US expert sketches nightmare nuclear terrorist attack on major city

A trained nuclear engineer using material the size of an orange could build an atomic bomb to fit into a van, proliferation expert Laura Holgate said, sketching a nightmare scenario of a terrorist attack on a major city.

She recalled that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 with a van loaded with conventional explosives.

Holgate told reporters at a meeting in Vienna of the UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was "not widely shared and understood" how risky the current situation is, especially since terrorists would not necessarily need top-level scientists to build a bomb.

The nuclear threat remains the big one, and all too real, said Holgate, a senior member of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) think tank and a former US Department of Energy (news - web sites) official for disposal of plutonium.

She said the "raw material for nuclear terrorism is housed in hundreds of facilities in dozens of countries and inadequately secured."

"That's the central point of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative" which the United States and Russia have launched to repatriate highly enriched uranium (HEU) and to convert nuclear research reactors from HEU to low enriched uranium (LEU) use.

"We know nuclear theft is happening already," she said, saying that one institute in Russia has documented "23 attempts over eight years to steal nuclear bomb-making materials."

"We know these failed. We don't know how many succeeded and went undetected," Holgate said.

She also said she did not think terrorists had yet a nuclear weapon. "If terrorist organizations had been able to do this (obtain one), they would have used it by now," Holgate said.

"A nuclear device going off in any large city around the globe is going to kill millions of people," she said.

"The economic damage can be in the trillions (of dollars) and it can also be global," she said.

"This is in contrast to a dirty-bomb threat that tends to be hyped," she said about concern that terrorists could use conventional bombs with radioactive materials, contaminating areas with radiation rather than destroying them with the blast of an atomic bomb.

Holgate said a problem in making sure that nuclear materials are not lying where terrorists can get them is that there is "lack of acceptance" within the Russian government that "their material is not adequately secured and that there is a relationship between terrorism and these materials."

But she said the Russians seemed to be more aware of the threat since the Beslan school tragedy and a recognition of "weaknesses" in the Russian system, due to bribes and poor security.

The United States and Russia have produced most of the highly radioactive material now spread throughout the world.

Holgate said the United States and the then-Soviet Union gave out 20 tonnes of HEU in the 1950s and 1960s as part of the Atoms for Peace program for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

"Keeping track of where this HEU is now kilogram by kilogram is difficult." she said.

In addition, over 1,000 tonnes were created by the United States and the Soviet Union for their weapons programs, and there is no minute accounting for this.

William Potter, from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, a California-based think tank, said that in addition the Soviet Union and now Russia have some seven icebreaker ships which use nuclear fuel enriched to about 60 percent, Potter said.

HEU is uranium enriched to over 20 percent, but weapons grade uranium starts at 80 percent enrichment for the U-235 isotope.

Holgate said terrorists could do without the sophistication needed for small bombs. "A truck size is probably a more relevant size," since such a bomb could be made with lower levels of HEU.

In WWII people didn't panic and head for the hills when they saw other cities were being bombed. When a hurricane comes to Florida, people have to be encouraged to evacuate.

There weren't any cities bombed in the US during WWII other than Pearl Harbor, once. In Europe there was nowhere to go unless you had family in the country.

As for having to persuade people to evacuate for a hurricane, some people believe that their home can withstand the storm or the storm won't be too bad so they opt to stay and ride the storm out. No one is daft enough to think they can ride out a nuclear explosion.

American people have guns and so will the hundreds of thousands that fled the city with little more than the clothes on their back and think that it's unfair that you have a warm house and food and they don't.

We disagree on the roll of the media in participating on the "War on Terrorism". If the media was participating in a way I felt was responsible, I'd find it most welcomed. On numerous occasions I've watched detailed reports on the news programs that told how various weapons of terrorism were built. I find this both dangerous and irresponsponsible. There can never be any assurance potential terrorists are not watching these same programs.

If the media was participating in a manner that was telling citizens what warning signs to watch for, and how to address them, that would be beneficial. As it is now, the media acts like the barometer of changes the government seeks to impose on the law abiding population. By choosing to participate in a manner that empowers potential terrorists rather than citizens, the media is an active tool used to justify further government control.

You are right about involving citizens. Citizens offer the greatest untapped defense against terrorism. They also offer the greatest potential deterrent to an imposing government. The contrasting involvement of citizens during WWII and the present mislabeled "War on Terrorism" illustrate how controlling our government has become. The modern day equivalent of Civil Defense is by government invitation only. During WWII (and the Cold War) it was primarily a volunteer force of citizens.

There weren't any cities bombed in the US

Yes, but why would you think Americans would act differently in a time of war than Europeans?

In Europe there was nowhere to go unless you had family in the country.

Not true, there are farms and small towns in Europe the same as America. But I never heard of rampaging mobs in England killing farmers to take their homes during the Blitz.

Of course not. But people will take the chance that the bomb won't go off near their home. They did in England.

How do you know? There is no historical evidence. Are you judging other people by what you would do? Would you point a gun at someone to take their home? I wouldn't. And I doubt if very many people would have the nads to threaten someone just because they were frightened by a terrorist.

EMP is generated in ALL nuclear blasts, as are magnetohydrodynamic currents. And in a dense urban core, there's a s**tload of wiring and cable runs to be made into secondary emitters of EMP & MHD effects.

The EMP effects for a small nuclear explosion at ground level extend only about as far as the blast effects. This would be just as true in a city. The forest of metal in the city will serve to attenuate the EMP and reflect it back into ground zero just the same as the city environment tends to attenuate TV signals.

Speaking of which, it is the same case with eardrum damage. If you are close enough to have your eardrum ruptured, you will also have a house on top of you.

TV signals are many orders of magnitude lower in power than the emissions from even a small nuclear fireball. ANYTHING is transparent to electromagnetic radiation, given sufficient signal amplitude...

Basically, if the fireball touches it, it's going to reradiate. If it's touching something the fireball touches, it will reradiate.

I'm no lover of the MSM and I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Let me pose a hypothetical. Suppose the news media had been aware that terrorists had plans to use hijack airliners as suicide weapons. Should they have let that be known?

Another hypothetical: Should the media let it be known that ammonium nitrate and fuel oil are explosive ingredients for a bomb?

You can make the case either way. If the knowledge inspires other terrorists or criminals to mischief it's a bad thing. But if good people are aware of the dangers, they have a heads up.

The way I think about it, we have two things in our favor. 1) We are smarter than they are and 2) There are more of us than there are of them. Availability of knowledge always favors the wiser and more numerous combatant.

EMP is not significant for small bombs. If the EMP is big enough to fry your transistors, the blast will get you anyway:

... The charge separation persists for only a few tens of microseconds, making the emission power some 100 gigawatts. The field strengths for ground bursts are high only in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. For smaller bombs they aren't very important because they are strong only where the destruction is intense anyway. With increasing yields, they reach farther from the zone of intense destruction. With a 1 Mt bomb, they remain significant out to the 2 psi overpressure zone (5 miles).

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html#nfaq5.5

We are more numerous, and while that should be advantageous, the government, our government, has handcuffed us by identifying our enemy as a vague terrorist rather than what they really are, Islamic extremists, and most Arab.

I do appreciate your hypothetical questions. The media did broadcast many hijacking alerts prior to 9-11. While few thought the airliners could be used as manned missiles, most realized such hijackings would threaten lives.

The ammonia nitrate question could have best been handled by dispensers of this agent. That is solely my opinion anyway. The general public didn't need to hear the specifics of how this component is made into weapons. If the release of these details provide a single person with the knowledge they need to end one life it is one too many.

Back to the very beginning of the article we are posting to. Hypothetically speaking, should the media broadcast how a relatively small nuclear weapon could be delivered for optimum effect just to alert the public? I do not believe releasing such information to the general public could benefit anyone but those intending to use such weapons. While it would be beneficial to alert the public what to watch for, and what to do in the event of such an attack, speculative details of how to apply such a weapon should be withheld. I've a sense this subject will one day be breached by the media and it will detail which metropolitan areas would suffer the greatest potential loss.

Let me ask a question. As with the "Cold War" period we now live under threat of a nuclear attack by Islamic extremists. The media knows this. How many news segments have you seen since 9-11 that have detailed how the public should react if such an attack became a reality? I've seen none, not a single one. That is notable as such an attack could cause a great loss of life if people do not know how to properly react in the area struck.

Media has got to be held to a more responsible role in our safety. They could be a more proactive part of our national security. I really don't think you and I are far apart in how to address security. I know this. From your responses I'd trust you much more than the general media on security issues.

There weren't any cities bombed in the US Yes, but why would you think Americans would act differently in a time of war than Europeans?
In 1940 Americans would act pretty much the same as europeans. People back then were honorable and had a moral code they adhered to. Just about everyone belonged to a church and worshiped regularly. This is not true anymore. Morality has slipped considerably since 1941.
In Europe there was nowhere to go unless you had family in the country. Not true, there are farms and small towns in Europe the same as America. But I never heard of rampaging mobs in England killing farmers to take their homes during the Blitz.
Once again morality rules.
As for having to persuade people to evacuate for a hurricane, some people believe that their home can withstand the storm or the storm won't be too bad so they opt to stay and ride the storm out. No one is daft enough to think they can ride out a nuclear explosion. Of course not. But people will take the chance that the bomb won't go off near their home. They did in England.
During WWII they used dumb iron bombs with a blast radius of a hundred yards or so. If you went to the air raid shelter and the bombs missed by half a block you were OK, you dusted yourself off and life went on. If a nuke misses you by a quarter of a mile, you are dead. Hopefully instantly.
American people have guns and so will the hundreds of thousands that fled the city with little more than the clothes on their back and think that it's unfair that you have a warm house and food and they don't How do you know? There is no historical evidence. Are you judging other people by what you would do? Would you point a gun at someone to take their home? I wouldn't. And I doubt if very many people would have the nads to threaten someone just because they were frightened by a terrorist.
Human nature dictates that survival is the first priority. This trait can be tempered only by morality and civilization. We are a lot less moral and have more of an entitlement mentality than our countrymen had 60 plus years ago. The thin veneer of civilization is a lot thinner now, and being cold, hungry and scared for a week and their family's survival will make taking someone elses property or their life seem justified.

I don't think I would ever rob or kill someone and I hope to God I'm right and am never put into a situation where this would be put to a test. 165 posted on 09/23/2004 5:45:13 PM EDT by Dan Evans [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Human nature dictates that survival is the first priority. This trait can be tempered only by morality and civilization. We are a lot less moral and have more of an entitlement mentality than our countrymen had 60 plus years ago. The thin veneer of civilization is a lot thinner now

I think you're right, many of us have changed for the worse.

On the other hand I think there are huge differences between people in this country, socially and geographically. I was doing some research on U.S. crime rates and noticed how in 2002 Detroit Mi has a murder rate about eight times the national average. Fargo ND had a murder rate of zero.

But I think people in the heartland haven't changed much. I watched that TV series Amish in the City because I was curious about what those people were like. In manner and civility, the difference between them and the city kids they were living with was like night and day. I got the impression I was looking back in time at the early pioneers.

If a bomb goes off in this country, what happens next is going to depend on where it happens.

Keep your powder dry.

How many news segments have you seen since 9-11 that have detailed how the public should react if such an attack became a reality? I've seen none, not a single one.

I think I know why. In the fifties there was a very intensive civil defense initiative doing just that, teaching people the basics of responding to a nuclear attack.

Unfortunately, those "duck and cover" ads were parodied mercilessly by Hollywood and the left. Nowadays anyone who dares suggest that there is any rational preparation or response to a nuclear attack is laughed off the stage.

I'm sure the idea was to propagate the "better red than dead" mindset.

The example given assumed a relatively open area. The blast damage would be confined in an urban area, as you pointed out. The EMP would not, if some shots fired in the 1970s and 1980s are any indication.

What shots are those? Do you have a link? I ask because this EMP business is a boogieman that comes up all the time and I would like to know as much as I can.

In that link I gave you it stated that, even with a 1 Mt bomb, the EMP effects (of a ground burst) are significant only out to five miles.

I can't imagine how the presence of conductive material near ground zero could amplify the EMP.

Nowadays anyone who dares suggest that there is any rational preparation or response to a nuclear attack is laughed off the stage.

Yes, and generally this is done to prepare the ground (the minds of the sheeple) for sowing the seeds of unilateral disarmament, or a "nuclear freeze", or other such idealistic and naive notion. Fortunately for us and all nations who believe in individual liberty and free societies, our leaders during the period of roughly 1948-1960 were made of sterner stuff. The flower power and disco decades eroded that badly. Reagan tried to reverse the trend but the Clintonites revived it and a general feminization of America took place. The result was 9/11. The next sucker punch might be worse.

What shots are those? Do you have a link? I ask because this EMP business is a boogieman that comes up all the time and I would like to know as much as I can.

The Dauphin and Cottage shots were biggies--they were part of the X-ray laser tests.

I can't imagine how the presence of conductive material near ground zero could amplify the EMP.

Same principle as how your bedsprings can start "talking" when a powerful transmitter is nearby.

Basically, everything reradiates. It doesn't amplify; but it DOES provide a propagation path to allow damaging levels of EMP to go beyond the blast zone.

A Faraday cage--which all this wiring SORT of creates, but not completely--is protection only up to a point. If the EMP is powerful enough to activate everything the cage is made of, it actually tends to focus the EMP inside the cage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.