Video of Congressman Sherman in Action
By Congressman Brad Sherman
It was fashionable in the Cold War to say that the “living will envy the dead,” as a Soviet-U.S. exchange would have left the Earth uninhabitable. At some point during the Cold War, civil defense became almost laughable given the massive destruction that would have been wrought in a nuclear war between the superpowers.
Not so today. Unlike during the Cold War, where the threat came from a massive Soviet attack, the threat today is a limited strike that could involve a single weapon of only a few kilotons detonated in one American city. Such an attack would no doubt kill tens of thousands of people, but the reaction in the immediate aftermath would determine whether hundreds of thousands more live or die. Deciding whether to take cover and shelter in place or to flee after the initial blast – and then deciding where one should flee – would be life-and-death decisions.
While the Washington Post recently reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the FBI are moving critical operations outside a 50-mile “blast zone” around
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 demonstrated the vulnerabilities of existing communication networks. The familiar and presumably authoritative Emergency Broadcast System never even went on the air on September 11. People relied on television, the Internet, cell-phones and the radio for information. Many of those systems would be down in the event of a nuclear strike. Much of the information provided might be unreliable and potentially counterproductive for survivors.
More than five years after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, more than one year after the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, and in the midst of continuing threats from Islamic terrorist organizations, the Homeland Security Department still is not doing enough, quickly enough, to update plans for our civil defense.
I have written to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to urge him to make updating our nation’s civil defense program a top priority. His response was less than I had hoped for. Yes, there is a “pilot program” in a few states. Yes, they are working on a new pamphlet. It’s not enough.
A Homeland Security publication entitled “Preparing Makes Sense -- Get Ready Now” states that people “should watch television, listen to the radio or check the Internet often for information or official instructions as it becomes available” to determine whether one should leave an area or stay put in the event of an emergency. In the context of a nuclear attack, however, such half measures and generalized advice could be a recipe for disaster.
How and when people take cover in the event of a nuclear attack is critical. Most people in American cities would have no idea what effective shelter would look like and where to find it, let alone know enough to make an informed decision about whether the smartest thing to do is even to take shelter or to flee. General advice that you may want to take shelter would be of limited value.
That is why I urged the Homeland Security Department to develop a civil defense plan – including especially a plan for providing authoritative, localized and specific information to people affected by a nuclear attack. The plan should include teaching people how to find shelter and also spell out the safest way to evacuate in the event that either course is appropriate.
We should determine today which medical supplies should be stockpiled in, or just outside, major cities. We should determine if citizens should be urged to maintain a home supply of iodine.
The threat of a limited nuclear attack – in which the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans will depend on what people do in the seconds, minutes and hours in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion – calls for a serious, renewed emphasis on civil defense.
Congressman Brad Sherman is chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee.
