[RayChuang88]

I think in the end, Soviet war policy likely relied on it going nuclear fairly early. The policy was primarily aimed to knock out as many military and commercial airfields as possible early on, which would allow the Red Army to operate with less threat of an air attack on its ground forces. That's why the Russians had large numbers of SS-4, SS-5, SS-12 and SS-20 missile targeted specifically at airfields.

But getting back on topic, the article was probably right--the primary goal of the Soviet Navy was to protect its ballistic missile submarines in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, since Soviet war policy was to keep ballistic submarines as close to Russian land regions as possible.

[reed13k]

And part of why the interstate highway system was considered of strategic importance. In emergencies large stretches could be converted to runways.

[sparklite2]

I think in the end, Soviet war policy likely relied on it going nuclear fairly early.

---

As part of the ABM treaty, each signer selected one area to protect with ABMs. The USSR picked Moscow; the US picked our missile fields.

Why the difference?

Russia planned on a first strike. With their missile silos emptied out at launch, there was nothing left that need protecting from a counter-strike.

The US put ABMs around missile sites to allow us to ride out a first strike and have something left to respond with.

Russia’s claim to never strike first with nukes was belied by the ABM Treaty choice they made.