It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A little read government study published in November 2011 downplays the dangers of a potential nuclear blast in Washington DC.
In a move that seems almost off the script for the powers that be, the corporate media is reporting that this study was supposed to be for official use only and shows that an attack in Washington DC wouldn’t be all that devastating.
Thinking about the unthinkable, a U.S. government study analyzed the likely effects from terrorists setting off a 10-kiloton nuclear device a few blocks north of the White House.
It predicted terrible devastation for roughly one-half mile in every direction, with buildings reduced to rubble the way that World War II bombing raids destroyed parts of Berlin. But outside that blast zone, the study concluded, even such a nuclear explosion would be pretty survivable.
“It’s not the end of the world,” said Randy Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and founding director of the Institute for Homeland Security. “It’s not a Cold War scenario.”
The little-noticed, 120-page study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was hardly a summer blockbuster.
The study, “Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism,” was produced in November by the Homeland Security Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Even though the government considers it “for official use only” and never published it online, the study circulated months later on scientific and government watchdog websites.
This map, released by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and contained in a report from a study that analyzed the likely effects from terrorists setting off a 10-kiloton nuclear device a few blocks north of the White House. The map shows a summary of severe, moderate and light damage zones, and types of damage or injuries likely to be encountered by responders. The report predicted terrible devastation for roughly one-half mile in every direction, with buildings reduced to rubble the way that World War II bombing raids destroyed parts of Berlin. But outside that blast zone, the study concluded, even such a nuclear explosion would be pretty survivable.
The Seoul nuclear summit focused on the risk of nuclear terrorism; there are two risks: first, fissile materials, which terrorists may use to construct a dirty bomb, is kept at thousands of medical, research, and industrial facilities around the world – often without sufficient security; second, constructing a Hiroshima-type bomb is not as difficult as we may think
This past Tuesday, nearly sixty of the world’s leaders gathered in Seoul, South Korea, to discuss securing the world’s supply of nuclear material.
The discussions involved the risk of a terrorist attack using radioactive material, but the focus was beyond the risk of radiological, or “dirty,” bomb. A dirty bomb is composed of ordinary explosives packaged in radioactive material, such as is used in medical and industrial purposes.
These devices spread radioactive material over a large area, rendering those areas unusable until thoroughly cleared of radioactive contamination.
The Seoul nuclear summit had a greater, more threatening concern. That concern had to do with securing and accounting for fissile material, the core material for a nuclear device.
The government study predicted 323,000 injuries, with more than 45,000 dead. A 10-kiloton nuclear explosion would be roughly 5,000 times more powerful than the truck bomb that destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Originally posted by satron
In a nuclear blast, I'd think the structural integrity of the building wouldn't really be on the top of the list of things to worry about.
Originally posted by starwarsisreal
What about radiation even if the people survive the initial blast there would be fallout causing more suffering and death
Make no mistake, a nuclear blast of any size would destroy D.C. as we know it.
Yes, the loss of life (45,000 dead) and damage to property caused by a 10-kiloton ground blast — approximately Hiroshima-level — would be nowhere as apocalyptic as the multiple, multi-megaton air bursts that the city would absorb during a Cold War-type nuclear exchange.
Most of the city’s residents would survive and most of its residential neighborhoods would remain intact, but any nuclear blast would be an existential dagger for Washington as a center for government and commerce — a death knell for D.C. as a city worthy of that word.