| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Some thoughts on "suitcase nukes" |
| 2006-01-22 |
| Wretchard the Cat at Belmont Club; EFL'd. As usual, he's on to something. The terrorist "suitcase nuclear weapon" is the nightmare scenario often invoked to explain why such weapons should never be allowed to fall into the hands of leaders like President Ahmadinejad. . . . But a closer examination of the suitcase nuke problem suggests that this method of delivery has certain limitations. Let's begin a thought experiment by considering the number of suitcase nukes that would be required to destroy a country like France or the United States. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a somewhat left of center think tank, produced a very respectable model of how many nuclear weapons would be required to inflict damage to the point of diminishing returns, a concept accepted by Robert McNamara at the height of the Cold War. This inflection point is known as the "knee" and occurred where around 25% of the target population was killed. . . . According to these figures it will take about 150 nukes to 'destroy' the fabric and cohesion of the United States and about 30 to do the same to France. Note that inflicting this damage will not have any substantial effect the US ability to perform an immediate counterstrike with thousands of nuclear warheads because these are deployed in hardened facilities or on submerged platforms which would survive a paltry (by Cold War standards) 150 warhead strike. But this number would be enough to finish the target nation as cohesive society for decades. The problem with suitcase nukes is maintaining command and control over them. Any suitcase nuke which could be armed and detonated by its possessor (protected only by a combination detonator just like the movies) would have serious defects as a weapon. This method delegates so much command and control over the weapon to the possessor that it is effectively "his". In our thought experiment, imagine a rogue state providing such weapons to 150 terrorist teams for use against the United States. There would be no assurance that once deployed these weapons would not be stolen or used for unintended purposes. It would be possible for a rogue team to sell the weapon to the highest bidder, perhaps a rival rogue state looking for such devices. It would not be impossible for one of the teams to turn against its masters and use it against them. A team with a suitcase nuke might divert to Switzerland where they could demand the payment of a few billion dollars in exchange for not blowing up Zurich. A suitcase weapon could be captured by the CIA or the Mossad and reimported into the rogue state where it could be detonated against targets who could hardly admit its true provenance. If the teams belonged to rival political terrorist organizations they could be used against each other. Clearly, releasing a large number of suitcase nuclear weapons without positive command and control would be less than ideal and probably disastrous for the wielder. The most probable workaround to the problem would be to deploy these weapons at a very low rate by sending them out one trusted team at a time. In that way the weapon would be used within a short period and watched, probably by a large number of mutually counterchecking personnel, every step of the way. One nuke to Paris. Boom. One nuke to New York. Boom. The problem with solving the control problem by slowing down the rate of attack is apparent from the table above. One nuke in Paris or New York will be grossly insufficient to finish the infidel enemy but quite sufficient to provoke a massive response. Once the fissile traces are identified ten thousand warheads will be headed back the other way. The other obvious possibility is to deploy a large number of suitcase nukes in a componentized configuration so that it requires the assembly of several teams, each with part of the requisite firing information or componentry to activate the device. (This is conceptually similar to the two key system on boomers) For example, Iran could deploy 450 teams -- three teams to activate a suitcase bomb -- with the intent of controlling 150 devices targeted at the United States. Unfortunately a force of this size could hardly remain covert for any length of time. The teams security would rapidly "deteriorate" in a deployed environment and would almost certainly be discovered before long. Once discovered the game would be up. The weapons would no longer be deniable and their use would be open belligerency. The suitcase weapons would have no advantage to nuclear bombs delivered by the air force of the rogue nation. . . . |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #15 Most of these issues are outside my own expertise to opine on, but it certainly is true that the US infrastructure (physical, social, military and political) are considerably less centralized than in most countries. Remember, TCP/IP (the data communications protocols used by the Internet) was originally developed by DOD precisely to allow a computer network to continue to function despite a major nuclear strike. The lack of a single central controller or directory for the Internet Protocol is a distinctly American feature - check out the European-designed OSI protocol stack for contrast. The which? you say? My point exactly. My first job out of college was programming a database which was intended to allow senior commanders to figure out what forces were where, so that if we lost a major portion of the country or our forces overseas, the remaining commanders could organize quickly. That was during the cold war ... different capabilities are in place now. I don't think the reaction today after such a strike would be gentle, especially if Washington were hit. I wonder, though, how much dithering would occur if the civilian command chain were left more or less intact. Depends on who is leading it, I suspect. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-22 19:42 |
| #14 No, it would not take out all of the power lines. Take a look at the power grid in the U.S. -- it is not interconnected nationwide : there are separate regions that supply the power to that region. And for the EMP to take out the majority of the power substations in an area, it would have to be an airburst at a height that eliminates all but ICBMs. Remember people, they were doing above ground nuke tests in Nevada throughout the 1950s, and did not take the power down in Las Vegas, even though the tests were within 60 miles of that city. The EMP myth was started by a specific test at a height that required a very sophisticated delivery system, and even then, it only impacted half the area and for one day. The power was restored to the affected area within 2 days of the event. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-01-22 16:44 |
| #13 . I live in Oregon on the West Coast - a nuke taking out New York City would be a horrific event How about taking out (Name your closest big city upwind), and it's not necessary to destroy the dams, in fact it's undesirable, just destroy the power lines for a week or so and spoil the refrigerated foodstuffs, canned goods only would survive the power loss. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-01-22 16:32 |
| #12 And if you think I was overestimating the number of nukes to take out the ports in the U.S., please take a look at "http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/portname03.htm" for a listing of the ports in this country. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-01-22 16:31 |
| #11 5-10 nukes and the US is back to the 1890s? What universe are you people living in? We live on a continent, people. I live in Oregon on the West Coast - a nuke taking out New York City would be a horrific event but would have no major impact on food, water, oil, or electrical power in my region, let alone my town. Such a strike would impact the pricing of those commodities but would not limit their availability. You would have to take out the major hydroelectric dams here in the Northwest to impact our supply of power; we grow enough varieties of basic foodstuffs in the Pacific Northwest to survive; and California could produce all the oil products we need, under martial law. 5-10 nukes would produce incredible losses, untold human suffering, and a thirst for revenge that would result in genocidal retaliation, here and abroad. It would not collapse the industrial base of this country, that would take 50-100 nukes aimed at all major ports and transportation nodes -- you know, the scenarios in MAD when the Soviets were around? A better example would be England during WWII : rationing of all items for the national good. But no civilizational collapse -- way too Twilight Zone there, people. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-01-22 15:19 |
| #10 We saw that in New Orleans in Septmber. It *wasn't* pretty. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-01-22 14:21 |
| #9 Anyone interested in how to survive in such a scenario would do well to look at Steven Stirling's books, Dies the Fire and The Protector's War. Now, Mr. Stirling is a little too much into a medieval mindset for my taste at points, but he develops the themes that Jim and Faith touch on -- how does one survive when none of the 20th and 21st century technology we rely on works? It wouldn't be pretty. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-01-22 14:05 |
| #8 #5: Mike- What you forget about the 1890s is that people had the knowledge and tools to get everything done without electricity. You're partly correct, I personaly can do it, I have the knowledge and the skills to live quite well without highline electricity. But that does not mean I could, it would be a year or so to survive before any "Farm" produce was available, and very few folks have a year's supply on hand. Plus the very real danger of looters finding that you have food, then it's kill or be killed, or starve after being robbed. Won't work. A month's supply is practical to store, more and the cry "Hoarder" crops up. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-01-22 14:01 |
| #7 Planning for possible future disasters is entertaining & necessary, but always off the mark. There are many more "players" on the field and too many interconnecting possibilities. "Command and control" - the Soviets had an extensive espionage network in the US since at least the 1930's. Some of it was cracked during & after WWII. Some Soviet agents in the West were never uncovered, and have likely retired on their double pensions & died of old age. The Soviets had pretty good network security. I don't think the Russians have discontinued these activities, and their espionage networks would serve as a method of C&C if the desire rose. The current Russian regime is not really friendly toward the US, and they have reason to feel humiliated to a far worse extent than Muslims. The Russians are currently assisting the Iranian mullocracy in developing their own brand of nukes. No crash program has been launched to train adequate numbers of interpreters to even read the intelligence the US is collecting, and it's going on five years since 9/11. The anthrax attacks of 2001 and hurricanes Katrina & Rita illustrated how brittle and unresponsive state & federal governments are when stressed. In 2001 the Senate partly shut down & was unable to do its business, even though none of its members was injured. Apparently there are no plans for an alternate seat of government should DC become unusable. We have lots of scarcely used federal facilities, but no plan to relocate and restore operations if part of the current system suddenly becomes inoperable. Vulnerabilities in our society's life support networks continue to go unaddressed: e.g., most of our gas stations can't function "off the grid". (It's not like they don't have the money and fuel to run generators, either.) The US scorns civil defense. Compared to the unity of purpose which gripped the USA during WWII, the national "fabric and cohesion" is already severely impaired, at least in my mind. For example, some of my elderly relatives who volunteered to put their lives on the line at Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa are/were very much against the current response to 9/11. I was disgusted by this, but didn't argue with them out of respect. What does the West have the stomach for? What in our history has prepared for this era? |
| Posted by: Whutch Threth6418 2006-01-22 13:33 |
| #6 And another thing... This article is worried about the destruction of the fabric of our society. But what about more simple terror? Wouldn't a suitcase nuke be 9-11 multiplied tenfold? |
| Posted by: Faith 2006-01-22 11:54 |
| #5 Mike- What you forget about the 1890s is that people had the knowledge and tools to get everything done without electricity. I live near one of the last (non-Amish etc) communities to farm using horses and mules. Even they have a lot of equipment that relies on gasoline and electricity. There are also a lot of dead and dying trades like blacksmithing and wheel making. (If these sound simple to revive, read Foxfire #9.) I think even most of the rural areas would collapse very quickly once the transportation and the pre-packaged food run out. Remember, in the old system it takes about 30 acres of worked farmland to support a family. At least the Amish will make it. |
| Posted by: Faith 2006-01-22 11:52 |
| #4 Tom- Actually, the number is in the middle three figures. Let me point something out here: the US is like any other nation on Earth, in that we could lose our capital and all our major cities at once and still function. Why? For starters, The Federal Building. Just about every good sized city has one. In those buildings are, usually, at least some offices of EVERY Federal department, and with them all the regs, rules, and procedures. Then you have the Armory - one in every county (or every few counties) for every branch of the service. Finally, you have the food distribution system, overwhelmingly located in rural areas (don't forget, the system ENDS in the cities). Why does all that matter? because in just about every other nation on earth, everything is centered in the Capital - the bureaucracy, communications, etc. For example, kill Paris and France becomes no more than a few provinces that speak variants of the same language. Kill someplace like Teheran or Beijing, and those nations cease to exist as coherent entities - their populations will be at each others throats within hours. All the reins of power have been channeled through the capital, and when they are gone, so is control over the rest of the nation. that's not the case here. Yes, you will have horrible damage - the medical system will collapse within days. The transportation system will last as long as there's fuel in the pipelines (a week, 10 days tops) - but what you end up with is the US in, say, 1890, and that was a strong, cohesive society. If you want to kill the US as a functioning society with NO hope of recovery, you are talking about one weapon on each state capital, the two or three major cities in each state (and in some states 4-10), then EVERY major military base, EVERY Federal building of ANY size at all. Once you add all that up, you have more targets than anybody's got weapons for today. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-22 11:08 |
| #3 slightly off but relating to Wretchard's point, Natural events produce "energy equivalent" effects somewhat similar to Hiroshima for instance. Of course Natural disasters are not precise models for "suitcase nuclear weapon" attacks, as those would most likely be targeted against population centers [not critical nodes] for maximum terror effects, but they can be useful tools for examining the aftermath. The total energy released by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake is equivalent to 32,000 megatons of TNT or 133 exajoules (1.33×1020 joules). This exceeds the total amount of energy consumed in the United States in one year by 30%, or the energy released by the wind of a hurricane like Hurricane Isabel over a period of 70 days. Using the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc^2, this amount of energy is equivalent to a mass of about 1500 kg. Equivalently, this amount of energy is enough to boil 10,000 liters (2,600 US gallons) of water for every person on Earth. Link |
| Posted by: RD 2006-01-22 11:08 |
| #2 5-10 would do for a 10 year period of no-superpower US. Problem there is in 15 years you've got the same superpower bent on total victory. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-01-22 10:58 |
| #1 This seems to be right on target though the primary assetion is a modified MAD: "One nuke in Paris or New York will be grossly insufficient to finish the infidel enemy but quite sufficient to provoke a massive response. Once the fissile traces are identified ten thousand warheads will be headed back the other way." A modified MAD is a rather flawed analysis when the stated objectives of the enemy, Iran-AlQaeda is the elimination of Israel and the removal of the US as a global deterrent to Islam. They have stated that thier own anihilation would be worth the objective. The 150 nuke attack appears right on target for the US; however, Israel would not survive a single attack. Once a single nuke is set off a cascading chain of response will be start that no one can really predict where it will end. Example: How many nukes will make the US pull back to isolation to heal its economic wounds? Will we have the stomach to launch a massive counterstrike to eliminate Islam? Will we have the stomach to interr/deport all members of Islam allready in this country? Who else in the world will decide to take advantage of our internal distractions to advance their own objectives? I think the 150 number is a little over stated. I am thinking more like 5-10. |
| Posted by: TomAnon 2006-01-22 10:14 |