| Tango01 | 18 Jul 2019 2:54 p.m. PST |
….Nuclear Attack against USSR. "According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, "the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas. All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 "strategic" targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas…"
Main page link
Amicalement
Armand
|
| Uparmored | 19 Jul 2019 2:36 a.m. PST |
Glad they did, I'm sure the Soviets had plans to do similar to the US in time.. |
| Thresher01 | 19 Jul 2019 2:52 a.m. PST |
I suspect both, and others, still do. |
| Cuprum2 | 19 Jul 2019 6:05 a.m. PST |
Half of the USSR at that time still lay in ruins. |
| Cuprum2 | 19 Jul 2019 7:10 a.m. PST |
The atomic bomb was created in the USSR only in 1949, as was the aircraft capable of carrying it. |
 Legion 4   | 19 Jul 2019 7:41 a.m. PST |
M.A.D., but that concept did not come about until after '49. Where both had Nukes … |
| Andrew Walters | 19 Jul 2019 8:25 a.m. PST |
These articles appear all the time and they are dumb. I am sick of the lazy, lazy thinking involved. Do journalists really think people are this undiscerning? Are people this undiscerning? "The Pentagon had a plan…" #1 "Plan" means what? a memo? a list of actionable items? Someone mouthing off on paper? In this case they're talking about a 9 page "study". #2 "Plan" does not mean intent. The stated purpose of the study was figuring out how many bombs the US should stock. #3The USSR is not mentioned until the third page, and the reason given there is not that war with Russia was likely, but that it was in "the best strategic position". So planning for war with Russia was the worst case scenario. #4 Professional militaries have learned that planning is essential. You plan so you're not caught flat footed. You plan to conceive how you would use your forces, and thus improve your idea of what your forces should look like. You plan to practice planning. The US had a plan to attack Great Britain in the 1930s, War Plan Black. That was a real plan, not a nine page study. Obviously no one wanted war with Britain. This is mostly exercise. (Yes, some research will reveal some motivations for war with Britain in the '30s, but they were obscure and unlikely to turn into anything.) I don't have time to read the study carefully, but I skimmed it a couple times and did not see the phrase used in every headline "wipe the Soviet Union off the map." All the language centers on destroying war-making capability: aircraft and oil production, etc. |
| pzivh43 | 19 Jul 2019 9:33 a.m. PST |
Andrew, Absolutely agree with you. ANd I'm afraid there are a lot of people this undiscerning. I hear them on TV all the time! |
| Legion 4 | 20 Jul 2019 6:10 a.m. PST |
Yes, Andrew is correct. E.g. the US Military has Operational Plans[OPLAN] for many, many contingencies. I.e. the invasion of Canada or how to defend against an invasion from the "Great White North". Plus many more. We all know about prior planning and what it prevents. As well the studying of military history. E.g. Napoleon's invasion of Russia verses the WWII German invasion of the USSR. I.e. the effects of winter and the following spring thaw, etc., etc., … As Uparmored posted, I'm sure the USSR had a plan to wipe the USA and/or NATO off the map. I really don't doubt there is an OPLAN for what to do if ETs invade/land …  |
| EJNashIII | 21 Jul 2019 12:18 p.m. PST |
Interesting that minimal destruction was seen as 123 bombs and optimal destruction of Russia was seen as 466 bombs. Current forces stand at around 4,000 warheads in the stockpile plus over 2,500 in a retired configuration. Do we actually need around 10 times as many? |
| SouthernPhantom | 21 Jul 2019 3:08 p.m. PST |
Russia is likely more built-up now than it was in 1945, plus IADS and ABM defenses would ensure that not all bombs reach their target. |
| Virginia Tory | 22 Jul 2019 10:23 a.m. PST |
1945? The US didn't have the strength to "wipe out the USSR." Now, by the time of SIOP-62 it's another story. |
| Lion in the Stars | 22 Jul 2019 12:39 p.m. PST |
Interesting that minimal destruction was seen as 123 bombs and optimal destruction of Russia was seen as 466 bombs. Current forces stand at around 4,000 warheads in the stockpile plus over 2,500 in a retired configuration. Do we actually need around 10 times as many? Probably. Just from how much industry and infrastructure the Soviets built new, not to mention rebuilding what the Germans had leveled, we're probably looking at 10x the number of targets. And some of those targets are very deeply buried, to the point of needing multiple direct hits. And then there are the much better defenses now versus 1945… |
