Missing the essential point (about our Nations's weaknesses)

[vern_humphrey]

tcay584:

We can’t, plain and simple. No country can prepare for every possibility. We can’t prepare for a nuclear attack anywhere…the global consequences would be far beyond our control…or anyone else’s for that matter.
That to me is why we have to be as vigilant as possible, but at some point and time we have to trust God. He’s omniscient and omnipotent…we aren’t and never will be.

Actually, we can. But first of all, we need a good scenario. With hurricanes or earthquakes, we can look at previous earthquakes and hurricanes. For nuclear attacks or “dirty bombs,” we don’t have that experiential data base.

The trick is to produce a workable plan – the New Orleans plan was not workable. (Which doesn’t matter, because they didn’t implement it.)

We also need a plan with built-in reporting points – so we can tell if it’s being implemented.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

The trick is to produce a workable plan.

Studies of people involved in disasters show that those who had a plan and who were able to turn every event – adverse or otherwise – into usable information to be converted into medical care, food, water, protection, shelter, mobility had greatly increased chances of survival. Those who threw their hands up in the air and said, “We’re doomed, there’s no use,” usually didn’t make it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Studies of people involved in disasters show that those who had a plan and who were able to turn every event – adverse or otherwise – into usable information to be converted into medical care, food, water, protection, shelter, mobility had greatly increased chances of survival. Those who threw their hands up in the air and said, “We’re doomed, there’s no use,” usually didn’t make it.

Absolutely. The one thread that runs through disasters is the failure of such people to use existing resources – witness the busses and construction equipment in New Orleans.

 

[geezerbob]

Add the failure of New Orleans to put their essential radio equipment, emergency generators and police arsenals high enough that they would continue to operate or be accessible in the flood they knew would someday come.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Add the failure of New Orleans to put their essential radio equipment, emergency generators and police arsenals high enough that they would continue to operate or be accessible in the flood they knew would someday come.

If it wasn’t so serious, it would look like a Keystone Kops movie – one slapstick screw-up after another.

Everyone in the government of New Orleans and Lousiana must wear loafers – because none of them appear to be smart enough to tie their shoes.

 

[tcay584]

vern humphrey:

Actually, we can. But first of all, we need a good scenario. With hurricanes or earthquakes, we can look at previous earthquakes and hurricanes. For nuclear attacks or “dirty bombs,” we don’t have that experiential data base.

That was my point, we don’t have any historical data on multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks, so how can we prepare for them effectively? The idea of being able to do anything in the event of multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks seems insane.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

tcay584:

That was my point, we don’t have any historical data on multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks, so how can we prepare for them effectively? The idea of being able to do anything in the event of multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks seems insane.

Scientists predict. That is their job. Are you saying that science is insane?

 

[tcay584]

Ani Ibi:

Scientists predict. That is their job. Are you saying that science is insane?

Not at all. However, even if the predictions were accurate, the fallout from this hypothetical disaster would be impossible to handle. Multiple nuclear hits over the continental US would result in radiation sickness, water contamination, food supply contamination on a continental scale never before seen. To say that we could predict what would happen is fine, to say we could handle the fallout is insane.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

tcay584:

To say that we could predict what would happen is fine, to say we could handle the fallout is insane.

Are you still expecting the old concept of 100 megaton bombs?

 

[tcay584]

Ani Ibi:

Are you still expecting the old concept of 100 megaton bombs?

You have a point there. I suppose I was.
However, even multiple “small” nuclear or biochemical devices detonated in the headwaters of our major rivers could have an almost equivalent effect. It’s the issue of “multiple” that really bothers me. No one’s been able to stop those wretched suicide bombers…lots of little explosives mean lots of people killed by a practically unstoppable enemy. I just don’t know how anyone can “prepare” for that effectively.

 

[vern_humphrey]

tcay584:

That was my point, we don’t have any historical data on multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks, so how can we prepare for them effectively? The idea of being able to do anything in the event of multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks seems insane.

I would say it is more insane to think we can’t do anything – and then do nothing.

What you have here is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma – either we do nothing, or we prepare to react to multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks.

In reality, there is no such dilemma – and we can be proactive. That’s why we put such stress on preventing rogue nations from getting nuclear weapons, why we try to upgrade our intelligence, and so on – and why we may have to take pre-emptive action some day.

Next, the liklihood of a single nuclear weapon is much greater than multiple, simultaneous attacks. A single, or even a small number of dis-jointed attacks is something we can deal with.

Finally, we can constuct scenarios using data we have on other catestrophies. We know, for example, that in the event of nuclear attack, large areas would be destroyed. Large numbers of people would be homeless. Large numbers of people would need medical treatment. Bridges and other transportation infrastructure would be damaged or destroyed.

We’ve seen all that in hurricanes and earthquakes, and have means of dealing with it.

If we then add what we know about dealing with radiation and decontamination, we can come up with a reasonable response plan – not a perfect plan, but a reasonable one.

 

[tcay584]

vern humphrey:

I would say it is more insane to think we can’t do anything – and then do nothing.

I’m not saying we should do nothing. We should do everything in our power. (Not bolding to shout, still need to learn how to do the multiple quote thing)

What you have here is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma – either we do nothing, or we prepare to react to multiple, simultaneous nuclear attacks.

I’m agreeing that preparation is necessary. I see no dilemma, false or otherwise.

In reality, there is no such dilemma – and we can be proactive. That’s why we put such stress on preventing rogue nations from getting nuclear weapons, why we try to upgrade our intelligence, and so on – and why we may have to take pre-emptive action some day.

Again, I agree.

Next, the liklihood of a single nuclear weapon is much greater than multiple, simultaneous attacks. A single, or even a small number of dis-jointed attacks is something we can deal with.

Oh no we can’t.

Finally, we can constuct scenarios using data we have on other catestrophies. We know, for example, that in the event of nuclear attack, large areas would be destroyed. Large numbers of people would be homeless. Large numbers of people would need medical treatment. Bridges and other transportation infrastructure would be damaged or destroyed.

How do you propose to get medical treatment to people in a contamination zone? Again, not trying to be rude but do you know how strong this type of radiation is?

We’ve seen all that in hurricanes and earthquakes, and have means of dealing with it.

If we then add what we know about dealing with radiation and decontamination, we can come up with a reasonable response plan – not a perfect plan, but a reasonable one.

Please don’t think I’m being difficult for the fun of it. We do not have adequate defenses against the kind of radiation that a nuclear device would produce. Some little space suit won’t cut it. I’m not trying to be rude, but to think that a nuclear attack is something we would be able to handle…I can’t get my head around that. That’s why we put so much effort into deterrence.
I’m not saying we should just throw our hands into the air and say “Oh well”. I agree we can do our best with what we know to come up with a possible plan. The point is that it’s very difficult to construct a perfect plan with limited knowledge. I think we should try, but if we become complacent and have a “oh it’s just a small nuke…we can handle that”…we’ll have big problems.

 

[vern_humphrey]

tcay584:

Please don’t think I’m being difficult for the fun of it. We do not have adequate defenses against the kind of radiation that a nuclear device would produce. Some little space suit won’t cut it. I’m not trying to be rude, but to think that a nuclear attack is something we would be able to handle…I can’t get my head around that. That’s why we put so much effort into deterrence.
I’m not saying we should just throw our hands into the air and say “Oh well”. I agree we can do our best with what we know to come up with a possible plan. The point is that it’s very difficult to construct a perfect plan with limited knowledge. I think we should try, but if we become complacent and have a “oh it’s just a small nuke…we can handle that”…we’ll have big problems.

Let me point out that Hurricane Katrina was the equivallent of a very powerful nuke. The damage was far more widespread than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs – more on the scale of a hydrogen bomb. Yet we’re coping.

How do you propose to get medical treatment to people in a contamination zone? Again, not trying to be rude but do you know how strong this type of radiation is?

Somewhere around here I have the templates and nomograms for fallout prediction – at various times in my career I’ve been assigned as a Nuclear Weapons Officer.

You deal with contamination in several ways:

1. You do fallout prediction and physical reconnaissance to accurately map the contaminated area. It will normally look something like a topographic map – different levels of contamination at different places, with points of equal contamination connected by a line.
2. You establish a command radiation dosage, and persons working in that area are monitored (we have a pocked dosimeter that everyone carries.) When rescue personnel have received the allowable command dosage, they are withdrawn and replacements sent in.
3. You establish evacuation collection and medical treatment facilities completely outside the contaminated areas (on the upwind side from the blast.)
4. You operate on the principle of getting people out, rather than going in. You will not enter the “hottest” areas (no reason to – everyone there is dead), nor will you conduct extensive searches of the rubble for survivors (who will soon die of burns and radiation.)
5. You conduct decontamination of lightly-contaminated areas just as we will decontaminate New Orleans – by removing and trucking the soil and rubble to remote disposal sites.

Beyond that, you carry on as you would in any large-scale natural disaster.

But the all-critical thing is to prevent the attack in the first place – and we do that by preventing rogue states from getting nuclear weapons by any means available.

 

[tcay584]

vern humphrey:

Let me point out that Hurricane Katrina was the equivallent of a very powerful nuke. The damage was far more widespread than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs – more on the scale of a hydrogen bomb. Yet we’re coping.

Somewhere around here I have the templates and nomograms for fallout prediction – at various times in my career I’ve been assigned as a Nuclear Weapons Officer.

You deal with contamination in several ways:

1. You do fallout prediction and physical reconnaissance to accurately map the contaminated area. It will normally look something like a topographic map – different levels of contamination at different places, with points of equal contamination connected by a line.
2. You establish a command radiation dosage, and persons working in that area are monitored (we have a pocked dosimeter that everyone carries.) When rescue personnel have received the allowable command dosage, they are withdrawn and replacements sent in.
3. You establish evacuation collection and medical treatment facilities completely outside the contaminated areas (on the upwind side from the blast.)
4. You operate on the principle of getting people out, rather than going in. You will not enter the “hottest” areas (no reason to – everyone there is dead), nor will you conduct extensive searches of the rubble for survivors (who will soon die of burns and radiation.)
5. You conduct decontamination of lightly-contaminated areas just as we will decontaminate New Orleans – by removing and trucking the soil and rubble to remote disposal sites.

Beyond that, you carry on as you would in any large-scale natural disaster.

But the all-critical thing is to prevent the attack in the first place – and we do that by preventing rogue states from getting nuclear weapons by any means available.

I agree with regards to the scale of the Katrina impact. However, there will be no long term, genetic issues (human, critter, and plant) and agricultural issues like a nuclear device would cause.
I agree that the plans you have shown would be highly effective in the short term. The long term effects would not be similar to any natural disaster because of the unnatural and lingering effects of the radiation. Can you imagine the crops that would be destroyed, being unable to replant because the earth was contaminated…the water supply unusable, etc? The livestock no longer fit for consumption due to radiation? Can you imagine the birth defects that would continue for generations? You must admit that life will go on, more or less as before, after Katrina. I’ll take a natural disaster over a nuclear disaster any day.

 

[tcay584]

vern humphrey:

But the all-critical thing is to prevent the attack in the first place – and we do that by preventing rogue states from getting nuclear weapons by any means available.

Amen to that!

 

[vern_humphrey]

tcay584:

I agree with regards to the scale of the Katrina impact. However, there will be no long term, genetic issues (human, critter, and plant) and agricultural issues like a nuclear device would cause.

That’s true. Here’s a look at the scale of Katrina in perspective:

Area of Louisiana = 43,000 square miles, Population 4,515,770
Area of Mississippi = 46,000 square miles, Population 2,902,966

Area of Alabama 50,000 square miles, Population 4,530,182

Total 139,000 square miles, 12,000,000 people

If 1/3rd of that area was “hit hard” or “wiped out,” then 46,000 square miles were devastated, 4,000,000 million people were left homeless or seriously affected

Let’s take a look at what happened in World War Two

Dresden was 2.5 square miles, with 1.2 million people.

Tokyo had 15.8 square miles destroyed in the fire bombing

Hiroshima had 3 square miles destroyed, 225,000 people initial population

Nagasaki had 3 square miles destroyed - 240,000 people initial population

So : Katrina with 46,000 square miles devastated, 4,000,000 people in the devastated areas prior to the event is compared to the 4 largest / most famous city events of WW2 put together - ~ 25 square miles destroyed, 2 million population prior to the events.

The damage from Katrina exceeds the combined four WW2 events listed by a large multiplier.

tcay584:

I agree that the plans you have shown would be highly effective in the short term. The long term effects would not be similar to any natural disaster because of the unnatural and lingering effects of the radiation.

It depends on how fast we get people out, and how quickly we gather up and deal with the radioactive rubble and soil.

tcay584:

Can you imagine the crops that would be destroyed, being unable to replant because the earth was contaminated…the water supply unusable, etc? The livestock no longer fit for consumption due to radiation? Can you imagine the birth defects that would continue for generations?

The Russians have faced nuclear disasters several times (Chernoble was the only one publicly admitted, but there were others.) And yes, the effects are horrible – but the Russians dealt with them by evacuating large areas, and that’s what we’d have to do.

tcay584:

You must admit that life will go on, more or less as before, after Katrina. I’ll take a natural disaster over a nuclear disaster any day.

I didn’t know we had a choice of disasters.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

We have to be prepared to deal with a nuclear attack – that’s the state of the world.

But the all-critical thing is to prevent the attack in the first place – and we do that by preventing rogue states from getting nuclear weapons by any means available.

 

[tcay584]

vern humphrey:

I didn’t know we had a choice of disasters.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

So, if you did have a choice…not to be totally morbid…would you choose a nuclear attack (not much notice) or a Katrina (more notice). BTW, it’s been really nice chatting with you

 

[gilliam]

Here is my 2-cents. Katrina is nothing like a nuke attack because:

1. We had lots of warning
2. People were not vaporized, they had time to get out or move to higher ground
3. We will be able to start rebuilding almost immediately

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

Next, the liklihood of a single nuclear weapon is much greater than multiple, simultaneous attacks. A single, or even a small number of dis-jointed attacks is something we can deal with.

Ok, we’ve made some progress from the outdated 100 megaton bomb scenario.

But the so-called ‘single’ attack using small nuclear bombs will likely occur along the lines of the London bombings. Multiple small nuclear bombs create bigger firestorms than single large nuclear bombs.

I think a terrorist attack on multiple cities would require huge resources and planning – and risk of discovery. And therefore the likelihood of multiple cities being simultaneously nuked is very low.

London, however, has already demonstrated that a single-city attack can be done. If those bombs had been small portable nuclear devices, then the damage to life and property would have been stupefying.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

tcay584:

You must admit that life will go on, more or less as before, after Katrina. I’ll take a natural disaster over a nuclear disaster any day.

I’ts the ‘more or less’ that’s the rub, tcay. Natural does not necessarily mean benign to life.

Katrina has damaged huge swaths of forest in Mississippi and the wildlife therein.

Katrina has been responsible for urban and rural fires; fires which cannot be extinguished easily because of damage to the infrastructure and communications.

Katrina has overwhelmed sewage systems, dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into the eco-system. To say nothing of whatever toxins were in the Dupont plant as well as various and sundry chemicals from warehouses and upturned railcars.

Nature is much bigger than mankind. And capable of almost infinitely more destructive power.

Biloxi, Mississippi – Hurricane Katrina Aftermath

http://landsat.usgs.gov/gallery/images/Landsat_Gallery_413_1_450.jpg

These images show the devastation that occurred when Hurricane Katrina landed on the Southern Gulf Coast. The image on the left shows the coastline around Biloxi, Mississippi on April 17th, 2005. The image on the right shows the same area on August 31st, 2005, just two days after Katrina made landfall.

Coast fishermen hope Katrina spared sea life

**Assessment of Damage to Stewardship Forests of Mississippi **

map

Assessment of damage to the Urban and Community Forests of Mississippi

map of damage

EPA: South Miss. factories escaped major environmental impacts (a unrepresentative title)