6 ms·

> For instance, priority targets in New York City are likely to include Bayonne/Port Elizabeth and Red Hook in Brooklyn instead of Manhattan, as Moscow cares mo

> For instance, priority targets in New York City are likely to include Bayonne/Port Elizabeth and Red Hook in Brooklyn instead of Manhattan, as Moscow cares more about New York as a place where armies can sail for Europe than as a place where investment bankers live. This person is delusional. The financial hub of the world is definitely a much higher value target than another port in an armageddon type scenario.

lumost 5y ago
Following a nuclear exchange, it is unlikely that a country without ports, airports, transit networks, or a military, would remain the financial hub of the world.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
Why? Finance wouldn't be worth much after an armageddon anyway.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> The financial hub of the world is definitely a much higher value target than another port in an armageddon type scenario. What? So civilisation is collapsing around you, and instead of a port and ships that can move grain and life-saving goods, you would rather have an army of bankers so that they can trade triple-A rated collateralized debt obligations for newly radiactive real estate?
- steve_adams_86 5y ago
  But actually, why not target both? There are thousands of warheads from what I understand. It doesn’t seem like they need to be choosey.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    The article covers that. It boils down to “there’s a lot of bombs but the world is really, really big.”
    - steve_adams_86 5y ago
      I did see that. I suppose my thinking is that both seem like prime targets, so they could easily both be high on the list. I’m probably failing to recognize the number of “prime” targets in the really, really big world though. It’s in the territory of scales so huge that brains are bad at drawing useful conclusions. I also have no idea about war strategy, let alone of this variety.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  It seems like you have the order of things mixed up. The point is that destroying a financial hub of the world is a more effective way of collapsing civilization than destroying a port.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Could you provide at least some reasoning, if not evidence, to support this counter-intuitive assertion?
    - echoradio 5y ago
      I don’t have an opinion regarding order of port vs. financial hub. New York is a target for its communications infrastructure. That is in large part a component which facilitates its staus as a financial/economic hub. If you have a city of ~9M and a metro area of 20M without orderly communication, things can unravel from within very quickly. And everything not destroyed at that point becomes easy pickings.
    - michaelt 5y ago
      1. Moscow is definitely getting targeted, as it’s a big administrative centre. But it’s also a big population centre, so a revenge attack on a big population centre is to be expected. 2. Food and manufacturing nowadays depends on things like futures contracts, foreign currency exchange, lines of credit and so on. Not to mention the ownership of the companies doing it! The right type of damage to the financial system could be very impactful. 3. There’s plenty of bombs to go around.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Transporting grain makes a bit more sense than sending ground troops to Europe in a post nuclear war situation, but it’s still mostly nonsense. New York isn’t a hub of bankers. It’s the hub of commerce. Yes, it’s critically important.
thomasahle 5y ago
Also, according to the Nukemap website the author links to: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ you can hit everything from Philadelphia to New York with a single single Tsar bomba. With a bomb like that it hardly matters if you aim it at Port Elizabeth or Manhattan.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  Tsar bomba is not in service in anyone's arsenal. It was a one-off test device built to see how big an explosion you could generate with a multi-stage thermonuclear reaction.
  - slaymaker1907 5y ago
    Not to mention it's not very effective since ICBMs rely on having many projectiles per missile to try and confuse any defensive technology. Tsar Bomba would very much be a Death Star like threat. Scary on paper, but concentrating too much force in a single place.
gwbrooks 5y ago
Counterforce vs. countervalue strategy. A limited nuclear exchange would almost certainly be counterforce, and focused on things like military targets and ports. A larger exchange would become a countervalue exercise focused on economic targets.
chakalakasp 5y ago
NYC is essentially leveled in any kind of attack that includes countervalue. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidteter/OPEN-RISOP/main/TARGET%20GRAPHICS/OPEN-RISOP%200.93%20COUNTERFORCE%2BCOUNTERVALUE%20ATTACK/RISOP%200.93%20CF%2BCV%20ATTACK_NY_NEW%20YORK%20CITY.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidteter/OPEN-RISOP/main...

lumost 5y ago

Following a nuclear exchange, it is unlikely that a country without ports, airports, transit networks, or a military, would remain the financial hub of the world.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

Why? Finance wouldn't be worth much after an armageddon anyway.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

> The financial hub of the world is definitely a much higher value target than another port in an armageddon type scenario. What? So civilisation is collapsing around you, and instead of a port and ships that can move grain and life-saving goods, you would rather have an army of bankers so that they can trade triple-A rated collateralized debt obligations for newly radiactive real estate?

steve_adams_86 5y ago
But actually, why not target both? There are thousands of warheads from what I understand. It doesn’t seem like they need to be choosey.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The article covers that. It boils down to “there’s a lot of bombs but the world is really, really big.”
  - steve_adams_86 5y ago
    I did see that. I suppose my thinking is that both seem like prime targets, so they could easily both be high on the list. I’m probably failing to recognize the number of “prime” targets in the really, really big world though. It’s in the territory of scales so huge that brains are bad at drawing useful conclusions. I also have no idea about war strategy, let alone of this variety.
tshaddox 5y ago
It seems like you have the order of things mixed up. The point is that destroying a financial hub of the world is a more effective way of collapsing civilization than destroying a port.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Could you provide at least some reasoning, if not evidence, to support this counter-intuitive assertion?
  - echoradio 5y ago
    I don’t have an opinion regarding order of port vs. financial hub. New York is a target for its communications infrastructure. That is in large part a component which facilitates its staus as a financial/economic hub. If you have a city of ~9M and a metro area of 20M without orderly communication, things can unravel from within very quickly. And everything not destroyed at that point becomes easy pickings.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    1. Moscow is definitely getting targeted, as it’s a big administrative centre. But it’s also a big population centre, so a revenge attack on a big population centre is to be expected. 2. Food and manufacturing nowadays depends on things like futures contracts, foreign currency exchange, lines of credit and so on. Not to mention the ownership of the companies doing it! The right type of damage to the financial system could be very impactful. 3. There’s plenty of bombs to go around.
oneoff786 5y ago
Transporting grain makes a bit more sense than sending ground troops to Europe in a post nuclear war situation, but it’s still mostly nonsense. New York isn’t a hub of bankers. It’s the hub of commerce. Yes, it’s critically important.

thomasahle 5y ago

Also, according to the Nukemap website the author links to: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ you can hit everything from Philadelphia to New York with a single single Tsar bomba. With a bomb like that it hardly matters if you aim it at Port Elizabeth or Manhattan.

nostrademons 5y ago
Tsar bomba is not in service in anyone's arsenal. It was a one-off test device built to see how big an explosion you could generate with a multi-stage thermonuclear reaction.
- slaymaker1907 5y ago
  Not to mention it's not very effective since ICBMs rely on having many projectiles per missile to try and confuse any defensive technology. Tsar Bomba would very much be a Death Star like threat. Scary on paper, but concentrating too much force in a single place.

gwbrooks 5y ago

Counterforce vs. countervalue strategy. A limited nuclear exchange would almost certainly be counterforce, and focused on things like military targets and ports. A larger exchange would become a countervalue exercise focused on economic targets.

chakalakasp 5y ago

NYC is essentially leveled in any kind of attack that includes countervalue. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidteter/OPEN-RISOP/main/TARGET%20GRAPHICS/OPEN-RISOP%200.93%20COUNTERFORCE%2BCOUNTERVALUE%20ATTACK/RISOP%200.93%20CF%2BCV%20ATTACK_NY_NEW%20YORK%20CITY.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidteter/OPEN-RISOP/main...