4 ms·

I can't provide you with a good source for this at the moment, but it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the mos

I can't provide you with a good source for this at the moment, but it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) because targeting military targets would be necessary to launch a first strike. Targeting civilians signaled that those weapons were intended for retaliation. Adopting a retaliatory posture was considered to lessen tensions, if only by just a little, making nuclear war less likely to occur. Edit: @justin66: Right, there is a difference between what a few ethicists determine and what policy is actually enacted. America was actually postured for a first strike, with Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. This was based on the supposition at that time that a Russian attack could be anticipated and preempted. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear...

pcnix 8y ago
I would love a source for this, or any further reading recommendations on similar topics.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  This is not the particular source I recall, but is related: Kavka, G. S. (1978). Some Paradoxes of Deterrence. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(6), 285. doi:10.2307/2025707 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707 https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707)
justin66 8y ago
> it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) This was never US policy and not how our weapons were targeted.
justin66 8y ago
> America was actually postured for a first strike, Once the cold war was in earnest, both sides were capable of a first strike, and were also capable of successfully launching a crippling retaliatory strike. Hence the phrase "mutually assured destruction" describing the tension used to prevent either side from attacking. > Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, To put the ancient information you're linking to in perspective, it's apparently 63 years old, prior to when the United States successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile. Later, the highest priority targets for nuclear weapons were... other nuclear weapons. Specifically, things like hardened missile silos were targeted once we had ICBMs capable of targeting them accurately enough to destroy them. > urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. No. I don't have time to pick through the fifties-era document you linked to, but cities were never really a target. It's easy enough to understand why. The serious damage done to population centers in a nuclear war would have been largely incidental. That would have been terrible enough. You don't have to target population centers per se when you launch enough thermonuclear weapons to cause a nuclear winter, and when a lot of population centers happen to be located adjacent to (or simply downwind from) your military targets. Those people are fucked anyway If you have a really good anti-ballistic missile defense system, the game changes and you can target whatever you want. We haven't seen what that is like yet.

pcnix 8y ago

I would love a source for this, or any further reading recommendations on similar topics.

darkpuma 8y ago
This is not the particular source I recall, but is related: Kavka, G. S. (1978). Some Paradoxes of Deterrence. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(6), 285. doi:10.2307/2025707 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707 https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707)

justin66 8y ago

> it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) This was never US policy and not how our weapons were targeted.

justin66 8y ago

> America was actually postured for a first strike, Once the cold war was in earnest, both sides were capable of a first strike, and were also capable of successfully launching a crippling retaliatory strike. Hence the phrase "mutually assured destruction" describing the tension used to prevent either side from attacking. > Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, To put the ancient information you're linking to in perspective, it's apparently 63 years old, prior to when the United States successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile. Later, the highest priority targets for nuclear weapons were... other nuclear weapons. Specifically, things like hardened missile silos were targeted once we had ICBMs capable of targeting them accurately enough to destroy them. > urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. No. I don't have time to pick through the fifties-era document you linked to, but cities were never really a target. It's easy enough to understand why. The serious damage done to population centers in a nuclear war would have been largely incidental. That would have been terrible enough. You don't have to target population centers per se when you launch enough thermonuclear weapons to cause a nuclear winter, and when a lot of population centers happen to be located adjacent to (or simply downwind from) your military targets. Those people are fucked anyway If you have a really good anti-ballistic missile defense system, the game changes and you can target whatever you want. We haven't seen what that is like yet.