Tony Stroppa wrote:
Quote:
|
As a note, the Soviets might not nuke the SAGE-linked sites. My dad installed the SAGE system at that time (the Pinetree and Mid-Canada line) and was present for the Skyshield exercises.
|
My problem was maximising the damage the Soviets could produce with their relatively small force. Attacking the nuclear weapon production complex (Oak Ridge, Hanford, Rocky Flats, Pinellas plant, the other uranium enrichment plants e.g. Paducah, Metropolis) is one of many alternatives, but the bombers could do that.
I thought that 'preparing the field' for the bombers so they could attack as many targets as possible was the way to go.
Thanks for the information about Skyshield.
Both sides were continually evolving their strategic nuclear doctrine.
Even as late as the late 1970s, the Soviets were still very counterforce oriented (as illustrated by the Voroshilov course manuals, from chapter 4 of Blair's 'The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War').
By the 1980s, targeting priorities were very similar:
1. Nuclear forces (including command and control)
2. Other military targets (conventional forces)
3. Political and adminstrative centres (Soviets included some major population centres here; U.S. emphasised COG/C3I facilities)
4. War supporting industry (munitions, vehicle manufacture - potentially electronics, steel, oil refining... very open ended; U.S. emphasis on preventing Soviet economic recovery a de facto countervalue strategy)
> NORAD radars were completely ineffective due to ECM.
I don't think Soviet electronic warfare capabilities at the time were anywhere near that of the Free World - but info to the contrary would be helpful.
Low altitude bombing with the 'Bison' and 'Bear' doesn't seem likely either given the fuel consumption issues - even assuming a one-way trip it constrains range probably to attacks on northern CONUS.
Quote:
|
There is an alternative version of the same events, not as succinct as yours:
|
I followed that thread fairly closely as it was being written.
There are a few discrepancies of fact with AV's account - and of course it assumes the climate effects of the conflict are very mild, hence the extensive post-war history.
On this list we're trying to get to the civilisation wrecking stage rather than avoid it like the AH site...
Rob