U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable

Suppose the unthinkable happened, and terrorists struck New York or another big city with an atom bomb. What should people there do? The government has a surprising new message: Do not flee. Get inside any stable building and don’t come out till officials say it’s safe.

The advice is based on recent scientific analyses showing that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far.

But a problem for the Obama administration is how to spread the word without seeming alarmist about a subject that few politicians care to consider, let alone discuss. So officials are proceeding gingerly in a campaign to educate the public.

“We have to get past the mental block that says it’s too terrible to think about,” W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. “We have to be ready to deal with it” and help people learn how to “best protect themselves.”

Full Story Here:
U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable

First, I have to wonder if the author of this piece from the New York Times knows anything at all about bombs, atomic or conventional.

I can’t help but believe that pieces like this are designed to instill a sense of ‘feel good’ in the American people, a false sense of security. And I have to wonder if the author is referring to a ‘dirty bomb’, a suitcase bomb, or a true thermonuclear device. There is a tremendous difference.

A so-called ‘dirty bomb’ will kill more people with it’s explosive force than it will with radiation. A ‘dirty bomb’ will be an explosive device with radiological materials placed around it. There won’t be a large spread of radiation except in the immediate blast area, and victims not killed by the explosion itself can, in all probability, go through a decontamination process and go on with their lives.

A ‘dirty bomb’ is not an atom bomb.

If a major U.S. city is hit with a thermonuclear blast, the survival of that cities residents hinges on the size and strength of the blast. The immediate area of the blast zone would be destroyed, regardless the size of the bomb itself. The radius of the blast would suffer varying degrees of destruction and varying degrees of human survival.

Another factor is; did that city get hit with a ‘suitcase bomb’ and a ground level blast, or a much larger thermonuclear warhead, like that delivered via an ICBM. Did that warhead detonate on ground contact or was it an ‘air burst’?

I am only making an educated guess here, but it’s my opinion that the author of this story is talking about a ground blast of a smaller nuclear device and not a full blown thermonuclear device.

Peter Bergen, a fellow at the New America Foundation and New York University’s Center on Law and Security, recently argued that the odds of any terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon are “near zero for the foreseeable future.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are always rumors of suitcase bombs being made available. While not as destructive as their big brothers, the ICBM warhead, even a small NUCLEAR blast is going to wreak death and destruction on the American people that will defy the imagination.

A nuclear blast produces a blinding flash, burning heat and crushing wind. The fireball and mushroom cloud carry radioactive particles upward, and the wind sends them near and far.

And this is what leads me to believe the author is talking about a smaller, more portable bomb as opposed to an ICBM delivered warhead.

A ground blast, as described above, is designed to produce massive damage to the immediate blast zone along with collateral blast damage for quite a distance away from that immediate blast area, and will create a huge cloud of radioactive dust.

Casualties from both the blast and the radioactive cloud will be substantial.

An air burst detonation, depending upon the altitude of the device at time of detonation will also cause massive damage, over a much broader area, and will indeed generate a cloud of deadly radiation, but the immediate blast area will not suffer the utter destruction of a huge ground blast.

I am seriously convinced that Islamic terrorists do NOT have the technology to initiate an ICBM attack against America, they lack a delivery system.

That is also why I find it so hilarious that many believe George W. Bush was vindicated on the WMD accusations he used to justify our invasion of Iraq. Many claim the ‘yellow cake’ that Saddam possessed was all the reason we needed to go into Iraq and save the world.

I may anger a few by saying this, but the ‘yellow cake’ was NOT a WMD and it’s discovery in NO WAY vindicated Bush over WMDs. It was not refined, it was not enriched, it was RAW uranium. It was nowhere near weapons grade, and even if it were fully refine and enriched, Saddam lacked a delivery system, especially one that could threaten the United States.

All Saddam had was the SCUD missile system, a point it in a general direction missile, point it and hope it hit something.

In 2007, Congress appropriated $5.5 million for studies on atomic disaster planning, noting that “cities have little guidance available to them.”

The Department of Homeland Security financed a multiagency modeling effort led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The scientists looked at Washington, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other big cities, using computers to simulate details of the urban landscape and terrorist bombs.

The results were revealing. For instance, the scientists found that a bomb’s flash would blind many drivers, causing accidents and complicating evacuation.

The big surprise was how taking shelter for as little as several hours made a huge difference in survival rates.

Again, I am having to assume that we are talking survival following a ground blast by a so-called suitcase bomb.

I have stated the obvious, and some things that the original story didn’t illustrate, but there’s one other thing that the original story doesn’t mention, what can we expect from the leadership of the Obama administration?

Somehow, I am NOT comforted, or inspired by that leadership.