FEMA Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation [pdf]

https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nuc-detonation-planning-guide.pdf

by jonnybgood • 4 years ago

79 53 4 years ago

jleyank• 4 years ago

When I was a kid, it was more "Find a sturdy wall, ideally below ground, to sit against. Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye."

Hopefully, now, they're smaller and farther away. Ideally, they're farther away in time also.

pdkl95• 4 years ago

Sun Ra, "Nuclear War"

    It's a motherfucker
    don't you know

    If they push that button
    Your ass got to go

    What you gonna do
    Without your ass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsPrINajncU

JetAlone• 4 years ago

You know what? I'd give the whole superheroism gig a try. Keep an eye on the comic book store shelves for "The Phantom Clenching Adventures of ASS-LESS CHAP!!".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_xg9w98bd4

ch4s3• 4 years ago

Depending on the size of the bomb, and your distance you might actually be fine. If you survive the initial blast, shower, change clothes, and leave the area quickly you may not have any noteworthy issues at all. Or you could see the blast, and get cooked at a cellular level and die horribly a few days later.

They were right that dirt and concrete do wonders to stop gamma rays.

repler• 4 years ago

Is it just me or is some of this not lining up with guidance published in the 80s?

defrost3• 4 years ago

Difficult to say, the report has 250 pages covering a spectrum of responses and I personally have zero knowledge of what you yourself recollect from whatever guidance you were exposed to in the 1980s.

Are you thinking 1980s general public guidance, armed forces guidance, or scientific advice from comittee?

Would this be 1980s UK, US, or AU guidance?

DaiPlusPlus• 4 years ago

Would this be 1980s UK, US, or AU guidance?

I recently got a copy of Duncan Campbell's /War Plan UK/ and it's as engrossing as it is depressing. Worth a read if you're into that sort of thing: https://www.amazon.com/War-Plan-UK-Duncan-Campbell/dp/132650...

ranger207• 4 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't line up. 80s guidance probably assumed mass nuclear war, while this document focuses on nukes that might be used by terrorists or "rogue states" aka North Korea or in the future Iran. In the former case there'd be massive nukes going off everywhere so dispersion would be emphasized, but in the latter case it's more likely to only have one nuke so rapid concentration and organization is more important

jnwatson• 4 years ago

"This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats2 with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface. Low-altitude air bursts can increase the scale of the blast and thermal damage inflicted but may also significantly reduce local fallout impacts..."

defrost3• 4 years ago

The US is extremely lucky to have never had to put any of this into practice considering they've dropped live armed nukes by accident on mainland US of A several times .. and at least one should have detonated (but failed, by the narrowest margin) to detonate.

These are accidents in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, etc - see "Broken Arrows".

#1 Lesson: If a nuclear weapon does detonate, don't immediately assume enemy action.

technothrasher• 4 years ago

several times

More than "several". This declassified document goes on for 225 pages, and it's only as of 1967:

https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/filer_p...

defrost3• 4 years ago

"Technical incidents" is a far broader category than "armed nukes dropped on mainland USofA".

I guess we can agree there were a multitude of fuckups that almost resulted in an unintended nuclear explosion, but far fewer events of the specific nature I mentioned.

denkmoon• 4 years ago

Command and Control by Eric Schlosser is a fun read.

julian_sark• 4 years ago

Great audio book, too. Can recommend.

echoradio2• 4 years ago

An excellent book. I read his research lasted seven years.

Worth noting: there is an American Experience documentary based on this book (with a primary focus on the Damascus incident), but it’s nowhere near as good as the text.

bobkazamakis• 4 years ago

accidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders

brippalcharrid• 4 years ago

You really can't win. You think you're safe, located in or downwind from an area that's sufficiently remote, sparsely populated and strategically irrelevant so as not to be assigned its own warhead, only for it to transpire that your government is experimenting on you.

KennyBlanken• 4 years ago

In 2007, six nuclear cruise missiles were "accidentally" loaded onto a bomber and the plane flew with them from North Dakota to Louisiana. But wait, it gets better: the plane sat on the tarmac, completely unguarded, for at least one night. The level of incompetence involved here is staggering, with probably dozens of people fucking up, and systemic issues abound:

The USAF attempted a coverup, classifying the incident as "no press interest anticipated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n...

We're also extremely lucky no rogue Air Force generals or the guys in the bunkers just said "fuck it" and launched missiles. Until Permissive Action Link system was set up, there was no presidential authority required on a technical level.

When PAL was set up, the Air Force set all the weapons to "00000000." I wish I were making that up. They did it to subvert the PAL program because the generals resented having to ask for authority to launch nukes in event it was necessary.

We're also extremely lucky there haven't been any nuclear incidents involving the team that transports nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material. They're reportedly underfunded, underpaid, and overworked. They've had numerous incidents involving team members getting drunk, as well as losing their service weapons.

The US nuclear weapons program, at least in the mid 2000's, was a clown show.

ben_w3• 4 years ago

On the plus side, if even the USA is making all these mistakes, that increases my probably estimate that the Russian missiles are now unusable: the fuel drunk or used as fertiliser, or the flight computers or the fissile material used instead of a legitimate supplier by someone wanting to pocket the cost of making them new.

On the downside, it also increases my probability estimate that terrorist groups have some weapons-grade fissile material.

gruturo• 4 years ago

When PAL was set up, the Air Force set all the weapons to "00000000." I wish I were making that up. They did it to subvert the PAL program because the generals resented having to ask for authority to launch nukes in event it was necessary.

While I overall agree with your point, the (alleged) reasoning behind having PAL codes at 00000000 was mainly about being _unable_ to retaliate in certain decapitation attack scenarios. I don't know how realistic this was, or to what degree it was just an excuse to get away with the behavior you quote.

smeej2• 4 years ago

In the last day, a video came out in NYC also talking about this [0], AND our local nuclear power plant, during a system test, "accidentally" alerted everyone over loud speakers on beaches that something had gone wrong, which they later issued an emergency alert to correct. [1]

Three is a lot of nuclear-related warnings/drills for me to come across in one day. It is three more than I recall having seen in the last ten years combined.

[0] https://youtu.be/N-5d7V4Sbqk [1] https://www.wmur.com/article/seabrook-power-plant-false-alar...

Spooky232• 4 years ago

It’s a way to project “whatever” to the Russians as they keep rattling about their Satan missile.

Ditto for missile defense deployments and aggressive interceptions.

mattgperry• 4 years ago

I don't think that dopey NYC video really conveys "whatever", more like we don't know what the fuck we're doing

christkv• 4 years ago

I don't think you need to worry about duck and cover if your city gets hit by a 50Mt warhead.

simonswords82• 4 years ago

What the fuck...

That Youtube video is like something out of a dystopian nightmare. Some smiley happy woman talking to me about the radioactive blast that I should prepare for.

recyclelater2• 4 years ago

With the looming currency crisis in Pakistan, we are probably closer than we ever have been to nukes falling into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Also not too friendly with Russia or china these days…

WebbWeaver• 4 years ago

Care to expand on the looming currency crisis?

Central asia is undergoing some interesting times.

recyclelater2• 4 years ago

Large dollar denominated debt, strong dollar, results in potential defaults on that debt.

Pretty sure USA won’t let Pakistan falter given their nuclear state status, but definitely interesting times.

ilaksh2• 4 years ago

The entire economic system is faltering. Rich and powerful countries that seem like they won't have a big problem are just less susceptible not necessarily so much better managed.

No one should have nukes.

justatdotin2• 4 years ago

NO ONE should have them.

ben_w3• 4 years ago

Sure, but the justification for nations having them is much the same as with private individuals having guns in the USA, and just like the problem the USA has with gun crime, I don't see any path from here to the good world that's likely to get past the political hurdle.

ThinkBeat2• 4 years ago

Powerful fear inducing propaganda . What is it the government wants to justify this time?

We had to invade Iraq they have WMDs, if we dont the next thing we see might be a huge mushroom cloud on the horizon.

Retric• 4 years ago

FEMA’s job is to prepare for such disasters, this is simply 3rd edition of one such document.

The hypothetical cause could be accidental US detonation of a nuclear warhead but assigning blame isn’t their job disaster recovery is. It’s much better to have a plan than try to make stuff up on the spot so horrific but unlikely threats should be planed for.

ilaksh2• 4 years ago

I agree on the general principal of taking government's messages with a grain of salt and considering their motivations.

But I also think it's amazing that everyone has just accepted the vast array of nuclear weapons and takes it for granted that they will never be deployed.

It's bizarre and incredibly stupid.

DavidSharff• 4 years ago

I have similar thoughts but they can be broken into two distinct feelings:

Ideally everyone would routinely have their attention called to the sword of Damocles, or at least listen to Dan Carlin's Destroyer of World's once every few years. So I should take what I can get from the NYC ad...but having one produced seemingly apropos of nothing with the tone of an Ad Council billboard creeps me out too.

I also want people to be respectfully fearful but fear populations who are afraid.

I'm just going to reread Slaughter House Five, cloak myself in cynical realism, and then spend time outdoors while I enjoy the back 9 of life.

So it goes

Terry_Roll• 4 years ago

The evidence for WMD's was based on the fact the British had sold them to Saddam in the 70's or 80's and he'd used them on some Kurds in Northern Iraq.

If you survive the first 24hrs, you'll probably be ok, be careful with water and things like that. So whilst potassium iodide tablets are handed out to protect the Thyroid, I'm surprised copious amounts of nicotinic acid arent handed out, as the prostaglandin flush helps rebind DNA in the cells, which is one of the things the radiation attacks. Glutathione is also increased in the Liver with Nicotinic Acid which will also help the body in a nuclear attack situation.

qikInNdOutReply• 4 years ago

The irony being that having actual WMDs & transport capabilty reduces the invasion risk to near zero and the antagonizing of the general populus on tv to also zero.

Proofen by North Korea. Should name them "LeaveMeAloneBullies"-Weapons.

hulitu• 4 years ago

Prices are rising so the peebles need something to occupy their mind with.

ThinkBeat2• 4 years ago

My favorite movie of all time is "War Games" and it comes to mind whenever I read about related stories.

There is a great speech by a character called Falken. and he gives the best advice for how to prepare for nuclear war:

""" Oh, it's all right. I've planned ahead. We're just three miles from a primary target. A millisecond of brilliant light and we're vaporized Much more fortunate than the million |who'll wander sightless through the shouldering aftermath. We'll be spared the horror of survival.. """

There entire dialog is my favorite part of the movie.

Check out the movie. Yes it is a bit 80s but nuclear holocaust was a bit 80s

michaelplny3• 4 years ago

I took the liberty to look through the document and saw this:

"This guidance also reflects evolving nuclear threats. The 2010 Planning Guidance focused on 10 kiloton (kT) and smaller-yield detonations consistent with the threat of nuclear terrorism, all occurring at the Earth’s surface. This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface."

However, after skimming the guide, there is no specific recommendation on what to do when a weapon over 100kT detonates.

As of 2021, Russia has over 460 500-800kT warheads that can be delivered via ICBM, and around 1000 100kT warheads. Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18...

Possible inferences:

1. Cities are not targets for high yield weapons (maybe it is not strategically valuable to completely annihilate cities).

2. Cities attacked with a 100kT or lower yield have a chance of survival and ability to mount an emergency response.

3. Cities attacked with a high yield (e.g. 800kT) have no chance of survival and making a guide for local authorities is useless.

Does anyone know if nuclear doctrine (Russian, American, or other) designate what yields would be used on cities?

For example, lets assume, a nuclear aggressor can do a surprise strike and target NYC. As of 2019 the vaults of the NY FED had 6,190 tons of gold. Wouldn't a 800kT bomb, obliterate or damage the gold? Wouldn't the infrastructure of the city be wasted? It makes senses to target locations that would help a country wage war so military bases and factories, but cities?

adrianN• 4 years ago

I mean, what recommendations do you expect? If ICBMs start flying all you can do is get to the most sturdy reinforced concrete structure you can reach in a couple of minutes and pray. Afterwards try not to breathe in dust and move as far away from the dust cloud as you can.

michaelplny3• 4 years ago

Of course, in the minutes waiting for the bomb to detonate one can only shelter and hide, the guide also mentions this. The guide is more for how localities can mount rescue operations within the first 12-24 hours after detonation and before Federal Aid would arrive.

What is most eye opening is that the guide recommends for first responders that zone around ~ 1 mile from ground zero of a 10 kT nuclear explosion has the greatest lifesaving potential through early responder actions.

aerostable_slug2• 4 years ago

Cities are generally not targets for high yield weapons. Multiple low(er) yield weapons do more damage to soft targets, like cities, than fewer high yield weapons. Additionally, they don't need to be as accurate for these roles. This is traditionally the realm of submarine-launched ballistic missiles: a countervalue guarantee against a first strike. The Trident D5's incredible accuracy and high yield changed that calculus a bit but that is a different post.

High yield weapons are used against hardened targets such as ICBM silos, underground command posts and launch control centers, communications hubs, leadership shelters, etc. The relationship between yield and accuracy is of course related, but at the end of the day counterforce weapons tend to be on the higher end of the scale. Earth penetration capabilities also influence yield choices, e.g. the B61-11 bomb @ 400 kilotons replaced the massive B53 @ 9 megatons. Both are bunker-busters, but the former bomb can penetrate rock and earth before detonating while the latter sits on the surface at detonation.

Counterforce vs. countervalue targeting touches upon some of your points. It's a long discussion but in essence the former approach is designed to reduce the ability for the enemy to effectively wage war, especially nuclear war. This means targeting command posts, communications hubs, air bases, missile silos, nuclear weapon storage facilities, etc. Countervalue targeting is meant to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy by targeting power plants and other infrastructure, transportation hubs, and cities & their civilian population. Countervalue targeting requires far fewer weapons and lower accuracy, but it means direct mass murder of civilians a la the firebombing of WWII, rather than the indirect mass murder of civilians as a byproduct of targeting militarily-useful assets. A large scale "pure" counterforce attack would inevitably result in many civilian casualties though they were not the targets.

michaelplny3• 4 years ago

Thank you for your response! Can you recommend any reading material or content about nuclear weapons strategy?

FunnyBadger• 4 years ago

Clearly a false flag is being planned and it will be a nuke detonated in a Blue City. When you see it, know it for what it is.

echoradio2• 4 years ago

I’m surprised no one has brought up “Threads.” [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)

FEMA Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation [pdf]

Related Stories