1,100 Declassified U.S. Nuclear Targets
Declassified maps of 1,100 U.S. nuclear targets from 1956 prompt reflection on Cold War strategy, showing how densely military and civilian sites across Europe and the Soviet bloc were slated for destruction—even in neutral or allied cities like Vienna and Berlin. Commenters contrast that era’s existential threat and logic of mutually assured destruction with the post‑9/11 “war on terror,” arguing that relatively small terrorist attacks reshaped U.S. policy, civil liberties, and global perceptions far beyond their physical impact. The targeting data also raises questions about secrecy, deterrence doctrine, and how both sides placed nuclear and conventional assets in ways that effectively turned entire regions into prospective battlefields.
Terrorism, 9/11, and MAD
- Several commenters contrast growing up under Mutually Assured Destruction with the intensity of the post‑9/11 “War on Terror,” arguing 9/11 was strategically minor compared to nuclear war yet produced outsized overreaction.
- Others push back: 9/11 is framed as the most successful modern terror attack, psychologically shattering US invulnerability by killing ~3,000 civilians and hitting symbols of economic and military power (WTC, Pentagon).
- Debate over causality: some emphasize grassroots fear and rage; others stress government and media “co‑opting” trauma to justify wars and civil-liberties erosion.
- Some argue terrorism’s power is destabilization, not body count; others highlight the vastly larger civilian toll of US post‑9/11 wars.
US Foreign Policy, Identity, and Trust
- Thread links US politics and industry to a recurring need for an “enemy” (Nazis → Communists → terrorists → China) to justify militarization, protectionism, and social cohesion.
- Commenters argue US society has shifted from mid‑trust to low‑trust culture, with more paranoia, xenophobia, and polarization, partly traced back to 9/11 and its aftermath.
- There is debate over how different US war-making really is from authoritarian powers in practice, especially for people on the receiving end.
Nuclear Targeting Choices and Neutral States
- Many are struck by targets in neutral or non-frontline areas: Vienna, Helsinki’s airport, dense coverage of Baltics and Eastern Europe, including small cities and airfields.
- Some see this as cold logic: you target where the adversary placed capabilities, even if that means “shooting the hostages” (occupied allies or satellites).
- Others react emotionally, especially from ex‑USSR countries that saw themselves as pro‑US but were nonetheless targeted.
Europe, Ex‑USSR Experiences, and Declassified Plans
- Users from ex‑USSR states identify specific forest villages and airports that were targeted because of hidden tank depots or former Soviet airbases.
- Noted asymmetry: non‑USSR Eastern Europe appears saturated with targets, while much of the USSR heartland is more sparsely covered.
- References to Warsaw Pact plans (e.g., “Seven Days to the River Rhine”) and open-source Russian targeting simulations illustrate how both blocs anticipated massive nuclear and chemical use in Europe.
Missile Systems, Silos, and Deterrence Mechanics
- Discussion of fixed silos vs mobile launchers, and whether hiding silos ever mattered.
- Points about launch detection times, SSBNs enabling very rapid second strikes, and even hypothetical “tertiary” strikes days later.
- Some skepticism about readiness and reliability of aging US ICBMs and launch crews; others note large modernization efforts.