[lit-ideas] What's the big deal about 14 million people? Was: Ground Zero Mosque's Saudi Patron

  • From: Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 05:45:49 -0400

Phil Enns imagines five nuclear weapons detonated simultaneously in five major cities and writes:


There would still be a military and chain of command capable of
projecting its power to a degree that would ensure deterrence against
any other nation wanting to take advantage of the situation.

Maybe not. Most studies are conducted with optimistic projections of *tiny* 10 k or 550 k bombs on single cities. I give some data below in case anyone cares to examine the issue.

Even without factoring in EMP effects, riots, chaos, etc., a recent study on this subject, a study that did not use all of the most populated US cities, postulating the use of *small* nuclear weapons (tiny 10-kiloton and 550 kiloton bombs) concluded:

"Among the consequences of this outcome would be the probable *loss* of command-and-control, mass casualties that will have to be treated in an unorganized response by hospitals on the periphery, as well as other expected chaotic outcomes from inadequate administration in a crisis."*

In this optimistic scenario, over 14 million people would be immediately killed or suffer burns. Many more would begin to develop radiation sickness and cancers.

Likely short-term consequences of one attack on LA include:
   *shut-down of borders,
   *elimination of civil liberties,
   *collapse of the US economy, and
   *nuclear retaliation, possibly on all "usual suspects"
RAND admits that it has no way to assess damage beyond a one-month window.

A Harvard panel -- discussing tiny 10 kiloton detonations -- also disagrees with Phil, noting that "in the event that multiple bombs are either threatened or detonated in multiple U.S. cities, it may be impossible to prevent a massive urban evacuation that could paralyze the U.S. interstate highway system."**

The RAND*** study examining that single, tiny nuke attack on the LA ports concludes: "Given these conditions, all U.S. ports would likely close indefinitely or operate at a substantially reduced level following the attack. This would severely disrupt the availability of basic goods and petroleum throughout the country."



____
* abstract here
http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/5/abstract/
full article here
http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/5

**
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17269/pdp_hosts_wmd_workshop_on_the_day_after_a_nuclear_attack.html

***
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR391.pdf



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: