John Solomon, over at his citizen-centric blog on emergency preparedness, has posted on the proposition that the Obama administration should do a better job than previous administrations educating citizens about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). John's specific point is that most of us don't know there is a difference, or don't know what is important about the difference, between nuclear and biological weapons, on the one hand, and chemical and radiological weapons, on the other. John writes:
In its report, the WMD Commission argues that the incoming Administration should make an effort to inform and engage the public on the subject of WMD’s. I agree. And, I suggest officials consider starting that process by defining (or redefining) what a WMD actually is. At present, it is most common to define a WMD for the public as a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (or “CBRN”) weapon.
The Commission report, however, focuses primarily on the dangers of biological and nuclear terrorism, both of which could be absolutely catastrophic. By contrast, a chemical or radiological (better known as a ‘dirty bomb’) weapon could be very serious but would likely not cause as much lasting damage. In fact, both a chemical and radiological attack would likely be a one-shot event seriously impacting those directly near the event, closer in result to a ‘traditional’ terrorist bombing. A nuclear bomb or biological incident, however, could have wide and long-lasting ‘mass destruction’ impact to humans, property and the society itself.
My two cents: simply focusing on information and preparedness, as opposed to the probability of attack, would be a service in the government's communications with its citizens. Statistical assessments of threat or risk are themselves generalizations that are not necessarily reliable and, in a sense, they don't matter either. Emergency preparedness skills, beginning with accurate knowledge, should help us live without fear, even in a dangerous world, and feel competent to take care of ourselves, our families and our communities when danger strikes.
Comments
I disagree with the emphasis on nuclear vs. radiological weapons. A properly designed and detonated “dirty bomb” could be every bit as catastrophic as a nuclear weapon detonation in every sense except immediate casualties. And the resources and logistics of an RDD are much simpler, and making this event much more likely.
It’s like comparing a plane crash to a car crash. The plane crash will kill a lot of people instantly, but there’s a much higher likelihood of dying in a car.
Huh? A dirty bomb is every bit as catastrophic as a nuke??
Oh I see, you think that if you ignore the tens of thousands of possible deaths and injuries from the fireball and enormous blast, the remaining catastrophic effects would be about equal to a dirty bomb.
Sorry, but I think even that is beyond silly.
A ground burst will throw tons of radioactive junk into the atmosphere to fall out of the sky over a wide area, probably many miles downwind.
Alternatively, an explosion high in the atmosphere would issue an electromagnetic pulse that could fry electronics for thousands of square miles.
There isn’t any comparison.