🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@rand-unix>

> from David Rogers  (DRogers@MIT-OZ)

>    Can anyone verify the strategic points here? I had always assumed that
>the famed First Strike would be against both missles and cities, but it is
>suggested here that the real objective of a first strike would be to disable
>the enemy's nuclear capacity while leaving cities relatively untouched, and
>having enough nuclear weapons in reserve to then use "blackmail" against the
>relatively unprotected cities.
>
>    The quote about the decreasing power of warheads would seem to support
>this reading. (I left out Luttwak's gratuitous digs against a freeze that
>followed the second paragraph in the original.) If this really is the
>top level strategy of nuclear war, then aren't we really trying to use
>accuracy to remove the MAD from nuclear war? (If this is true, it is
>interesting
>that I have never read any media explanations of nuclear first strike that
>suggest anything other than a total attack on all targets.)

Which kind of attack you believe will happen depends entirely on who
you talk to.  There are many different objectives from which an enemy
might choose.  Some of the major types of strategic attacks are:
  1.  Counterforce - The basic intention is to destroy the enemy's
	strategic forces (i.e. ICBMs, bombers, major bomber airfields,
	that sort of stuff).  This sort of attack would cause
	casualties, but not as many as other sorts of attacks.
  2.  Countermilitary - This includes counterforce as well as other
	military targets like army bases, smaller military airfields,
	conventional forces (tanks and the like), and possibly military
	industries.  This sort of attack would create many more
	casualties than counterforce.
  3.  Countervalue - Ugly.  This is the sort of attack where they go
	after the cities.  Undoubtedly the most casualties.  The
	industrial base in general is usually included in this attack.
	The basic idea is to destroy the entire society.
  4.  Leadership attack - Just what it says.  Get the White House, the
	Pentagon and Congress perhaps.  The idea is to leave the other
	side with no leadership so they don't have anyone who can
	approve launching a strategic attack.
  5.  C3 attack - Attack the enemy's command, control and communications.
	This attack, sometimes combined with 4., is often called a
	decapitation attack.  The idea is to leave the enemy without the
	ability to launch an attack because they can't talk to each
	other.

Those are the basic sorts of attacks, although there are many other
kinds depending on whether you take subsets of each kind and combine
them with others.  Estimates of casualties range from down in the
thousands for attacks like #4 to a million or so for #1 to upwards of
10 million for #3.  The reason the media doesn't talk about things
like #1 or #4 is that those attacks aren't nearly so gruesome or
sensational as the country being blown to bits.  I realize this sounds
more than a bit perverse, but then I think the media is generally
quite perverse.  Why talk about a thousand casualties when you can talk
about 10 million and scare people out of their wits?  :-(


The above are strictly my own opinions and do not necessarily have
anything to do with the opinions of the Rand Corporation, its sponsors,
or any other reasonable entity.