Government Study Claims Nuclear Blast In Washington DC Wouldn’t Destroy City

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Government Study Claims Nuclear Blast In Washington DC Wouldn’t Destroy City As World Leaders Discuss Threat of Nuclear Terrorism:



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.


Here is an excerpt from the AP article -


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.

Gov't Report: DC Nuke Blast Wouldn't Destroy City

Here is the 120 page F.E.M.A report for those wanting to read it in it's entirety- Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism



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.




Coverage of the study comes conveniently just after world leaders met in South Korea to discuss the threat of nuclear terrorism.


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.

Nuclear summit focuses on terrorist nukes

Just got done reading the article and thought maybe you guys & gals here on ATS might be interested as well.
I was not aware of the Fema report before seeing this,The intel hub article has a good bit more information and other correlating aspects you might want to check out.

The entire write-up can be found here-Government Study Claims Nuclear Blast In Washington DC Wouldn’t Destroy City As World Leaders Discuss Threat of Nuclear Terrorism I recommend that you read the above article for further insight on these and other related issues.


I believe the damage would be beyond catastrophic and could easily surpass the damage,death-toll compared to what their study predicted -



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.

That is a lot of death,damage and destruction no matter how you cut it! with talks of dirty bombs,missing nukes and the potential of some kind of false flag event I have to admit nothing would surprise me these days,shocking revelations have become a thing of the past as far as I am concerned.

So what do you make of their report,the recent talks in Seoul of nuclear terrorism?

Any validity in fearing terrorist plots or could it be even more sinister with the actually possibility of some type of false flag attacks?

I get the feeling that not too far off in our near future we may be faced with a nuclear attack,with M.A.D. -mutually assured destruction, you would think that no country or leader would be stupid,brazen or evil enough to push the button....I am not so sure anymore,the pot is boiling and it eventually has to over flow.

I do hope that I am severely wrong with my intuitions and thoughts on the matter,I desire and hope for a peaceful world...A world where War is absolutely abolished,the greedy,rich #'s are thrown in jail for crimes against humanity and those who starve are fed...For surely there is enough to go around


Look forward to your responses, Peace.
edit on 30-3-2012 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


whoa, are the gov dudes like saying "don't worry its just a nuke" ??????


what in the what..................


NUKE... = NUKE!! i don't know why they would say "meh, don't worry"



i don't know what to say about this, but my thoughts are DUDE, NUKES are BAD!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
What about radiation even if the people survive the initial blast there would be fallout causing more suffering and death



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

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.


That might be the case but while doing this kind of report they had to take everything into consideration I imagine.






Originally posted by starwarsisreal
What about radiation even if the people survive the initial blast there would be fallout causing more suffering and death


Agreed,it would destroy D.C. as we know it.

Another take on the report from the Washington Post -


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.

A nuclear blast of any size would end D.C. as we know it





 
3

log in

join