You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It doesn’t seem fake, but it’s not a US targeting study...it’s something else but I can’t make out what. 
I mean, everything has a VN number, so they're looking at what kind of damage and best kind of pressure used to knock it out. So it's not necessarily a list of US targets but it's all clearly in a targeting context.
Could it be contingency plans for if those cities were taken by the Soviets?
I mean it would be a pretty nasty one. Anything with a VN number higher than 12 is getting an H-bomb, at least per their 1958 methodology.
How many of the targets in the target encyclopedia that got purged post cold war were "just in case" contingency or in there for thoroughness? Could also be an aid for RISOP modeling?
No clue. A list by itself lacks context. The 1958 study had a section at the front that explained what it was trying to accomplish, etc.
...right! the 1956 study for 1959. (I'm gonna blame being on the road for mixed numbers!)
I just wanted to make sure I wasn't having another stroke or that I'd missed something fun.
Yeah its a yield study.
The Soviets claimed (in a range of active measures) that the document is a genuine US Air Force targeting list. They obliquely added that Johnson was the source, but in a deniable way. Obviously there was no KGB byline either.
Is there more information that would contextualize? Because that is what is going to make that more plausible or not.
Can we imagine this being KGB disinfo, where they took a real US list and then added non-real targets? I mean, I guess? But that seems like more of a stretch to me than the idea that the US had bonkers contingency plans in the 1960s.
what would that mean in terms of structure of the SIOP? "I sure hope nobody has family in Albania (or west german) if you choose the preemptive option!"
I have no insight on its provenance, but, wasn’t the French plan to nuke the Soviet Army _after_it overwhelmed FRG and other Allied forward forces? Why wouldn’t the US range airfields the USSR could’ve overrun? Doesn’t ARTY range friendly positions in case of overrun?
Are you familiar with the circumstances of the “I hope nobody has family in Albania” paraphrased quote? Thomas Power? SAC? SIOP briefing? It will help explain the broader point.
Albania’s quote: Google says no. SAC, SIOP: oO who you talkin’ to, son? Thomas Power: you mean, good ‘ol Chrome Dome?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
