Although the US has never been subjected to a nuclear attack, there are disasters both natural and man-made which can provide a template for how we should think about preparing for a nuclear event. Some of these disasters can present situations that are strongly analogous to a nuclear or radiological attack. Hurricanes, the eruption of Mount St.Helens, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, and the 9/11 attacks in New York all provide useful information and experience. However, none of these incidents by themselves can cover all the bases we need to prepare for a possible nuclear attack.
A nuclear explosion poses three immediate and direct hazards: blast, heat, and radiation. The blast and heat effects are confined to the proximity of the nuclear detonation, and without prior warning are almost impossible to defend against. Radiation, in the form of fallout and other types of contamination, presents the most serious longer term risk to populations removed from the epicenter of the attack. The majority of civil defense techniques are intended to deal with this particular hazard.
The possible types of nuclear attack we could be subject to are listed below. Let me know if there is a scenario I haven't thought of.
General Nuclear Exchange A widespread nuclear exchange of the sort envisaged in the Cold War is still possible, but not particularly likely given the rational interests and calculations of most state actors. If it were to happen, the attack would involve multiple targets and very large warheads, in the hundred kiloton to megaton range. Fallout would be massive, deadly, and widespread. Chaos and disorder would reign supreme. The only rational preparation would be prayers for your soul. I believe this kind of attack is still highly unlikely. However nuclear weapons could be used against US forces in the field or on bases on US soil.
EMP attack (electro-magnetic pulse) This is a grave danger because such an attack can destroy the electrical infrastructure upon which civilization depends. It would only require once medium sized bomb, a few kilotons, lofted on a medium range rocket from a ship offshore. The radiation effects would come mostly from the blast, but the loss of all computers and electrical power would be horribly devastating. (At least one nation, Iran, has publicly discussed making such an attack against the US.) Our coastline is long, and a missile could be fired from some distance. Missile defense systems would hopefully deal with that threat, if they exist and are deployed in the right place at the right time.
Nuclear terrorism This is an increasing possibility as nuclear material such as uranium is either stolen or distributed to terror organizations by nuclear states. Uranium especially is the most dangerous material here. Most states use uranium in reactors to generate plutonium as a waste product, then use the plutonium to create implosion type bombs. However, uranium alone can be used to easily create a simple gun type bomb such as the one used on Hiroshima. This is why banning uranium enriching equipment, such as high speed centrifuges, is- or once was- so critical to any effective non proliferation regime. Access to uranium is the only bottleneck in the system. Making the bomb itself is easy.
Nuclear radiological terrorism (a.k.a Dirty Bombs) This category includes possible conventional attacks on nuclear reactors or other sources of radiation. The types of radioactive material that can be used is much more varied and common than bomb grade uranium or plutonium. Radioactive material can be added to a conventional bomb, which spreads the material when it is detonated. Since there are plenty of highly toxic radioactive materials in use in medicine and industry all over the world, relatively easily obtained, this kind of attack is a higher possibility than the others. It is less lethal, but the point of terrorism is to terrorize, and radiation certainly does that.
Nuclear blackmail or faked attacks- These kinds of attacks will almost certainly remain secret, but there may be instances where nuclear blackmail can be inferred from state behavior which is otherwise inexplicable by conventional calculations of self interest. However there is a chance that merely threatening or simulating an attack would cause chaos and disruption. This seems like a fairly remote threat. [I wrote this back in '16 before North Korea began using its nuclear and missile tests as weapons of intimidation. It's not good thing to be prescient about. As of Sept. 22, 2017, NK is threatening to test weapons in the atmosphere. This is actually an evolving attack in its own right]
During the Cold War, the assumption was that any attack would be preceded by an escalating tension in the world somewhere that involved the US or the USSR. The Cuban Missile Crisis fit this mold, and thankfully it was resolved without a war. The Yom Kippur war crisis in 1973 went to a high level of nuclear alert, although few of us knew anything about that when it was happening (we did notice that a lot of jets were flying around low to the ground.) Still, the assumption was that if there was an attack we would see it coming in time to take defensive action.
A nuclear terrorist attack comes by surprise. Our intelligence services may be unable to detect such an attack in advance due to the exposure of their methods by whistle-blowers and foreign governments. Even then, keeping one's communications secure is not difficult if the correct protocols and encryption are used, or if the communications are not even electronic.
Another problem is that the US has essentially no southern border. The politics surrounding illegal immigration have created a situation where effective border controls are strongly discouraged on the southern border. As it is now, trucks, people, drugs, and weapons move almost at will across the border without any significant intervention from US authorities. Getting a bomb into the US from Mexico would be easy, and our enemies know it.
My admittedly non-expert opinion is that the greatest probability of a nuclear attack on US soil comes from a state actor through a terrorist proxy. The list of proxy groups is very long and varied, but the list of states who could or would support such a strike is actually pretty short. Russia, China, and India are extremely unlikely to support such an attack because of their own vulnerabilities and the precedent such an attack would set. Pakistan is more dubious because of the influence of the Pakistani intelligence service known as the ISI. That leaves Iran and North Korea as the most probable culprits.
Unless you happen to live in a target zone, such as a military base or a large city, the greatest hazard you are likely to be exposed to is radiation, either in a direct form or as fallout or contamination. Fallout is generally only dangerous for a few days, depending on what the exact isotopes etc. are. Fusion bombs are very complex to build, so the weapon would probably be a low to mid yield uranium bomb. Longer term radiation hazards can affect drinking water and food supplies, and pose risks for cancer and other radiation related illnesses. T
The other likely risk is from social and economic disruption. Disruptions of supply, money, travel and the like can occur anytime for various reasons such as weather and electrical outages. The problem arises from the synergistic multiple outages and disruptions that would occur. Everything we need to get by, from basic food and water to medicines and money, could be out for a long time.
So for the purpose of this blog, we shall assume that the main risks are an EMP strike, or terrorist strike using a small to medium yield uranium fission bomb, or a dirty bomb. We will discuss radiation and fallout first, since it is easiest to defend yourself and your family from fallout. The social effects of an attack are more difficult to predict and very difficult to prepare for. That subject is less scientific and more speculative.
Below are links to articles about nuclear terrorism for further reading.More recent articles note that the chances of such an event are increasing.
Council on Foreign Relations (from 2007, out of date)
http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097
From a Harvard think tank, in PDF format
From Wired magazine, the odds of stopping an attack
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/stopping-nuclear-terrorism-game-odds-not-certainty/
An article from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/opinions/nuclear-terrorism-threat-cirincione/
These links were taken from just the first page of Google search results. There are lots more.
I have no idea what the risks would be exactly in the US or when such an attack might happen, but I personally think nuclear terrorism will certainly occur somewhere in the world. It's just a matter of when.
Final note: As I write this, tensions between the US and Russia are ramping up, and the Russians are talking directly about nuclear attacks. Neither side has the kind of wise, sober leadership we had half a century ago, so it is smart to be prepared.
No comments:
Post a Comment