|
CitizenKain posted:Those black blobs are there general locations of our ICBMs. Also there is a large airforce base in that region, and it used to host a lot of bombers. I much prefer the other idea. "Yes I too am tired of picking targets. Let's just blow the piss out of ehhh Montana and go get bombed ourselves."
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
It is funny that the only state that isn't marked for a nuke is Idaho. Even other countries must forget it exists. Or believe that its nothing but forests and extremist doomsday groups that aren't worth the target practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
I'm more confused by why they're bothering to target west Texas. EDIT: Actually, looking closer, I suppose Lubbock might vaguely resemble a valid target if you're firing that many, and there are a few USAF bases aroud there. I'm still calling the one aimed at Midland a waste of a perfectly good nuclear warhead, though. Technogeek fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I'm more confused by why they're bothering to target west Texas. Refineries maybe? EDIT: God drat it WEST Texas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I'm more confused by why they're bothering to target west Texas. What's there to hit? Millions of cows might make a pretty impressive blast wave when nuked but isn't most of west Texas empty to the point of having 1 person per square mile maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
There's a shitload of nuclear munitions manufacturing, testing and storage out in West Texas. EDIT: Brain fart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:What's there to hit? Millions of cows might make a pretty impressive blast wave when nuked but isn't most of west Texas empty to the point of having 1 person per square mile maybe? If you're going to go out nukes blazing possibly ending all life on Earth don't you want to make sure the post-apocalypse is absolutely 100% Texan-free?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:It is funny that the only state that isn't marked for a nuke is Idaho. Even other countries must forget it exists. Or believe that its nothing but forests and extremist doomsday groups that aren't worth the target practice. Boise would be targeted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Idaho has potatoes, Russians love vodka. Next.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
I'm surprised their plan doesn't include "nuke the gently caress out of Yellowstone, maybe we can trigger a reaction."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Boise would be targeted. I'd like to imagine there was a debate about even bothering. "Comrade general I know the rules say all state capitals must be targeted but they have more cows than people!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'd like to imagine there was a debate about even bothering. Concord, Montpelier, Augusta and Bismark aren't targeted at all  . Montpelier is the smallest capitol with like 5000 people though, so that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
I'm confused why some areas which are heavily targeted in the 500-warhead scenario are not shown as targets in the 2000-warhead scenario. (For example,the cities along the Texas-Mexico border.) Unless being shown as a 500-warhead target is meant to also imply being a 2000-warhead target. Maybe the 500-warhead scenario goes for maximum civilian damage where the 2000-warhead scenaro makes more effort to prevent a retaliation strike? Is there more analysis or explanation of this map somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:I'm confused why some areas which are heavily targeted in the 500-warhead scenario are not shown as targets in the 2000-warhead scenario. (For example,the cities along the Texas-Mexico border.) Unless being shown as a 500-warhead target is meant to also imply being a 2000-warhead target. Maybe the 500-warhead scenario goes for maximum civilian damage where the 2000-warhead scenaro makes more effort to prevent a retaliation strike? Is there more analysis or explanation of this map somewhere? I think the black dots are 1500 extra sites on top of the 500 warhead scenario. They just didn't also do a black dot for the 500 original. I guess some places have both for maximum destruction? Don't know for sure though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'd like to imagine there was a debate about even bothering. One reason I missed it at first. They don't even notice it till they decide on 500 warhead launch. Even then you can imagine that they just picked it to say we need to hit all 50 capitols even if its a waste of a perfectly good missile. Personally why not pick a random soldier of the week to pick the last missile launch point? Make people strive to be the best to pick a target for the glory of the motherland 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:I think the black dots are 1500 extra sites on top of the 500 warhead scenario. They just didn't also do a black dot for the 500 original. I guess some places have both for maximum destruction? Don't know for sure though. Also 500 and 2000 warhead targeting plans have different end goals. 500 should be limited to mostly military targets as its supposed to be quick limited nuclear war one side could theoretically 'win' or alternatively used as a preemptive strike. 2000 warheads are the gently caress everything, salt the earth, we're not gonna get a second chance response where you try to cause as much collateral damage as possible to forever ruin the nation
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Pretty sure the 2,000 warhead scenario is a first strike by the Soviets, that's why all the ICBM silos in gently caress all nowhere are targeted. The 500 warhead scenario is a retaliatory strike; America launched first and presumably destroyed a number of Soviet launching sites. At least, that's what I remember being explained the last time I saw this picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
I actually asked about this map in the mil hist thread and it's actually the inverse. The 2000 nuke strike is first strike to hit as many nukes and military facilities as possible as much as possible. The 500 nuke strike is the gently caress you retaliatory strike if the US is the one launching the first strike.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I'm more confused by why they're bothering to target west Texas. The only plant that assembles nuclear parts for nuclear weapons is in Amarillo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantex_Plant
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:
The triangles on their own are weird. Like I wonder what that one in south Oregon is for. And the one on the edge of North Dakota.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
effectual posted:The triangles on their own are weird. Like I wonder what that one in south Oregon is for. And the one on the edge of North Dakota. Corvallis OR has OSU & Fargo, ND has an intersection of 2 interstates and several major rail lines. The places with triangles on their own likely have high economic/"total war" value relative to black dots on their own which have relatively high military/strike value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:They only knew the general area of the Silo's, so they would just carpet the area. As someone who lives in Minot, ND (epicenter of that darkness in NW ND) I can assure you the Russians know exactly where every single silo is, because there's highway signs pointing them all out which makes them very easy to identify. Those black dots are pinpoint strikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
That's weird...unless I am reading the map wrong thy don't have Whiteman AFB in Missouri targeted. I would have thought it would be in the list because of hosting B-2 bombers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Haha, look at all those baby states whose capitals aren't important enough to nuke 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Corvallis OR has OSU & Fargo, ND has an intersection of 2 interstates and several major rail lines. The places with triangles on their own likely have high economic/"total war" value relative to black dots on their own which have relatively high military/strike value. No, not the one Corvallis, there's one on like ... Medford. The gently caress is in Medford. (Might be Klamath Falls. Is there a hydro dam there?) edit: Staring close at Google Earth, I see a dam there. Vavrek fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:No, not the one Corvallis, there's one on like ... Medford. The gently caress is in Medford. (Might be Klamath Falls. Is there a hydro dam there?) Maybe they're gunning for the Ashland Shakespeare Festival.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:
The case for leaving ISIS to its own devices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Stealthy cruise missile chat was a few pages back but this is relevant to nuke chat as well. The US had the AGM-129 ACM in its inventory for over 20 years but it was expensive, unreliable, and only carried a nuclear payload. A conventional variant was put forward but never built and even then the system could still only be deployed on a B-52. The entire inventory was destroyed by 2012 under SORT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I'm more confused by why they're bothering to target west Texas. Big Springs VA hospital?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Boise would be targeted. The black dot near the top seems to be Moscow (Idaho) as well. I'm surprised they weren't considering INEL though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Wow, Lafayette Indiana is on the list? The only thing there's Purdue University. As much as I love the place I got a degree, I didn't think it was quite *that* important...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
I can understand them hitting Camp Grayling, it's one of the biggest military installations in the US but hitting Manistee, presumably for its Coast Guard station? Really? Yoopers will be kings of the radioactive wastelands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Looks like the 51st state, the UP, is totally safe
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Some of that first strike stuff is a bit perplexing, for sure. Fayette County, TX? The only thing notable in Fayette County was shut down over 40 years ago, and even that wasn't worth a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:It is funny that the only state that isn't marked for a nuke is Idaho. Even other countries must forget it exists. Or believe that its nothing but forests and extremist doomsday groups that aren't worth the target practice. It's not? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Some of that first strike stuff is a bit perplexing, for sure. Fayette County, TX? The only thing notable in Fayette County was shut down over 40 years ago, and even that wasn't worth a nuke. They couldn't decide whether to send that nuke to Austin or Houston so they split the difference. edit: Maybe they really hate ZZ Top? hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:They only knew the general area of the Silo's, so they would just carpet the area. This is untrue. Any nation with satellite imagery knew exactly where the silos were. Hell you can map them out using Google maps if you want. The problem is that the silos are designed to be immune to just about anything but a ground burst right on top/next to them and are spaced pretty far from each other so you need a warhead per silo to take them out. And there are a crapton of silos. Another speculated benefit of that design is that the ground burst would throw up a huge amount of debris into the atmosphere which would, supposedly, sandblast any incoming warheads to bits as they reentered to hit a neighboring silo. Meanwhile the missiles in the remaining silos could launch without any trouble because they were going comparably slowly and still had the nose cone in place protecting the warheads. Less fun is that the ground bursts would result in absolutely insane amounts of fallout downwind. The engineering and planning that went into all of it is really impressive. It makes you wonder where we would be as a nation if it had been directed to a more peaceful application.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The engineering and planning that went into all of it is really impressive. It makes you wonder where we would be as a nation if it had been directed to a more peaceful application. It was tried!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:
Taken over by the commies, of course. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Rumor spredin' round, in that Texas town. 'Bout this power plant, outside the cit-taaayyy If I recall correctly, there's a big power plant or something out in Fayette County.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:27
|
|