OT 10 top nuclear war targets in US, plus...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

There is a site (and great book) with LOTS of info. about how to secure your home against nuclear war, EMP, etc. Also provocative info. about how our own govn. may be causing such to occur. Following list is from this site. www.xsw.com/secure home THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS NUCLEAR TARGETS IN OR NEAR A METRO AREA (there are several other primary targets not listed that are not near a major metro) 1. Washington DC /and related bases (major command and control for the President) 2. Colorado Springs, Co (Cheyenne Mtn Control Center, 2 space command/comm bases) 3. Omaha, Ne (secondary command and control bases) 4. Seattle, Wa. (Trident Missile Sub base and numerous Naval Bases) 5. Jacksonville Fl/Kings Bay Ga. (Trident Missile Sub base, Major East Coast Naval Center) 6. San Diego, Ca (largest west coast naval complex) 7. Norfolk, Va (major east coast naval complex) 8. Kansas City, Mo (Whiteman AFB, B-2 nuclear bombers) 9. Cheyenne, Wy (Warren AFB, Minute Man and Peacekeeper MX missiles) 10. Great Falls, Mt (Malmstrom AFB --Minute Man missiles)

-- Shivani Arjuna (SArjuna@aol.com), November 26, 1999

Answers

As long as they don't target any football stadiums the majority of deadheads in this country will be happy. Of course, if the remote controls are damaged due to EMP, there will be hell to pay.

-- enough is (enough@enough.com), November 26, 1999.

Shivani,

What's the URL for the site? I can't access www.xsw.com

Thanks!

-- Arewyn (isitth@latealready.com), November 26, 1999.


Gas masks, potassium iodide, solar ovens, etc
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001q TK

Sincerely,
Stan Faryna

Read a rational explanation for making Y2K preparations
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001R UO

Got 14 days of preps? If not, get started now. Click here.

Click here and check out the TB2000 preparation forum.



-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 26, 1999.

--I recognized shivani's link reference as my friend Joel Skousen's old addy. He is probably the best strategic analyst in this country today. I will provide a link to his site here.

Below is an article he wrote, I have referenced it previously:

JOEL M. SKOUSEN'S WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF: Commentary And Insights On A Troubled World Weekly Internet Brief --http://www.xsw.com/worldbrief. Monthly Paper Version: 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058 Editor In Chief: Joel M. Skousen. Tel/Fax (801) 224-4746 Email: jskousen@enol.com. Mail: 290 W. 580 S. Orem Ut 84058 Subscriptions: $24/year for weekly Email version, $48/year monthly hardcopy. All mid-year subscribers will receive back issues to cover a full year's subscription. Those who desire both the email and print edition pay the print price. Copyright Joel M. Skousen Readers may freely disseminate this article when credit is given to Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief BACKGROUNDER #2 NUCLEAR DETERRENCE WITHOUT "LAUNCH ON WARNING" --A DEADLY MYTH In November, 1997 President Clinton signed a top secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to abandon the time honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning." Ironically this was done in the name of increased deterrence and every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background: The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the heels of President Clinton's demand to the joint chiefs in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America's nuclear warhead deployment to 2,000 to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of START II disarmament treaty (which has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma). General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn't comply since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn't be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads. According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (Nov/Dec 1997 issue), "the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union." Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin in every argument pointing towards the relaxation of western vigilance and accelerated disarmament. Indeed, it is the driving argument that is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders and the American people. Almost everyone is buying it, even most conservatives who should know better. However, the most savvy Soviet watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called collapse was engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states that Russia could no longer support. For one, there was the phony Gorbachev "coup" that was so patently contrived and parroted by the western media. Eric Honeker, former head of the German DDR stated before his death that he was instructed by Moscow to step down and yield East Germany to the West. Romania's dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu said he got the same orders to step down, but refused, and had to be forcibly removed by another phony coup, made to look like an uprising of anti-communists (which it was not). But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of disarmament, and is syphoning off billions in western aid money to modernize and deploy top of the line new weapons systems, aimed at taking down the U.S. military in one huge decapitating nuclear strike. For those that still hold to the wave of propaganda focusing on the so called "deteriorating Russian military situation", consider the new Topol-M (SS-X-27) ICBM that Russia is deploying at the rate of 3 per month. This is a brand new 6th generation ICBM with a claimed active electronic jamming system claimed by Russia to be able to penetrate any future ABM system the U.S. might deploy. Not only is the Clinton Administration not protesting this deployment, they are offering to allow the Russians to turn this supposedly single warhead missile into a MIRV capable missile of 3 warheads--all to assuage the Russians who are livid at even the hint that we might build a meager 200 intercepter, dumbed down missile defense system. Again, realists have to question why the Russians (and the Chinese) are so upset over the potential of any U.S. missile defense system, if they, indeed, have no hostile intentions. But there's lots more: defectors tell of whole new biological and chemical weapons plants, and underground nuclear weapons factories and bunkers being built into massive city-sized complexed beneath the Ural Mountains--all the while claiming to be destitute of money. Something doesn't compute here. Contrast this with the Clinton Administrations response. Incredibly, while still play lip service to nuclear deterrence, Asst. Sec. of Defense, Edward L. Warner III went before the Congress on March 31, 1998 and bragged about the litany of unilateral disarmament this administration has forced upon the military: "Under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative, we decided to: eliminate our entire inventory of ground-launched nonstrategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles); Remove all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases; Remove our strategic bombers from alert; Stand down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I Terminate the mobile Peacekeeper and mobil small ICBM programs and Terminate the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile." "In January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further steps which included: Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers Canceling the entire small ICBM program Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (Sub launched missiles) warheads Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles Stop new production of Peacekeeper missiles (our biggest MIRV warhead ICBM) "As a result of these significant changes, the U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 percent." Asst. Sec. Warner enthused All of this has been done without any meaningful disarmament by the Russians. The Clinton Administration would counter this charge by citing the "successful" dismantling of the 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by Ukraine, Kasakhstan and Belarus, and the destruction of their 252 ICBM's and related silos--all paid for with US taxpayer funds to the tune of 300 million per year. But the real story is otherwise. Yes, Americans paid for the dismantling of these system--the oldest and most out of date in the Soviet inventory. They were scheduled for replacement anyway, so the US taxpayer ended up saving the Russians over a billion dollars, allowing them to use this and other Western aid to develop and build new systems, coming on line right now. But that isn't all. What the administration doesn't say is that they allowed the Russians to reclaim all the nuclear warheads, and paid them to recycle the usable material into new, updated warheads. We didn't diminish the threat at all. We only helped them to transform it into something more dangerous. Thus, the Russians still maintain a more than 3 to 1 advantage over the US in both throw weight and nuclear delivery vehicles. That disparity is widening dramatically with the Clinton Administration's unilateral disarmament while, at the same time, encouraging the Russians to proceed not only with the deployment of 500 new Topol-M missiles (which are mobile launched and therefore difficult to target), but to put 3 MIRVed warheads on each missile instead of the treaty limit of 1 warhead--for a total deployment of 1500 warheads. Not counting the presumed minimum 4,000 to 6,000 warheads in the current Russian inventory, these 1500 new warheads would overwhelm a measly 200 interceptor ABM system in North Dakota--which the Clinton Administration is insisting should not be deployed before 2005. I wonder why? With our 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs scheduled to be decommissioned in 2003, that gives the Russians or Chinese a wide open window for attack should they choose to exercise their first strike, nuclear decapitation option. So much for the "new realism" of the Clinton disarmament team and their assertion that Russia poses no threat. Judging strictly by public data from establishment sources (which is always understated due to Moscow's powerful shroud of secrecy) the Russian threat is much greater than it ever was, both in quantity and quality of strategic nuclear forces--thanks, in part, to ongoing technology transfers by IBM and other defense contractors with the knowing participation and encouragement of this administration. Now let's take a close look at this presumed increased deterrence the Clinton Department of Defense is promising. The administration claims their brand of deterrence is still based upon the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) concept--a truly appropriate acronym. This is the presumption that since both sides have an overwhelming capability to destroy each other, that no sane leadership would engage in nuclear war. Let's examine this closely. MAD could only stand as a viable assumption if 1.both sides had sufficient weapons and delivery vehicles to inflict total devastation 2.neither side had an effective anti-ballistic missile system 3.neither side had electronic jamming capability on their incoming ICBMs 4.neither side had hardened shelters protecting their population and leadership These assumptions clearly do not exist today: First, we barely have enough nuclear warheads to take out the Russian arsenal as presently constituted if we used them all at once (which no sane military commander could afford to do, leaving him with no reserves). Russia, on the other hand, has enough to devastate our entire strategic forces and still retain 60% of her weapons in reserve, for a prolonged conflict. Second, we have no ABM system to protect against ICBMs at all. Our dummed down and slowed down Patriots are theater weapons (built to conform to the flawed ABM treaty) and can hardly catch slow, low flying Scud missiles, let alone ICBMs that coming screaming in from space at 6 to 12 kilometers per second. The Russians have (in violation of the same ABM treaty) a nationwide system of ABMs tied to phased array radars and satellite guidance systems. Third, we have no electronic jamming on our missiles to help them penetrate the Russian ABM system, and the Russians claim their newest Topol-M missiles do have such a capability. Whether or not this claim is a bluff is immaterial. The fact is, they are building new, high tech missiles and our technology is 10 years old and stagnant. We are not developing or building anything new. This aspect can only worsen as time goes on. Fourth, our civilian population is totally unprotected, while a large portion of the Russian cities have public fallout shelter facilities. New bunkers are being constructed for the Russian leadership despite the economic hardships the people suffer. This should tell us something about Russian leadership intentions. Is this Mutually Assured Destruction? Hardly. It equates to United States Assured Destruction! In every category of deterrence, we are disarming and stagnant, and the Russians are building and deploying. There is, in fact, only one type of deterrence that is capable of somewhat balancing the scales: the nuclear response doctrine of Launch on Warning. Launch on Warning takes advantage of the fact that long range ballistic missiles take time to arrive on target--up to 25 minutes depending on where the missiles are fired from. If the Russians were to launch a first strike, our satellites would detect and confirm that launch within seconds. In a launch on warning doctrine, our missiles (if on alert status) could be launched before the Russian or Chinese missiles hit our silos. There is also time to retarget our missiles so that they are not wasted on Russian silos that are now empty. Thus, one of the great advantages for a launch on warning doctrine is that it allows the nation who launches second to have an advantage over the nation who launches first. The one to launch first wastes a certain number of their missiles on our silos which are now empty. Whereas, our missiles (utilizing real time targeting data from satellites) strike targets that are still viable. Now, that is deterrence--a deterrence that we presently do not have due to PDD-60. National Security Advisor Robert Bell proudly proclaimed to a group of disarmament advocates, "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning--to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence." (emphasis added). This is patently preposterous. Respond with what? We have no mobile missiles to avoid being targeted. We have already unilaterally agreed to keep over half of our ballistic missile submarines in port at any one time, so they can easily be targeted. After all, we don't want our Russian "allies" to feel insecure! All of our Navy and Air Force strategic forces are incapable of withstanding a nuclear strike. Even the remaining trident subs on patrol would be unable to respond when communication links and satellites are downed in a first strike. PDD-60 removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs cannot fire without direct communications with the President. Those vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first strike. When you tell the Russians we are going to absorb a first strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything necessary to make sure we cannot respond. This is not deterrence. This is suicide.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.


YOU MAY BE RIGHT? YOU MAY BE WRONG.

I posted here about 2 months ago that in times of nuclear war, it would not necessarily be the MILITARY targets that are targeted.

Sure, it makes sense to eliminate any stations that are a threat to counter-strike(or launch a pre-emptive strike), but if you REALLY want to TOTALLY cripple and lay waste to a nation that UNFORTUNATELY happens to have about 103 nuclear POWER STATIONS, THEN THAT is what you target with a first-strike launch.

This was all detailed in horrific detail in a Scientific American article in about 1982. The dirty fallout from blasting the nuclear power station, plus all the spent fuel rod storage pools, would result in an amazingly catastrophic destruction of perhaps the entire country, what with the winds carrying the highly dirty clouds of radioactivity to spread out over tens of thousands of square miles at least for EACH power station hit.

Plus, as an added bonus, the massive surges on the grid, from the EMP, but also from load shedding NOT being able to isolate the various grid parts in time, would no doubt put the entire nation in the dark and cold. Without electricity, nothing else counts, anyway.

Has anyone looked this up since I mentioned it? I've been too busy to find it, but take my word for it, this would be the way it would unfold.

Not sure I would want to be a nuclear plant worker having to work the Millennium(graveyard?) shift.

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), November 26, 1999.



---I have always thought that the various power generating facilities would be dandy secondary targets, especially now that the rooshians or chinee may actually have the accuracy. Before, they didn't, now they do, plus mobile, plus sure as green makes span, they'll have them in Q ships in the Panama Canal soon. I am not so terribly convinced that an all out strike would be necessary to neutralize the US as an international power, especially with der arkanfurher nominally in control. I would imagine there would be capitulation after a few went off here, "to save the children" or some such b.s..In fact, I think just some biowar strikes, and a few back pack nukes, with the public threat of more hidden strikes, would be enough. I don't think that "they" want the entire land wasted, after all, we have a superior agricultural setup, for one, and two, think of all the working proles we could provide the new globalist "masters" once we we're thinned out enough and eunuch-ised. Of course, not sure, I was snoozin during that part of the meeting at the last Illuminated Tribilderburglar luncheon, too many turkey canapes...........

zog "shadow" man

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ