DDP Newsletter, Vol. XXXIX, No. 6
The radiation terror campaign continues in the December 2023 issue of Scientific American on “The New Nuclear Age” (http://tinyurl.com/5exwpywd). As has become typical with this once excellent magazine, beautiful illustrations and some fascinating articles are mixed in with politicized commentaries, and certain assumptions are not to be questioned: safe-and-effective vaccines, nonexistence of an intelligent designer, and catastrophic human-caused climate change. Doubts or skepticism (“denialism”) are “conspiracy theories” and “antiscience ideology.” And nuclear weapons are an existential threat, a nuclear attack is nonsurvivable, and tiny radiation doses are deadly.
“The U.S. is beginning an ambitious, controversial reinvention of its nuclear arsenal. The project comes with incalculable costs and unfathomable risks.”
A major part of the $1.5 trillion program to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to refurbish the land-based part of the “strategic triad.” Upgraded missiles are to be planted in hundreds of silos across five states, “to serve as a ‘great sponge’ to soak up enemy missiles,” states the article on “Sacrifice Zones.” During the Cold War, “the air force used the vulnerability of the land-based missiles to argue for their necessity.” The enemy would use up resources that could otherwise be used to attack military targets, infrastructure, or cities. It is claimed that such an attack would “annihilate all life in the surrounding regions,” cause several million fatalities across the U.S. from acute radiation exposure if people had advance warning and adequate shelter for four days, and twice as many if they did not (they don’t).
Depending on wind conditions, it is claimed that the entire U.S. and parts of Canada and Mexico would be at risk of “lethal” fallout. Maps of the U.S. colored mostly red or black cover four pages, with red designating a cumulative radiation dose > .05 Gy (roughly 5 rads—mild symptoms begin at an acute dose around 100 rads), with .001 Gy being the EPA limit of public exposure (about one-third the natural background level).
Part of the modernization is to produce new plutonium pits, needed to trigger the fusion reaction in the hydrogen bomb. None have been produced in the U.S. since the late 1980s. This might not be necessary, the article “Inside the Pit Factory” states, because “the existing pits might still work for a while.” The physics of plutonium is complex, so no one knows the expiration date, and testing is no longer done by the U.S.
The issue contains no helpful information on population protection—such as decay curves of fallout radiation, protection factors of shelter components, ways to measure radiation, and doses that can be tolerated in order to perform essential work. The civil defense program started by President Kennedy was intended to save lives and save America by getting people back to work. The likely effect of publications like this is to deter survival efforts in a nuclear event, and to impede peaceful use of nuclear energy.
For a discussion of doses from various sources, dose effects, the new Systeme Internationale (SI) units compared with traditional units, acute and chronic effects, lifesaving preparations, protection factors, and radiation monitoring instruments, see Handbook for Survival: Saving Lives During Radiation Releases and Other Disasters by the late Allen Brodsky, https://www.ddponline.org/handbookforsurvival.pdf, and of course http://nuclearwarsurvivalskills.com/.
UPDATED NUCLEAR WAR SITUATION
Generals and officials are always fighting the last war. The modernization program discussed by Scientific American appears to assume that it is still 1960: two superpowers poised for apocalyptic attack and Mutual Assured Destruction.
During a tour of the Cradle of Air and Space Museum during our 2012 meeting on Long Island, our guide indicated that we no longer had a strategic triad, but rather relied on submarine-launched missiles. It was believed that the stationary land-based missiles would not be survivable. The Soviets knew where they were and had accurate targeting. So, they might be used for a pre-emptive first strike or launch-on-warning scenario. But the Soviet Union is no more.
What sort of threat is the Russian Federation? James Gruhl, Ph.D., told the public health committee of the Pima County Medical Foundation that Russian solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could no longer be used. With time, the solid fuel cracks and degrades, and the missile would explode shortly after launch. The factory for manufacturing new solid fuel was destroyed by sabotage. The liquid-fueled missiles are very slow at gaining altitude and would have an early trajectory over eastern Finland and could be shot down. The Satan 2 hypersonic rocket could not be intercepted—but there is only one of them, and it is reportedly targeted at London. (The U.S. has not developed this hypersonic technology.)
The Chinese have developed impressive nuclear technology, but their current strategy appears to be buying up American farmland instead of planning to destroy it.
The most credible threat, Dr. Gruhl believes, is that Iran or a terrorist group might acquire nuclear devices, plant them in key cities in the West, and then nuke Jerusalem. The concealed devices would likely be a very effective deterrent against retaliation. But should there be an accidental or deliberate detonation, the effect could either be mitigated by knowledge and preparation, or greatly magnified by panic and disinformation.
There is fear that the nuclear trigger might be pulled, by Russia or the U.S., as a result of failure in a conventional ground proxy war, either in Ukraine or the Middle East. The reputation of the U.S. for invulnerability is under question. Highly complex, massively expensive U.S. weapons have not been game-changers in Ukraine, partly because they cannot be successfully operated by minimally trained soldiers, or because they cannot withstand intense battlefield conditions and cannot be repaired in the field.
Unlike the U.S., the Russians have placed great emphasis on air defenses. NATO over the course of the Ukraine War has seen the progressively comprehensive defeat of their precision-guided strike missile inventory—ATACMS, HARMS, JDAMS, GMLRS fired from HIMARS, cruise missiles (Storm Shadow and SCALP)—writes Will Schryver. “No other military on the planet has previously [attained] this level of capability. The U.S. does not have it, and is at least a decade away from developing it.” Some NATO airstrikes would get through, but its defenses against retaliation are not remotely as effective as their Russian counterparts. Schryver states that China and Iran are also making great strides in this direction (http://tinyurl.com/yux4swvf).
Two U.S. carrier groups have been unable to keep Red Sea shipping lanes open to any interests or ships connected to Israel because of drone attacks by Yemeni Ansarallah (Houthis). Drones are cheap; the defenses are costly and limited in availability (http://tinyurl.com/4f8j8jr9).
Can the world’s “only superpower” be checkmated by a pawn?