Soviet 1980s UK nuclear attack plans

[Self Loading Freight]

This is a bit tangential, but I'm trying to find a reference to Soviet plans for European conflict in the 1980s. In particular, I once read - but cannot now find - a description of a plan to use nuclear weapons in the North Sea with two aims - to destroy the oil field infrastructure, and to wipe out military installations along the Scottish east coast.

I can find lots on the European theatre plans for the 1970s, but not much that explicitly covers what was in store for the UK, and practically nothing covering the period when the North Sea oil production had become a major economic concern. Such an attack doesn't seem to have been part of the infamous 1983 Wintex-Cimex wargames, so I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined it, or whether it was a piece of speculative fiction masquerading as post Cold War revelations.

Any gen either way most welcome.

[Guest 112233]

Are you conducting your research in English only: Possibly try translating your search terms into Eastern European languages as a possible area of activity.

I have never seen this my self: but I bet something like this has been done ? - But you might need translation of the search results.

CAT III

[ORAC]

Does this help?

Warsaw Pact War Plans (http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=14944&nav1=1&nav2=2)

Wilson Center digital archive (http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collections/6?mode=list)

[Yellow Sun]

Unfortunately you are unlikely to find anything more specific than you would about US\UK strike plans. Although there is a fair amount of general information, everyone is very coy about details of precise targeting plans. Although broad target categories have been described: e.g. nuclear related facilities, air defence sites, C3 installations; strategic industrial sites; it doesn't get much more specific than that.

In some instances you could do a bit of back plotting to try and reveal the planners' intentions. The book Project Emily which is an account of the Thor Project contains details of the pad alignments and the range brackets related to target sets. By making a few assumptions related to the CEP, yield and warhead effects you could probably come up with a list of likely targets. You could then attempt a similar exercise using whatever Soviet data you could find.

Take care in using some of the CPEx examples that are around. These are likely to be similar to the scenarios employed in Wintex etc. and not necessarily representative of actual plans.

YS

[Self Loading Freight]

Thanks, everyone. Seems that there really isn't much online, and it's all too recent for anything to appear in the PRO, so I'll have to pursue other channels. Google Translate will only get a chap so far!

But I do wonder where I got the idea from in the first place, and where it's gone.

[etimegev]

The reason MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked so well as a deterrent was that no-one could cover all the targets that needed to be covered to ensure a commanding victory.

[Yellow Sun]

SLF,

you might care to read this thread on another forum (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?74152-V-FORCE-Questions&p=1159989&highlight=#post1159989). It may give you some insight into what was involved, at least from the UK perspective.

etimegev

The reason MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked so well as a deterrent was that no-one could cover all the targets that needed to be covered to ensure a commanding victory.

There was more than enough nuclear capacity to ensure the end of life on earth. The reasons why deterrence "worked" are much more complex than that.

YS

[etimegev]

Totally agree that there was enough to end all life but that would have taken a while after the initial onslaught before the effects kicked in planet-wide (shades of On the Beach etc), but with the CEP and yields during the Cold War it would have taken more than one weapon, even a biggy (and there weren't a huge number of them) to ensure that the target was taken out. So, just taking the UK, count the number that HAD to be taken out by the Sovs - naval bases, ports used for European reinforcement, strategic air bases - including dispersal airfields, nuclear submarine ports, major command centres and army logistical centres. Then start counting the targets in the rest of Europe, then start counting the targets in the US :eek:

The situation was the same for NATO targeting them - and they had the advantage of distance to hide stuff from us.

All in all nowhere near enough to guarantee success but enough to make the other side very very fearful of kicking off!

[ORAC]

Thanks, everyone. Seems that there really isn't much online, and it's all too recent for anything to appear in the PRO, so I'll have to pursue other channels. Google Translate will only get a chap so far! But I do wonder where I got the idea from in the first place, and where it's gone.

Well, sitting in an AD bunker throughout the 70-90s, the Int forecast 2 or 3 5Mt strikes in the North Sea to cause a tidal wave taking out the USAF bases in east Anglia and the UK east coast airfields and radar sites up to the Pennines. Though where they got their information from I know not.

[etimegev]

Well, if that had happened at least those in Holmfirth would have had plenty of fish to get by on :}

[Blacksheep]

American experiments during WW2 conclusively demonstrated that creating a tidal wave by means of underwater/sea surface explosions simply doesn't work. The proposal was to clear beaches and beachhead areas by means of tidal waves, prior to making the landings.

[rjtjrt]

I have always imagined that more than one warhead would need to be targeted on high value targets to ensure minimal chance of malfunction allowing a target to escape destruction. And possibly using different delivery vehicle for each warehead, in case a rocket failed to launch or malfunctioned in some other way.
Thus the number of wareheads required to assure counterforce is significantly higher than at first glance. Also, presumably need to stagger in time the wareheads so first one doesn't destroy the second, although if the second is only there in ase first fails, then no need to stagger them.
I have no idea if above is correct, but the planning/logistics of a nuclear strike would be bloody complex to say the least.

[Self Loading Freight]

The more I learn about nuclear warfare, the less I have any confidence that it would result in anything but abject disaster for everyone. One tries not to think about small matters such as the hundred warheads that Pakistan is supposed to have. So many of the scenarios seem to be post-facto "we have the damn things, so what do we do with them" rather than "here's an effective use with a high possibility of a controlled, desired outcome".

I also remember that my best friend at school in the 80s had his digital watch countdown timer pre-programmed to four minutes, because that was the amount of warning we'd been told to expect. We lived in Plymouth, so there was little doubt we'd be one of the first.

However. Thanks very much for the recollection, Orac - I now know I wasn't mistaken in thinking that such a thing was on the cards, although that's earlier than I expected. Is AD Air Defence? That means the oil side of things wasn't a primary consideration, and that it's worth checking back further.