By what means would the USSR nuke Britain in the event of an exchange in the 1980s?

Nuclear explosions...

...Do indeed give a thermal pulse, followed afterwards by blast waves - but there is a major problem here. Not fallout, but the fact you just expended part of your nuclear arsenal, when a different weapon might have been sufficient - opportunity cost. It is far cheaper to use incendiary warheads or thermobarics, both of which are owned by Russia in large numbers and deliverable by cruise missile or rocket. Did you know a thermobaric/FAE weapon has a locally higher overpressure than a nuke? A nuke has the tendency to rise when airburst over the target. Your refinery might burn, but a factory with heavy industrial equipment would lose roof and wall elements and suffer only minor damage to (for example) rolling mills, hammers, lathes and foundry furnaces. As simple a protection as a pile of tipped sand would offer sizeable protection to industrial equipment inside it - and that is a published Russian approach.

Russia was notoriously bad at warhead reprocessing, so had a lot of warheads that were going through natural radioactive decay and so gradually 'poisoning' themselves, so a detonation became less likely. In 'Hard Rock' the powers that be finally let us local authority EPOs play with nuclear UXM effects. Russia did indeed produce large numbers of warheads, just to make sure that enough of the 'fresher' ones would detonate - on that I will agree - but nuclear weapons production is notoriously difficult and expensive. That is why nukes would not be thrown about like confetti, and why 'conventional' weapons would still be needed.
 
One of the problems with throwing multiple warheads at a comparatively small area is the resultant fratricide. Follow on warheads can be knocked off target or even damaged to the extent that they fail to work because of the blast, EMP and debris effects of the first warhead to strike (ok, so a close miss is almost irrelevant in nuclear terms). So whilst somewhere like Cardiff may indeed have 6 'targets' even if the Soviets decided to send a nuclear weapon its way, they would not send 6. Maybe 2 if they even deemed it worth one in the first place, just to ensure that the strike hits home, but it would be some time behind the first one (long enough for survivors to be climb out of the ruins and say "oh shit, what happened?" before it arrives to give the answer).

Additionally, it is not necessary to think to destroy these targets in the way you would under WWII terms. The effects of a nuclear blast would render many effectively destroyed, or at least unusable, for the short duration of a nuclear exchange anyway. Even if they were some miles from the epicentre of the blast they would suffer. Damage to the buildings, fires, radiation, death and injury of the workforce, disruption to power, water and gas, roads and bridges damaged so raw materials (if they could get any) couldn't be bought in or finished goods moved out (to where? The probable places you would want these goods have been hit hard too). Further afield, the loss of central control when the various (and known to the Soviets) HQ's were either destroyed or isolated would further hinder the factories ability to produce what was needed. All would prevent these sites being of much immediate use. Before any of that could be resolved the war would be over. Given the comparatively small size of our air defence assets (both aircraft and missiles) the few nuclear warheads used would have reduced this still further, allowing Soviet long range aviation to visit and complete the destruction using HE. Forget the emergency services too. They would have been decimated if they hadn't been spread out away from target areas and the remains of the Civil Defence by this time was woefully inadequate. The EPO's would be doing triage to the nth degree just trying to save anyone at all.

Corditeman is also correct about the fact that even non-belligerent nations would be targeted. In addition to simply destroying targets (oil fields or places like Suez or Panama being good examples) to deny their resources to an enemy, countries would be hit almost out of spite, to equalise the misery and ensure the wrong nation didn't inherit the Earth. The radiation would not be confined to the borders of the belligerents but would spread wherever the prevailing winds took it.
 
Yes, you are closing in on what we had to plan for...

...The exercise we held in Cheshire Police training college in Nantwich in 1984 was dealing with counterforce and countercity target strategies, with excessive use of nukes and H.E. Warhead cruise missiles against places like Capenhurst and Stanlow Refinery. Also a big stock of US Army logistical supplies (C rations, uniforms, boots, MASH equipment) at a now-closed site near Warrington. If 'Do Nothing' CND, drop to 9% of then 925,000 population in a year. If 'Do What We Can', up to 66% of the population could be saved. Even a 50% survival rate was feasible using just 'Protect and Survive' methods and whatever resources survived. This was with professionals in health, industry, agriculture, science and engineering. We knew what was possible, we knew cannibalism was totally unacceptable and that it was better to do agriculture with machines than untrained townies.

I think somebody actually worked out the crisis hydrolysis of cellulose to produce glucose for a range of uses as a side effect. I was only 33 and more interested in radiological effects, communications, intelligence, information dissemination and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I got involved in mass-sheltering surveys and Rest Centre management afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Not fallout, but the fact you just expended part of your nuclear arsenal, when a different weapon might have been sufficient - opportunity cost.

Which is made under the assumption that you don't have nukes to spare. A casual glance at the superpowers arsenal would dispel that notion. Many targets would indeed also be attacked, or possibly have already been attacked, by conventional weapons. But many other such targets could not be struck with conventional ordinance either due to range issues, delivery vehicle availability, or by the fact that they had been struck (possibly repeatedly) by conventional ordinance only for the damage to be repaired and carried on with.

A nuke has the tendency to rise when airburst over the target. Your refinery might burn, but a factory with heavy industrial equipment would lose roof and wall elements and suffer only minor damage to (for example) rolling mills, hammers, lathes and foundry furnaces. As simple a protection as a pile of tipped sand would offer sizeable protection to industrial equipment inside it - and that is a published Russian approach.

A nuclear air burst immediately over a factory would render the factory a burnt out hollowed out husk unsuitable for working, in much the same manner it did to the Hiroshima dome. Machine tools inside of it would be reduced to burnt, twisted slag. And that assumes a air burst over it and not a ground burst which would outright vaporize the plant, leaving nothing but a crater.

Russia was notoriously bad at warhead reprocessing, so had a lot of warheads that were going through natural radioactive decay and so gradually 'poisoning' themselves, so a detonation became less likely. In 'Hard Rock' the powers that be finally let us local authority EPOs play with nuclear UXM effects. Russia did indeed produce large numbers of warheads, just to make sure that enough of the 'fresher' ones would detonate - on that I will agree - but nuclear weapons production is notoriously difficult and expensive. That is why nukes would not be thrown about like confetti, and why 'conventional' weapons would still be needed.

Again, a glance at warhead production numbers by year would show that nuclear ordinance is no harder for a major power to produce then, say, tactical aircraft. The major powers were expecting to expend aircraft in their thousands during WW3, they would likely expect the same of warheads.

Additionally, it is not necessary to think to destroy these targets in the way you would under WWII terms. The effects of a nuclear blast would render many effectively destroyed, or at least unusable, for the short duration of a nuclear exchange anyway. Even if they were some miles from the epicentre of the blast they would suffer. Damage to the buildings, fires, radiation, death and injury of the workforce, disruption to power, water and gas, roads and bridges damaged so raw materials (if they could get any) couldn't be bought in or finished goods moved out (to where? The probable places you would want these goods have been hit hard too). Further afield, the loss of central control when the various (and known to the Soviets) HQ's were either destroyed or isolated would further hinder the factories ability to produce what was needed. All would prevent these sites being of much immediate use. Before any of that could be resolved the war would be over. Given the comparatively small size of our air defence assets (both aircraft and missiles) the few nuclear warheads used would have reduced this still further, allowing Soviet long range aviation to visit and complete the destruction using HE. Forget the emergency services too. They would have been decimated if they hadn't been spread out away from target areas and the remains of the Civil Defence by this time was woefully inadequate. The EPO's would be doing triage to the nth degree just trying to save anyone at all.

This presumes a widespread attack scenario more on the order of what I'm saying then Corditeman is. A mere 10 or 25 warheads would be inadequate to create such widespread disruption over the entire country, as many cities would be unaffected and thus able to contribute to rapid repair and restoration.
 
25 warheads would be ample. Remember that each one is spreading fallout all around ground zero. Can help get through that to the places that need it? Whilst many cities certainly escape direct damage, they will still be crippled because the national grid, the water supply, the fuel supply, will all have been interrupted by those mere 25 bombs. All of that can be repaired, if you can get the parts and the right people to the right places, but that takes time.
 
The primary objective of a nuclear attack...

...Is to force an Armistice, if not a surrender, in a situation where a conventional war has grown out of control. That there would be that 'conventional phase' had been accepted by all the nuclear powers by 1980 - but not by CND. Strange, that.

That means an 'overkill' scenario had been abandoned in favour of something less environmentally destructive. The current strategy may be radically different with precision targetting of smaller weapons, use of cyberwarfare for disruption and special forces carrying out commando attacks. Generals want to play with their toys, not burn the toybox. Cynical, but probably true.
 
24 towns and cities: Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Manchester, Southampton, Leeds, Newcastle/Gateshead, Bristol, Sheffield, Swansea, Hull, Teeside, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Stoke-on-Tent, Belfast, Huddersfield, Sunderland, Gillingham, Rochester, Chatham, Maidstone.

14 centres of government: Central London, Cheltenham, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Catterick, York, Preston, Cambridge, Dover, Reading, Salcombe, Brecon, Kidderminster, Armagh.

23 RAF bases: Scampton, Waddington, Honington, Wittering, Marham, Coningsby, Lossimouth, Finningley, Bedford, Kinloss, Manston, Wattisham, Cottesmore, Wyton, St Mawgan, Machrihanish, Leeming, Valley, Brawdy, Coltishall, Yeovilton, Leuchars, Binbrook.

14 USAF bases: Alconbury, Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Wethersfield, Lakenheath, Upper Heyford, Fairford, Boscombe Down, Pershore, Greenham Common, MIldenhall, Sculthorpe, Cranwell, Lyneham.

10 radar stations: Flylingdales, Boulmer, Patrington, Bawdsey, Neatished, Buchan, Saxa Vord, Staxton Wold, Feltwell, Orford Ness.

8 military control centres: Northwood, Plymouth, Pitreavie, Fort Southwick, High Wycombe, Ruislip, Bawtry, West Drayton.

7 naval communications centres: Rugby, Criggion, Anthorn, Inskip, New Waltham, Londonderry, Thurso.

6 naval bases: Faslane, Coulport, Holy Loch, Rosyth, Portsmouth, Devonport.

6a00d8341c091653ef01a3fd184b85970b-800wi
 

Tovarich

Banned
14 centres of government: Central London, Cheltenham, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Catterick, York, Preston, Cambridge, Dover, Reading, Salcombe, Brecon, Kidderminster, Armagh.

Well there go everybody's tax returns up in radioactive smoke, oh noes!

Sorry, local joke at the time.
Interpretation of the OSA was quite surreal in its literalness back then; meaning that local road signs made it look as if the Brooklands Avenue bunker was actually the Inland Revenue office two doors down making damn sure that post-Apocalypse they shall still be getting their bit!

You would hardly notice it was there:

ba0.jpg
 
A Few Reminders...

1. Don't rely on CND for nuclear target maps - they adopted 'scare tactics' to get support for their platitudes
2. War-fighting targets are limited. What use is something nine months from becoming a weapon?
3. Don't refight WW2 - even then, remember that most ways are smash-and-grab raids write large and to attack NATO to loot it (a nasty Russian habit - ask the Poles, Balts and East Germans) so you don't nuke prospective loot.
4. Anticipate a 'before and after' conventional phase and don't necessarily kill the government - somebody has to agree to an Armistice/Surrender and sign terms.
5. Mutual Assured Destruction capability does not make MAD inevitable - it forces politicians and Generals to stop short and think again. The words 'Nuclear Exchange' may end a war, but cause an unpleasant Armistice.
6. To completely genocide a nation or race is to endanger one's own people and risks others taking over. Unacceptable and ruthless others - such as Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Israel...
 
A sensible look at the target list shows that it is as much about scare as effect. It's a good list if you want to wipe out a country totally, but if you want to win a war and force the other side to capitulate you wouldn't blast it back into the stone ages; you'd have no one to negotiate with and nothing worth taking from them. Look at the places that are listed as targets. Sure your could blow up Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester, 3 of the targets listed in the 'cities' category, but look at them on a map. From the centre of Rochester to the centre of Gillingham is barely 2 miles. Chatham sits between and slightly north of the two. By the 1980's the dockyard was in decline (closed 1984). Would you really call that 3 targets and waste 3 warheads on that cluster? After the first 1, anything else is just bouncing rubble. Maidstone sits close to the motorway that could be used for supplying the front line via the channel ports, but beyond that it wouldn't be worth a direct hit. The troops barracked there would have been activated and sent away during the conventional phase. Dover only had the fact it was a port close to Europe to justify it being listed. There are many other ports on the east coast that aren't listed that could have done the same job, although perhaps marginally less efficiently. The troops there, as at Maidstone, would have been activated and dispersed or in Europe. The RHQ was never more than a token gesture, as anyone that knew about such things would know; the money hadn't been spent to make it properly habitable, let alone serviceable. Orford Ness wasn't used as a radar station after the mid 70's so really shouldn't be there at all.
Other places that should be on there if it was a Soviet plan to destroy the country and its ability to fight aren't listed. Ludgershall was at the time a huge depot, stocking all manor of readily useable war fighting material up to and including MBT's (Chieftains being withdrawn as Challenger 1 came in). The Soviets would have known that, it was hardly a secret, and it would have been a target before some of those places that are listed. Greenham Common is there but not Molesworth.
 
Remember that each one is spreading fallout all around ground zero.

Most UK targets were 'soft' enough that most would have been airbursts, and by this time most of the big Sov warheads were twostage H-Bombs, having a relatively high fusion to fission ratio, unlike the earlier 'layer cake' and othe heavily boosted fission devices
 
Top