FEMA Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation [pdf]
fema.gov
fema.gov
Three is a lot of nuclear-related warnings/drills for me to come across in one day. It is three more than I recall having seen in the last ten years combined.
[0] https://youtu.be/N-5d7V4Sbqk [1] https://www.wmur.com/article/seabrook-power-plant-false-alar...
That Youtube video is like something out of a dystopian nightmare. Some smiley happy woman talking to me about the radioactive blast that I should prepare for.
Ditto for missile defense deployments and aggressive interceptions.
If a nuke goes off, the FEMA steps of get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned is your best bet.
Yes, some people will need to evacuate, but it's a pretty small slice of the overall affected population-- better for everyone to wait for specific instructions on what to do than to have everyone in a massive jam trying to flee and exposing themselves to high levels of radiation and other hazards.
I guess it's still probably less dangerous than risking radiation exposure, but it seems like an overly broad solution.
Basically, it all depends upon yield and altitude, but there's often a pretty large zone with moderate to minimal damage but with significant outside radiation hazard for several hours
A lot of those hazards, too, like downed wires-- are worse when you're outside. Basically, absent fire or imminent structural collapse, you should stay in place after a nuke and await some kind of orderly, systemic assessment of what's going on.
These are accidents in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, etc - see "Broken Arrows".
#1 Lesson: If a nuclear weapon does detonate, don't immediately assume enemy action.
The USAF attempted a coverup, classifying the incident as "no press interest anticipated."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n...
We're also extremely lucky no rogue Air Force generals or the guys in the bunkers just said "fuck it" and launched missiles. Until Permissive Action Link system was set up, there was no presidential authority required on a technical level.
When PAL was set up, the Air Force set all the weapons to "00000000." I wish I were making that up. They did it to subvert the PAL program because the generals resented having to ask for authority to launch nukes in event it was necessary.
We're also extremely lucky there haven't been any nuclear incidents involving the team that transports nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material. They're reportedly underfunded, underpaid, and overworked. They've had numerous incidents involving team members getting drunk, as well as losing their service weapons.
The US nuclear weapons program, at least in the mid 2000's, was a clown show.
On the downside, it also increases my probability estimate that terrorist groups have some weapons-grade fissile material.
While I overall agree with your point, the (alleged) reasoning behind having PAL codes at 00000000 was mainly about being _unable_ to retaliate in certain decapitation attack scenarios. I don't know how realistic this was, or to what degree it was just an excuse to get away with the behavior you quote.
More than "several". This declassified document goes on for 225 pages, and it's only as of 1967:
https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/filer_p...
I guess we can agree there were a multitude of fuckups that almost resulted in an unintended nuclear explosion, but far fewer events of the specific nature I mentioned.
Worth noting: there is an American Experience documentary based on this book (with a primary focus on the Damascus incident), but it’s nowhere near as good as the text.
"This guidance also reflects evolving nuclear threats. The 2010 Planning Guidance focused on 10 kiloton (kT) and smaller-yield detonations consistent with the threat of nuclear terrorism, all occurring at the Earth’s surface. This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface."
However, after skimming the guide, there is no specific recommendation on what to do when a weapon over 100kT detonates.
As of 2021, Russia has over 460 500-800kT warheads that can be delivered via ICBM, and around 1000 100kT warheads. Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18...
Possible inferences:
1. Cities are not targets for high yield weapons (maybe it is not strategically valuable to completely annihilate cities).
2. Cities attacked with a 100kT or lower yield have a chance of survival and ability to mount an emergency response.
3. Cities attacked with a high yield (e.g. 800kT) have no chance of survival and making a guide for local authorities is useless.
Does anyone know if nuclear doctrine (Russian, American, or other) designate what yields would be used on cities?
For example, lets assume, a nuclear aggressor can do a surprise strike and target NYC. As of 2019 the vaults of the NY FED had 6,190 tons of gold. Wouldn't a 800kT bomb, obliterate or damage the gold? Wouldn't the infrastructure of the city be wasted? It makes senses to target locations that would help a country wage war so military bases and factories, but cities?
High yield weapons are used against hardened targets such as ICBM silos, underground command posts and launch control centers, communications hubs, leadership shelters, etc. The relationship between yield and accuracy is of course related, but at the end of the day counterforce weapons tend to be on the higher end of the scale. Earth penetration capabilities also influence yield choices, e.g. the B61-11 bomb @ 400 kilotons replaced the massive B53 @ 9 megatons. Both are bunker-busters, but the former bomb can penetrate rock and earth before detonating while the latter sits on the surface at detonation.
Counterforce vs. countervalue targeting touches upon some of your points. It's a long discussion but in essence the former approach is designed to reduce the ability for the enemy to effectively wage war, especially nuclear war. This means targeting command posts, communications hubs, air bases, missile silos, nuclear weapon storage facilities, etc. Countervalue targeting is meant to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy by targeting power plants and other infrastructure, transportation hubs, and cities & their civilian population. Countervalue targeting requires far fewer weapons and lower accuracy, but it means direct mass murder of civilians a la the firebombing of WWII, rather than the indirect mass murder of civilians as a byproduct of targeting militarily-useful assets. A large scale "pure" counterforce attack would inevitably result in many civilian casualties though they were not the targets.
Alex Wellerstein's blog is a good one and he links to other quality sources as well (though note some are decidedly abolitionist when it comes to nuclear weapons).
What is most eye opening is that the guide recommends for first responders that zone around ~ 1 mile from ground zero of a 10 kT nuclear explosion has the greatest lifesaving potential through early responder actions.
We had to invade Iraq they have WMDs, if we dont the next thing we see might be a huge mushroom cloud on the horizon.
The hypothetical cause could be accidental US detonation of a nuclear warhead but assigning blame isn’t their job disaster recovery is. It’s much better to have a plan than try to make stuff up on the spot so horrific but unlikely threats should be planed for.
But I also think it's amazing that everyone has just accepted the vast array of nuclear weapons and takes it for granted that they will never be deployed.
It's bizarre and incredibly stupid.
Ideally everyone would routinely have their attention called to the sword of Damocles, or at least listen to Dan Carlin's Destroyer of World's once every few years. So I should take what I can get from the NYC ad...but having one produced seemingly apropos of nothing with the tone of an Ad Council billboard creeps me out too.
I also want people to be respectfully fearful but fear populations who are afraid.
I'm just going to reread Slaughter House Five, cloak myself in cynical realism, and then spend time outdoors while I enjoy the back 9 of life.
So it goes
Proofen by North Korea. Should name them "LeaveMeAloneBullies"-Weapons.
If you survive the first 24hrs, you'll probably be ok, be careful with water and things like that. So whilst potassium iodide tablets are handed out to protect the Thyroid, I'm surprised copious amounts of nicotinic acid arent handed out, as the prostaglandin flush helps rebind DNA in the cells, which is one of the things the radiation attacks. Glutathione is also increased in the Liver with Nicotinic Acid which will also help the body in a nuclear attack situation.
There is a great speech by a character called Falken. and he gives the best advice for how to prepare for nuclear war:
""" Oh, it's all right. I've planned ahead. We're just three miles from a primary target. A millisecond of brilliant light and we're vaporized Much more fortunate than the million |who'll wander sightless through the shouldering aftermath. We'll be spared the horror of survival.. """
There entire dialog is my favorite part of the movie.
Check out the movie. Yes it is a bit 80s but nuclear holocaust was a bit 80s
Also not too friendly with Russia or china these days…
Central asia is undergoing some interesting times.
Pretty sure USA won’t let Pakistan falter given their nuclear state status, but definitely interesting times.
No one should have nukes.
If I read that right, that's not binding on any nation that actually has them, so it's about as effective as non-gun-owning Americans agreeing amongst themselves to continue to not own guns and to say "guns are bad" at those who do, a strategy which thus far has not resulted in the repeal of whichever amendment it is.
Hopefully, now, they're smaller and farther away. Ideally, they're farther away in time also.
It's a motherfucker
don't you know
If they push that button
Your ass got to go
What you gonna do
Without your ass
They were right that dirt and concrete do wonders to stop gamma rays.
Are you thinking 1980s general public guidance, armed forces guidance, or scientific advice from comittee?
Would this be 1980s UK, US, or AU guidance?
I recently got a copy of Duncan Campbell's /War Plan UK/ and it's as engrossing as it is depressing. Worth a read if you're into that sort of thing: https://www.amazon.com/War-Plan-UK-Duncan-Campbell/dp/132650...