On the search for targets for strategic nuclear forces

36

Bomber B-52H with the calculation of weapons

The potential, capabilities, and effectiveness of strategic nuclear forces, both within deterrence processes and in actual combat use, are determined by a number of factors. These are the quantitative and qualitative indicators of warheads and their means of delivery, the readiness to use them, and a well-structured nuclear doctrine. In addition, the choice of strike targets, first or retaliatory, is of great importance.

Theoretical basis


According to all definitions, strategic nuclear forces are a structure within the armed forces designed to solve special problems. Depending on the specifics of the state's strategy, they may include up to three components of various kinds with their own characteristics and tasks. At the same time, all means of strategic nuclear forces serve a common goal.



First of all, strategic nuclear forces are responsible for strategic nuclear deterrence. They pose a potential threat to the critical objects of a potential enemy and are ready to attack them in case of his aggression. The risks of a retaliatory strike and the destruction of key facilities keep the enemy from attacking.


LGM-30 Minuteman missile launch

In addition, the nuclear doctrines of some states allow for a first nuclear missile strike under certain circumstances. Depending on the goals set, such an attack can be carried out on administrative, industrial and military facilities. In particular, the strategy of a disarming strike is well known, which provides for a massive attack on the bases and position areas of the enemy's strategic nuclear forces.

In all cases, the choice of targets for attack is of particular importance. The list of objects for destruction is compiled taking into account the strategy for the use of nuclear weapons, features of its weapons and systems of a potential enemy, as well as risks and consequences. Targets in such a list receive a different priority, according to their importance to the enemy and / or danger to the attacking side.

Foreign experience


For obvious reasons, not a single nuclear power discloses an up-to-date list of targets for strategic nuclear forces on the territory of a potential enemy. At the same time, one can imagine which objects are of particular importance for its defense and therefore should be hit first.


Submarine ballistic missile Trident II

However, some data of this kind is still available. A few years ago, US government agencies published plans for the use of nuclear weapons from 1956. This information is long out of date, but it shows the main ideas and approaches to planning. In addition, it allows you to understand how plans changed in the future in connection with the development of weapons and their carriers.

According to published data, in 1956 the possibility of a nuclear strike against 1100 targets was foreseen. Depending on the order of the command, the Air Force was supposed to attack objects on the territory of the USSR and the ATS countries, or in China or North Korea. For obvious reasons, the bulk of the warheads were supposed to fall on Soviet or Eastern European territory.

The published maps show that strikes of one or another power were planned for almost all major cities of the USSR and allied states. At the same time, special attention was paid to some cities and regions - these were Moscow and the Central Industrial Region, Leningrad with its environs, the capitals of the republics, as well as the areas where the fleets were based.

On the search for targets for strategic nuclear forces

ICBM warhead with warheads W78

All this shows that the American strategy provided for the destruction of targets of various types. They were going to attack administrative facilities, up to those used by the country's top leadership. Large cities with large industrial and logistical potential were also under attack. It was supposed to knock out all major military installations, such as ports or airfields.

It should be noted that in 1956 the US strategic nuclear forces faced a number of objective limitations related to the level of development of the materiel. At that time, they were based on long-range and strategic bombers, as well as free-fall bombs of various types. Ground-based missile systems and submarine missiles at that time showed limited performance and were far from the current level. All this had to be taken into account when planning possible strikes.

In the process of development


However, technology did not stand still. Already by the end of the fifties, new systems and complexes with improved characteristics appeared in service with the United States and a potential adversary in the face of the USSR. Their creation and entry into service gave the strategic nuclear forces new opportunities, and also set new tasks for them.

First of all, the appearance of intercontinental ballistic missiles affected the process of planning nuclear strikes. Now the Pentagon had to look for positional areas with such weapons and related infrastructure. Upon detection, the missile unit was included in the list of targets, joining other military facilities, administrative and industrial sites.


Rocket launch "Yars"

At this stage, the idea of ​​​​the first disarming strike appeared. It allowed realizing the main advantages of its ICBMs and neutralizing the risks associated with similar enemy products. So, the missiles were supposed to hit the launchers of a potential enemy. Simultaneously aviation with bombs moved into the background. Now they had to carry out only subsequent strikes, which excluded some of the military installations from the range of targets being hit.

The development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to a certain extent simplified the planning and hypothetical solution of combat missions. At the same time, some restrictions remained, and new ones appeared. In particular, the arms race led to an increase in the number of objects capable of becoming targets for nuclear weapons. This required an increase in arsenals and a fleet of equipment, and also made corresponding demands on industry and the economy.

In addition, the leading nuclear powers began to study the subject of missile defense. With its help, they planned to cover critical cities and regions from a nuclear strike. The success of such projects could hit the effectiveness of strategic nuclear forces and their role in politics or armed conflict. They also had to affect the process of selecting targets and organizing strikes against them.


Experimental product "Sarmat"

Subsequently, the first international agreements appeared, limiting the number of warheads and delivery vehicles in arsenals and on duty. In this regard, the nuclear powers had to revise the list of targets in the direction of reduction - in accordance with the permitted number of warheads and the capabilities of their carriers. Some goals had to be transferred from the strategic nuclear forces to other branches of the military.

With all this, as far as is known, the general principles for the formation of the list of goals have not changed. Attacks were planned on large cities with administrative and large industrial facilities, on the positions of the Strategic Missile Forces, the Navy and other branches of the military. However, accurate information about American plans after 1956 is not yet available. Perhaps details of this kind will appear in the near future.

Immutable Principles


Since the middle of the last century, the nuclear powers have developed many types of warheads and delivery vehicles for them, and also proposed a lot of concepts for the use of such weapons. At the same time, some ideas appeared in the early stages of development and remain unchanged to this day. In particular, these are the role and main functions of strategic nuclear forces, as well as the principles for selecting targets for them. With certain features and innovations, they are used by all nuclear powers.

Both in the past and now, one of the tasks of the strategic nuclear forces is to defeat the command and leadership of a potential enemy, as well as the destruction of strategically important military and industrial facilities. Lists of such targets for a possible strike are constantly changing and updated in order to maintain their relevance. This process allows you to maintain a hypothetical threat to a potential adversary at the required level - and contributes to the containment and preservation of peace.
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +22
    25 June 2022 05: 34
    The title of the article does not match the content, sorry. I never figured out how I should look for targets for strategic nuclear forces when I get them. smile
    1. +2
      25 June 2022 23: 43
      I still don’t understand how I should look for targets for strategic nuclear forces when I get them

      Quite simply, just like before. Several 500 kt warheads on one missile per million-plus city. The most optimal is obtained - the maximum area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbdestruction of weakly protected targets per missile. No cities - no rear, but there are a lot of problems with the survivors. It is useless to spend them on enemy launchers. Wars don't start "suddenly". Everyone will be on edge, everyone will be ready, the troops will be dispersed. And missiles will fly almost simultaneously from both sides.
      I recommend Santa Barbara. The series got to death in its time. laughing
    2. +1
      26 June 2022 23: 52
      Article title does not match content

      Do not kick the author ☝️ He writes as best he can. But every day, sometimes twice.
      I fall asleep well under this reading: 3 repetitions, 2 costs and ... and morphine
      1. +1
        27 June 2022 06: 45
        I don't drink, no way! I'm not a footballer... smile
  3. +10
    25 June 2022 05: 47
    The published maps show...

    I was hoping to at least see the cards ... and they are not there :((
    Is the Minuteman in the first photo?
    1. +15
      25 June 2022 06: 53
      yes .. according to the author, is it possible to place the Minuteman mine 30 meters from the coast? strongly .. but I feel that he only saw a strategic missile in pictures from the Internet, and there was no description there of how, where and why they are placed ..
      1. AUL
        +3
        25 June 2022 16: 30
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        according to the author, is it possible to place the Minuteman mine 30 meters from the coast?

        It caught my eye too! But photoshop is beautiful!
      2. 0
        27 June 2022 03: 11
        By the way, the mines there are quite close to the shore. I saw it myself.
    2. +10
      25 June 2022 15: 45
      Quote: MBRBS
      Is the Minuteman in the first picture?


      An LGM-30 Minuteman III missile takes off after a test launch at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (Photo: US Air Force)
      https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2021/03/30/nuclear-modernization-in-an-era-of-great-power-competition/


      The Air Force launches ICBMs from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
      https://warfiles.ru/150666-komu-adresovana-amerikanskaya-raketa-k-ispytaniyu-minuteman-iii.html
  4. +2
    25 June 2022 05: 52
    In strategic terms, the search for targets for nuclear strikes does not make sense.
    All major cities of the enemy will be destroyed. Which will not go anywhere and are the concentration of human and industrial resources of the enemy. Shooting somewhere with the aim of hitting something specific will be according to the residual principle. With the exception of already known military facilities that cannot be moved - such as nuclear missile silos.
    The purpose of a nuclear strike is to destroy as much of the enemy's population and industry as possible.
    Yes, the military command can survive, but the meaning of the war will already be completely lost.
    1. +5
      25 June 2022 11: 13
      Quote: Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
      The purpose of a nuclear strike is to destroy as much of the enemy's population and industry as possible.

      The author made a big mistake by not linking the choice of targets for a nuclear strike with the concept of using strategic nuclear forces. Under the doctrine of "massive retaliation," the Yankees' main targets were cities and industrial centers. With the concept of "counterforce struggle" - means of nuclear destruction of the enemy. With the concept of "instantaneous disarming strike" - the decision-making centers and the forces of combat service and duty. And considering the concept of "limited nuclear war," they believed that it was enough to destroy a dozen critically important industrial enterprises to break the enemy's will to resist.
      The author, as usual, sketched out the evidence and limited himself to that. And he did it extremely widely, at the strategic level, without bothering himself with specific examples illustrating the theses. With the specifics of the author, the situation is still the same ... not very much. He does not bother himself with the search for interesting facts and examples.
      1. -3
        26 June 2022 05: 40
        I think that all these concepts are outdated. The war will be annihilation. And it's totally guaranteed. Without buildup, without preludes and foreplay in the form of war with conventional weapons or single strikes with tactical nuclear bombs.
        I'm talking about Russia's war with NATO or Japan.
    2. 0
      25 June 2022 21: 36
      It makes no sense to hit the mines. The flight time is about 20 minutes. While the missiles fly for 10 minutes, the missiles that were hit will leave the mines and the strike will be on an empty place. Therefore, cities and urban agglomerates, industrial centers, military plants and factories should be taken as targets ( large sizes with the maximum number of employees), ports and large railway centers, this is so, at first glance.
  5. +4
    25 June 2022 05: 53
    Having a nuclear monopoly, the United States did not dare to attack the USSR. The headquarters games showed that the ATS tanks would be on the English Channel in a week of the start of the war. Now the aggressor is restrained by nuclear parity. But if anything: "Why do we need peace if there is no Russia in it !?"
    1. 0
      25 June 2022 18: 16
      Having a nuclear monopoly, the United States did not dare to attack the USSR. Headquarters games showed that the ATS tanks in a week of the start of the war would be on the English Channel.
      Quite right. And the captured "Europeans" will rake up the radioactive ruins on our territory. Therefore, they did not dare to go to war then.
  6. +7
    25 June 2022 06: 20
    I can advise the author to read the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Everything is in this official document. Special people are engaged in the search for targets for strategic nuclear forces; there are also scientific studies on this topic. A very large team of competent people is working on this issue.
  7. +13
    25 June 2022 06: 25
    What is the article about? Oil-oil, and transfusion from empty to empty ... negative
    1. +1
      24 August 2022 20: 11
      This is Ryabov, I define him by the very first sentence of the articles laughing
  8. +1
    25 June 2022 06: 56
    And why look for these goals, they have long been known, and the search for new ones is ongoing.
  9. +12
    25 June 2022 07: 44
    empty article
  10. -2
    25 June 2022 07: 50
    The main goal of the strategic nuclear forces is the habitat of puppeteers. The threat to their lives is a guarantee of Russia's peace and security.
  11. -7
    25 June 2022 08: 28
    what other strategic ones? over the past 4 months there have been a lot of reasonable possibilities for using tactical nuclear weapons, but ... not with those "fluffies" that are in the pants of our leadership and command ...
  12. -2
    25 June 2022 08: 59
    Conclusion: Russia, together with the CSTO, just in case, needs to prepare for the worst scenario for the development of events in the next 10-15 years, since the NWO is the first round of the THIRD WORLD HYBRID WAR that has started ... Success in the first round should not reassure the RF Armed Forces. In the shortest possible time - it is necessary to build many additional new bomb shelters in cities, and the old ones - to be repaired and equipped with EVERYTHING NECESSARY up to ammunition (where there will be such a need ...) and food. If possible, strategic facilities should also be equipped underground, as well as several times to increase the strategic INVINCIBLE STOCK OF RUSSIA with food, medicines and fuel ...
    1. KCA
      0
      25 June 2022 09: 17
      Where to increase the stock further? In the Federal Reserve, as they say, there is everything necessary to supply the population, the army and industry for three months, although it is not known for certain, state secrets, bomb shelters in the event of a full-scale nuclear war are simply nothing, they are calculated for a maximum of a day's stay, and then get out anyway I’ll have to, well, maybe I’ll be able to sit for three days, but what’s the point? There is no electricity upstairs, no transport, stores and warehouses were looted by those who got out earlier, it is better to die immediately than to die again, but long and painfully
      1. +1
        25 June 2022 12: 36
        Comrade Major General, what exactly do you propose in opposition to my arguments? And I would like to ask the one who minus my post: What was so seditious and wrong that I wrote??? I would like to get a clear answer about the reason for the first minus on my post ...
        1. KCA
          0
          25 June 2022 20: 23
          I’m not a major general, I finished an urgent one as a private, but as a squad leader, head of the R-145, I received pay in vain as a senior sergeant, or foreman, as a unit commander
        2. -1
          27 June 2022 01: 35
          the mouse ran, waving its tail laughing
    2. 0
      25 June 2022 13: 54
      Why hide in a bomb shelter at TMV? It's easier to quit right away. The survivors will not last long and these days will be very sad.
  13. -1
    25 June 2022 10: 20
    I myself can draw a map of goals: you just need to turn on the brain.
  14. +1
    25 June 2022 11: 19
    Started briskly, finished quickly am
  15. -2
    25 June 2022 14: 53
    I am sure that whoever launches the first massive nuclear strike will receive a huge advantage regardless of the answer. And if necessary, this moment should not be missed.
    1. +2
      25 June 2022 20: 33
      Nobody gets an advantage. During the first strike, the warheads of the missiles fly to targets overseas for tens of minutes. During this time, the enemy will have time to launch their missiles. What is the use of the fact that the warheads of the rockets will meet in space? Where is the advantage here? What is the use of the fact that part of the population of the country will survive hundreds of nuclear explosions and will be forced to live underground for years?
      1. +2
        26 June 2022 10: 26
        It is wrong to use these assertions to express the idea that nuclear weapons are a useless cargo of armaments. If Russia did not have it, then our country would have been wiped off the face of the Earth 50 years ago, leaving intact and intact our underground storerooms - the subject of the Americans' insane desire to possess them. There would be many people from third countries who, like slaves, on the orders of the United States, would dig gold, silver, platinum, ore, coal on our territory, pump oil and gas for a piece of bread. Therefore, the creation of nuclear weapons is a vital necessity for the entire people of Russia.
  16. 0
    3 August 2022 19: 16
    In the USSR, there were like 40 nuclear warheads. We must return. We need the total destruction of everything and everything. Especially cities, knocking people out to zero. We still have to bomb all NATO countries. Nuclear power plants, dams, just power plants, ports, factories and just fields of crops ... it is also necessary to create a hundred dirty bombs, I think this will help to depopulate enemy territories. Consider the issue of the cobalt bomb, great thing!!!! It is not enough to destroy the enemy. It is necessary to provide for an option when the territory of the aggressor will remain deserted for centuries!!!
  17. 0
    29 August 2022 11: 38
    Quote: 2 level advisor
    yes .. according to the author, is it possible to place the Minuteman mine 30 meters from the coast? strongly .. but I feel that he only saw a strategic missile in pictures from the Internet, and there was no description there of how, where and why they are placed ..

    What did you stick to the author? :) Well, this is Kirill Ryabov ... His level is copywriting of other people's materials, and the principle is poured from empty to empty 4-5 times, and here the article for VO is ready. And what would not? Once published, then paid. Easy Money :)
  18. 0
    13 September 2022 13: 55
    Not articles, but a set of common words. Any googling will give more information. Not to mention the fairly accessible literature. Yes, at least read this book: Verkhoturov Dmitry Nikolaevich "Nuclear War. All Doomsday Scenarios", and you will be happy