You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disaster
2008-04-17
A nuclear device detonated near the White House would kill roughly 100,000 people and flatten downtown federal buildings, while the radioactive plume from the explosion would likely spread toward the Capitol and into Southeast D.C., contaminating thousands more.

The blast from the 10-kiloton bomb — similar to the bomb dropped over Hiroshima during World War II — would kill up to one in 10 tourists visiting the Washington Monument and send shards of glass flying the length of the National Mall, in a scenario that has become increasingly likely to occur in a major U.S. city in recent years, panel members told a Senate committee yesterday.

"It's inevitable," said Cham E. Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia, who has charted the potential explosion's effect in the District and testified before a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "I think it's wistful to think that it won't happen by 20 years."

The Senate committee has convened a series of hearings to examine the threat and effects of a terrorist nuclear attack on a U.S. city, as well as the needed response.

Yesterday's panel stressed the importance of state and local cooperation with federal authorities in the wake of an attack, assistance from the private business sector to aid recovery and the dire need to boost the capabilities of area hospitals. They recommended expanding emergency personnel by training physicians like pharmacists and dentists to aid in all-hazards care, monitoring the exposure of first responders to radiation and clearly disseminating information to the public.
Apparently no thought of making sure prepetrators couldn't do it in the first place.
"The scenarios we discuss today are very hard for us to contemplate, and so emotionally traumatic and unsettling that it is tempting to push them aside," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and committee chairman. "However, now is the time to have this difficult conversation, to ask the tough questions, and then to get answers as best we can and take preparatory and preventive action."

Mr. Carter described a more destructive blast effect. He said the ground-based detonation of a 10-kiloton bomb would result in near-total devastation within a circle about two miles in diameter, or the length of the Mall. The zone of destruction is projected to be less than that of Hiroshima, where the bomb was dropped from an airplane and detonated above the city. A similar blast in a more densely populated city than the District, such as Chicago or New York, would result in an injury toll up to eight times higher. A plume a few miles long could also dole out lethal doses of radiation, Mr. Carter said.

However, the experts emphasized that the explosion would not impact most of a major city and that in many cases, residents could remain safe by not evacuating immediately and clogging area roadways. "It is also expected that, due to lack of information getting to the public, many people will try to flee by car or on foot, often in the wrong direction, again exposing themselves to high levels of radiation, as vehicles provide virtually no protection," Mr. Carter said.

Mr. Dallas said a major problem facing most cities is a lack of available hospital beds for victims of burns that would result from a nuclear blast. He said up to 95 percent of such victims would not receive potentially life-saving care. "We're completely underprepared," he said. "Most of them will die."
Posted by:Steve White

#26  See related on WAFF.com > FEAR OF NUCLEAR ATTACK ON THE RISE. ALso from WAFF > FEARS OVER RUSSIA'S DECLINING OIL OUTPUT.

Again, in the absence of Islamist-led/only batlefield victory over the US in Iraq-Afghani, and failing to induce US withdrawal from the ME, to save their Jihad and fight another day the Islamists are recognizing their iimdiate = near-term need to acquire NUKES-WMDS IN QUANTITIES + UTILITY POTENT ENUFF TO CAUSE THE US-ALLIES TO THINK TWICE OR THRICE ABOUT MIL ENGAGING ISLAMIST MILITANT GROUPS. By definition, this includes the ability to attack the USA = US-ALLIED WID NUKES-WMDS AT WILL AND INSIDE THE LATTER'S OWN SPECIFIC NATIONAL TERRITORIES. Iff the Islamists don't have any already, they need Nukes-WMDS now.

E.G. GEORGIA > Govt reportedly fears that RUSSIAN suppor and aid to its breakaway regions of ABSKHAZIA + SOUTH OSSETIA are deliberate Russ threats to Georgian sovereignty + national territor integrity.

REGIONAL MAP > Collectively, I don't know what other RB'ers see but what I see is poten geographic-territor expansion of Iran + Islamism into RUSSIA + CENTRAL ASIA???

*FOX + MSNBC > Iff NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT NUCLEARIZING IRAN, THEN AMERS SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE BOTH IRAN + ISLAMIST MILITANTS-TERRORISTS, ETC. RADICAL GOVTS + ROUPS HAVE NUKE WEAPONS, + IN THE VERY NEAR-TERM, qs early as 2009[Israel-USDOD-NATO Reports], and CERTAINLY BY 2010.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-17 23:35  

#25  they'd be disappointed at SD (ixnay on the "ansay iegoday" talk, k?) there is rarely more than one of the three SD-based carriers in port. A large jump from when I first had an office window view on the bay ('97....geeez, who was prez?)
Posted by: Frank G   2008-04-17 22:02  

#24  While there are more tactically important targets, the jihadis are fixated on New York and DC. Myself, if I had two nukes, I'd go for Norfolk and San Diego at Christmas. Try to get as many carriers in port as possible.
Posted by: Steve   2008-04-17 20:50  

#23  If something like this happens, the world and the country will never be the same. "Business as usual" will be the first casualty. There's a lot of idiocy currently happening in this country that would stop immediately, and most of it is coming from the left. Those folks would need to be walking pretty damned softly or they'd find themselves decorating trees in short order. Read what happened in Galveston, Texas, after the 1900 hurricane, for a preview of the likely response.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707   2008-04-17 18:31  

#22  So if a nuke gets popped in a major American city it would be a bad thing?
I don't think I'd call this a "scoop"...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-04-17 16:13  

#21  If they really wanted to damage the economy, they'd detonate 20KT warhead at deck level on a barge in the Houston Ship Channel, which would demolish the port, the refineries, petroleum and rail nexus, trashing the city itself, and send a radioactive tsunami up the river to flood out the plains N of Houston and make it unlivable. Thats in addition to the fallout spreading all the way to New Orleans.

Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-17 16:02  

#20  I'd expect the first nuke to be in a southern port - Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Tampa, Miami, Savannah, or Charleston.

Hopefully, the jihadis *would* be that stupid, OP. You'd see every redneck and good ol' boy in the South storming the beaches of Pakistan and Iran in their bass boats after that. And, boys, there's NO bag limit on jihadis.
Posted by: BA   2008-04-17 16:01  

#19  Agree w/ OP; and a pick up (truck-sized) nuke or dirty bomb would be fairly easy to get into the middle of DC or any city. Unless intell picked up that news, there is no way to stop annd search every incoming vehicle.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-17 14:08  

#18  The only way to prevent this from happening is to stay on the offensive against terrorists and rogue regimes that might or already have access to nuclear weapons. Not only do we need to aggressively pursue and eliminate terror groups that have threatened such attacks on the US-- such as AQ-- and the leaders of states that harbor, support, or encourage them-- such as Iran, Syria, NK, et al.-- but we also need to put the whole world on notice- LOUDLY AND CLEARLY-- that the response to any such attack will be swift, lethal, unmitigated, and indiscriminate.

In other words, you all better do all you can to prevent such an attack from happening because if you don't and such an attack takes place and we find out it came from you, near you, or around you, you and your people, your society, your culture, and your way of life will cease to exist now or ever again.
Posted by: eltoroverde   2008-04-17 13:57  

#17  There is no way we are going to invest in the needed medical facilities to deal with this hypothetical. Just is not going to happen. Should an attack like this actually take place, the loss of life and physical damage would be absorbed, as it were, over the course of 30+ years, same as in Japan. I do think there would also be some areas of the planet that would have a far longer recovery period.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-04-17 12:55  

#16  The areas of concern are border and port cities, then areas with high transient populations.

Mr. Dallas said a major problem facing most cities is a lack of available hospital beds for victims of burns that would result from a nuclear blast.

Some 25 or so years back, there was a push to have DoD coordinate with civilian hospitals to develop capacity to be able to take in combat casualties (with a secondary of dealing with mass casualties). The medical community pushed back for 'political' reasons and the capacity was never developed.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-17 12:17  

#15  While Washington, DC, would be a political feather in the cap of Al-Qaida, I'd expect the first nuke to be in a southern port - Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Tampa, Miami, Savannah, or Charleston. It would be easier, it would cause tremendous panic, and it would be an economic disaster for the US. Of course, if John-boy is president, I'd expect a complete and total nuclear response in the muddled east that would more than equal the damage to the United States. If hillarity or BO were president, they'd probably surrender.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-04-17 12:11  

#14  President Dale: I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad.

-- From Mars Attacks

(I wonder what Polka music does to Jihadists.....)


Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-04-17 12:00  

#13  Pat Roberts is my rep and he always comes to town to talk to us bitter people. There is nothing wrong with Kansas.
Posted by: bman   2008-04-17 11:56  

#12  I believe its possible to get a device near enough to destroy Congress, but it would have to be a modern small sophisticated and well shielded device. Something the Terrs do not have access to, in general.

Killing ALL the members of Congress might not be all that bad, other than the horrid loss of life and the collateral damage. There are only a few Senators and Reps that I would miss. The rest of them...


Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-17 11:46  

#11  

Never happen. We've got dozens and dozens of cops in cars idling all over the Federal areas of the city, and jersey barriers/ bollards/ magnetometers/ 100% ID check/ iris scanners at the entrances to every agency.

DC is locked down tight.
Posted by: Seafarious   2008-04-17 11:10  

#10  If a small pick up truck nuke [small 3rd world nuke] were to take out Congress while in session to pass important pork votes would the country be better or worse off?
Posted by: RD   2008-04-17 10:50  

#9  Somebody, either Newt Gingrich or Tom Clancy, said the first nuke into this country would be disguised as a ton load of cocaine.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2008-04-17 10:46  

#8  And even if a nuke takes out DC, it would be smuggled in through a low profile means, making detection difficult if they aren't serious about the ports and borders. It certainly wouldn't be on a commercial airline!
Posted by: Thealing Borgia6122   2008-04-17 10:03  

#7  Does anyone find it remotely ironic that the Congress-critters only appear to be concerned about their *home base* (D.C.)? It mentions NYC and Chicago, but this is all about their turf.
Posted by: BA   2008-04-17 09:50  

#6  If I was a terrorist, I would chose a target that would have a good body count, but be fairly unguarded while stating I would hit DC, LA, NY or somewhere like that. While the press and the feds are looking into it, Seattle would vaporize.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-04-17 09:25  

#5  This is what I don't understand; They aren't going to bomb rural Missouri, they want DC or NY, so the you'd think the assholes there in the govt. would be a little more worried about Iran/NKor, Syria, ect.
Posted by: Mad Eye Hupolumble9529   2008-04-17 08:46  

#4  The zone of destruction is projected to be less than that of Hiroshima, where the bomb was dropped from an airplane and detonated above the city.

Because having secured a nuclear device it is impossible for the jihadis to load it onto an airplane and fly it over their target.
/sarc

Even assuming a working CAP over DC - which I do not - there is nothing to stop a flying suicide bomb from taking out Disneyworld, Las Vegas or any other profile target that comes to mind.
Posted by: Excalibur   2008-04-17 08:27  

#3  Several years ago, I read an article in Scientific American, (I mean, as opposed to Time Magazine or The National Inquirer), that concluded in a dirty bomb attack in Manhattan, many more would die in the stampede than from radiation.

Anyone think it'd be different if it was a real bomb? We'd all just line up and walk out of town, single file?

A lot of folks would lose their jobs, at least for a while, and who would feed them? We would also, no doubt, have to import workers to rebuild, because those unemployed by the blast could not be expected to work with their hands, now, could they?

Salmon-pink Steve got it right - no one is thinking of the easy way to avoid it.
Posted by: Bobby   2008-04-17 05:59  

#2  Compare wid YAHOO > GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT DNA FROM EVERYONE THEY ARREST; + TOPIX > ARE CELL PHONE COMPANIES TRACKING YOUR LOCATION? + USDOD MAY IMPLANT RFID CHIPS IN SERVICEMEMBERS.

OTOH, WORLDNEWS > THE US HAD SECRET PLANS TO NUKE VIETNAM, LAOS. To stop Commie guerillas, espec during TET + INVASION OF CAMBODIA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-17 00:51  

#1  Compare wid YAHOO > GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT DNA FROM EVERYONE THEY ARREST; + TOPIX > ARE CELL PHONE COMPANIES TRACKING YOUR LOCATION? + USDOD MAY IMPLANT RFID CHIPS IN SERVICEMEMBERS.

OTOH, WORLDNEWS > THE US HAD SECRET PLANS TO NUKE VIETNAM, LAOS. To stop Commie guerillas, espec during TET + INVASION OF CAMBODIA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-17 00:49  

00:00