This Thursday marks the 70th anniversary of the first wartime use of a nuclear bomb. On Monday 6 August at 8:15 am the Enola Gay, a B-29 commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets, dropped ‘Little Boy’ on Hiroshima Japan. Only about two pounds of the 141 pounds of U-235 (Enriched Uranium) in the bomb actually went through nuclear fission. Those two pounds produced a 15 KT explosion (equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) leveling most of Hiroshima killing 80,000 people. A second bomb, ‘Fat Man’ delivered by a B-29 named Bockscar commanded by Major Charles Sweeney, was dropped on Nagasaki Japan on 9 August.
Fortunately those are the only two uses of nuclear weapons in war. Just four years later the USSR exploded its own nuclear bomb, code named ‘First Lightning’ in what’s now Kazakhstan. In the following decades Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and most recently North Korea joined the declared ‘nuclear bomb’ club. Israel is an unacknowledged member of the club and many other nations have pursued nuclear weapons. However with thousands of weapons and a triad (bombers, submarines, & missiles) of systems to deliver them across the globe the world is dominated by the arsenals of the US and Russia.
Based on the demographics of this blog’s readers many of you lived during the Cold War and some of you (me included) may remember the ‘duck and cover’ exercises in school. Despite much ridicule the ‘duck and cover’ technique does offer improved protection from the blast wave and its accompanying debris. A fourth-grade teacher used the technique to protect her children during the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor explosion. All of them escaped injury. Unable to duck herself, she suffered severe injuries including a severed tendon.
Nuclear Targeting Options
With that diversion out of the way, here’s our Map Monday feature developed by FEMA and the National Resource Defense Council. It shows the targets for two different nuclear attack scenarios. In one the US strikes Russia first and destroys many of the Russian weapons, but not all of them. The Russian response is ‘limited’ to 500 weapons with targets indicated by the purple triangles. With US missiles already launched the Russian second strike is focused on cities. In the other scenario Russia strikes first, which adds 1500 more warheads. Cities are still hit, but so are the American military bases. The massive black areas in the American west are the attacks on US missile silos.
I couldn’t find a date for the map (admittedly my attempt was somewhat lame), but based on the location of the missile fields this map is probably after the mid-90s round of base closings. I’d guess it’s from the late 90s or early 2000s. That said, how does your home fare?
As always thanks for reading.
Armen
As an aside please consider signing up for my FREE author newsletter. It will contain previews, announcements, and contests related to my novels. It will not overwhelm your inbox – I’m thinking once a month or less depending on news.
If you have subscribed, but haven’t received a newsletter, please check your spam folder. Moving the newsletter to your inbox should fix the issue.
Note to pay the bills: As you may have noticed this website does not contain advertisements (at least not ones that pay me). Funding comes solely from sales of my books. The award winning Warders series features James Bond-like action in a fantasy setting. If you’re interested in learning more about the series check out a summary here or find links to purchase books here. Thanks for your support.
In the limited response scenario, why are there triangles in areas that would NOT be targeted in the full attack? What’s the rationale?
I believe the limited attack is better described as a retaliatory strike or second response. The assumption is that the US has already launched its missiles and planes in a first strike of Russia. Presumably this US first strike has taken out some of the Russian warheads, but not all of them. In that case, there’s little point in targeting empty silos and airfields. Instead the Russians destroy cities, factories, and other economic and socially valuable targets. If the Russians attacked first, they would target US bases and silos to prevent a US retaliatory strike, but leave the cities to exploit for economic or other gains. At least that’s the way I understand it.
Reminds me of a poster I’ve got at home. Originally published in the 70’s, “Danger Zones” is a similar map with red dots over all the sites that the author (based on population, government, military and industrial density) considered likely targets for a nuclear strike from the USSR.
Although completely out of date, it’s still fun to show people. It always attracts comments and starts fun discussions.
There were quite a few similar maps, but this was the only one that showed more than one scenario. There’s always next year for a different map.
Some sobering thoughts. It would seem that we are a safer planet, given the de-esculation of nuclear warheads between Russia and the United States. But, that is only a dream. Too many crazys out there ready to push the button.
I think we’re marginally safer, at least with respect to the larger nuclear powers. As more nations acquire nuclear capability – often driven by their belief that the bomb protects them – it seems logical that the chance of those weapons being used goes up. Hopefully we never prove that logic.