to blast some field someplace is if you have intel there is missile silo or weapons facility under it. As these plans were largely pre-ICBM there would be no reason at all do that. As stomach turning an affair as it might be the only rational targets would have been enemy air bases and then high population cities where the factories, and distribution of goods occurred.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[sl3xd]

There's no such thing as a purely military mission for large nuclear weapons. It's doubtful there's a use for small ones.

The only thing that is "chilling" in this document is that the deployment of such weapons was carefully, methodically considered. The calculations of a suicide pact.

It's one thing to accept that nuclear war would destroy our civilizations, kill billions, and cause suffering we literally can't imagine. We already 'accept' that war is hell, in our detached way.

It's something else entirely to be forced to say 'yeah, that makes sense' with the purpose behind a target's selection. It's chilling to take a look at yourself and see that you can agree, at some level, with a truly monstrous decision.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as a purely military mission for large nuclear weapons. It's doubtful there's a use for small ones.

The only thing that is "chilling" in this document is that the deployment of such weapons was carefully, methodically considered. The calculations of a suicide pact.

It's one thing to accept that nuclear war would destroy our civilizations, kill billions, and cause suffering we literally can't imagine. We already 'accept' that war is hell, in our detached way.

It's something else entirely to be forced to say 'yeah, that makes sense' with the purpose behind a target's selection. It's chilling to take a look at yourself and see that you can agree, at some level, with a truly monstrous decision.

Wish I had mod points...

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, not to mention that just because a location is on a target list does not mean it will be hit. It is a classifiable target, so if the decision comes down from the National Command Authority, it _can _be hit.

  This is more along the lines of 'A Target List for Every Occasion , up to and including the end of the world, and all contingencies short of.'

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[thinkwaitfast]

All fair in Love and War.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[Cederic]

There's no such thing as a purely military mission for large nuclear weapons. It's doubtful there's a use for small ones.

I hate to quote Clancy, but US carrier groups are an almost canonical target for a small nuke.

As for the large ones? If China decided to gear up 2-3 years of production and equip 300 million troops, you're not saving India and Pakistan with conventional forces.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't set off a nuke in southeast Asia without millions of innocent civilians being slaughtered in the process.

A nuke over the ocean (like a carrier group) will trigger a tsunami, again with completely innocent civilians dying thousands of miles away.

There is no way to use Nuclear weapons without killing a lot of civilians.There's no way to use a nuke and have only military casualties.

Even the US's own nuclear tests - above ground, in the middle of uninhabited desert - caused cancer and misery in the lives of thousands of its own citizens. I know a lot of downwinders who died of cancers fairly unique to exposure to fallout. Thyroid problems are far above the normal human population- again, from exposure to radioactive iodine from fallout.

Nothing like tales of kids playing outside with it "snowing" in July - only to find out it wasn't snow, but nuclear fallout, Always nice to know your 'representative' government decided its own citizens weren't anything more than Guinea pigs for their sick experiments. The best part is they got away with it because there aren't enough votes in the region to swing an election, or even get a reporter's attention.

Re:Chilling? More like "obvious"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am chilled because I do not have autism, you insensitive clod.

Well... I don't have a *lot* of autism, to be spectrally correct.

Not nice.

[nospam007]

Indeed. East-Berlin alone was programmed to get 91 nuclear bombs on their heads.
The Germans are not amused.

Fucking disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

and it's not history. What do you think the "plan B" is for the current arsenal? Right now the U.S is effectively running the economical and cyber espionage equivalent of bombing the world with nukes. They have no regard for anyone but themselves.

Re:Fucking disgusting

[zlives]

you are ever only given what you can take.

Re:Fucking disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

That is SO unlike every other country, who considers the need of every other country equally! Especially the Europeans, who have started two World Wars and innumerable conflicts around the world. They are so friendly and nice!

Re:Fucking disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, actually, it is so very unlike every other country.

Re:Fucking disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true. The US hasn't started TWO world wars killing tens of millions. We are so unlike Europe in that regard.

I can guess one city on the current list

[ThatsNotPudding]

Mecca, with the Kaaba at 0,0,0. Probably added on 9/12/2001.

Re:I can guess one city on the current list

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot!

Re:I can guess one city on the current list

[AdamHaun]

I can guess one city on the current list

Mecca, with the Kaaba at 0,0,0. Probably added on 9/12/2001.

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally. Even in a general nuclear exchange, we're probably not going to attack our own allies. And I hope we wouldn't be stupid enough to try to start a world war with a billion Muslims while already fighting a nuclear war against Russia, China, or whoever.

Re:I can guess one city on the current list

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Think how many problems it would solve. If we Westerners could utterly destroy Mecca with all of its sacred shit, then your allahoid is not that hotshot you though he were, right muzzie boy? Now submit to rightful Western authority or we will turn every man, woman and child of the so-called "umma" into vapor. Western Science prevails!

Update that list!

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly hope the list has been updated on a yearly basis. I'm proud to know that my government has these plans in order, and i hope that they continue to update their target lists at each opportunity. I'm sure its now labeled 'Kiev' on the map, but its still a Soviet City.

Relation to the Field of Modern Economics

[catchblue22]

In the fascinating and disturbing BBC documentary "The Trap: F**k You Buddy", Adam Curtis outlines how the field of modern economics, specifically that which relies on game theory and systems analysis, is tightly related to the type of military analysis implied in the document referred to in the parent post. Both modern quantitative economics and military analysis use mathematical models based on game theory to cold bloodedly analyze human life and death. Most people don't realize that the same mode of thought that brought us fire bombing and potential nuclear apocalypse also brought us the Chicago School of Economics.

The BBC documentary series "The Trap" utilizes rare footage from the BBC archives that you will not see anywhere else. I highly recommend watching it. More of us need to stare the unpleasant reality of the modern world in the face if we are to get out of our current malaise. In the end, the truth shall set you free.

Re:Relation to the Field of Modern Economics

[DarkOx]

Maybe I need to watch the documentary but I don't understand where you are coming from really. You seem to be saying it should be shocking that game theory has both social and military applications. Pretty much all knowledge can be used for good or ill.

Even the basics like knowing how to make fire, I can increase my odds of surviving the winter with a way to keep warm, reduce disease by cooking food; or I can go burn the forest the rival tribe across the river makes their home in.

Re:Relation to the Field of Modern Economics

[epine]

Most people don't realize that the same mode of thought that brought us fire bombing and potential nuclear apocalypse also brought us the Chicago School of Economics ...

If by "mode of thought" you mean Hollerith cards and their natural outgrowth, I agree completely.

Re:Relation to the Field of Modern Economics

[catchblue22]

Perhaps I am not really summarizing the documentary very well. The thrust of the documentary is that game theory, at least of the kind that was used both in the war games simulations and in economics systems analysis simplifies human beings into selfish parameter maximizing automatons. Though I would agree that humans can at times act that way, I do not believe that this entirely describes our nature. We are both capable of altruism and greed, good and evil. I particularly dislike how both the fields of war games and economics systems analysis ask us to put data into a model, and then to blindly accept the output of that model map to action in the real world. In the case of war games, the models said the way to win the game was to build enough atomic bombs to destroy civilization 20 times over. So that is what we did. And over the course of that history, we came close to actually destroying civilization several times by accident. Was the act of building those bombs the most reasonable thing to do? Game theory suggested it, but I am not convinced it was reasonable, to say the least.

Re:Relation to the Field of Modern Economics

[catchblue22]

By mode of thought, I mean describing human behaviour with blind mathematical models and then acting on the prediction of those models as if they were absolutely true. These mathematical models are quite literally the reason we built enough atomic bombs to destroy civilization 20 times over. Decision makers, who are not usually highly educated, hear that the technocrats below them built mathematical models that say we should build many atomic bombs. And so they trust the mathematics without understanding its limitations, and build the bombs. Watch the documentary. It is quite interesting.

All I want for Christmas is the A bomb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in time for Christmas!

Captcha: Sooner

unfortunately the weapons are not yet history

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> unfortunately the weapons are not yet history

As someone who's lives in a world that's been without a global war for 70 years, I'm actually quite happy that nuclear weapons are still around.

Re:unfortunately the weapons are not yet history

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, you are mistaken about no global war for 70 years. We are currently in WW4 while the Cold War was WW3.

Re:Read the book: Command And Control

[rotorbudd]

A great book explaining of the history of the cold war. And how lucky the world was.

Re:Worshipping The Master Race

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this kind of shit is why nukes were invented to begin with.

i don't think you are using your brain

[dlt074]

"Israel from its constant aggression"

what world do you live in? you're an idiot.

Israel is constantly under attack from practically everyone in the region. The very ones you wish to give nukes to, wants to kill all the Jews and remove Israel from the map.

Giving nukes to a religious group of people who want the end of the world, and doesn't care about M.A.D. is a double plus ungood bad thing.

it's people like you that enable people like that to continue doing the things they do.

Re:i don't think you are using your brain

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel shouldn't have them either - hardly a secular state.

except numbers never had meaning in the cold war.

[nimbius]

The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big.

No, it didnt. The US had a firm understanding that every missile the soviet union posessed, every single ICBM since the mid seventies, contained between 10 and 32 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Each missile could impact more than a dozen cities with a near perfect mortality rate. The folly of the cold war wasnt in numbers, it was that those numbers in the context of the power of a nuclear bomb were meaningless. MAD didnt ensure peace, it only assured we found more creative, clever means of inching closer to destruction. It was brinksmanship of the cuban missile crisis that ultimately caused the US to back away from the bomb and in turn pull their missiles from Turkey.

Inquiring minds want to know...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Any chance that the gloriously titled "World Targets in Megadeaths" folder from Dr. Strangelove has a real-world counterpart?

Re:Read the book: Command And Control

[chipschap]

I have trouble believing it was all luck. There were a lot of safeguards.

Some things went wrong but there was never escalation into a nuclear attack. Seems like it all worked out. Is that luck?

I don't know the answer for sure, no one does, but I think we may, in the interests of making a political statement, skew the analysis somewhat.

Scary beyond belief

[Frobnicator]

Holy nuclear winter, Batman!

Yet another reminder about why we need space programs to get colonies of people off Earth.

Not only will having more places available serve as backup for humanity, but it will also ease the strain of conflict over locations as many people would want to leave for proverbially greener pastures.

Or maybe if taking the pessimistic view, let's hurry up and destroy ourselves before we spread elsewhere.

Re:Scary beyond belief

[Jack Griffin]

Yet another reminder about why we need space programs to get colonies of people off Earth..

As anyone with any data knows, the solution is RAIP, (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Planets). So if we kill one there's one spare to carry on.

Wait a second ....

[Krishnoid]

According to its authors, their target priorities and nuclear bombing tactics would expose nearby civilians and "friendly forces and people" to high levels of deadly radioactive fallout.

Along with an enormous amount of heat, thereby ending the 'cold' part of the war.

Unless ... they had cold fusion bombs all along, the plans for which I bet they buried in the declassified information! Finally, a room-temperature mechanism for producing city-scale energy -- truly, this is a great day for the world.

Re:Wait a second ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, there really isn't that much energy in nuclear weapons. A lot of power, sure, but there's more energy in your average tropical storm. So don't hold your breath trying to cook a chicken by blowing up nuclear weapons a hundred miles away.

Would you like a Nuclear Ice Age with that heat, S

[Anonymous Coward]

The heat would be followed by a Nuclear Ice Age though.

"A large nuclear war could put 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere and make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago during the coldest part of the last Ice Age. Killing frosts would occur every day for 1-3 years in the large agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45%. Earth’s ozone layer would be decimated. Growing seasons would be eliminated.

A large nuclear war would utterly devastate the environment and cause most people to starve to death. Already stressed ecosystems would collapse. Deadly climate change, radioactive fallout and toxic pollution would cause a mass extinction event, eliminating humans and most complex forms of life on Earth.

The U.S. and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day.

They can be launched with only a few minutes warning and reach their targets in less than 30 minutes. We must end this madness."

Re:except numbers never had meaning in the cold wa

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big.

No, it didnt. The US had a firm understanding that every missile the soviet union posessed, every single ICBM since the mid seventies (...)

No. The "then" in the quote refers to 1959, not the mid-seventies.

Re:Worshipping The Master Race

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the old fashioned ways: pliers and a good blowtorch and sometimes the good old chainsaw.

Category 275

[Sloppy]

AFAICT "Category 275" isn't taken as a band name yet. Somebody: Rock that fucker!

huge advantage?

[penguinoid]

The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big.

Yes, we could have killed them all 100 times over, they could only have killed us all 10 times over.

Re:Beijing? Surely you mean Peking

[KGIII]

We had that filmstrip when I was in school. Yes, filmstrip.

I don't remember all the words but it was something like:

"There was a turtle his name was Bert,
and Bert the turtle was always alert.
something something something something
and he'd duck and cover. Duck and cover."

I imagine somewhere there's a video of it but I don't like you enough to go find it. Google is so very far away and I am lazy. Even the mouse is too far away.

Re:Beijing? Surely you mean Peking

[Greyfox]

My sixth grade teacher told the class one day that if the air raid sirens ever went off "for real", he'd go outside and face the base, because he didn't want to survive a nuclear war. And since were basically at ground zero, we wouldn't have to worry about that. But at least we didn't get that "duck and cover" nonsense.

Re:Beijing? Surely you mean Peking

[climb_no_fear]

There was a turtle by the name of Bert
and Bert the turtle was very alert;
when danger threatened him he never got hurt
he knew just what to do...
He'd duck! [gasp]
And cover!
Duck!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_Cover_(film)#Plot_summary

you're welcome

When all you have is a hammer...

[DarthVain]

I know it probably makes sense, but it kinda of makes me giggle to think of the engineers involved in the decisions...

So we designed the silos for our nuclear explosives... We haven't figured out how to actuate the doors yet... Have you tried exploding them open? Excellent.

Re:Beijing? Surely you mean Peking

[KGIII]

Heh... Well, at leasts the damned Christmas carol is no longer stuck in my head.

Re:Beijing? Surely you mean Peking

[KGIII]

I even grew up on base (until I went off to school due to a long and winding story) and they didn't do us any favors like that. We knew it was stupid - they had shown us a filmstrip of the bombs detonating. I now have that song stuck in my head. Ah well... My kids should be here sometime soon so I'll be distracted.

Let's be honest...

[iq145]

What would an enemy do to US during a war? Try imagining the "lists" of some other countries out there...

Take with a grain of salt

[Lord Bitman]

Part of the whole "Mutually Assured Destruction" thing meant simultaneously posturing and acting in secret.

Vast plans to kill the majority of an "enemy" country, including its civilians, were just the sort of thing which needed to produced, in highest secrecy, so that the enemy spies knew the potential cost of poking the big guy