Alex Wellerstein on Twitter: "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.… https://t.co/NZp8UQEwsa"

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

Thomas Rid‏Verified account @RidT Jan 15

Report Tweet

A head's up, for those who need it: to ask my question, I will have to post a few screenshots of top secret nuclear yield requirement tables and targeting lists that were technically never declassified, but that are also publicly available (just very hard to find).pic.twitter.com/SbASeeus3q

1 reply 2 retweets 14 likes

Show this thread

Thomas Rid‏Verified account @RidT Jan 15

Report Tweet

Context: KGB obtained these documents almost certainly form Robert Lee Johnson, a US Army Sgt and spy in Paris in the early 1960s. They were then surfaced and leaked multiple times in bits and pieces in Europe and the US in the 70s & 80s. Johnson's story is also crazy. Source WPpic.twitter.com/LxufqCqxIE

4 replies 6 retweets 31 likes

Show this thread

Thomas Rid‏Verified account @RidT Jan 15

Report Tweet

My question is simple: are these nuclear yield tables genuine? More specifically, did the US Air Force target a range of *West German* cities with nuclear weapons in the early 1960s? West Germany was then a NATO member. See country codes, WG, and city names.pic.twitter.com/J68qfiQZXS

17 replies 2 retweets 17 likes

Show this thread

Thomas Rid‏Verified account @RidT Jan 15

Report Tweet

There are also a large number of Austrian and Finnish targets on these nuclear yield tables. Those countries, however, were not and are not NATO members. My assumption is the tables are genuine (for a number of reasons). Would you agree @LawDavF @heatherwilly @ArmsControlWonk?pic.twitter.com/iLiseYeGID

9 replies 2 retweets 8 likes

Show this thread

Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @RidT @LawDavF and

I checked the target numbers of several of the non-odd ones (e.g. eastern targets) and they match up with the target lists from 1958 that @NSArchive got released. If it's a fake it's an exceptionally good one. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ …

6 replies 1 retweet 11 likes

Vipin Narang‏ @NarangVipin Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @wellerstein @RidT and

It doesn’t seem fake, but it’s not a US targeting study...it’s something else but I can’t make out what.

1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes

Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @NarangVipin @RidT and

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.

2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes

Cheryl Rofer‏ @CherylRofer Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin and

Could it be contingency plans for if those cities were taken by the Soviets?

2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes

Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @CherylRofer @NarangVipin and

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.

2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes

Martin “Doomsday” Pfeiffer (⧖) ‏ @NuclearAnthro Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @wellerstein @CherylRofer and

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?

1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes

Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein Jan 15

Report Tweet

Replying to @NuclearAnthro @CherylRofer and

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.

7:33 PM - 15 Jan 2019

5 Likes

2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes

1. Martin “Doomsday” Pfeiffer (⧖) ‏ @NuclearAnthro Jan 15
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @wellerstein @CherylRofer and
  
  Perhaps @RidT can tell us if there is a narrative or other discursive section?
  
  1 like
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

Tweets

Alex WellersteinVerified account

@wellerstein

Tweets

Loading seems to be taking a while.

false

Saved searches

Tweets

Alex WellersteinVerified account

@wellerstein

Tweets

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

Promote this Tweet

Block

Tweet with a location

Your lists

Create a new list

Copy link to Tweet

Embed this Tweet

Embed this Video

Preview

Why you're seeing this ad

Log in to Twitter

Sign up for Twitter

Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

Confirmation

Welcome home!

Tweets not working for you?

Say a lot with a little

Spread the word

Join the conversation

Learn the latest

Get more of what you love

Find what's happening

Never miss a Moment

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Promoted Tweet

false