12 Russian targets for U.S. nuclear missiles

[Loki]

12 Russian targets for U.S. nuclear missiles (http://www.en.rian.ru/infographics/20090417/121174792.html)

The Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council has published a study entitled From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons.

It recommends abandoning the decades-old "counterforce" doctrine and replacing it with a new and much less ambitious targeting policy that the authors call "minimal deterrence."

It says a new targeting category and policy, termed "infrastructure targeting," would focus on "a series of targets that are crucial to a nation's modern economy," naming in the report 12 potential targets in Russia.

http://img.rian.ru/images/12117/45/121174557.jpg

[Æmeric]

Nuclear armed missles would not be necessary to take out those targets. Missles armed with conventional explosives would do it. What is important is the delivery system & the accuracy of the missles.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Nuclear armed missles would not be necessary to take out those targets. Missles armed with conventional explosives would do it. What is important is the delivery system & the accuracy of the missles.

I think 'close' counts in nukes

[Æmeric]

But it can also be overkill. And what is the point of conquering your opponent if in the process you have turned his territory into a radiactive wasteland that is too much of a biohazard to take possession of?

[Vargtand]

But it can also be overkill. And what is the point of conquering your opponent if in the process you have turned his territory into a radiactive wasteland that is too much of a biohazard to take possession of?

Hollywood could create the most realistic fallout movie ever?

[SwordoftheVistula]

But it can also be overkill. And what is the point of conquering your opponent if in the process you have turned his territory into a radiactive wasteland that is too much of a biohazard to take possession of?

I don't think they've ever had any intention of invading and taking over Russia/USSR. The goal was to disable their ability to wage war, and then possibly push them back in Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

[Lenny]

I don't think they've ever had any intention of invading and taking over Russia/USSR. The goal was to disable their ability to wage war, and then possibly push them back in Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

The old Mackinder theory that global supremacy in the modern world depends on control of the Eurasian landmass' "heartland" would suggest otherwise.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The old Mackinder theory that global supremacy in the modern world depends on control of the Eurasian landmass' "heartland" would suggest otherwise.

Just read up on that, and it doesn't make much sense to me. The only 'great powers' to ever control that region were Russia/USSR and the Mongols, and their power centers were located outside of that 'pivot area'.

The actual 'pivot area' seems to have migrated from the 'fertile crescent' (Mesopotamia) to Egypt, the Mediterranean (Greece, then Rome and Byzantium) to western Europe (Portugal & Spain, then France), then further north (Holland, Britain) and then eastwards to Germany and later Russia and westwards to the US and later Japan and then China. No relation at all to this 'heartland theory'

[Lenny]

Just read up on that, and it doesn't make much sense to me. The only 'great powers' to ever control that region were Russia/USSR and the Mongols, and their power centers were located outside of that 'pivot area'.

The actual 'pivot area' seems to have migrated from the 'fertile crescent' (Mesopotamia) to Egypt, the Mediterranean (Greece, then Rome and Byzantium) to western Europe (Portugal & Spain, then France), then further north (Holland, Britain) and then eastwards to Germany and later Russia and westwards to the US and later Japan and then China. No relation at all to this 'heartland theory'

The heartland theory was applicable to the modern world only. Mackinder was a geographer - specifically the field of "geopolitics" (which he invented) - and not an historian.

The basic premise is that a strong-enough power existing in the heartland of Eurasia in the 20th century and beyond(?) could very easily project power anywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere that mattered (i.e., Asia and Europe), that is to say: Dominate The World. There is a certain allure to this theory. The corollary to the above is that a source of constant nervousness for peripheral powers is the rise of an ultra-hostile and strong superpower in the heartland. Hence Hitler's crusade against the USSR and the Cold War itself.

If amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics, then master-strategists study geopolitics.

[Rudy]

what is the point of conquering your opponent if in the process you have turned his territory into a radiactive wasteland that is too much of a biohazard to take possession of?
The US could produce clean bombs or neutron bombs, but it chooses not to do so.

Clean bombs
Bassoon, the prototype for a 3.5-megaton clean bomb or a 25-megaton dirty bomb. Dirty version shown here, before its 1956 test.

On March 1, 1954, America's largest-ever nuclear test explosion, the 15-megaton Bravo shot of Operation Castle at Bikini, delivered a promptly lethal dose of fission-product fallout to more than 6,000 square miles (16,000 km2) of Pacific Ocean surface.[25] Radiation injuries to Marshall Islanders and Japanese fishermen made that fact public and revealed the role of fission in hydrogen bombs.

In response to the public alarm over fallout, an effort was made to design a clean multi-megaton weapon, relying almost entirely on fusion. Since the energy produced by fission is essentially free, using the vital tamper as a source of extra energy the clean bomb needed to be much larger for the same yield. For the only time, a third stage, called the tertiary, was added, using the secondary as its primary. The device was called Bassoon. It was tested as the Zuni shot of Operation Redwing, at Bikini on May 28, 1956. With all the uranium in Bassoon replaced with a substitute material such as lead, its yield was 3.5 megatons, 85% fusion and only 15% fission.

On July 19, AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss said the clean bomb test "produced much of importance . . . from a humanitarian aspect." However, two days later the dirty version of Bassoon, with the uranium parts restored, was tested as the Tewa shot of Redwing. Its 5-megaton yield, 87% fission, was deliberately suppressed to keep fallout within a smaller area. This dirty version was later deployed as the three-stage, 25-megaton Mark-41 bomb, which was carried by U.S. Air Force bombers, but never tested at full yield.

As such, high-yield clean bombs were a public relations exercise. The actual deployed weapons were the dirty version, which maximized yield for the same size device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_bomb
The US had neutron bombs until the '90s.

Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away.
http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[SwordoftheVistula]

The heartland theory was applicable to the modern world only...The basic premise is that a strong-enough power existing in the heartland of Eurasia in the 20th century and beyond(?) could very easily project power anywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere that mattered (i.e., Asia and Europe), that is to say: Dominate The World.

With modern technology, geographic location matters less instead of more. Its not even that good of a geographic location anyways, Asia and Europe have some natural resources, but Africa and the western hemisphere have more. This theory came about around the time that railroads were at their height, so I am guessing that he thought that land transport would replace sea transport. However, now that we have airplanes and missiles, geographic location doesn't really matter other than access to resources such as oil and uranium.