The Pentagon, SIOP and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) (Did even the Brass think it was overkill)

I always thought that the Pentagon as a whole was behind the huge and massive buildup of all the nuclear weapons. As I was doing reserch for the Area 51 project, I can across a a series of memos that showed that even the President (Eisenhower) and pentagon chiefs were concerned that the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) was totally overkill. You have to wonder why they did not curb missile production.

When President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who tried to bring the war plans under control, received his first report on the SIOP 62 (for fiscal year 1962), he commented that it "frighten[ed] the devil out of me." Among the disclosures in these documents:

The SIOP included retaliatory and preemptive options; preemption could occur if U.S. authorities had strategic warning of a Soviet attack;
A full nuclear SIOP strike launched on a preemptive basis would have delivered over 3200 nuclear weapons to 1060 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and allied countries in Asia and Europe;
A full nuclear strike by SIOP forces on high alert, launched in retaliation to a Soviet strike, would have delivered 1706 nuclear weapons against a total of 725 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and allied states;
Targets would have included nuclear weapons, government and military control centers, and at least 130 cities in the Soviet Union, China, and allies;
Alarmed White House scientists, Army and Navy leaders were concerned that the SIOP would deliver too many nuclear weapons to Soviet and Chinese territory and that the weapons that missed targets "will kill a lot of Russians and Chinese" and that fallout from the weapons "can be a hazard to ourselves as well as our enemy";
According to the damage expectancy criteria of SIOP-62, it would take three 80 kiloton weapons to destroy a city like Nagasaki--which the U.S. had actually bombed with a 22 kiloton weapon;
The Marine Corp commandant was concerned that the SIOP provides for the "attack of a single list of Sino-Soviet countries" and makes no "distinction" between Communist countries that were at war with the United States and those that were not;

www.gwu.edu...

[edit on 25-7-2004 by FredT]

[edit on 25-7-2004 by FredT]

Wow, great find! It makes you really wonder why, like you said, they did not curb missile production. Maybe because it would have seemed weak to the American people. Like when Clinton cut military spending (from the huge spending remaining from the Cold War).

Every time the MAD subject comes up, it makes me think about the Tunguska-event in Siberia 1908. Asteroide impact. No one saw it coming. It was just one big sudden BOOOM, with effect like a nuclear blast. Of course they didn�t have all that high-tech equipment we have today. Hopefully today, we would be able to identify such event and not set off a MAD attack because of it...

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
Wow, great find! It makes you really wonder why, like you said, they did not curb missile production. Maybe because it would have seemed weak to the American people. Like when Clinton cut military spending (from the huge spending remaining from the Cold War).

That could have played into it, but if the president was not concerned by it as well as the Pentagon, who kept building the bomb? It would be intersting to get more information. AParently MacNamera was alos aginst such overkill. Two sucsessive administrations had a problem with it, but continued to esaclate production.. The question is why?

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Hopefully today, we would be able to identify such event and not set off a MAD attack because of it...

Intersting I had never spent alot of time thinking about it. I knkow Clancy and a few movies have discussed setting off a bomb and tailoring it to look like another countries nuke, but it sure would ruin anybodys day to launch on a meteor strike!