On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:12:56 -0500 Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe (i.e., the TV show Jericho) that the goal of a USSR attack was purely vindictive, complete annhilation. Apparently Civil Defense leaned more towards invasion as a goal.
No doubt as weapons systems evolve how you achieve one goal or the other evolves.
Either goal leads to different targeting strategies, as possible. If your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories, bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
Some of the time, that was the goal... It's not that anyone wanted that; however, it was (a) achievable, and (b) it was part of the MAD -- mutual assured destruction -- deterrent strategy. One could argue that that part, at least, worked, though I would assert that that was at least partially by accident. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb