Soviet/NATO invasion and nuclear targets across the world thread

[lordroel]

Mar 31, 2018 0:00:48 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Mar 30, 2018 19:12:19 GMT lordroel said:

I hope it is fix now.

It is indeed.

But that looks like too few targets. Maybe in a Counterforce attack... *shrug*

Ore only those targets the people of Business Insider think is worth mentioning.

[lordroel]

Another old map i found, this time from LIFE magazine August 8th 1949, if a Soviet attack came in 1949, the West planned to hold at the Rhine and nuke the advancing armies as they assembled to cross the river.

[stevep]

Jan 6, 2019 11:38:11 GMT lordroel said:

Another old map i found, this time from LIFE magazine August 8th 1949, if a Soviet attack came in 1949, the West planned to hold at the Rhine and nuke the advancing armies as they assembled to cross the river.

  Not going to be good for Germany but almost certainly the only option practical with the force imbalance at the time.

[lordroel]

Jan 6, 2019 19:40:06 GMT stevep said:

Jan 6, 2019 11:38:11 GMT lordroel said:

Another old map i found, this time from LIFE magazine August 8th 1949, if a Soviet attack came in 1949, the West planned to hold at the Rhine and nuke the advancing armies as they assembled to cross the river.

  Not going to be good for Germany but almost certainly the only option practical with the force imbalance at the time.

And in 1949 the United States had the only nukes, ore at least at the time of the publishing of this map as only 21 days latter on August 29th 1949, the Soviet Union secretly conducted its first successful weapon test.

[lordroel]

The Soviet cities that America would have wiped off the map in a nuclear war: Newly declassified target list shows how US planned to target capitals purely to kill their populations

America was prepared to wipe hundreds of Soviet cities off the face of the Earth in a destructive wave of atom bombs that would almost certainly have sparked all-out nuclear Armageddon, newly declassified documents from the Cold War have revealed.

The previously unseen lists name hundreds of military sites, factories and air fields the U.S. planned to strike - but chillingly also name 'population' targets, seemingly meaning that President Eisenhower was willing to kill millions of people if required.

Moscow, East Berlin, Saint Petersburg, Beijing and Warsaw would all have been blown apart by a storm of radioactive weapons had the U.S. decided to carry out its plan in the late 1950s.



The U.S. was also prepared to bomb 145 targets in Saint Petersburg - then known as Leningrad - 23 in Beijing and 15 in Warsaw, Poland.

Perhaps most shocking is the revelation that America was ready to blitz East Berlin with 91 atom bombs, with parts of Allied West Berlin likely to fall in any impact and fallout zones.

[stevep]

Jan 17, 2019 20:36:08 GMT lordroel said:

The Soviet cities that America would have wiped off the map in a nuclear war: Newly declassified target list shows how US planned to target capitals purely to kill their populations

America was prepared to wipe hundreds of Soviet cities off the face of the Earth in a destructive wave of atom bombs that would almost certainly have sparked all-out nuclear Armageddon, newly declassified documents from the Cold War have revealed.

The previously unseen lists name hundreds of military sites, factories and air fields the U.S. planned to strike - but chillingly also name 'population' targets, seemingly meaning that President Eisenhower was willing to kill millions of people if required.

Moscow, East Berlin, Saint Petersburg, Beijing and Warsaw would all have been blown apart by a storm of radioactive weapons had the U.S. decided to carry out its plan in the late 1950s.



The U.S. was also prepared to bomb 145 targets in Saint Petersburg - then known as Leningrad - 23 in Beijing and 15 in Warsaw, Poland.

Perhaps most shocking is the revelation that America was ready to blitz East Berlin with 91 atom bombs, with parts of Allied West Berlin likely to fall in any impact and fallout zones.

  Bloody hell!  Are there that many targets in Leningrad and Moscow or are they simply assuming that a lot of bombs/missiles might not get through or be accurate.  Even with E Berlin, apart from the impact on W Berlin, which is likely to be doomed anyway, 91 warheads seem a hell of a lot.  While poor Prague with 72 warheads.  The fact its warheads reduces the level a bit but still it seem bloody excessive.  I can see reasons for 23 on Sevastopol to destroy naval targets in the region but 28 on Tallinn again seems rather wanton.  When you consider how many other targets there would be in Russia itself and also China I get the feeling there is going to be a hell of a mess if that had happened.

[lordroel]

Jan 18, 2019 12:29:46 GMT stevep said:

Jan 17, 2019 20:36:08 GMT lordroel said:

The Soviet cities that America would have wiped off the map in a nuclear war: Newly declassified target list shows how US planned to target capitals purely to kill their populations

America was prepared to wipe hundreds of Soviet cities off the face of the Earth in a destructive wave of atom bombs that would almost certainly have sparked all-out nuclear Armageddon, newly declassified documents from the Cold War have revealed.

The previously unseen lists name hundreds of military sites, factories and air fields the U.S. planned to strike - but chillingly also name 'population' targets, seemingly meaning that President Eisenhower was willing to kill millions of people if required.

Moscow, East Berlin, Saint Petersburg, Beijing and Warsaw would all have been blown apart by a storm of radioactive weapons had the U.S. decided to carry out its plan in the late 1950s.



The U.S. was also prepared to bomb 145 targets in Saint Petersburg - then known as Leningrad - 23 in Beijing and 15 in Warsaw, Poland.

Perhaps most shocking is the revelation that America was ready to blitz East Berlin with 91 atom bombs, with parts of Allied West Berlin likely to fall in any impact and fallout zones.

  Duh!  Are there that many targets in Leningrad and Moscow or are they simply assuming that a lot of bombs/missiles might not get through or be accurate.  Even with E Berlin, apart from the impact on W Berlin, which is likely to be doomed anyway, 91 warheads seem a hell of a lot.  While poor Prague with 72 warheads.  The fact its warheads reduces the level a bit but still it seem bloody excessive.  I can see reasons for 23 on Sevastopol to destroy naval targets in the region but 28 on Tallinn again seems rather wanton.  When you consider how many other targets there would be in Russia itself and also China I get the feeling there is going to be a hell of a mess if that had happened.

I was wondering the same, do not think there are 91 targets in East Berlin, also it will take out West Berlin as well.

[stevep]

Jan 18, 2019 12:31:31 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 18, 2019 12:29:46 GMT stevep said:

  Duh!  Are there that many targets in Leningrad and Moscow or are they simply assuming that a lot of bombs/missiles might not get through or be accurate.  Even with E Berlin, apart from the impact on W Berlin, which is likely to be doomed anyway, 91 warheads seem a hell of a lot.  While poor Prague with 72 warheads.  The fact its warheads reduces the level a bit but still it seem bloody excessive.  I can see reasons for 23 on Sevastopol to destroy naval targets in the region but 28 on Tallinn again seems rather wanton.  When you consider how many other targets there would be in Russia itself and also China I get the feeling there is going to be a hell of a mess if that had happened.

I was wondering the same, do not think there are 91 targets in East Berlin, also it will take out West Berlin as well.

  With that level of attack you are also likely to get a fair amount of fratricide, with the explosions and assorted affects of the 1st warheads going off probably damaging or destroying later ones.  Which rather makes so many attacks rather pointless but they may have thought it necessary to ensure, at worst possible case, a 'kill'.

  I had been considering that W Berlin is possibly the safest place in Europe in the event of a major nuclear exchange as the Soviets are likely to occupy it conventionally and wouldn't want to nuke it to avoid fall-out effects on E Germany and their own logistics but sounds like NATO would have killed it anyway in targeting E Berlin.

[lordroel]

Also found this, planned during World War II: “Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”, 204 Atomic Bombs against 66 Major Cities, US Nuclear Attack against USSR Planned During World War II

YouTube clip (“Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”: Planned US Nuclear Attack against USSR)



The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945), Map of strategic targets in Russia and Manchuria.

[stevep]

  Lordroel

   Given that the US had IIRC less then a dozen bombs even by the start of the Korean war that would have required considerable expansion of production, both of bombs and of the nuclear capable B-29s as well as supporting facilities.  Also since we're talking about Fat Man/Little Boy sized bombs this would have been markedly less devastating, even through very destructive.

  Steve

PS  Had a quick look at the actual document and it isn't exactly balanced as it made rather one-sided statements, such as a US plan for genocide against the USSR and that the cold war only started in 1947.  You could argue it was starting earlier with Stalin refusing to allow free elections in E Europe and repressing all non-communist groups. Also it refers to the Manhattan Project as having started in 1939.

  Also I doubt any rational person would agree with.

IMPORTANT: Had the US decided NOT to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place.

Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of “Deterrence” agains the US which had already formulated plans to annihilate the Soviet Union.

 

  As such while the underlying facts of the USAF consideration of what would be needed to defeat the Soviets is probably correct, in terms of the air forces opinion at the time anyway, the article is definitely a bias source.

[lordroel]

Remember the Polish invasion map of Western Europe, when i had the pleasure to see it in real life during my visit to the National Military Museum in the Netherlands where it could be seen as part of a exhibition called< If the Russian came which was about the Netherlands Armed Forces during the Cold War.

Photo I



Photo II



Photo III



Photo IV

[dayton3]

For those of you wondering why the Soviets (and for that matter the U.S.) targeted certain areas which such a huge number of nuclear warheads the answer is simple:

Several early models of nuclear warheads had extremely high projected failure rates after being put into production. For example the U.S. found out that its first generation sea launched ballistic missile warheads aboard Polaris missiles...an estimated 75% of them would not have detonated if used. Due to a manufacturing flaw. While it hasn't been revealed of course it is believed that many Soviet build warheads had similar problems.

[stevep]

Oct 14, 2019 21:56:44 GMT dayton3 said:

For those of you wondering why the Soviets (and for that matter the U.S.) targeted certain areas which such a huge number of nuclear warheads the answer is simple:

Several early models of nuclear warheads had extremely high projected failure rates after being put into production. For example the U.S. found out that its first generation sea launched ballistic missile warheads aboard Polaris missiles...an estimated 75% of them would not have detonated if used. Due to a manufacturing flaw. While it hasn't been revealed of course it is believed that many Soviet build warheads had similar problems.

  That is a good point along with the problems of fratricide with a number of other warheads going off in the same area making it more difficult for the latter arriving ones to function properly.  Plus simple lack of knowledge of important military targets especially which would mean overkill would be wanted to make sure they actually took out those targets.

[James G]

There was of course the issue with Moscow facing many inbounds because of its ABM system.

[lordroel]

Oct 14, 2019 21:56:44 GMT dayton3 said:

For those of you wondering why the Soviets (and for that matter the U.S.) targeted certain areas which such a huge number of nuclear warheads the answer is simple:

Several early models of nuclear warheads had extremely high projected failure rates after being put into production. For example the U.S. found out that its first generation sea launched ballistic missile warheads aboard Polaris missiles...an estimated 75% of them would not have detonated if used. Due to a manufacturing flaw. While it hasn't been revealed of course it is believed that many Soviet build warheads had similar problems.

And i always assume the United States had quality in its weapons, no wonder they also used quantity in weapons in order to counter what you mentioned.