Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disaster--National Security News - The Washington TimesHere I thought with the implosion of the USSR we wouldn't have to worry about scenarios like this. It's perhaps not a surprise that it's coming up again...A nuclear device detonated near the White House would kill roughly 100,000 people and flatten downtown federal buildings, while the radioactive plume from the explosion would likely spread toward the Capitol and into Southeast D.C., contaminating thousands more.
The blast from the 10-kiloton bomb — similar to the bomb dropped over Hiroshima during World War II — would kill up to one in 10 tourists visiting the Washington Monument and send shards of glass flying the length of the National Mall, in a scenario that has become increasingly likely to occur in a major U.S. city in recent years, panel members told a Senate committee yesterday.
"It's inevitable," said Cham E. Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia, who has charted the potential explosion's effect in the District and testified before a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "I think it's wistful to think that it won't happen by 20 years."
The Senate committee has convened a series of hearings to examine the threat and effects of a terrorist nuclear attack on a U.S. city, as well as the needed response.
At this point - the USSR is trying to rebuild itself into a military superpower - but it's difficult to have both guns and butter, as the saying goes, when you can afford one or the other, but not both. I think the people of Russia are going to get it in the neck again...
Iran's a threat - North Korea not so much any more. Venezuela might be a problem, but Chavez is a long way from getting a nuke.
The EU? Not a threat. The ME? Well, the problem there is Radical Islam - and they're not at all unwilling to blow up the rest of the world in their drive to convert the unbeliever.
Dang. Almost makes you miss the Cold War, doesn't it?
J.
Comments (2)
"For while the probability of a nuclear weapon one day going off in a U.S. city cannot be calculated, it is almost surely larger than it was five years ago," Mr. Carter said.
Mathematically, he's wrong.
If we assume that both the threat of nukes and the continued existence of the USA is infinite, the probability approaches 1. But the duration of the USA is not infinite. Nothing is. If nothing else, we end when the sun goes nova and roast the earth, but more likely something else will change first.
Therefore, the time periods we are concerned with are (Now to end of USA) vs (Five years ago to end of USA). Since (Now to end of USA) is a subset of (Five years ago to end of USA), the set of all potential threats NOW is a subset of the set of all potential threats THEN, and therefore cannot be larger.
Had he said "the threat of a nuke going off sometime in the next ten years" it would be different, but, that's not what he said, and I hate faulty math, for that way madness lies.
Ben
Posted by Ben | April 18, 2008 9:17 AM
Posted on April 18, 2008 09:17
Sounds like ol' Jimmah's been playing with the faulty math for a while now...
After all - he can't count worth beans when overseeing an election where a dictator's involved!
J.
Posted by JLawson | April 20, 2008 9:15 PM
Posted on April 20, 2008 21:15