Government Technology
Government Technology: State & Local Government News Articles

White House Homeland Security Council Urges Nuclear Attack Response Planning

Bookmark and Share
Comment

Jul 24, 2009, By Arnold Bogis

Former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill famously remarked, "All politics is local."

The same holds true for nuclear terrorism.

The recently released Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation, developed by the White House Homeland Security Council, stresses that it's "incumbent upon all levels of government" to prepare "through focused nuclear attack response planning." Mayors, governors, emergency managers and first responders will be the first to deal with the consequences, and according to that same guidance, "local and state community preparedness to respond to a nuclear detonation could result in life-saving on the order of tens of thousands of lives."

Ready or Not?, a yearly analysis of preparedness for health emergencies that's released by the nonprofit Trust for America's Health, found that "surge capacity remains the largest threat to the nation's ability to respond to a major catastrophe." Local, and specifically, regional abilities to care for the wounded will be vital just after a nuclear terrorist attack. Unfortunately many communities haven't gotten the point.

Two assumptions prevail at the local level: 1.) Any nuclear explosion will completely destroy a major city; and 2.) The military is the only organization capable of responding.

These ideas are fueled by Cold War-era memories in which the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union meant thousands of bombs would fall on U.S. cities. However, scenarios involving a nuclear terrorist attack, though horrible beyond comprehension, are not in the same league.

Undoubtedly the federal government would eventually take charge of response efforts and military aid would be required. Yet as overwhelming as it would be for local and state resources, they would be all that's available in the first hours and days following an explosion.

So what should local officials do?

First, come to grips with the threat and understand that the military can't arrive immediately to help. Though there's a low probability of such an attack compared to conventional explosives, natural disasters or bioterrorism, the possibility is real and the consequences are catastrophic. Most importantly, local officials shouldn't delude themselves by thinking that existing response plans to "dirty bombs" can be simply ramped up to deal with nuclear terrorism -- there's no comparison between the two. As Harvard professor and nuclear terrorism expert Graham Allison describes it, "a dirty bomb is to a nuclear bomb as a lightning bug is to lightning."

When this lightning strikes, it may be several days before the federal government can respond in force. Although the Defense Department has recently tasked thousands of U.S. troops to support local authorities in case of such a catastrophic event, local officials should assume substantial federal help might not arrive for up to 72 hours after the explosion.

Second, realize this isn't a problem for only large, high-risk cities, but one that requires a regional response. Though an entire targeted city wouldn't be destroyed, surrounding communities and states would be called upon for aid. People would self-evacuate and find themselves miles away by the end of the day, fallout would be blown long distances, and the only resources available would be found in surrounding areas.

Third, make actual plans. This must take place across local borders and among disciplines that often compete for scarce resources -- and should include businesses and other private entities that often aren't invited to the table. As recommended by the recent Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, a serious program of engagement with the public will be required to not only encourage disaster preparedness, but provide guidelines so that they can track their local officials' progress.

Truly comprehensive plans at the regional level then must be connected with their federal equivalents. If officials can't coordinate their efforts, all this work could become counterproductive.

Such preparation isn't necessarily specific to nuclear terrorism. Regional preparedness and response can be used for a range of catastrophic events, including hurricanes such as Katrina. Moving down the scale, preparing for the "big one" will help communities deal with the small disasters they face every year.

 

Arnold Bogis is a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.


MJ

Comments

By Anonymous on Jan 26, 2010

If the US were to suffer a nuclear terrorist attack, Americans would first want to know that the government has plans to cope with the aftermath. The second thing on every Americans' minds is how will the military respond to punish those responsible. Americans would demand a counter-attack, but I have not heard any government agency formulating a plan of retaliation to such an attack. I know such a plan would be classifed, but I still want to know that there is a plan.

If we do not have a plan in place before it happens, when and if it happens, the response might be too soft-handed which will cause a break-down of civil order in the US and embolden further nuclear terrorism. If the military response were too severe, it might affect too many innocent people, or might even incite a nuclear attack by Russia against the US, realizing our worst fears, global nuclear annhilation. There needs to be a plan in place on how to punish those directly and indirectly responsible for such a disaster, to punish those who planned and executed the act as well as those who orchestrated anti-Western propaganda to incite such a horrific terrorist act. I am personally against a pre-emptive attack, but if the US were to suffer a nuclear terrorist event, I would expect that governments who implement propaganda programs to incite nuclear terrorism, such as the leadership in Saudi Arabia does, would suffer total destruction. Saudi Arabia is funneling profits from oil sales into creating violent anti-West propaganda programs even for the youngest children in Saudi schools, training them to use the most exteme violence, and even suicidal violence, against liberal democracies.

I can say from a personal persepctive that if the US sees one mushroom cloud over US soil from Islamic terrorists, I expect dozens of megaton sized mushroom clouds over the soil of those countries whose governments encourage terrorism against the West, those countries who inspire genocide of innocents, those who abominate the Quran for their own sadistic violent tendencies. Lastly, and any mass celebrations of a nuclear terrorist attack should be immediatley be cluster-bombed, at a minimum, because any group that would celebrate such an act would be promoting more nuclear terrorism and therefore deserve to to be bombed.

I know most Americans feel as I do regardless of party affiliation, so that is why it is important to develop a plan to apply the correct amount of punishment to those most deserving. It might make the difference between global nuclear war verses sending the message that never again will religious extremists be allowed to tell lies to promote genocide of innocents. Such a response would have to include some form of a nuclear counter-strike so severe that no group would ever dream of using nuclear terrorism again. Any non-nuclear response that would provide similar results would be far too costly, causing far more economic destruction than the nuclear terrorist act itself. The US would just have to ensure that relatively tolerant muslim nations would not suffer the consequences that intolerant muslim nations would receive and deserve. The US would also have to have a plan to alert allies and other nuclear superpowers of our intentions to avoid a global nuclear holocaust.

By Dusty Kitzmiller, Sr. CBRNE/Training & Ex. Analyst on Jul 31, 2009

Mr. Cumming mentioned RDD plans not being bumped up against NUCDET type plans. Why would they be? This is one case that the scenarios are so very different that response assumptions and processes are drastically different due to the drastically differing effects. An RDD is more of a Weapon of Mass Disruption than destruction. However surge capacity and plans should be bumped off each other. Too many plans start at local or federal levels then expect to be worked out after the fact. Federal needs to iron out their issues first, then state, then local plans. That way they can be made to fit together and reduce interoperability issues. I do have to say, Nuclear attack plans should wait until other plans are corrected, tested, and proven.

By Willaim F. Gandel, Deputy Emergency Services Coordinator on Jul 29, 2009

I am in the field of emergency management at the local level and have been so for over 30 years. It never ceases to amaze me that government officials completely overlook "EMI" the Electro Magnetic Interference in a pulse of a nuclear explosion. This would cause ALL solid-state equipment to fail. Even vehicles would not operate. All computers would be useless ! Simple lead shielding would probably prevent this but I know of no steps being taken to prepare for this.

By William R. Cumming on Jul 27, 2009

Arnold's comments are useful to highlight these recent studies which appear to be highly useful documents to the HS/EM community. What they do not reveal is the fact that in the last several decades the radiological defense capabiity of the US has dwindled with lack of federal support for everything from dosimetry to planning guidance. Recent issuance of CPG-101 by DHS/FEMA fails to integrate or reference the NUDET planning guidance or even FEMA's own RDD planning guidance. Unfortunately even the Public Health capability of the nation has diminished despite what some believe is almost $20B in funds injected since passage of the Biological Terrorism and Preparedness Act in May 2002 following the Anthrax attacks. Hopefully both these reports will be studied closely. First by the State and local governments and secondly by the Public Health and private sector health authorities. These are highly credible threats and recommendations.

Respond to a comment.

Latest Government Technology News


Industry Solutions for Government

Read real world deployments of technology in government from our sponsors.

View All Industry Solutions

Related Products and Services

Marketplace


Get Govtech's Daily Newsletter

Video

More Video >

Government Jobs

Browse hundreds of public sector career opportunities in GovTech's new jobs section. Popular job searches: government IT, public safety, GIS, transportation, CIO, security, health