American Nuclear Attack Contingencies

The United States is working up contingencies in case of a nuclear terrorist attack inside America. Al-Qaeda has made it clear they want to attack the U.S. with nuclear, or dirty bombs. They have plans in the works to carry out this threat. The ideal plan for the U.S. is to prevent such an attack. In case prevention fails, how would American citizens and emergency organizations react?

The efforts to prepare a detailed blueprint for survival took a step forward last month when senior government and military officials and other experts, organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program called the Preventive Defense Project, met behind closed doors in Washington for a day-long workshop.

The session, called "The Day After," was premised on the idea that efforts focusing on preventing such a strike were no longer enough, and that the prospect of a collapse of government order was so great if there were an attack that the country needed to begin preparing an emergency program.

One of the participants, retired Vice Adm. Roger Rufe, is a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security who is currently designing the government's nuclear attack response plan. (San Francisco Chronicle)

In the event of multiple nuclear attacks, the plan would "require powerful government intervention to force people to do something many may resist -- staying put." Fred Ikle, a former Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, said "the government should plan how it could restrict civil liberties and enforce a sort of martial law in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but also have guidelines for how those liberties could be restored later."

This has shades of the TV show Jericho, where multiple nuclear devices were detonated on U.S. soil, the resulting chaos. The bottom line is prevention. Prevention. Preparation. Information.

"You have to demystify the nuclear issue," said May, who now teaches at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation. "By talking about this, you take away the feeling of helplessness."

Local governments and individual citizens who are informed and prepared will make all the difference in how the U.S. survives any nuclear attacks. For me, prevention starts with what we are allowing to go on in our country right now. We have training camps here, we have mosques where hate against the infidels is freely preached. We have groups that urge Muslims to push for special treatment in schools, work places, communities. We are not doing all that we can to prevent terror attacks.

Interested in military training as an Islamic jihadi? Try Islamberg, a 70 acre complex situated within a dense forest at the foothills of the Catskill Mountains on the outskirts of Hancock, New York. All the advantages of a Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Saudi Islamic terror training camp, but here in the United States.

Can't get real target practice if you're a jihadist? Try paintball.

Americans for Truth Forum recently discovered recruitment videos placed on the official website of the Young Muslims (YM), the youth arm of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), whose contents included an animated graphic of rockets being fired on and destroying the United States, a 9/11 message from “the American Al Qaeda” Adam Gadahn, and previously unseen footage of a paintball range located in the United States used for training Jihadists, just like the FBI discovered at the home of the Fort Dix 6 earlier this week. While the rockets and the message had been released previously, the more puzzling and disturbing footage is the depiction of what appears to be mock suicide bombings and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) truck bombings. (More)

Each American should start with their own home, their own community, State, and then Federal government for better prevention, better preparation, better education of the general public. Personal responsibility is key.

Comments

[Leo Francis]

When a muslim attacked the Pope,did he think about what One billion Christens will do,No he did not.because he knows that the world is full of people who will always talk about peace and refuse to beleive that every muslim is a terrorist. What are we waiting for, we all know that where ever their is islam their is bloodshed.They wont think twice in attacking the Vatican.Why should we.

[Stormwarning]

Michael:

Anything is "measured" or "moderation" in comparison to outright bombing of cities. But this entire scenario is out of Jack Bauer and "24" (see show tonight).

What's the reality? We know that al Qaeda has wanted to secure nukes...while we suspect that Iran has a weapons program, some people in I've written to in the nuclear business believe that they are still not there in terms of weapons grade plutonium.

What we also know is that Russian suitcase nukes have been missing and are unaccounted for.

So, here is the question. Suppose a "Jack Bauer" scenario occurs in the U.S. (terrorists set off a nuclear weapon). At first, we have no idea who did it. It is then confirmed that al Qaeda is responsible. It is further proven that the weapon was from the former Soviet Union arsenal and was provided to al Qaeda by Chechyn rebels. Now what? Who do you bomb or retailiate against? Bomb Russian?

Somehow it is lost (on TH especially) that I am entirely in agreement that this is a World at war. I am entirely in agreement that this is a war unlike any we have ever fought. I am/was also in agreement with the pre-emptive strike against Hussein.

The difference is all in perspective. I am NOT a "self appointed expert," but unlike "some" I am NOT an idle bystander or observer in homeland security, law enforcement and national security situations.

[michael]

Stormwarning:
You've raised some good points. I happen to agree with you, that mindless threats gain nothing, but I disagree with you on "measuring" the use of force.

Israel has been trying to use "measured force" for years; even last summer, when hell broke loose, Israel held back against Hezbollah.

The result: emboldened terrorists, who see, in Israel's reluctance to commit overwhelming force to the battle, a weakness which they can exploit. Hamas is exploiting it now, with their increased rocket attacks against Sderot.

This must be fought, at it must be fought with absolutely no holds barred, until the enemy is beaten. And this brings me to another point on which I agree with you, and which we interpret differently.

The enemy is not all muslims, but jihadist muslims. You are correct about that. Where you err, however, is in your estimate of Islam in general. You seem to feel that "moderate muslims" can aid the West in this conflict. I disagree. Muslim moderate, by their silence and inactivity in the face of jihadists, have rendered themselves irrelevant. They will not join the fight on either side; therefore, both sides will ignore them.

In the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on America, yes, I would advocate an ICBM strike on Mecca. Not in hatred, but in tit-for-tat retaliation, as a show of greater strength. It's the language the jihadists understand, and it would send them a message they cannot miss.

What do I think would happen the next day? To be honest, I believe the terrorist threat would increase. But that threat would increase no matter what; it has been increasing for 40 years, and shows no signs of stopping. In the long run (a decade, perhaps), I believe that wreaking that sort of nuclear havoc on the muslim world would eventually break down their will, and ability, to fight.

This is a total war, and needs to be treated as such. The enemy's will is a perfectly legitimate target. After all, that is why they attacked where they did on 9/11.

[Stormwarning]

Pacifist nonsense? Funny.

And you didn't answer the question...what happens in your mind's eye the day after you nuke Mecca and Medina?

That's not pacifism...that's a realistic question.

[Thomas Hamilton]

You know, what pisses me off almost as much as Muslims are self appointed "experts" who throw common sense out the window and then sit back and lecture the rest of us on what is right or wrong and how taking half ass measures and playing pussyfoot with the enemy will end up winning the war.

These bastards want to kill us. Their philosophy is based on the rantings of a pedophile lunatic.

Give me the button. I will push it. No more Muslims = no more problem.

Stormwarning, go sprinkle your pacifist nonsense on someone who gives a damn!

[Stormwarning]

Indeed, sir, it is nothing but saber rattling. Because if you have no ability to act on your words (which you do not), then those words are nothing but angry rants.

But if you were in a position to do something about it, and you acted on your words, say as Secretary of State, what, Mr. Hamilton, would you envision the 2 or 3 days, or perhaps the week following your rash actions to look like?

I could ask more questions, but what's the point?

[Thomas Hamilton]

I'm with you Michael. Nuke Mecca and Medina. Make the bastards tremble in their rat holes.

Saber rattling my ass...I'm as serious as I can be.

[Debbie]

Good discussion everyone, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Stormwarning]

Michael: I am not misguided either. The level of saber rattling on this blog has reached a deafening crescendo. The irresponsible "recommendations" spouted by some people simply make no sense in the practical world of Counterterrorism and diplomacy. Those who wish to brand me as something that I am not, are free to do so. That alone does not make it so. In fact, the reality of what I do when I am not spending pixels and bits here or on my blog, give me a different perspective than those who attempt to minimize me or worse, tear me down.

The World is at war, and that is a reality. The war is against Islamic extemists, not all Muslims. Those who claim to "know" that it is all Muslims are essentially proposing a genocide.

On the other hand, there are those, including most if not all of my associates, who recognize that the battle against Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad is to be won, not by idle saber rattling on an Internet blog, or by spouting threats or uttering vile words, will not, in the end, cause a reduction of the terrorism. In fact, it will be the reverse.

That is not to say that a show of force is not an appropriate action. The question lies in the difference between an intelligent and measured use of force, and the irrational and emotional world self-immolation proposed by the more radical typers.

[michael]

Stormwarning:
You're correct; instead of "problem," I should have said that you have a misguided sense of how to deal with the problem.

Military half-measures will solve nothing; they will only get the West involved in unwinnable, low-grade conflicts.

The Islamist enemy respects nothing but overwhelming power; we have that power, but not the will to use it. That is lack of will is the enemy's only advantage.

If the West shows that it will use the power that it has, the Islamists will back down.

Case in point:
From 1986 to 1988, Iran tried to mine the Persian Gulf, and cut off oil tankers from Kuwait. The US convoyed the tankers, and eventually, in April 1988, fought a large scale naval battle with the Irania Navy, to stop Iranian activity.

Result:
Two Iranian ships sunk, one crippled, several smaller vessels destroyed, two oil platforms captured and destroyed, and Iran's ability to mine waters and threaten tankers was removed. Not long after, Iran accepted a settlement to the Iran/Iraq War.

When the Islamists were shown a force they could not beat or circumvent, they backed down.

They need to be shown that again, in a language they will understand.

[Stormwarning]

Michael, it is not I who has the problem.

[michael]

In case prevention fails, how would American citizens and emergency organizations react?

How about nuking Mecca and Medina?

And letting the muslim world know that they have lots more cities, and we have lots more ICBMs, so it is up to them how far the devestation will go.

Stormwarning:
Your problem seems to be that you think the West can win while fighting by the rules.

The Islamists' only rule is to win. The only way to fight that is crush them.

[michael]

In case prevention fails, how would American citizens and emergency organizations react?

How about nuking Mecca and Medina?

And letting the muslim world know that they have lots more cities, and we have lots more ICBMs, so it is up to them how far the devestation will go.

Stormwarning:
Your problem seems to be that you think the West can win while fighting by the rules.

The Islamists' only rule is to win. The only way to fight that is crush them.

[Stormwarning]

Yuppers! That'll work.

[Thomas Hamilton]

We are talking about this because most in this country have failed to identify the enemy.....ISLAM.

We need to declare war on Islam, lock, stock and barrel.

A good beginning would be wiping Iran off the face of the earth, and after that make it clear that any further terrorist actions against us would result in the elimination of another Muslim country. Make the bastards so fearful of us that they would hide under stones rather than plot against us ever again.

For the trouble making Muslims in this country, well I say round them up and send them to a nice place like Sudan.

Ruthless and cruel you say? Remember, THEY STARTED IT.