Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/u...lear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html

WASHINGTON — Target category No. 275 from the nuclear target list for 1959 may be the most chilling. It is called simply “Population.”

For the first time, the National Archives and Records Administration has released a detailed list of the United States’ potential targets for atomic bombers in the event of war with the Soviet Union, showing the number and the variety of targets on its territory, as well as in Eastern Europe and China.

It lists many targets for “systematic destruction” in major cities, including 179 in Moscow (like “Agricultural Equipment” and “Transformers, Heavy”), 145 in Leningrad and 91 in East Berlin. The targets are referred to as DGZs or “designated ground zeros.” While many are industrial facilities, government buildings and the like, one for each city is simply designated “Population.”

“It’s disturbing, for sure, to see the population centers targeted,” said William Burr, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University that obtained the target list in response to a request first made in 2006. Mr. Burr, who specializes in nuclear history, said he believed it was the most detailed target list the Air Force had ever made public.

The targets are identified only generically, with code numbers that correspond to specific locations. The exact addresses and names of facilities from that period are in a still-classified “Bombing Encyclopedia,” which Mr. Burr said he was trying to get declassified.

The 800-page document, marked “Top Secret” and in a fuzzy gray typescript, comes to light as the issue of air power and the possible targeting of civilians is again in the news. The United States has avoided bombing the Islamic State’s headquarters in Raqqa, Syria, for instance, because of the presence of civilian prisoners in the same complex.

But some presidential candidates have criticized President Obama for not ordering more strikes, including Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who has called for “carpet bombing” the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. When challenged, Mr. Cruz said that “the object isn’t to level a city.”

“The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists,” he added, using an acronym for the Islamic State.

The newly declassified target list is titled “Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959.” It is essentially a huge spreadsheet, produced by the Strategic Air Command in 1956 and projecting what could and should be hit in a potential war three years later.

It was produced at a time before intercontinental or submarine-launched missiles, when piloted bombers were essentially the only means of delivering nuclear weapons. The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big, said Matthew G. McKinzie, the director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

He said that while the document conjured the height of the Cold War, the targeting of urban populations still remained an underlying principle of the use of nuclear weapons to deter attack. “The heart of deterrence is the threat to destroy the adversary’s cities, even today,” Mr. McKinzie said.

The 1956 document makes air power the highest-priority target, including 1,100 Soviet-bloc airfields, since the goal was to destroy Soviet bombers before they could take off and head for targets in Europe and beyond. But many air bases and command centers were in and around population centers, so even those strikes would have resulted in extensive civilian casualties.

The targets with the second-highest priority were those of the industrial infrastructure. That included the people who ran it.

Several military historians said Tuesday that while the general principle that civilians should not be targeted dated to before World War I, actual practice had often been dictated by the military needs of the moment. The allies in World War II and the Korean War began with a principle of avoiding killing civilians to the extent possible. But in each conflict, that ideal often gave way to bombing cities because it was seen as a military necessity.

Targeting civilians has often been viewed as a way of undermining enemy morale, prompting a revolt or surrender — and conceivably leading to a shorter war. And so the large-scale bombing of civilians has sometimes been defended on humanitarian grounds, even after the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, Germany, and the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The authors of the 1956 target list had lived through those experiences. But with two superpowers facing the prospect of nuclear annihilation for the first time, the assumption was that one side or the other would quickly prevail, with deaths in the millions.

Direct link to the document:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/

 

[aGuyInaBearSuit]

It's always scary to think about how ready they were for this and how close we came to complete annihilation.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

The nature of nuclear war between the time when the Soviets aquire the bomb and the advent of land-based and submarine-based ballistic missile systems is fascinating.

The very idea of either nation sending hundreds or thousands of planes thousands of miles to drop atomic bombs is amazing. Not to mention how both nations kept a nuclear force airborne 24/7 for years to avoid a winning first strike.

 

[No Love]

Imagine what the list looks like now.

 

[Slayven]

The nature of nuclear war between the time when the Soviets aquire the bomb and the advent of land-based and submarine-based ballistic missile systems is fascinating.

The very idea of either nation sending hundreds or thousands of planes thousands of miles to drop atomic bombs is amazing. Not to mention how both nations kept a nuclear force airborne 24/7 for years to avoid a winning first strike.

Can't imagine the mindset of pilots who sat around all day waiting for the call to wipe out a city.

 

[thebeeks]

Crazy timing, I just finished reading Command and Control last night.

 

[Ivan Amiibo]

Imagine what the list looks like now.

thankfully we live in much, much better times than the 50s.

 

[PBalfredo]

Target category No. 275 from the nuclear target list for 1959 may be the most chilling. It is called simply “Population.”

On one hand, yeah. But on the other, it's a moot point when it's full out WW III and nukes are being tossed around.

 

[AmyS]

MEGATON

 

[Ovid]

Imagine what the list looks like now.

Pretty sure Moscow and Beijing are still on the list.

 

[Jarrod38]

On one hand, yeah. But on the other, it's a moot point when it's full out WW III and nukes are being tossed around.

Most likely it would have been Tokyo.

 

[Mossybrew]

Crazy timing, I just finished reading Command and Control last night.

Great book for anyone interested, entertaining and informative.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Most likely it would have been Tokyo.

Why would the US nuke their own ally?

And apparently lots of targets had a category 275 specified.

 

[PBalfredo]

Most likely it would have been Tokyo.

This quote

It lists many targets for “systematic destruction” in major cities, including 179 in Moscow (like “Agricultural Equipment” and “Transformers, Heavy&#8221, 145 in Leningrad and 91 in East Berlin. The targets are referred to as DGZs or “designated ground zeros.” While many are industrial facilities, government buildings and the like, one for each city is simply designated “Population.”

makes it sound more like the "population" target is on a per-city basis, rather than choosing one city over another for their population. At best the difference between dropping a nuke on a house versus the factory down the street is people being instantly vaporized versus slowly dying of radiation, especially if multiple nukes are targeting the city.

 

[Mudcrab]

Most likely it would have been Tokyo.

Why would the US want to nuke Tokyo in 1956?

 

[JBourne]

Current documents:

 

[Jarrod38]

Why would the US want to nuke Tokyo in 1956?

Misread the date.

 

[Sapiens]

How'd they get the kerning done so nice in documents in the 1950s?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

This quote



makes it sound more like the "population" target is on a per-city basis, rather than choosing one city over another for their population.

Yeah, here's the category code list:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/...eclassified-First-Ever/documents/section3.pdf

The code numbers refer to what the target type is, so there could be a number of individual targets in a city, each one with a specific category code, one of which happens to be population.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Those were some scary times.

 

[Dingens]

“It’s disturbing, for sure, to see the population centers targeted,” said William Burr, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University that obtained the target list in response to a request first made in 2006.

why? the US has been doing that for decades... and is still doing it.

it's even in the article

Several military historians said Tuesday that while the general principle that civilians should not be targeted dated to before World War I, actual practice had often been dictated by the military needs of the moment. The allies in World War II and the Korean War began with a principle of avoiding killing civilians to the extent possible. But in each conflict, that ideal often gave way to bombing cities because it was seen as a military necessity.

Targeting civilians has often been viewed as a way of undermining enemy morale, prompting a revolt or surrender — and conceivably leading to a shorter war. And so the large-scale bombing of civilians has sometimes been defended on humanitarian grounds, even after the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, Germany, and the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

but hey, the ends justify the means, right?

 

[Princess Viola]

Current documents:

:lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Imagine what the list looks like now.

I imagine it doesn't look that big. We have tactical targeting and probably is just about taking out the launching platforms and nuclear facilities. Nuclear strategy has changed a lot.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

why? the US has been doing that for decades... and is still doing it.

it's even in the article


but hey, the ends justify the means, right?

Because this wouldn't be part of a war but an almost immediate response to a first strike or a first strike itself.

 

[Xando]

Crazy to think that my country (Germany) would have been sacrificed anyway if war between the US and Sowjetunion ever broke out.

Would have been a complete nuclear wasteland even if they only used tactical nukes.

 

[hobblygobbly]

I wonder which city in the world has the most fallout shelters and how many people it could hold? Berlin has quite a lot on both the west and eastern side that are able to hold thousands, many air raid shelters left over from WW2 were also transformed into nuclear shelters but not as effective as the dedicated ones. West and East Berlin during the Cold War was one of the most tense places in the world at the time due to the Western countries in direct, close confrontation with the Soviets, the world was on edge of WW3 with nuclear weapons and Berlin would've been what would spark it. Berlin was at the centre of nuclear confrontation, if it were to happen, it would occur there, where the West and Soviets were staring at each other face to face physically. I think there are over 30+ dedicated nuclear shelters that can hold a lot of people built around Berlin, an old school friend is an urban explorer and told me about how many there were but the government over the years have ceiled many off.

The whole world was unprepared for nuclear war, you could only house a few thousand of a city's population which is nothing. Certain shelters would be prioritised by politicians and high ranking government officials and their families and friends. The shelter at one of the subway lines in Berlin was a "public" shelter on a first come first serve basis, it's at Pankstraße/Pankstrasse station. Can hold about 3000 people. Siemensdamm station is another fallout shelter that can hold over 4000. Many of the fallout shelters located in the forests around Berlin (more on the eastern side) are ceiled off.

Did some googling and found this vice article (bit of a misleading title, doesn't really go into detail as to why it's suicide-proof other than the fact that bathrooms were made in a way to prevent it like where suicides commonly took place in WW2). "Berlin's Suicide-Proof Nuclear Fallout Shelters"

 

[Minus_Me]

I wonder which city in the world has the most fallout shelters and how many people it could hold? Berlin has quite a lot on both the west and eastern side that are able to hold thousands, many air raid shelters left over from WW2 were also transformed into nuclear shelters but not as effective as the dedicated ones. West and East Berlin during the Cold War was one of the most tense places in the world at the time due to the Western countries in direct, close confrontation with the Soviets, the world was on edge of WW3 with nuclear weapons and Berlin would've been what would spark it. Berlin was at the centre of nuclear confrontation, if it were to happen, it would occur there, where the West and Soviets were staring at each other face to face physically. I think there are over 30+ dedicated nuclear shelters that can hold a lot of people built around Berlin, an old school friend is an urban explorer and told me about how many there were but the government over the years have ceiled many off.

The whole world was unprepared for nuclear war, you could only house a few thousand of a city's population which is nothing. Certain shelters would be prioritised by politicians and high ranking government officials and their families and friends. The shelter at one of the subway lines in Berlin was a "public" shelter on a first come first serve basis, it's at Pankstraße/Pankstrasse station. Can hold about 3000 people. Siemensdamm station is another fallout shelter that can hold over 4000. Many of the fallout shelters located in the forests around Berlin (more on the eastern side) are ceiled off.

Switzerland has enough bunker space to accommodate its entire population.

 

[antonz]

In these kind of events the Population target really doesn't matter. Look at Moscow 179 total targets to be wiped out. One of those Population. That much firepower coming in to wipe out Moscow anyone who somehow survived would have almost zero chance of long term survival. As terrible as It is to say you would basically be mercy killing whoever was left.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Crazy timing, I just finished reading Command and Control last night.

if you want a bit more in-depth reading:
By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age


One Nation Underground: The Fallout Shelter in American Culture

and of course

The Making of the Atomic Bomb


if you use twitter follow this guy
https://twitter.com/NuclearAnthro

 

[hobblygobbly]

Switzerland has enough bunker space to accommodate its entire population.

Interesting, I knew Switzerland by law had shelters be made for newly built houses and many retrofit but didn't really know of how extensive its fallout shelters were across the country. Going to do some reading on it.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

There's some "reminiscences" on Kindle/Amazon from SAC personnel who flew those Cold War missions. They're very readable for amateur works and there's some repetition but they're pretty cheap and very interesting reading.

I've a couple from various air force's test pilots and a couple from Ravens in Laos too.

 

[smurfx]

Current documents:

updated.

 

[Gattsu25]

Reading this thread while I have the ambient sounds of Defcon running in the background..

ugh

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Reading this thread while I have the ambient sounds of Defcon running in the background..

ugh

To match the time period, you'd have to be limited to airstrikes only in Defcon. No missile silos or sub launches!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The nature of nuclear war between the time when the Soviets aquire the bomb and the advent of land-based and submarine-based ballistic missile systems is fascinating.

The very idea of either nation sending hundreds or thousands of planes thousands of miles to drop atomic bombs is amazing. Not to mention how both nations kept a nuclear force airborne 24/7 for years to avoid a winning first strike.

Can't imagine the mindset of pilots who sat around all day waiting for the call to wipe out a city.

My dad was a Navy aviator and spent a long time flying in radar-equipped planes doing nothing but looking for incoming bombers.

That must have been fun.

 

[MJPIA]

I'd be more surprised if both the USSR and the US didn't have lists like this.
If it had ever came down to a real nuclear war there is no way to avoid civilian casualties.
You utterly destroy their ability to fight back or they will respond in kind.

At the time, military planners sought to surround the Soviet Union with bomber bases and, in the event of war, called for what they referred to in official documents as a “bomb as you go” strategy, flying toward the biggest Soviet cities and hitting every listed target along the way, Mr. Wellerstein said.

It's like Sherman's march to the coast but far far more widespread and destructive.
Launch every bomber possible and hit any target that has some value that they can.

For those of you that have time to read the document does it mention anything about how the bomber pilots are supposed to get back without being exposed to radiation?

 

[DrM]

So they would roast East Berlin into oblivion. Probably they would done that because USSR would turn West Berlin into radiated wasteland

 

[XiaNaphryz]

For those of you that have time to read the document does it mention anything about how the bomber pilots are supposed to get back without being exposed to radiation?

The majority of what's posted online is just target list data. Not much on process/policy, most of which is in this section:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/...eclassified-First-Ever/documents/section1.pdf

One section that caught my eye:

Duplicated Targets. During coordination of this study with the other JCS unified and specified commands, it was mutually agreed by all the command representatives that some duplication of effort on high priority Air Power Battle targets would be both desirable and necessary. Such duplication increases the assurance that the target will be destroyed if one command is unable to strike or if the degree of damage of the first strike is less than expected. Every effort was made during the coordination conference to keep such duplication at a minimum and to restrict them to high priority air power battle targets. These duplications are clearly indicated in the target lists, and it will be noted that they are highly confined ot high priority airfields.

 

[MJPIA]

The majority of what's posted online is just target list data. Not much on process/policy, most of which is in this section:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/...eclassified-First-Ever/documents/section1.pdf

Ah thanks.

 

[afternoon delight]

Imagine what the list looks like now.

Right?

Goddamn hawks.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

There would be no reason for them to come back. No one (until Reagan in his dementia years) seriously believed that a nuclear war was winnable (Ie a successful first strike with no or a severely limited second strike).

There would be nothing for them to come back to, assuming even they had the fuel to get back.

 

[User 406]

And now we're shitting ourselves in terror and throwing away civil rights hand over fist over some religious extremists who don't have a chance in hell of ever killing enough Americans that would amount to a rounding error of our own self inflicted gun violence. We're fucking contemptible.

 

[Slayven]

My dad was a Navy aviator and spent a long time flying in radar-equipped planes doing nothing but looking for incoming bombers.

That must have been fun.

I read an article a while back that talked about all the near misses we had with total annihilation. Like one time the super hotline to moscow NORAD has went down and shit got tense and the only reason it was resolved calmly was that there was a visiting soviet general that straighten shit out.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I read an article a while back that talked about all the near misses we had with total annihilation. Like one time the super hotline to moscow NORAD has went down and shit got tense and the only reason it was resolved calmly was that there was a visiting soviet general that straighten shit out.

My dad said more than once that the Cuban Missile Crisis was not the closest we got. He never elaborated though.

 

[Javaman]

Crazy timing, I just finished reading Command and Control last night.

Fantastic book. Its amazing that we hadn't nuked ourselves accidentally yet considering how lax safeties and hair trigger the protocals were.

 

[antonz]

There would be no reason for them to come back. No one (until Reagan in his dementia years) seriously believed that a nuclear war was winnable (Ie a successful first strike with no or a severely limited second strike).

There would be nothing for them to come back to, assuming even they had the fuel to get back.

Back then the odds of success would have been much more realistic versus today. US Plane and Nuclear advantage was to such a degree that even if Russia did manage a strike they would have likely hit only a few targets. Missiles is what changed everything to Assured Destruction

 

[Javaman]

The majority of what's posted online is just target list data. Not much on process/policy, most of which is in this section:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/...eclassified-First-Ever/documents/section1.pdf

One section that caught my eye:

I used to think that the armageddon aftermath was exagerated until I found out that there was such a surplus of nukes that some cities had HUNDREDS of nukes pointed at them while targets of opportunity like major bridges had dozens. I think this was scaled down recently when they began mutually shrinking their stockpiles.

 

[TheAbsolution]

That's crazy.
Declassified documents are cool if only to learn about what was going on back then. Imagine what documents we could find in 50 years about the 1990s and 2000s.

 

[Brakke]

I wonder which way the implication runs on something like this. Did we stockpile in order to saturate targets identified, or did we identify targets subject to stockpile?

That's crazy.
Declassified documents are cool if only to learn about what was going on back then. Imagine what documents we could find in 50 years about the 1990s and 2000s.

CLASSIFIED CIA DOCS CONFIRM: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I wonder which way the implication runs on something like this. Did we stockpile in order to saturate targets identified, or did we identify targets subject to stockpile?



CLASSIFIED CIA DOCS CONFIRM: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the US wanted to always be a step ahead of the Soviets and began mass producing weapons before we even had the capability of delivering those weapons.