A little read government study published in November 2011 downplays the dangers of a potential nuclear blast in Washington DC.
In a move that seems almost off the script for the powers that be, the corporate media is reporting that this study was supposed to be for official use only and shows that an attack in Washington DC wouldn’t be all that devastating.
An Associated Press article covered the report as if they wanted to make sure that they published some sort of article on it but did so in a standoffish, reluctant sort of way.
Thinking about the unthinkable, a U.S. government study analyzed the likely effects from terrorists setting off a 10-kiloton nuclear device a few blocks north of the White House.
It predicted terrible devastation for roughly one-half mile in every direction, with buildings reduced to rubble the way that World War II bombing raids destroyed parts of Berlin. But outside that blast zone, the study concluded, even such a nuclear explosion would be pretty survivable.
“It’s not the end of the world,” said Randy Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and founding director of the Institute for Homeland Security. “It’s not a Cold War scenario.”
The little-noticed, 120-page study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was hardly a summer blockbuster.
The study, “Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism,” was produced in November by the Homeland Security Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Even though the government considers it “for official use only” and never published it online, the study circulated months later on scientific and government watchdog websites.
A report from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on the government study fear mongered about an attack on DC, complete with a long ago debunked lie about the Oklahoma City Bombing and a demonstration of how little uranium is needed for a 10 kiloton bomb.
Interestingly, the coverage of this study comes just after world leaders met in South Korea to discuss the threat of nuclear terrorism.
An article from the HomelandSecurityNewswire discussed the main concerns that world leaders face in regards to nuclear terrorism:
The Seoul nuclear summit focused on the risk of nuclear terrorism; there are two risks: first, fissile materials, which terrorists may use to construct a dirty bomb, is kept at thousands of medical, research, and industrial facilities around the world – often without sufficient security; second, constructing a Hiroshima-type bomb is not as difficult as we may think
This past Tuesday, nearly sixty of the world’s leaders gathered in Seoul, South Korea, to discuss securing the world’s supply of nuclear material.
The discussions involved the risk of a terrorist attack using radioactive material, but the focus was beyond the risk of radiological, or “dirty,” bomb. A dirty bomb is composed of ordinary explosives packaged in radioactive material, such as is used in medical and industrial purposes.
These devices spread radioactive material over a large area, rendering those areas unusable until thoroughly cleared of radioactive contamination.
The Seoul nuclear summit had a greater, more threatening concern. That concern had to do with securing and accounting for fissile material, the core material for a nuclear device.
Many in the alternative media have speculated about a possible false flag nuclear attack that would be carried out by rogue intelligence agents.
Read the rest of this article…
Related:
Gov Study: Key Response Planning Factors for the aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism [pdf]
U.S. and Israel Set Stage for False Flag and Iran Attack [The Intel Hub]
Recommendations From the Three Mile Island Recovery Team: How to Survive Nuclear Holocaust [SHTFplan]
0 Comments