According to the document, NIGHT TRAIN 84 was designed as a major biennial nuclear war exercise that included elements from previous exercises such as “GLOBAL SHIELD,” “AMALGAM CHIEF,” and FEMA’s “REX 84 ALPHA.” The exercise aimed to simulate coordinated responses to a global nuclear conflict, with live flying and the use of strategic weapon systems incorporated into the exercise play. The scenario was directly shaped by Cold War tensions and modeled on large-scale Soviet exercises reviewed in June 1982.

“The exercise is designed with two four-day phases,” the document states, “on the pre and trans-attack period… A 24-hour administrative break will simulate 15 days of survival and recovery activity. Phase II will begin on Day 6 of the exercise and will concentrate on activities in the post-nuclear attack period.”

A primary objective was to test U.S. continuity of government plans following a nuclear exchange, as well as strategic and tactical military responses. “National participation is anticipated because of the desire to evaluate post-nuclear attack continuity of government plans,” the briefing notes.

The simulated scenario begins with escalating global tensions, including Soviet inroads in the Caribbean, discovery of Soviet SA-5 missile site construction in Cuba, and Soviet opportunism in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Iran. The exercise projects events such as open civil war in Iran, increased Soviet military aid and presence in various regions, and NATO’s heightened military readiness in response to Soviet exercises perceived as cover for mobilization.

By 5 April 1984, the exercise posits that “Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces attacked in Central Europe and Turkish Thrace,” with chemical and nuclear weapons employed on 6 April in an attempt to break NATO resistance. The scenario culminates in “Soviet nuclear counterforce attacks against the United States and follow-on theater nuclear strikes on NATO” on 8 April.

In the wake of these simulated attacks, the United States shifted focus to survival and recovery operations during a compressed 15-day period. The exercise outlined that “unified and specified commands will operate at reduced strength from alternate command locations during this phase and will concentrate on reconstitution of their commands and redirection of their forces.” A major emphasis was placed on ensuring coordination between surviving national command authorities (NCA), reconstituted federal agencies, and state governments, with the Commander-in-Chief Readiness Command (CINCRED) playing a central role in civil defense support. This phase was described as “a first step toward defining, developing and evaluating procedures for coping with events which might occur in the aftermath of nuclear war,” highlighting the complexities of maintaining command connectivity and stabilizing the nation following a large-scale nuclear strike.

Meanwhile, the document describes the grim aftermath facing the Soviet Union. “While most of the Soviet and elements of Warsaw Pact leadership survived the U.S. retaliatory strike, they were not able to reconstitute their strategic arsenal as quickly as had been expected… Restoration of key production and services was inhibited by popular unwillingness to return to contaminated areas.”

The exercise also envisioned significant civil unrest within the Soviet bloc and a turn toward diplomatic resolution. “Faced with these problems, Soviet leaders began to seek a political solution to the crisis,” with both sides agreeing on a ceasefire in the European theater after 15 days.

Throughout, the document emphasizes the importance of testing the interaction between surviving national command authorities (NCA), reconstituted government agencies, and state governments. The scenario aimed to “provide study and better understanding of the complex issues involved in the trans- and post-nuclear attack periods.”

Portions of the document remain redacted, withheld under FOIA exemptions including 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for information classified in the interest of national security and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) under 50 U.S.C. 3605, protecting NSA functions and information.

The release of this document comes at a time when global tensions echo some of the very scenarios envisioned in NIGHT TRAIN 84. Today, Iran remains a focal point of international security concerns, with ongoing disputes over its nuclear program, regional influence, and relations with the United States and its allies. The fictional civil war and foreign interventions in Iran portrayed in the exercise underscore the enduring strategic significance of the region, as well as the risks posed by instability there.

Moreover, the exercise’s emphasis on rapid escalation, chemical and nuclear weapons use, and the struggle to maintain continuity of government after a large-scale nuclear exchange serves as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences that could arise from modern conflicts spiraling out of control. As nuclear-armed states continue to navigate strained relations, the lessons and planning embedded in Cold War exercises like NIGHT TRAIN 84 remain relevant, highlighting the need for diplomacy, crisis management, and updated continuity plans in an increasingly unpredictable world.

###

Document Archive

Exercise Night Train 84 Briefing, August 1983 [24 Pages, 5.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [5.25 MB]

The post DoD Releases Previously Unseen Document Detailing “NIGHT TRAIN 84” Nuclear War Exercise Scenario first appeared on The Black Vault.

The monograph reviews the current status of both the Russian and Chinese arsenals and lists the programs that are being undertaken to modernize and improve their respective nuclear capabilities. Both nations are taking significant steps to preserve and improve their nuclear strike capability.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, fissile material. and ballistic missiles in the third world is an emerging threat to national security interests, The lack of appropriate security measures during the on-going dismantling of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal presents an opportunity for “rogue” states and terrorist organizations to readily obtain the materials to produce their own nuclear weapons.

Document Archive

The Nuclear Threat in the Post Cold-War Era, May 1995 [51 Pages, 2.2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.38 MB]

The post The Nuclear Threat in the Post Cold-War Era, May 1995 first appeared on The Black Vault.

In 1958, the CIA completed the below report about its role in the event of a nuclear war.

The Black Vault saw references to this document in other declassified CIA documents, but not the report itself. In August of 2019, a FOIA request was filed to the CIA for the record, and in October of 2020, it was released.

You can find the report below.

Document Archive

Role of CIA in Nuclear War, 1958 [38 Pages, 12.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [12.31 MB]

Comments on Role of CIA in Nuclear War, 1958 [2 Pages, 1MB] – This document was released in 2000 by the CIA, which referenced the above report. It was dated 19 March 1958, and written by the Chief, Economic Research Area of the CIA. Name is unknown.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [547.79 KB]

The post Role of CIA in Nuclear War, 1958 first appeared on The Black Vault.

This Assessment looks at Soviet research on Nuclear Winter to determine what the Soviet leaders think of the hypothesis, the extent to which they are exploiting the subject for propaganda purposes, and the most likely implications from Moscow’s perspective. It does not reach judgments about the scientific validity of the Nuclear Winter hypothesis. Mlost of the information on which this analysis is based is derived from the international scientific and diplomatic communities. This information is supplemented by foreign media reports. We also have debriefed a Soviet scientist who recently defected from the USSR and was knowledgeable of the capabilities of individuals and organizations involved in Soviet research in this field. From these sources, we believe that we have a relatively good understanding of Soviet Nuclear Winter research. We also know what Soviet leaders say publicly about Nuclear Winter. Their private, personal perceptions, however, are not known. We identify some possible military and political dilemmas, should Soviet leaders come to believe Nuclear Winter poses a serious danger, and note some possible indicators of increasing concern over possible adverse climatic consequences of nuclear war.

Document Archive

The Soviet Approach to Nuclear Winter, December 1984 [40 Pages, 15.1MB] – Highlighted New Information – Released March of 2019 after I filed a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) request for the document to be removed. Information no longer redacted from previously released version (see below) is highlighted.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [14.37 MB]

The Soviet Approach to Nuclear Winter, December 1984 [31 Pages, 1.4MB] – Previously released version from July 2010.

The post The Soviet Approach to Nuclear Winter, December 1984 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus was a plan developed by the United States in the 1950s to guide the federal government in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic nuclear attack.  Plan D-Minus was part of the National Plan for Emergency Preparedness, which also included Mobilization Plan C (providing direction for federal planning in the three weeks prior to a global nuclear war).

Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus was designed for activation in the aftermath of either an anticipated or surprise attack of a “devastating” nature. It envisioned a scenario based on what was described as a major attack against the mainland United States involving the near-simultaneous, or closely sequential, detonation of several hundred nuclear warheads.

Plan D-Minus assumed a nuclear attack against the continental United States resulting in 48 million immediate fatalities and a significant number of non-fatal casualties. Primary government command and control facilities, such as the White House and the Pentagon, would be destroyed and emergency relocation facilities would be rendered minimally operable as a result of physical damage and the effects of radiation sickness on staff. At the same time, nothing but critical communications would survive and even those would be crippled due to action by enemy saboteurs. Industrial and agricultural production would be severely disrupted, society would fragment into local gangs, and the financial system would completely collapse.

Immediately following an attack under D-Minus conditions, the National Security Council’s Office of Emergency Planning would initiate and then decentralize its primary post-attack programs, including anti-hoarding and resource conservation measures, to those state and local governments that remained functioning. Meanwhile, emergency federal departments responsible for the most critical aspects of recovery would be formed and staffed from the “Executive Reserve,” a 1,700-person group of public sector employees who had previously received specialized management training. Heads of emergency departments were private sector subject-matter specialists who had been chosen in advance. A series of pre-drafted executive orders would be immediately signed by the President of the United States authorizing extraordinary measures, including preventative detention of persons on the FBI Security Index and suspension of publication of the Federal Register.

Document Archive

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Documents – Release #1 – [38 Pages, 22.9MB] (I requested additional records, however, the FBI claims this file is complete, and no other records exist.)

The post Federal Emergency Plan D / Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs) first appeared on The Black Vault.

Document Excerpt:

“In his speech of 5 October, President Gorbachev announced numerous unilateral Soviet measures relating to strategic offensive arms in response to President Bush’s unilateral initiatives. Gorbachev stated that the Soviets would unilaterally reduce their number of accountable strategic warheads to 5,000 rather than the 6,000 provided for in START. Moreover, be said they would remove 503 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs), including 137 missiles with multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), from alert status. Gorbachev’s statement reflects reductions since the September 1990 START data exchange, and therefore includes some missiles that had already been deactivated.”

Document Archive

 Gorbachev’s Response to the US Nuclear Initiative: Implications for Soviet Strategic Offensive Forces, 31 October 1991 [8 Pages, 1.4MB]

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/MDREOM-2018-00328.pdf

The post Gorbachev’s Response to the US Nuclear Initiative: Implications for Soviet Strategic Offensive Forces, 31 October 1991 first appeared on The Black Vault.

This report contains an assessment of the state-of-the-art of modeling and analysis for civil preparedness and management of the post-attack U.S. *economy. This evaluation was derived from a large volume of related literature. A selected, annotated bibliography of over 100 entries follows a state-of-the-art assessment.

Literature areas reviewed included historical disasters, industry studies, post-attack viability, survival and economic recovery, and civil defense, both U.S. and Soviet. Some literature on modeling methods was researched. Modeling methods covered were input/output, econometrics, optimization and system dynamics.

Analysis of the literature and current state-of-the-art revealed several key management aspects of the post-attack economy. These aspects were resource allocation and distribution, energy, information, communication, command and control (C3), finance, social and behavioral response, and government authority. Most of these managerial aspects were found to have been neither thoroughly analyzed nor specifically modeled.

Assessing modeling needs, available modeling methods, and deficiencies in the state-of-the-art led to a recommendation for further development of system dynamics models for management of U.S. post-attack economic recovery. System dynamics is suggested because of its flexibility, potential scope, an capabilities for handling non-linearities, dynamic effects, on soft items such as social and behavioral responses.

Critical issues recommended for further investigation include: analysis of the use of information, communications, command and control (C3) systems in the post-attack survival and economic recovery management; incorporation of the impacts of mobilization and national security requirements on post-attack U.S. economic recovery; consideration of multiple regions with varying damage levels: analysis of social and behavioral factors; and evaluation of alternative civil preparedness policies. Taken together, these recommendations point toward analysis and development of a comprehensive but not cumbersome model for the assessment of alternative policies for civil preparedness and post-attack U.S. economic recovery.

Declassified Documents

 Civil Preparedness and Post-Attack U.S. Economic Recovery: A State-of-the-Art Assessment and Selected Annotated Bibliography, Volume 1, October 1979 [341 Pages, 14.7MB] – This report contains an assessment of the state-of-the-art of modeling and analysis for civil preparedness and management of the post-attack U.S. economy. This evaluation was derived from a large volume of related literature. A selected annotated bibliography of over 100 entries follows a state-of-the-art assessment.

 Managing the U.S. Economy in a Post-Attack Environment: A System Dynamics Model of Viability, Volume 2, November 1979 [77 Pages, 3.2MB] – The primary objective of this study is to determine if post-attack viability (or collapse) is automatic for a given system, or if management actions can influence the outcome. In investigating this problem, the approach focuses on exploring the structure of a post-attack system for instabilities, identifying the processes that could lead to collapse, and then evaluating if and how alternative post-attack management policies can mitigate the effects of those instabilities.

Options for Accelerating Economic Recovery after Nuclear Attack. Volume 3, July 1979 [122 Pages, 5.92MB] – The United States may fail to exploit to the fullest its potential for economic recovery following a nuclear attack because failures in post-attack management in both the political and the economic sectors. This report looks at possible adjustments in our continually evolving peacetime management systems, adjustments which might contribute substantially to post-attack recovery at little peacetime cost. The post-attack considerations addressed include making government more effective in bringing about economic recovery and, very importantly, making sure that government continues as government, i.e., that we do not sink into anarchy. Five broad categories of adjustments are discussed.

The post Three Volume, 1979 FEMA Study, about the Economic Recovery following a Nuclear Attack first appeared on The Black Vault.