In a 1956 study for the Strategic Air Command (SAC), a newly declassified document reveals that the US intended to carry out nuclear strikes against the most densely populated parts of the Soviet bloc, singling out “population” centers in addition to military targets.
The 700-page document placed a priority on military installations, but also planned the “systematic destruction” of the Soviet bloc’s industrial capability by targeting “areas of human population,” including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.
That may sound like a limited plan, but all-told there were some 1,200 cities to be targeted with nuclear strikes specifically to try to kill as many people as possible. Cities like Moscow and Leningrad, which also had military or government targets, were to be hit dozens of times.
International law explicitly forbids intentionally targeting civilian populations in time of war, but the US appears to have thrown that out the window with the SAC study, envisioning a wholesale slaughter of much of the planet’s population as a specific military goal.
The study ultimately concluded that early airstrikes would center on air bases primarily, trying to prevent Soviet retaliation as much as possible, and that it would quickly expand to “basic industries,” aiming to eliminate the ability of the Soviets to fight, and then finally expanding to places whose lone value was that a lot of people lived there.
Later studies eliminated Moscow from the list of targets, believing that it was important to leave someone to negotiate with in the event of trading nuclear fire.
I grew up with that. The paradigm was in place. A few wacko's like jonas Salk and Benjamin Spock opposed nuclear war, but Kissinger was the new brilliant light arguing for a 'limited' use of nuclear power to get past the impasses of Mutually Assured Destruction. None of us ever doubted the morality or legality of wiping out Moscow, It was going to be their fault for starting it, But 'On the Beach' showed us that no one would survive a nuclear war, so we all stopped believing that it would really happen. That's what made Strangelove funny. Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five was remarkably astonishing for its implied moral complaint against the murder of so many…Germans! And nobody ever cared about Vietnamese victims of our bombings. until we knew it was never going to be won, never going to end, and eventually going to kill somebody we knew. I think it was the Chinese assault in Korea that set us up for the paradigm. They weren't human. Commies. The chief of SAC, Curtis LeMay, would run for VicePresident on a ticket with George Walllace. He was just psychotic.
I read in Eric Hobsbawm The history of a short century that about 600 millions from the socialist camp had to be killed conform SAC plan and this to defend "our values",and this would be happened after the atrocities of the ww2 when Germany scared the world with her cruelty.I am sure that this kind of people who thought then how to make the world better exist also today with thw same feeling that they should save the world
Is there any reason to think that Uncle Sam is no longer targeting major cities around the world? He has not exactly renounced nuclear weapons and destroyed them…
Yes. Military tactics have radically changed in 60 years. The uselessness of nuclear against military targets (too small!) has been recognized and studies of WWII have shown that terror bombing just stiffened people's resolve. The final step, namely, that juclear weapons are in fact useless and since everybody knows that, there's no point in having them, has yet to be taken. Take a practical example. How do you think Americans would react if Putin dropped one of his rickety nuclear bombs on an American city? Would they capitulate or would they be "Pearl Harbor-9/11 mad" and determine not to give up until Putin and all his works had been utterly destroyed, whatever that might cost?
Just in case anyone seriously thought that the USG was morally superior. This scenario has been out there in the cold war/post-cold war meme since day one. All the post-apocalyptic movies and book fiction since Hiroshima revolved around the idea of global destruction of population centers which they determined to be the quickest way to force capitulation on the other side. Of course, the "other side" also believed in this OP. The idea of targeting only military installations was/is total BS. They don't want to negotiate with anyone at the end of hostilities. All they want to do is lay claim to what's left…and reduce the world population to a more manageable level to make the natural resources last a little longer because it's all going to boil down to resources and trying to maintain and sustain our current way of life – rather than change it. Fools.
Interesting fiction but hardly realistic.
A good example of how different warfare was back then, still under the influence of WWII and with WWII generals still in command. In 1956, generals still believed that people could be bombed into submission. LeMay was a particular proponent of that doctrine, wanting, for example, to bomb Cuba during the missile crisis. 60 years on, nobody would take such proposals seriously. Incidentally, given the crude nuclear weapons of that day, they couldn't have bombed East Berlin without also destroying West Berlin.
After initiating first strike against Russia and China the traitors who made the decision will be off to their protected underground lairs and undislosed carved out mountain getaways. Most of us will have to feel the flame. What’s hilarious is the contingency plans to keep the government running after enduring massive casualties. It’s like these assholes don’t know when to stop.