3 ms·

> At least in the 1990s SF had plenty of prominent targets, from what I read in books at the time. One of them (I don't remember where I read this) was the Chev

> At least in the 1990s SF had plenty of prominent targets, from what I read in books at the time. One of them (I don't remember where I read this) was the Chevron oil refinery & storage facility just off the Richmond bridge. Driving past all those oil tanks you can kind of see why. Hopefully it was just some fictive thinking though... Prior to the 1980s or so targeting strategies were nominally divided into some mix of counterforce (i.e. targeting military installations) and countervalue (i.e. targeting civilians). The exact mix would depend on the parties involved and what sort of attacking they were either perpetrating or defending against. However, at some point infrastructure targets became a sort of third option for target lists, which chiefly means oil refineries. Certain parts of the East Bay were effectively giant bull's eyes because of the concentration of air, naval, and army bases, as well as oil refineries. Cutbacks since the 90s have pared away much of the military in the area, and oil refineries are usually secondary targets.. the sort of thing you don't want to hit if you think you can win without it because you'd rather it still be around so you can make use of it yourself, but if not, waste it.

HWR_14 4y ago
You're assuming that missiles have been retargetted since the 1990s. It would be plausible to me that a bunch of Soviet era missiles have their original targets still loaded.
- techdragon 4y ago
  It would be absurd to not have re-evaluated the targeting lists given the rise of the internet, fall of the iron curtain and the ability of “tourists“ to travel from Russia to the USA for over 20 years… while many targets are likely still valid and thus unchanged, much has changed, best example I can think of while waking and on my phone is Cheyenne Mountain, famed Cold War bunker veteran of many movies and tv shows and now a less important target than it used to be, it’s still a valuable target but perhaps one not worth the size of nuke necessary to crack it open given the damage a much smaller weapon could do at Air Force and Space Force assets stationed at Peterson and Vandenberg
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Oh, I agree they have better information and that things have changed since the early 1990s. And I'm sure the desired targets by the division in charge of planning that have changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian ICBM #X (aimed at SF) hasn't been updated since 1991 because it has to be done by swapping out a chip with the location burned into it instead of doing it over the internet or someone whose work was never checked was assigned to do it and it's cold out that day or 100 other reasons.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  Well, if we're going to play the game of assumptions, then you're assuming Russians have bothered to maintain their warheads properly. Given the very plausible theory that Nord Stream 1 and 2 were taken out as a result of the Russians trying to clear a methane hydrate plug from their side alone and wound up rupturing both pipelines (which, just so we're clear, they've done before)... I'd be a little skeptical of anything involving Russian nukes and the viability of their warheads.

HWR_14 4y ago

You're assuming that missiles have been retargetted since the 1990s. It would be plausible to me that a bunch of Soviet era missiles have their original targets still loaded.

techdragon 4y ago
It would be absurd to not have re-evaluated the targeting lists given the rise of the internet, fall of the iron curtain and the ability of “tourists“ to travel from Russia to the USA for over 20 years… while many targets are likely still valid and thus unchanged, much has changed, best example I can think of while waking and on my phone is Cheyenne Mountain, famed Cold War bunker veteran of many movies and tv shows and now a less important target than it used to be, it’s still a valuable target but perhaps one not worth the size of nuke necessary to crack it open given the damage a much smaller weapon could do at Air Force and Space Force assets stationed at Peterson and Vandenberg
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Oh, I agree they have better information and that things have changed since the early 1990s. And I'm sure the desired targets by the division in charge of planning that have changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian ICBM #X (aimed at SF) hasn't been updated since 1991 because it has to be done by swapping out a chip with the location burned into it instead of doing it over the internet or someone whose work was never checked was assigned to do it and it's cold out that day or 100 other reasons.
EarlKing 4y ago
Well, if we're going to play the game of assumptions, then you're assuming Russians have bothered to maintain their warheads properly. Given the very plausible theory that Nord Stream 1 and 2 were taken out as a result of the Russians trying to clear a methane hydrate plug from their side alone and wound up rupturing both pipelines (which, just so we're clear, they've done before)... I'd be a little skeptical of anything involving Russian nukes and the viability of their warheads.