3 ms·

The vast majority of nukes are "counterforce" - they're targeted against military targets, primarily the enemy's own nuclear arsenal. Strategic reasoning for t

The vast majority of nukes are "counterforce" - they're targeted against military targets, primarily the enemy's own nuclear arsenal. Strategic reasoning for this is pretty simple: only by destroying the enemy's weapons can you prevent the destruction of your own citizens, and destroying the enemy's citizens is pretty cold comfort if all of yours are dead. I've heard that each Minuteman 3 silo in the U.S. has multiple nukes targeted on it, because they want to be really sure that they destroy that missile if it hasn't left yet. Many of these warheads are SLBMs, where flight times are only a couple minutes, so that they can hit as soon as it looks like a launch is imminent. After ICBM silos, primary targets are (roughly in order): 1) Runways longer than 7000 feet, long enough for a B-52 to take off and land. 2) Naval bases, primarily those involved in the basing and maintenance of ballistic missile subs. 3) Command and control facilities of the U.S. military and government. This includes much of Washington D.C, the Pentagon, major government institutions like the CIA and NSA, and secondary military bases where leadership might relocate to. 4) Port facilities, which may become naval bases in a war. 5) Refineries and oil fields. 6) Concentration of heavy industry where military equipment might be made. Think of metro Detroit auto factories, or Caterpillar's factory, or Hendy Ironworks in Sunnyvale. 7) Office parks where significant brain trusts are located. You can bet that Livermore, Apple's headquarters, and the Googleplex are on a target list. (The Googleplex is actually in the blast radius for Moffett Field, so it may not need to be a separate target.) Also major universities. 8) Major city centers. If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. Nuke blast radiuses are often surprisingly small, relative to metro areas, and there is no reason for Russia to target a lightly-populated bedroom community 10 miles outside of the city.

agency 5y ago
"Fun" fact: Seattle is 20 miles (as the crow flies) from Naval Base Kitsap which is the home port for all of the pacific fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines.
- hollerith 5y ago
  From which I conclude that unless they make the mistake at looking at one of the explosions, in which case they'll be blinded (probably temporarily, but I'm not sure) or they're injured by flying glass, Seattle residents will not be immediately killed in an attack on Kitsap, but if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction or it rains at the wrong time they could easily be killed by the fallout.
baybal2 5y ago
joes_hk 5y ago
Is there a reason why Russia should target America before targeting Europe? Wouldn't it have strategical advantages for them to target NATO bases in Poland or Turkey and/or Germany?
- baybal2 5y ago
- hutrdvnj 5y ago
  It makes more "sense" for Russia to destroy as many nukes as possible in case of a nuclear war first strike. Poland, Turkey and Germany doesn't have many nukes to speak of.
  - joes_hk 5y ago
    There are american nuclear weapons at least in Germany. So this could be a target, couldn't it?
    - hutrdvnj 5y ago
      Sure, but as far as I know they are all at one spot and there's "only" 20 of them. So russia needs basically one nuke to disable the nuclear treat from Germany. In comparison the US has thousands nukes all over the country and nukes with tenfold power.
JohnBooty 5y ago
Do you have a source for this? It seems (coldly and terrifyingly) sound from logical perspective, at least to the extent that "logical" is a word that can be applied to something that threatens the entire human race. But I'm curious how much if any official doctrine has become public. If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. One might imagine a regime that was sufficiently evil and/or endangered enough to launch wide-scale nuclear attacks might also spare a few warheads for such bedroom communities as well, especially if resistance continued after an initial exchange. Would be a terrifyingly effective way to cow a populace - to make them feel nowhere was safe.
- hollerith 5y ago
  >Do you have a source for this? I don't have sources, but the list is very similar to the list I would write. I have no work experience in the field, but since the end of the cold war, my probability of nuclear war has always been much higher than most English-language commentators, so I've been keeping an ear out for information. I would add that runways over 7000 feet would be such a high priority that even straight stretches of highway longer than that (which can be used as improvised runways) will probably be targeted (and some sections of the US interstate highway system built in the 1950s were made straight precisely so that they could be used as runways during a war). Also, it is at least possible that they would attack the US, but not with everything they got (at least at first) and if they do that, then oil refineries would be much higher on my list than on the list in the grandparent comment because if they do decide to attack, it is probably because they (the leaders of Russia's security apparatus) are about to lose power in which case it is likely that they blame the sanctions the West has just imposed on them as the primary cause of their immanent loss of power -- and their attacking our oil refineries will have an effect on the US much like very severe sanctions would.
Volundr 5y ago
> If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. "Unscathed" is a questionable term here. Sure you likely don't get vaporized in the initial blast, but given grounds strikes, which to my understanding are more likely in a modern nuclear exchange you likely get enough radiation from the fallout you wish you had been vaporized. Depending on prevailing winds this can be true for a shocking distance from the impact site.

agency 5y ago

"Fun" fact: Seattle is 20 miles (as the crow flies) from Naval Base Kitsap which is the home port for all of the pacific fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines.

hollerith 5y ago
From which I conclude that unless they make the mistake at looking at one of the explosions, in which case they'll be blinded (probably temporarily, but I'm not sure) or they're injured by flying glass, Seattle residents will not be immediately killed in an attack on Kitsap, but if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction or it rains at the wrong time they could easily be killed by the fallout.

baybal2 5y ago

joes_hk 5y ago

Is there a reason why Russia should target America before targeting Europe? Wouldn't it have strategical advantages for them to target NATO bases in Poland or Turkey and/or Germany?

baybal2 5y ago
hutrdvnj 5y ago
It makes more "sense" for Russia to destroy as many nukes as possible in case of a nuclear war first strike. Poland, Turkey and Germany doesn't have many nukes to speak of.
- joes_hk 5y ago
  There are american nuclear weapons at least in Germany. So this could be a target, couldn't it?
  - hutrdvnj 5y ago
    Sure, but as far as I know they are all at one spot and there's "only" 20 of them. So russia needs basically one nuke to disable the nuclear treat from Germany. In comparison the US has thousands nukes all over the country and nukes with tenfold power.

JohnBooty 5y ago

Do you have a source for this? It seems (coldly and terrifyingly) sound from logical perspective, at least to the extent that "logical" is a word that can be applied to something that threatens the entire human race. But I'm curious how much if any official doctrine has become public. If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. One might imagine a regime that was sufficiently evil and/or endangered enough to launch wide-scale nuclear attacks might also spare a few warheads for such bedroom communities as well, especially if resistance continued after an initial exchange. Would be a terrifyingly effective way to cow a populace - to make them feel nowhere was safe.

hollerith 5y ago
>Do you have a source for this? I don't have sources, but the list is very similar to the list I would write. I have no work experience in the field, but since the end of the cold war, my probability of nuclear war has always been much higher than most English-language commentators, so I've been keeping an ear out for information. I would add that runways over 7000 feet would be such a high priority that even straight stretches of highway longer than that (which can be used as improvised runways) will probably be targeted (and some sections of the US interstate highway system built in the 1950s were made straight precisely so that they could be used as runways during a war). Also, it is at least possible that they would attack the US, but not with everything they got (at least at first) and if they do that, then oil refineries would be much higher on my list than on the list in the grandparent comment because if they do decide to attack, it is probably because they (the leaders of Russia's security apparatus) are about to lose power in which case it is likely that they blame the sanctions the West has just imposed on them as the primary cause of their immanent loss of power -- and their attacking our oil refineries will have an effect on the US much like very severe sanctions would.

Volundr 5y ago

> If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. "Unscathed" is a questionable term here. Sure you likely don't get vaporized in the initial blast, but given grounds strikes, which to my understanding are more likely in a modern nuclear exchange you likely get enough radiation from the fallout you wish you had been vaporized. Depending on prevailing winds this can be true for a shocking distance from the impact site.