Post: #1

Any thoughts on coastal vs economic, type of plan, dirty bomb or conventional warfare?

Post: #2

Do you mean a nuclear attack by terrorists, or a nuclear attack by a foreign nation such as Russia, in a hypothetical WW3 scenario?

Post: #3

It depends on the actor. If it was a foreign state, this map would be accurate:
http://imgur.com/bClduvj

Terrorists would go for the biggest bang for their buck, so assume a wild card pick.

Post: #4

New years eve in NYC they had radiation detectors deployed in the harbor.

With open borders I'm surprised these dipshits haven't been able to pull off a dirty bomb attack yet.

Post: #5

(07-31-2016 10:10 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  It depends on the actor. If it was a foreign state, this map would be accurate:
m.imgur.com/bClduvj

Terrorists would go for the biggest bang for their buck, so assume a wild card pick.

The most obvious choices in my estimation would be the seats of political and economic power. But these being the more hardened targets against any type of attack, a more likely target would be something to not only provide maximum loss of life but an economic impact as well. This can be most easily affected by hitting the airports in major cities, bonus for them if the city has a deep water port and/or military installation.

Tier 1 targets
1. Washington DC
2. New York City
3. Chicago

Tier 2 targets
1. Atlanta (ATL)
2. Los Angeles (LAX)
3. Dallas (DFW)

Tier 3 targets
1. Long Beach
2. Seattle
3. Norfolk

Post: #6

In a "classic" nuclear war scenario, everywhere--all at the same time. ICBMs arcing over Canada, SLBMs from all over the North American coasts.

Nowadays, some dirty-bomb popcorn fart might go off anywhere. Probably NYC (Haji has a hard-on for New York), but DC a close second.

Post: #7

(07-31-2016 10:10 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  It depends on the actor. If it was a foreign state, this map would be accurate:
http://imgur.com/bClduvj

Terrorists would go for the biggest bang for their buck, so assume a wild card pick.

Guess I should move to Bend.

Post: #8

Quote:Guess I should move to Bend.

The remote alkali flats of the Springfield badlands!

Post: #9

Thats an easy one.

1: All major population centres
2: Grain belt
3: NORAD
4: Military bases
5: Silo locations
6: Military ports
7: USMC
8: Areas of known high-tech manufacturing (military and civilian)

Just pray you're not within 100 miles of a Tsar bomb, if they still have those.

Post: #10

Idaho

Post: #11

If it was north Korea, I'd guess they go for South Korea or Japan. I don't think they can reach Alaska or Hawaii.

If it was some terrorist, I'd guess they would get a suitcase nuke to New York or some other dense population(Chicago, washington dc make sense)

The other option is to get the nuke into a major harbor on the west coast and detonate and have the radiation blow inland.

Seattle, Portland, SF bay area, Los Angeles or San Diego

Or bomb one of our friends or Allies(London, Tokyo)

Post: #12

a friend of mine growing up was in the Civil Air Patrol, and in their hand book was a map of expected target radius' in the US. Fun 5th grade reading in the early 1980's. Anyone remember those CAP manuals?

Post: #13

(07-31-2016 06:01 PM)Vaun Wrote:  a friend of mine growing up was in the Civil Air Patrol, and in their hand book was a map of expected target radius' in the US. Fun 5th grade reading in the early 1980's. Anyone remember those CAP manuals?

The Russians actually released documents stating the intended targets should the Cold War have gone hot. I was within the outer circle of a blast radius.

Post: #14

Chicago.

1. Population.

2. Radiate the Great Lakes and tributes of the Miss River.

3. Railroad Hubs that connect the Grain Belt to the Eastern Seaboard.

Post: #15

Anyone else remember watching this made-for-TV movie as a kid?

Post: #16

It is completely impossible to determine which attacks would breach American defenses. But targeted would be obviously battle fleets, important ports and shipyards, industrial capacities, large population centers, important transportation centers, etc...

Post: #17

(07-31-2016 09:24 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Any thoughts on coastal vs economic, type of plan, dirty bomb or conventional warfare?

Seriously - according my father in laws dreams of post apocalyptic doom on how the world will end, he predicts that ISIS will work with North Korea to smuggle a dirty nuke into LA, the biggest west coast port, or SF, which would devastate silicon valley.

Post: #18

(07-31-2016 08:11 PM)Orion Wrote:  It is completely impossible to determine which attacks would breach American defenses. But targeted would be obviously battle fleets, important ports and shipyards, industrial capacities, large population centers, important transportation centers, etc...

And major airports (the ones with a runway long enough) as well, since these can be used as bases for the US B-52 and B-1 strategic bombers.

There's also another variable in the whole matter. Since the early 1990s the major nuclear powers haven't done any nuclear weapons testing. That means that in case of a WW3 scenario, a non-negligible portion of American or Russian warheads would probably malfunction in some way.

Post: #19

(08-01-2016 02:12 AM)Tytalus Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 09:24 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Any thoughts on coastal vs economic, type of plan, dirty bomb or conventional warfare?

Seriously - according my father in laws dreams of post apocalyptic doom on how the world will end, he predicts that ISIS will work with North Korea to smuggle a dirty nuke into LA, the biggest west coast port, or SF, which would devastate silicon valley.

Amusing, when and at what age (how old is he now?) did he "foresee" this.

Post: #20

(07-31-2016 06:50 PM)AlphaRN Wrote:  Chicago.

1. Population.

2. Radiate the Great Lakes and tributes of the Miss River.

3. Railroad Hubs that connect the Grain Belt to the Eastern Seaboard.

I could see that as a terrorist tactic, but not as a military tactic. Militarily, the strategy seems to preserve the resource you are conquering. Creating a wasteland prevents you from then establishing a foothold. Militarily the best options is to neutralize the opposing nukes and then EMP or biological warfare on most of the population centers. Its then simple to establish bases for your own forces, with local resources to sustain them.

Stalin pioneered the scorched earth strategy, but its on your own land to deny it to the enemy.

Post: #21

(07-31-2016 08:07 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Anyone else remember watching this made-for-TV movie as a kid?

Oh man, I remember seeing this film as a kid, I was f*cking scared!
I still have an interest about nuclear attacks in the cold war era, reading books by Herman Kahn, Rand Corporation studies, Civil Air Patrol manuals etc. and it's probably because of the childhood impressions this film caused.

Post: #22

(08-01-2016 11:13 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 06:50 PM)AlphaRN Wrote:  Chicago.

1. Population.

2. Radiate the Great Lakes and tributes of the Miss River.

3. Railroad Hubs that connect the Grain Belt to the Eastern Seaboard.

I could see that as a terrorist tactic, but not as a military tactic. Militarily, the strategy seems to preserve the resource you are conquering. Creating a wasteland prevents you from then establishing a foothold. Militarily the best options is to neutralize the opposing nukes and then EMP or biological warfare on most of the population centers. Its then simple to establish bases for your own forces, with local resources to sustain them.

Stalin pioneered the scorched earth strategy, but its on your own land to deny it to the enemy.

Russians have a fail-safe system which launches all of their nuclear arsenal at pre-designated targets in case of a pre-emptive nuclear attack which renders the leadership useless.

This is a country where military doctrine calls for tactical nuclear weapons in the face of disastrous military attacks by the enemy.

Russia has no interest in landing troops on US soil nor will they see a need to preserve the US grain belt or vast water aquifers that feeds its enemies.

Russians really don't give a fuck when it comes down to it.

Post: #23

(07-31-2016 05:00 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Quote:Guess I should move to Bend.

The remote alkali flats of the Springfield badlands!

Their "Get Bent!" tourism campaign never really did take off.

Post: #24

No serious country would ever launch an attack, it would mean centuries in the bronze age.

The risk is politico-religious nutjobs cooking up shitty /dirty bomb that pollutes a major city so its useless.

Who would we retaliate against?

Would it help/has it already been done -- that the US makes clear "If the terrorists come from your country, "your capital will be a big glass fruit bowl after we give you 45 days to evacuate it? Better make sure they don't get out. Keep them in YOUR jails."

Collective punishment is wrong, but it can sure be tempting.

Post: #25

Almost everything possible is inevitable. There have already been a few close calls with mistakes - Able Archer '83 being one, Google it. The book to read is Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control."

It may not be likely that anyone will ever consciously launch a massive nuclear attack, but it is likely that a conventional conflict between nuclear powers will escalate. They have war gamed China vs. USA several times, it always escalates to nuclear. Right now there are several paths to nuclear war. India vs. Pakistan would mean hundreds of millions of deaths and massive fires and fallout.

What we all need to do is reduce arsenals so that the human race is not wiped out. No reason to have 5,000 warheads. The Chinese are surprisingly restrained and wise in this regard with "only" 260 estimated. Certainly enough to deter an attack though.

I am pessimistic, particularly with the current cohort of world (especially American) leadership.