Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Starrygurl
Elite Member
Joined: Oct 29 2006
Location: Space
Status: Offline
Points: 11694
|
Topic: Really? Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:19pm |
Found this random article on usatoday. I know a lot of people aren't thinking about this. But lets say if we have a nuclear war or huge bio attack, is this how they are going to handle it. What do you think?
Or is this just an other thing to worry the people or to info them? Maybe a 50's era thing all over again soon. 
Nuclear blast victims would have to wait
The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a "significant federal response" at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast, according to a planning guide.
President Obama told delegates from 47 nations at the Nuclear Security Summit on Tuesday that it would be a "catastrophe for the world" if al-Qaeda or another terrorist group got a nuclear device, because so many lives would be lost and it would be so hard to mitigate damage from the blast.
A 10-kiloton nuclear explosion would level buildings within half a mile of ground zero, generate 900-mph winds, bathe the landscape with radiation and produce a plume of fallout that would drift for hundreds of miles, the guide says. It was posted on the Internet and sent to local officials.
The document is designed to help local officials craft plans for responding to a nuclear blast. The prospect is anything but far-fetched, says Rick Nelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Do I think in my lifetime I'll see the detonation of a nuclear device? I do."
One challenge he says, will be to persuade survivors to stay indoors, shielded from dangerous radiation until they're given the all-clear or told to evacuate. "In all likelihood, families will be separated," he says. "It's going to be scary to sit tight, though it's the right thing to do."
The government's planning scenarios envision a terrorist strike in an urban area with a 10-kiloton device, slightly smaller than the roughly 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb. A 10-kiloton device packs the punch of 10,000 tons of TNT.
The chaos that would inevitably follow such a blast would make it difficult for the federal government to react quickly. "Emergency response is principally a local function," the document says, though "federal assistance will be mobilized as rapidly as possible."
The "Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation" was developed by a task force headed by the White House Homeland Security Council. It was circulated to state and local government officials and first responders in January 2009.
The report has never been formally released to the public, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro says.
It offers practical guidance to first responders and advice on radiation measurement and decontamination.
Disaster experts say local governments aren't prepared for a nuclear attack. "There isn't a single American city, in my estimation, that has sufficient plans for a nuclear terrorist event," says Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
The message for families is simple, he says: Stay put. Wait for instructions. If you've been outside, dust off, change, shower. "What citizens need to know fits on a wallet-sized card," Redlener says. "A limited amount of information would save tens of thousands of people."
Edited by Starrygurl - Apr 15 2010 at 1:22pm
|
 |
Sponsored Links
|
|
 |
hipsterdryad
Platinum Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15610
|
Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:23pm |
All I can say is "Lord." I don't even know where to start, except that in the event I'm in a city experiencing nuclear attack, I would be too petrified to escape. I'm screwed if I'm inside. I'm screwed if I'm outside.
If the hypothetical attack is 10-kiloton, how the heck do they expect someone who was outside to dust off, change and shower? More likely than not, they'd be blown away by the hypothetical 900 mph wind!
|
 |
afrosista
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 15 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3211
|
Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:24pm |
I wouldnt worry too much about a hypothetical issue. the fact is in th even of a nuclear attack there will be utter devastation n yes it is safest to stay far awy from the site of the attack for as long as possible bcos of xtremely harmful radiation.
|
 |
Random Thoughts
Elite Member
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Location: Home
Status: Offline
Points: 152241
|
Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:28pm |
Interesting. This reminds me of MW2.
|
 |
Starrygurl
Elite Member
Joined: Oct 29 2006
Location: Space
Status: Offline
Points: 11694
|
Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:31pm |
hipsterdryad wrote:
All I can say is "Lord." I don't even know where to start, except that in the event I'm in a city experiencing nuclear attack, I would be too petrified to escape. I'm screwed if I'm inside. I'm screwed if I'm outside.
If the hypothetical attack is 10-kiloton, how the heck do they expect someone who was outside to dust off, change and shower? More likely than not, they'd be blown away by the hypothetical 900 mph wind!
|
I think it okay to have a plan like that, just incase something comes out of the blue. But saying if so, we have to stay inside, it's going to make some people go even crazier. But they way they written it makes it sound like it's going to happen.
|
 |
yourleoqueen
Platinum Member
Joined: Aug 10 2004
Location: My happy place.
Status: Offline
Points: 38217
|
Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:36pm |
Well well, well well....
|
 |
Starrygurl
Elite Member
Joined: Oct 29 2006
Location: Space
Status: Offline
Points: 11694
|
Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:49pm |
I guess it's almost time to stock up on gas mask then. .. ..
|
 |