Misinformation Regarding Nuclear Targets

[NuclearID]

I just saw a video on YouTube from someone claiming to have a degree in nuclear engineering. Fine. Stay in your lane, because you clearly know nothing about military matters.

This person kept claiming that nuclear power plants would not be targets in a nuclear war and he could not even understand why they would be.

That is exactly the problem. Having a degree in civilian nuclear engineering does not mean you know anything about military planning or the history behind it.

To the idiot I’m referencing on YouTube:
Do some research on strike packages and declassified targeting lists from the Soviet Union and the United States. Nuclear power plants were absolutely on those target lists. That is not an opinion. Declassified government material from both the U.S. and the Soviets makes that very clear.

Also, declassified Soviet targeting material shows that farming regions and fields were included as targets. Yes, even empty farmland made the list.

So if farming regions were considered nuclear targets, then nuclear power plants obviously were too.

AND IF YOU ARE WONDERING why either side would target empty farming regions, the answer is simple, the point of nuclear war is not just immediate destruction of military, but making sure your enemy CANNOT recover. That includes food production, power generation & any serious national industrial backbone centers/cities. If the land used to feed a population is irradiated, recovery becomes far harder. Crude, yes. But effective.

Also, ANY airport runway over 14,000 feet would be considered a nuclear target as well. These are basic facts, and anyone with half a brain cell can verify them in seconds with a quick search online.

It is amazing how hard some people work to stay ignorant while pretending to educate others.

 

[NuclearID]

Anyway, do not fall for the nonsense pushed by people who pretend to understand nuclear war. In 99.99% of cases, they have no idea what they are talking about and are only producing content for money, not for any real or serious effort to educate people.

 

[NuclearID]

I am not going to share the video that prompted this thread because I refuse to help spread disinformation from an idiot. The point of this thread is damage control, in case anyone here happened to see the same video and came away misinformed.

@RiffRaff @DEFCON Warning System feel free to add anything I may have missed. If either of you wants the video I’m referring to, let me know and I will send it privately so you can see for yourselves how poor it was from a factual nuclear war standpoint.

What makes it more concerning....... is that this is not just some random YouTube nobody. He has a respectable following. That is exactly why I reacted the way I did, because a lot of people likely have already seen that video, or will end up seeing it. Sadly.

 

[NuclearID]

One last point to drive this home...

Just because the Cold War ended does not mean the strategic targets, or the logic behind targeting them, ended with it. The exact target lists change over time, but by and large the same types of targets are still relevant today. The Cold War ended. Strategic nuclear logic did not.

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

I know exactly who you are talking about and he does know his stuff and has been debunking fearmongering around civilian use of nuclear technology and has a great grasp of how the nuclear process works and the weapons themselves, but when it comes to targeting and why something would be a target vs not being a target that kind of reasoning doesn't really apply anymore and it's more economics, risk vs reward, etc.
He might also be conflicting target with target value and countervalue, they won't be the first things targeted in a full nuclear conflict, but the moment it becomes focused on solely economical and strategic targets they will absolutely be targets, but perhaps not in an initial exchange only involving military targets.

 

[NuclearID]

I know exactly who you are talking about and he does know his stuff and has been debunking fearmongering around civilian use of nuclear technology and has a great grasp of how the nuclear process works and the weapons themselves, but when it comes to targeting and why something would be a target vs not being a target that kind of reasoning doesn't really apply anymore and it's more economics, risk vs reward, etc.
He might also be conflicting target with target value and countervalue, they won't be the first things targeted in a full nuclear conflict, but the moment it becomes focused on solely economical and strategic targets they will absolutely be targets, but perhaps not in an initial exchange only involving military targets.

I see where you’re coming from, but this is exactly what I mean:

Just because the Cold War ended does not mean the strategic targets, or the logic behind targeting them, ended with it. The exact target lists change over time, but by and large the same types of targets are still relevant today. The Cold War ended. Strategic nuclear logic did not.

 

[NuclearID]

I am not going to share the video that prompted this thread because I refuse to help spread disinformation from an idiot. The point of this thread is damage control, in case anyone here happened to see the same video and came away misinformed.

@RiffRaff @DEFCON Warning System feel free to add anything I may have missed. If either of you wants the video I’m referring to, let me know and I will send it privately so you can see for yourselves how poor it was from a factual nuclear war standpoint.

What makes it more concerning....... is that this is not just some random YouTube nobody. He has a respectable following. That is exactly why I reacted the way I did, because a lot of people likely have already seen that video, or will end up seeing it. Sadly.

Actually, @DEFCON Warning System, if I can get the phone number for the person who made this video, would you be willing to contact him and ask him to either correct, remake, or remove it and replace it with something that is factually accurate regarding nuclear war?

 

[NuclearID]

Actually, @DEFCON Warning System, if I can get the phone number for the person who made this video, would you be willing to contact him and ask him to either correct, remake, or remove it and replace it with something that is factually accurate regarding nuclear war?

Hell, you could even use it as an opportunity to collaborate with him. DWS could be worked into a revised version of the video by offering the expertise, material, and fact checking needed to make it accurate on nuclear war. Maybe you could even appear in the video yourself and give your own perspective on it.

Just an idea...

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

Hell, you could even use it as an opportunity to collaborate with him. DWS could be worked into a revised version of the video by offering the expertise, material, and fact checking needed to make it accurate on nuclear war. Maybe you could even appear in the video yourself and give your own perspective on it.

Just an idea...

That's a really good idea.

 

[NuclearID]

That's a really good idea.

Just to be clear, I do respect the guy, and I am not accusing him of being a fraud. He clearly has real knowledge when it comes to civilian nuclear engineering and nuclear power, and in that field he has more formal expertise than I do. I watch his videos often because he is almost the most factual person I know when it comes to nuclear engineering on the civilian aspect.

I have no problem acknowledging that.
That is also exactly why this caught me off guard and why I reacted as strongly as I did.

Most of his content is genuinely informative, which made this particular video stand out even more.

My criticism is not about his civilian nuclear knowledge. It is about stepping outside that lane into military targeting doctrine and nuclear war logic, which is an entirely different subject he has no degree or background in.

Understanding reactors and nuclear power infrastructure is not the same thing as understanding strategic targeting, war planning, or why certain categories of infrastructure have historically been considered valid targets in nuclear conflict.

So yes, I would absolutely support outreach or even collaboration with him via DWS if it meant the video could be corrected, clarified, or remade properly.

He has a real audience, which is exactly why getting the facts right at the source would be the best possible outcome.

Also not to brag. But DWS has more followers across multiple platforms than he does combined on just one. So DWS collaborating with him would be a favor to him, not the other way around.

 

[NuclearID]

If I can get the phone number for the person who made this video, would you be willing to contact him and ask him to either correct, remake, or remove it and replace it with something that is factually accurate regarding nuclear war?

That’s funny, I said if…

Getting contact information is not the issue. Most of what people think is “hard to find” is actually public and accessible if you know where to look. No hacking required. People say your privacy is at risk when you're online, truly people have no idea.... Even using VPNs....

So the real question is whether you want to move forward with it, because I can get what we need on that end. But won't waste my time tracking down information if you don't want to do it.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Well, the guy is right in that nuclear energy plants are not a priority target. They would be tertiary targets. Something hit when it is all-out war.

I know he is saying that power plants would never be targeted. That is probably wrong. Honestly, I would have to defer to a nuclear engineer on how well built nuclear plants are. Are they vulnerable to an air burst? A ground burst seems wasteful, though it depends on how badly an enemy wants to knock out the energy supply. There are easier ways to do it. An EMP would have a more far ranging effect. Transformers are much more vulnerable.

As far as farmland goes, I don't know how realistic that is. There's way too much of it out there to target. Fallout will do more to ruin the land than a direct attack. Plus I've never heard of Russia directly targeting farmland. Maybe someone mapped it out, but it isn't very practical to aim for. Nuclear weapons are expensive and limited. The missile-to-value ratio for farmland is pretty low.

 

[NuclearID]

Well, the guy is right in that nuclear energy plants are not a priority target. They would be tertiary targets. Something his when it is all-out war.

I know he is saying that power plants would never be targeted. That is probably wrong. Honestly, I would have to defer to a nuclear engineer on how well build nuclear plants are. Are they vulnerable to an air burst? A ground burst seems wasteful, though it depends on how badly an enemy wants to knock out the energy supply. There are easier ways to do it. An EMP would have a more far ranging effect. Transformers are much more vulnerable.

As far as farmland goes, I don't know how realistic that is. There's way too much of it out there to target. Fallout will do more to ruin the land than a direct attack. Plus I've never heard of Russia directly targeting farmland. Maybe someone mapped it out, but it isn't very practical to aim for. Nuclear weapons are expensive and limited. The missile-to-value ratio for farmland is pretty low.

Sorry to be so blunt but you didn't answer my question.... Are you willing to do a collaboration with this guy...????

Also I can provide easily the declassified information from the Soviet Union & the United States that agriculture was absolutely a nuclear target because it was tied into the rebuilding effort which was absolutely tied into nuclear targeting. If any industry on a national scale whatsoever is involved in the rebuilding efforts after a nuclear war, it is on the nuclear target list. Without a SINGLE shred of doubt.

MANY retired government and military officials have said: "even though the Cold War has ended the targeting list has not changed." At least the genre of the targets because obviously target lists change over time/decades.

Just because the Cold War ended does not mean the strategic targets, or the logic behind targeting them, ended with it. The exact target lists change over time, but by and large the same types of targets are still relevant today. The Cold War ended. Strategic nuclear logic did not.

 

[NuclearID]

Sorry to be so blunt but you didn't answer my question.... Are you willing to do a collaboration with this guy...????

Also I can provide easily the declassified information from the Soviet Union & the United States that agriculture was absolutely a nuclear target because it was tied into the rebuilding effort which was absolutely tied into nuclear targeting. If any industry on a national scale whatsoever is involved in the rebuilding efforts after a nuclear war, it is on the nuclear target list. Without a SINGLE shred of doubt.

MANY retired government and military officials have said: "even though the Cold War has ended the targeting list has not changed." At least the genre of the targets because obviously target lists change over time/decades.

And yes there's a 1992 report that was declassified by the department of defense of nuclear Target lists of the United States and the strategy of a nuclear war for the United States and I will happily share it if you would like.

 

[NuclearID]

And yes there's a 1992 report that was declassified by the department of defense of nuclear Target lists of the United States and the strategy of a nuclear war for the United States and I will happily share it if you would like.

Screw it. Here you go:

There is no serious basis for claiming nuclear energy infrastructure, agriculture, ANY national industry, or airfields were somehow outside nuclear target logic.

Declassified U.S. Strategic Air Command targeting material from 1956 explicitly includes aenergy categories such as A/E Industry, A/E Fabrication, A/E Fuels, A/E Gaseous Diffusion, A/E Electro Magnetic, A/E Feed Material, A/E Heavy Water, and A/E Research. The same material also includes ESPECIALLY electric power grid targets via A/E (ATOMIC ENERGY).

This was not just a generic category sheet sitting in isolation. The Moscow target sheet includes A/E Research and Electric Power Grid targets, and the Leningrad target sheet does too. In other words, atomic energy and electrical infrastructure were not theoretical categories only. They were applied in actual target planning.

On the Soviet side, declassified U.S. net evaluation material describing expected Soviet attack effects explicitly refers to U.S. military installations and economic resources, including nuclear energy facilities. So no, the idea that nuclear war planning somehow skipped nuclear-energy infrastructure is ahistorical nonsense.

Sources:

Category code list | National Security Archive

nsarchive.gwu.edu

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/documents/Moscow.pdf

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/documents/Leningrad.pdf

Part II Restricted allocation [1209 DGZ's] with airfields list and weapons | National Security Archive

nsarchive.gwu.edu

Studies by Once Top Secret Government Entity Portray Terrible Costs of Nuclear War

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Well, the guy is right in that nuclear energy plants are not a priority target. They would be tertiary targets. Something hit when it is all-out war.

I know he is saying that power plants would never be targeted. That is probably wrong. Honestly, I would have to defer to a nuclear engineer on how well built nuclear plants are. Are they vulnerable to an air burst? A ground burst seems wasteful, though it depends on how badly an enemy wants to knock out the energy supply. There are easier ways to do it. An EMP would have a more far ranging effect. Transformers are much more vulnerable.

As far as farmland goes, I don't know how realistic that is. There's way too much of it out there to target. Fallout will do more to ruin the land than a direct attack. Plus I've never heard of Russia directly targeting farmland. Maybe someone mapped it out, but it isn't very practical to aim for. Nuclear weapons are expensive and limited. The missile-to-value ratio for farmland is pretty low.

EMP would knock out the grid for sure, would make power plants pretty useless.
An airburst would certainly take any reactor offline and make it a write-off essentially. However, some reactor designs have very robust containment structures. In some cases an airburst (especially a low yield one that's off by a few hundred metres) may not be enough to completely obliterate the containment structure. For certainty I imagine they'd do a ground burst.

Also the whole point of targeting a nuclear plant is in a countervalue strike, yes you put it out of action but more than that, you spread ungodly amounts of highly radioactive material across a huge area. Think Chernobyl on steroids. So yeah for that ground bursts absolutely make sense.

It's one of my worries about what'd happen in a nuclear war. Fingers crossed it never happens.

 

[Lostpuppy]

Great observations on the target lists.

Perhaps a newer take on targeting.

Review all the current wars.
Review the strikes and their purpose,
Review the desire lack of desire to hit prime targets, oil pipelines and of note
Nuclear sites,
We have seen energy grid a key componment
If we were to begin to draw circles and look at intersections of circles,
Ask how many nukes could be used to yield same results, namely airburst vs ground,
Figure prevailing winds into the calculation
Fallout would inhibit food supply, control food control people,
Set up a seasonal attack , an easy win!
Look at Russian eagerly stealing Ukraine grain,
Look at the new world critical resources overlay,

I see a new think for tactical planners,
this being a nuclear engagement to force the enemy to surrender yet retaining to abiliity to gain or utilize new territories,

The cold war flash -ash I think has changed and we are seeing it in the current strategies being deployed,