Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

What is at risk: Civilian or Military targets?

  • Civilian

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Miltary

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Mixture

    Votes: 6 15.0%
  • Mixture (Primarily Civilian)

    Votes: 13 32.5%
  • Mixture (Primarily Military)

    Votes: 15 37.5%
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If the United States were to get nuked by a foreign enemy, do you think civilian targets such as major cities would be nuked? Or would our attacker(s) go after military targets such as military bases and missile silos? Or maybe it would be a combination of the two? What I was thinking is no one would nuke us just to destroy us, they would want our resources and possible our manpower. So, that being said, if they attacked us they would only attack our military bases and missile silos and a few civilian targets like D.C. and New York...etc. This way they don't destroy our resources and could then invade at a later time. What do you all think, I am looking forward to reading your thoughts.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,645 Posts
Even with the Muslims, I believe it will be a combination of both. Military to try to reduce the retaliation and civilian for maximum body count effect. It would do to well for the attackers not to wipe out the entire country, the will have nothing to rule. Other countries would want the infrastructure and Muslims have stated they want to raise the Islamic flag over the White House.

Does Islam itself actually have a flag?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

If Russia or China (or both combined) went for a preemptive first strike, if you live near a U.S. military base, it will be a smoking hole.

France, Britain, and Israel are allies. That leaves India, Pakistan, North Korea, and perhaps Syria and Iran. I would rule out India because of global business interests.

The other four have no ballistic missile delivery capability, and no air force capability strong or stealthy enough to penetrate American airspace. Submarines -- Russia, China, and later, Iran.

If you are worried about being nuked -- stay away from military bases and coastal population centers. And find some place with mountains, not flat prairieland or featureless coastal plains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
I have to disagree on some of the above opinions... Russia thinks like us... and would try to hit military... then govt... then infrastructure with the end goal being occupation of the US.

China has a limited number of nukes and would focus primarily on population centers with the goal of removing us from being a global power... and especially removing our influence from Asia.

Non-State sponsored extremists (i.e., Muslim Jihadists) would focus on National icons like New York or D.C.

State sponsored extremists would go for maximum bang for their effort... a good example would be something like Cheyenne, Wyoming. It's small enough to be utterly destroyed (approx 50K people). It's a state capital. It's has a military base... that happens to have a WSA and manages 3 squadrons of nukes... and is 20AF HQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trips-man and Irish

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I have to disagree on some of the above opinions... Russia thinks like us... and would try to hit military... then govt... then infrastructure with the end goal being occupation of the US.

China has a limited number of nukes and would focus primarily on population centers with the goal of removing us from being a global power... and especially removing our influence from Asia.

Non-State sponsored extremists (i.e., Muslim Jihadists) would focus on National icons like New York or D.C.

State sponsored extremists would go for maximum bang for their effort... a good example would be something like Cheyenne, Wyoming. It's small enough to be utterly destroyed (approx 50K people). It's a state capital. It's has a military base... that happens to have a WSA and manages 3 squadrons of nukes... and is 20AF HQ.
I agree
 
  • Like
Reactions: inceptor

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
Governmental and military are prime targets, but our cities are home to a large amount our infrastructure of machining, manufacturing, management and distribution of resources with the companies in them. Plus most of the large cities have governmental buildings. It depends on what the attackers goal is, but if destruction of the country and it's people are it, that will do it. There will be lots of useable resources left over and if they can put the country in a stranglehold from outside help and relief. We'll starve to death in mass and kill each other off for survival in no time flat. We're a consumer based society now and without someone bringing of food to consume people will starve. Our country is fed by our transit systems. Once the trucks stop rolling we're in trouble. Then they'll can just clean up afterwards. I wouldn't want to be here afterwards either. Maybe through it, and I would either leave the country or head deep into the hills if I could. I'd say it's niave to think that because of how we treat a populance when invading and controlling a country, that someone else would do the same to us. Afterall billions of people have been murdered and executed by governments over the last century making them the greastest murderers of our time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
our cities are home to a large amount our infrastructure of machining, manufacturing, management and distribution of resources with the companies in them
Good point, I actually didn't think about this, maybe they would go after the civilian targets first like major cities, they would kill of massive amounts of our citizens, destroy government buildings, destroy our infrastructure...etc. So even if they didn't destroy our military targets we wouldn't be in a position to retaliate anyway, so as long as they hit the missile bases or kept their defense missile system with enough missiles to hold off a retaliation strike, they wouldn't have to worry about our air force or ground forces, we would have to keep everyone here to help rebuild and maintain order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,529 Posts
You know, one of the things we are not taking into consideration is the objectives of those who are attacking us.

One more thing to consider. In the event of a nuclear attack or a nuclear exchange, is it really necessary to target industrial centers? Not that we are what we were back in the Cold War era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
You know, one of the things we are not taking into consideration is the objectives of those who are attacking us.

One more thing to consider. In the event of a nuclear attack or a nuclear exchange, is it really necessary to target industrial centers? Not that we are what we were back in the Cold War era.
I agree and said above depending on what the attackers goal is. We're still a major weapons manufacturer and have a certain amount of manufacturing capability we coulld kick into gear if we wanted to. Most of our weapons are made here and every machine shop with a CNC machine is capable of turning out either complete rifles or parts. Plus weapon parts of other types like WMD parts. We may outsource things overseas, but we could make things here if we needed to and build on what we've got if we had too. If someone wanted to see we couldn't fight back as well they'd be targets. Then there's simply the mindset of better off without them. Seeing a place as a much nicer place if the inhabitants weren't there. I'm guilty of those thoughts myself about particular places in the US and the world as I think many of us probably are if we're honest about it. What the attackers goal is, is certainly a deciding factor in how they'd attack us I'd say. American's in large may be fat and lazy these days, but they'd still make a fair worker base with a whip at their backs and a gun to their heads. Cold to say I know, but it's a cold world and everyone doesn't want to sit around a campfire, share marshmellow treats and sing songs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
If we get hit by a nuclear weapon it will probably be a single weapon like a small tactical nuclear war head, in the middle of a large city to bring us down financially. All the way back into the 1960 we had tactical weapons such as the M79 that weighed around 200lbs and could deliver a blast equal to 800 tons tnt. The worst thing would be we wouldn't have any ideal where it came from, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, There may have been some that got loose when the old Soviet Union collapsed. Many countries such as Russia have always believed that a nuclear war would be survivable, and have built shelter for a big portion of their population, They are now building them at a fantastic pace. At one time the US also had that philosophy and had shelters in building and a lot of designated areas which they kept stocked with food water bed and other necessary items. Take for instance Louisville Ky. there is a rock quarry that goes under the Louisville zoo that most people in Louisville don't even know exist, but at one time it was stocked to support 50,000 people for several months. Our politicians across the country thought it just to costly and the only people that needs to be saved is the politicians themselves. Most people don't realize in a nuclear blast if you can get cover for 1-week the radiation level would be reduced 1/100. So if you prepped for any other reason you probably have what you need to survive except for proper shelter. So you may want to just look around close to your home and see what would give you the radiation protection you need for 1-week, just about any thing under ground or maybe the basement of a large building (don't worry about building security they will be heading home to take care of their own families) , I could think of lot of places, If you see the blast you have between 1/2 to 1 hours before the radiation starts to fall.
I posted this before but just in case some missed it her is a great site with a lot of information.
WHAT TO DO IF A NUCLEAR DISASTER IS IMMINENT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,529 Posts
Darned thing about nuclear weapons, even the hand carriable ones, is that they require maintenance. You can't build them and then store them indefinitely. The ones that were reported to have gone missing at the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, would no longer be a reliable weapon against a U.S. city block. On the other hand, they would have been very beneficial to those "rogue" nations wanting to use them for reverse engineering.

That makes me think, by the way. Yes, sometimes I bother doing that. Try not to make it a habit. Can get me in trouble, you understand.

Anyway, if you wanted to make a mess of things, and you are sponsored by a "rogue nation" *Denton cuts eyes toward the map on the wall, glaring specifically at Iran* and you had a group like, say Hezbollah, to use for the purpose of smuggling in reverse engineered tactical weapons, and you wanted to make a mess of the U.S., where would you deploy those weapons?

I'm thinking maybe if the NYSE and the CBOE were targeted, it'd make a mess of the financial system. On top of that, if an item were deployed at major transportation hubs, the nation would be severely hobbled. Everything from groceries to hardware (think old fashioned and not computer) would be strangled. Sure, the yield and radius of "backpack nukes isn't impressive and would bring down not much more than a city block, you aren't going to get a truck driver in the country to charge into a terminal that is near where such an item was deployed.

These "rogue" nations have buds. For example, China and Russia, a couple of commie countries that seem to be getting really chummy with each other, seem to also favor Iran. What if Hezbollah's physical attacks were accompanied by network attacks? What if they were successful enough to bring down power grids?

There are a lot more things to fear, today, than there were back during the so-called Cold War.

Hey, but anyway, how's mommern'em?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I believe a first strike would be EMP impacting civilians more than military...
True, but if a country were to EMP us, then we would almost certainly retaliate, so out attacker(s) would have to destroy at least a few of our major military bases. But in my opinion detonating an EMP and then sitting back and destroying any retaliatory missiles, they could simply sit back and watch out country destroy itself within weeks of the grid being down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seneca

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I believe out greatest threat comes from North Korea/Iran, not directly from them but them selling briefcase nukes to terrorist, in that case large cities will be the target. The most dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not Crazy Yet

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I believe a first strike would be EMP impacting civilians more than military...
The other day I was looking at gun safes, saw one that had 2 locks one electronic the other mechanical, the reason being is during an emp attack the electronic version won't work.

Never would have thought of that. All my guns and won't be able to get to them.

Just some food for thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
The other day I was looking at gun safes, saw one that had 2 locks one electronic the other mechanical, the reason being is during an emp attack the electronic version won't work.

Never would have thought of that. All my guns and won't be able to get to them.

Just some food for thought.
Good point, any essentials like weapons, food, water...etc. should be protected from EMPs. It wouldn't be very hard or expensive, and could save your life in the event an EMP does occur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,221 Posts
The first strike against us from a nation would be, an irbm from a sub or surface non warship to take out washington.
Followed up immediately with an irbm strike on military command and control centers.
The ability of commanders in the field have had the authority to launch without presidential approval has been removed.
Before the strategic forces could react the bomber airfields and missile launch facilities would be destroyed by the following icbm's.
This would all happen within a half an hour.
Even if there was launch detection by satellite, there would be no one to take charge before it was to late.
The only things that could possibly escape would be the missile boats , then the problem would be no washington launch codes by satcom or elf for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
The first strike against us from a nation would be, an irbm from a sub or surface non warship to take out washington.
Followed up immediately with an irbm strike on military command and control centers.
The ability of commanders in the field have had the authority to launch without presidential approval has been removed.
Before the strategic forces could react the bomber airfields and missile launch facilities would be destroyed by the following icbm's.
This would all happen within a half an hour.
Even if there was launch detection by satellite, there would be no one to take charge before it was to late.
The only things that could possibly escape would be the missile boats , then the problem would be no washington launch codes by satcom or elf for them.
You are talking about full fledged nuclear war, I don't believe that would ever have the slightest chance of happening.

I don't believe there is any change of disabling the united states from being able to wage nuclear war, just maybe delaying it a little, by disrupting lines of communication, but once the launch codes came out of the bunker underneath the white house, there would be no way of stopping it. All missile sites will be still intact, and anyway there's always the subs.

mutually assured destruction, has, and will keep most of our enemies at bay, only the crazy, would wage nuclear war. That's mostly Iran and north Korea. north Korea doesn't have a long range missile that can reach the united states, and there navy is a joke. (few years ago they had some rusty old fishing boat do a lap around a destroyer as a show of force, the destroyer basically had to stop and reverse for the rust boat to catch up.) Iran is the only real threat to all out nuclear war, but i still dont think they have a long range missile capable of reaching us.

our greatest threat is backpack/briefcase/dirty bomb/emp, by terrorist, in which case populated/monuments(anything that says america) is the target.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top