Not really. Unless it has a facility which processes raw materials into manufacture-ready materials or produces something that would be of immediate use in a war economy (ammunition, refined transportation fuels, components for weapon systems) its just not worth wasting an RV or hypersonic cruise missile on. Even then, without power or transportation systems most of that ‘critical infrastructure’ is going to be useless for an indefinite future even assuming that the country as a whole even has a functional leadership and ability to support and coordinate industrial activity. The focus will be on destroying all primary warmaking and defense support systems and ability to transport materials and goods in bulk. 1,700 weapons may sound like a lot, but even assuming minimal losses (not a great bet for Russia even if we assume that their nuclear force maintenance isn’t as terrible and undermined by corruption as their conventional military forces) it’s not enough to waste weapons on “rinky-dink towns” instead of focusing on targets with direct strategic and economic importance.
OK, you try making a list of 1,700 “targets with direct strategic and economic importance”, and see how far you get before the list starts getting silly.
Important targets (for Russia or China) aren’t just in the United States, and many, such as naval bases and industrial facilities, will merit multiple weapons to assure complete destruction. 1,700 sounds like a lot until you start filling up the dance card. During the nuclear buildup in the 1960s and ‘70s it was assumed that a lot of missiles would be aimed at opponents missile silos and bases to prevent them from reloading and firing another salvo (or maybe disarming if they held weapons in reserve) but between wargaming scenarios showing the folly of that and the fact that we just don’t have a significant reserve stockpile of ICBMs and RVs, that is a pretty futile gesture. That does free up several hundred weapons to be targeted elsewhere, but again, nobody has any reason to waste a weapon on Joplin, MO, Paducah, KY, or Butte, MT when you could double up on Newport News, Seal Beach, Colorado Springs, or any of the numerous submarine bases and support centers which could actually pose a threat of second strike and continuing retaliatory capability.
I don’t know about Joplin or Paducah, but copper is definitely a key material for a wartime economy. And those other targets you mentioned would already have been doubled up.
You mean the Berkeley Pit Mine? It was closed down in 1982 after being sufficiently exhausted of the low grade ore that it was no longer viable to extract even with open pit mining. It’s currently filled with highly toxic and caustic water that kills migrating birds and threatens to overflow and contaminate local streams, and is a designated EPA Superfund site will millions of dollars spent just trying to treat water for release. There is no practical way to recover the mine without contaminating the surrounding area, and no way to extract what mineral-bearing ores remain without intensive industrial activity including massive amounts of fuel and electricity. You could barely do less damage to the by trying to reopen it and in dropping a nuke on it.
In the sixties and seventies they could have gotten a twofer, as the silos of the 571st Strategic Missile Squadron we scattered through copper mining areas in Arizona. Today you can drive from the Titan Missile Museum (preserved Titan II silo) to the ASARCO Mineral Discovery Center (gigantic open-pit copper mine) in about 15 minutes.
If you want to really cripple the enemy long term, don’t just take out the immediate strategic targets, wipe out their ability to survive long term.
A town that is the center of a farming community would be an excellent way to accomplish that. The farmland for miles around would be ruined for food growth. Animals would die. Even if food can still be produced. how’s it gonna get anywhere outside your immediate area.
I’ve often said that if the sky lights up, I’m going to just go outside and start walking toward town (DC) to get it over with faster.
You’re going to get that effect just though fallout, and especially if you ‘salt’ the casing of the weapon with material that will turn into intermediate-half-life radionuclides that are beta and intense gamma emitters. Drop a few large weapons on or near Denver, Cheyenne, Omaha, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Chicago, and Indianapolis, (which are all targets for other reasons) and you’ve essentially contaminated the grain and much of the dairy and meat supply for the entire county without specifically targeting any farming towns.
True enough - but if you’ve got the nukes to spare, might as well be thorough. Clobber the big cities, and the fallout will certainly spread, but might take a little while. Clobber the smaller areas as well, and your “victory” will become even more instantish.
There are not “nukes to spare” sufficient to strike small cities with no strategic value much less random towns in farm country. See the previous post on the topic.
That quote is apocryphal to say the least but the reality of a global thermonuclear exchange would be to reduce most or all of humanity back to a pre-industrial condition. ‘Rocks and clubs’ implying Neolithic technology is unlikely as refined metals and advanced ceramics would still be available, but the technology to produce modern alloys with finely controlled composition and heat treatment would likely be gone, as would the ability to produce synthetic polymers for textiles and solid plastics, the ability to extract rare earth materials for semiconductors, and of course virtually all of the readily extractable energetic carbonaceous compounds sequestered by millions of years of geological processes. Any attempt to rebuild an industrial society would be retarded by having to rely upon low energy technologies and a return to animal husbandry for heavy labor. We can be assured, though, that new structures of human governance would still find ways to wage brutal conflicts and adventures of conquest regardless of what weapon technology available to them.
I’ve seen a few target maps of CONUS, for both a first-strike scenario and a second-strike scenario.
The first-strike scenario is heavily concentrated on weapons sites and command-and-control hubs, because the Soviets would’ve had their full complement of nukes, and would’ve been highly interested in destroying the American nuclear force.
The second-strike map looks very different. In that scenario, there would be no American nukes to target because they’d have already been launched, and there wouldn’t be many remaining Soviet nukes beacuse they’d have been destroyed by the American nukes. So the second strike hits a lot of population centers, food distribution centers, universities, places of cultural significance, etc, with some unnecessarily large warheads. It’s a final “fuck you” from an utterly ruined enemy.
Anyway, point is, in some scenarios it makes sense to hit places that don’t otherwise seem like they should be priority targets.
