IP: on ReThinking the Unthinkable 2002

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Paul C. Lembesis" <eagroup () earthlink net>
Reply-To: "Paul C. Lembesis" <eagroup () earthlink net>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:29:37 -0400
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: Re: ReThinking the Unthinkable 2002

Dave,

I spent 11 years as a strategic arms control negotiator and was the legal
counsel to the START I and II delegations, so I know something about these
issues.

First, while it is important to consider these issues, it should be kept in
context.  It is very difficult to transport and handle radioactive
materials.  We would have a good chance of detecting this.  The meaning of a
"dirty" bomb is inexact, but I think the most likely scenario is that the
radioactive material would be packed around a conventional explosive.  There
would be no nuclear explosion.  Rather there would be a conventional
explosion that spread radioactive material.

The resulting damage would be horrible, with one or more square miles
contaminated and many people poisoned.  However, this is much less damage
than would be caused by a nuclear explosion.

It would require much more technical sophistication for terrorists create a
nuclear weapon.  Most likely, there would have to be a government involved
for this to occur.  This type of attack can (and must) be stopped by acting
in advance against hostile government programs to develop nuclear weapons.
In other words, terrorists in a cave would be very unlikely to have this
capability.  If states are developing nuclear weapons to give to terrorists,
our defense is to stop the development programs.  (As for delivery of the
weapon, I have always been worried about ordinary boats that enter our
harbors.  Sophisticated missile systems to attack us would not be needed.)

In answer to your question, the response to a "dirty" bomb would be similar
to the response to September 11.  Domestically, there would have to be large
scale relief to the affected area.  Internationally, there would be military
retaliation against anyone identified as having caused the attack.

Hope this helps, Paul Lembesis


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: <ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 7:51 PM
Subject: IP: ReThinking the Unthinkable 2002


> I have the utmost respect for the late Herman Kahn and his series on
> Thermonuclear War. He was fond of saying that not to think of the
> possibility was unethical.
>
> We have read a lot about dirty low tech nuclear devices, stolen Russian
> devices, attacking nuclear plants etc. It is fair to ask the question of
> what our response would be and should be if one of these events happened.
I
> sincerely hope that it never happens and more sincerely hope that some
> young "Herman" is helping to prepare the analysis so that our "leaders"
can
> act in the best informed and intelligent way if it happens.
>
> In the spirit of Kahn, I ask you to say what you believe should be done if
> such a terrorist attack takes place and one of our cultural/population
> centers is made unlivable and many people face sickness in the future for
> them and their children.
>
> What do we do?
>
> Dave
>
> For archives see:
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/