Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USAF 1956 Nuclear Target List

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USAF 1956 Nuclear Target List

    U.S. Cold War Nuclear Target Lists Declassified for First Time

    According to 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe

    Major Cities in Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings

    Plans to Target People (“Population”) Violated International Legal Norms

    SAC Wanted a 60 Megaton Bomb, Equivalent to over 4,000 Hiroshima Atomic Weapons

    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538

    Edited by William Burr

    Posted - December 22, 2015

    For more information, contact:
    William Burr: 202.994.7000 or [email protected].


    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/e...ed-First-Ever/
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

  • #2
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    U.S. Cold War Nuclear Target Lists Declassified for First Time

    According to 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe

    Major Cities in Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings

    Plans to Target People (“Population”) Violated International Legal Norms

    SAC Wanted a 60 Megaton Bomb, Equivalent to over 4,000 Hiroshima Atomic Weapons

    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538

    Edited by William Burr

    Posted - December 22, 2015

    For more information, contact:
    William Burr: 202.994.7000 or [email protected].


    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/e...ed-First-Ever/
    There were mentioned several plans such as Fleetwod, Dropshot on bombing major dencely populated regions of the USSR. Soviet cities were built having in mind possibility of nuclear bombings. There were spaces left between buildings so streets will not be buried under debris, fire storms would not start. No skyscrapers, numerous bombshelters. Special service existed -Civil Defence, emergency plans on evacuation of personnel and their families of every significant plant and organisation to rural districts, regular training of civil personnel, courses on Civil Defence in schools, univercites, enterprises. Protective equip on every workplace.
    Some experts have opinion that war in Korea was rehearsal of WWIII. US main carriers of nukes were Flying Fortess B-29 but they discovered that without Sabres escort them were easy prey for MIGs. Few years later appeared SAM systems, and ICBMs to make US military to think twice before giving orders on using nukes.
    Waging war against civilians was main US doctrine in WWII, Korea, Vietnam.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Fareasterner View Post
      There were mentioned several plans such as Fleetwod, Dropshot on bombing major dencely populated regions of the USSR. Soviet cities were built having in mind possibility of nuclear bombings. There were spaces left between buildings so streets will not be buried under debris, fire storms would not start. No skyscrapers, numerous bombshelters. Special service existed -Civil Defence, emergency plans on evacuation of personnel and their families of every significant plant and organisation to rural districts, regular training of civil personnel, courses on Civil Defence in schools, univercites, enterprises. Protective equip on every workplace.
      Some experts have opinion that war in Korea was rehearsal of WWIII. US main carriers of nukes were Flying Fortess B-29 but they discovered that without Sabres escort them were easy prey for MIGs. Few years later appeared SAM systems, and ICBMs to make US military to think twice before giving orders on using nukes.
      Waging war against civilians was main US doctrine in WWII, Korea, Vietnam.
      Can you think of a better plan to dissuade someone picking a fight? Strength through deterrence. Better than most other plans...
      Credo quia absurdum.


      Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fareasterner View Post
        There were mentioned several plans such as Fleetwod, Dropshot on bombing major dencely populated regions of the USSR. Soviet cities were built having in mind possibility of nuclear bombings. There were spaces left between buildings so streets will not be buried under debris, fire storms would not start. No skyscrapers, numerous bombshelters. Special service existed -Civil Defence, emergency plans on evacuation of personnel and their families of every significant plant and organisation to rural districts, regular training of civil personnel, courses on Civil Defence in schools, univercites, enterprises. Protective equip on every workplace.
        Some experts have opinion that war in Korea was rehearsal of WWIII. US main carriers of nukes were Flying Fortess B-29 but they discovered that without Sabres escort them were easy prey for MIGs. Few years later appeared SAM systems, and ICBMs to make US military to think twice before giving orders on using nukes.

        Waging war against civilians was main US doctrine in WWII, Korea, Vietnam.
        The report linked to by the OP suggests otherwise:


        [.....]

        SAC Nuclear Planning for 1959
        by William Burr

        SAC’s top priority for destruction was Soviet “air power” because of the apparent immediate threat that Soviet bombers posed to the continental United States and to U.S. forces in Europe and East Asia. The report’s detailed introduction explained that the priority given to Air Power (BRAVO) targets dictated the surface bursting of high-yield thermonuclear weapons to destroy priority targets, including airbases in Eastern Europe. That tactic would produce large amounts of radioactive fallout compared to bursting weapons in the air. According to the study, “the requirement to win the Air Battle is paramount to all other considerations.”

        [.....]

        The SAC study does not include any explanation for population targeting, but it was likely a legacy of earlier Air Force and Army Air Force thinking about the impact of bombing raids on civilian morale. For example, in a 1940 Air Corps Tactical School lecture, Major Muir Fairchild argued that an attack on a country’s economic structure “must be to so reduce the morale of the enemy civilian population through fear—of death or injury for themselves or loved ones, [so] that they would prefer our terms of peace to continuing the struggle, and that they would force their government to capitulate.” Thinking along those lines continued into the post-war period when social scientists studied the possible impact of nuclear bombing on civilian morale.[8]

        Whatever SAC planners had in mind, attacks on civilian population per se were inconsistent with the standards followed by Air Force leaders. While they were willing to accept mass civilian casualties as a consequence of attacking military targets, as was the case during the Korea War, they ruled out “intentional” attacks on civilians.

        [.....]
        By Korea, B47's(and B36) were well and truly established.


        The more vulnerable B29's were used in Korea as the later, bigger, faster aircraft were being withheld from Korea in order to fulfil their more important strategic, rather than more limited theatre, role.

        Waging war against civilians was main US doctrine in WWII, Korea, Vietnam.
        You need to do some(actually much) further reading.
        Last edited by At ease; 25 Dec 15, 23:12.
        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
        — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

        Comment


        • #5
          So East Berlin was a target - must have had a mighty smart nuclear weapon to take out East Berlin but not West Berlin
          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

          Comment


          • #6
            With the accuracy of these things, they probably would have dropped on West Berlin.

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MarkV View Post
              So East Berlin was a target - must have had a mighty smart nuclear weapon to take out East Berlin but not West Berlin
              Depends on the yield of the weapon. The place is like 10km wide and 40 km tall, you could probably squeeze a few 1 megatonne bombs in there without spilling over into the west as long as they didn't hit near the border. 50's high altitude bombing probably can't make that a guarantee though

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                Depends on the yield of the weapon. The place is like 10km wide and 40 km tall, you could probably squeeze a few 1 megatonne bombs in there without spilling over into the west as long as they didn't hit near the border. :
                A one megaton bomb will produce a circle of heavy damage of 10 Kilometers diameter (based on answer to Parliamentary question on effect of nuclear bomb on Glasgow HC Deb 26 January 1966 vol 723 cc68-9W) moderate damage and fires and radiation effects would of course extend much further.

                Mind you given the state of some parts of Glasgow in the 1960s one wonders if anyone would see much difference
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fareasterner View Post
                  There were mentioned several plans such as Fleetwod, Dropshot on bombing major dencely populated regions of the USSR. Soviet cities were built having in mind possibility of nuclear bombings. There were spaces left between buildings so streets will not be buried under debris, fire storms would not start. No skyscrapers, numerous bombshelters. Special service existed -Civil Defence, emergency plans on evacuation of personnel and their families of every significant plant and organisation to rural districts, regular training of civil personnel, courses on Civil Defence in schools, univercites, enterprises. Protective equip on every workplace.
                  Some experts have opinion that war in Korea was rehearsal of WWIII. US main carriers of nukes were Flying Fortess B-29 but they discovered that without Sabres escort them were easy prey for MIGs. Few years later appeared SAM systems, and ICBMs to make US military to think twice before giving orders on using nukes.
                  Waging war against civilians was main US doctrine in WWII, Korea, Vietnam.
                  Except that large Soviet cities were characterized by large, crowded, high rise apartment blocks, and still are.

                  In marked contrast, however, American cities developed into sprawling urban/suburban regions far more widely dispersed than any Soviet city ever dreamed of being.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    In marked contrast, however, American cities developed into sprawling urban/suburban regions far more widely dispersed than any Soviet city ever dreamed of being.
                    [/FONT]
                    And far more easily swept away by the shock wave and susceptible to fire.
                    www.histours.ru

                    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just in case, this is the original headline of the Daily Mail:

                      The Soviet cities that America would have wiped off the map in a nuclear war: Newly declassified target list shows how US planned to target capitals purely to kill their populations

                      You can say many things about the Daily Mail, but pro-Communist or pro-Russian bias is not one of them.
                      www.histours.ru

                      Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                        Just in case, this is the original headline of the Daily Mail:

                        The Soviet cities that America would have wiped off the map in a nuclear war: Newly declassified target list shows how US planned to target capitals purely to kill their populations

                        You can say many things about the Daily Mail, but pro-Communist or pro-Russian bias is not one of them.
                        The only reference to a source document by the Daily Mail article(almost at the end of it) is exactly the same one that was referred to by the OP:

                        Washington, D.C., December 22, 2015 - The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 and published today for the first time by the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.
                        In post #4 of this thread, I have already made reference to the section(s) of the document that establishes target priorities which clearly state that "air power" targets are the number 1 priority.

                        Population centres have a lower priority and are to receive a dedicated attack ONLY if it has not been possible to stop hostilities or that it is clear that an escalation is planned by the Soviets.
                        Last edited by At ease; 27 Dec 15, 21:57.
                        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                        — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by At ease View Post
                          The report linked to by the OP suggests otherwise:
                          Report and suggestion is one thing reality often different. In Korea were murdered circa 10 million persons, mostly civilians. US were bombing not Korean army but civilian infrastructure, were hunting trains. For that reason Kim Ir Sen asked Stalin about help with planes and pilots.
                          Originally posted by At ease View Post
                          You need to do some(actually much) further reading.
                          There was not much to read in Soviet times abot Korean war. I have somwhere book by Kramarenko "Against Messershmits and Sabres" edited few years ago. He was pilot on both wars.
                          Northern Korea was not of big interest for Soviets and post-Soviet Russia. By the name it was/is Communist state but in reality ugly perversion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fareasterner View Post
                            Report and suggestion is one thing reality often different. In Korea were murdered circa 10 million persons, mostly civilians. US were bombing not Korean army but civilian infrastructure, were hunting trains. For that reason Kim Ir Sen asked Stalin about help with planes and pilots.

                            There was not much to read in Soviet times abot Korean war. I have somwhere book by Kramarenko "Against Messershmits and Sabres" edited few years ago. He was pilot on both wars.
                            Northern Korea was not of big interest for Soviets and post-Soviet Russia. By the name it was/is Communist state but in reality ugly perversion.
                            10 million?

                            Really?

                            Korean War

                            The median total estimated Korean civilian deaths(so that includes both North and South - my italics) in the Korean War is 2,730,000. The total estimated North Korean military deaths is 215,000 and the estimated Chinese military deaths is over 400,000. In addition to this the Republic of Korea military deaths is around 138,000 dead and the military deaths for the United Nations side is around 40,000. The estimated Korean war military dead is around 793,000 deaths. The civilian-combatant death ratio in the war is approximately 2:1 or 67%. One source estimates that 20% of the total population of North Korea perished in the war.[16]
                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...tio#Korean_War

                            I have never previously needed to source a Korean war casualty figure, but the source above that I referred to does not appear significantly unreasonable, based on my lack of previous expoure to the numbers.

                            Accordingly, I will not spend more time to establish a more accurate figure.

                            Suffice to say - I suggest your figure of 10 Million North Korean casualties is just a complete nonsense.

                            I will be treating all of your posted material in this thread as a complete fabrication and not worthy of serious further discussion.
                            Last edited by At ease; 27 Dec 15, 22:24.
                            "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                            "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                            "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                            — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                              Can you think of a better plan to dissuade someone picking a fight? Strength through deterrence. Better than most other plans...
                              I think somewhere since 1975 Soviets succeeded too much in deterrence judging by discussion in a thread about Soviet plans to invade Europe through Fulda gap. Such plan did not exist but everybody is thinking Soviets were obliged to have such plan.
                              WWII was deeply ingrained in mentality of Soviet people and leadership. All were sure West will start war without warning, this will cause big losses in first hours and days as in WWII so what will be left to fend off aggressor must be enough. Enormous quantity of valuable resources were spent on production of tanks, artillery, aviation, missiles, small arms, strategic food depots. I think it would be enough to have only half of what was produced; it would leave more production facilities to make people’s life better.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X