The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
http://www.ippnw.org/NukeEPWs.html International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) Rx Abolition Nuclear Bunker Busters: The Medical Consequences International Physicians Warn Use of Nuclear Bunker Busters in Iraq Could Result in Thousands of Radiation Victims The full report (PDF) http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWEPWReport.pdf International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has released an important new study on the medical consequences of the use of nuclear earth-penetrating weapons (EPWs), also known as bunker busters. The study was produced by a team of experts on the medical consequences of the use of nuclear weapons led by Victor W. Sidel, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Princeton University physicist Robert W. Nelson, an expert on the physical effects of low-yield, precision nuclear weapons, was also a co-author. The IPPNW study concludes that even a very low-yield nuclear EPW exploded in or near an urban environment such as Baghdad will inevitably disperse radioactive dirt and debris over several square kilometers and could result in fatal doses of radiation to tens of thousands of victims. Moreover, if EPWs are used against underground bunkers containing biological or chemical weapons or weapons materials, there is a high probability that these deadly agents will not be completely incinerated and will be dispersed on the ground and into the atmosphere. The United States currently deploys both conventional and nuclear EPWs, including about 50 nuclear-tipped B61-11s, which can penetrate 2-3 meters and have reported yields between 0.3 kilotons and 340 kilotons. The 2003 Department of Energy (DOE) budget specifically requests funding for a “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator” (RNEP) that would be more effective than the B61. “Our findings unequivocally refute the contention by the Bush administration and the Pentagon that nuclear bunker busters could be used in Iraq or anywhere else with minimal so-called collateral damage,” Dr. Sidel said. “The nature of that ‘collateral damage’ would be fatal doses of radiation to anyone within a kilometer of the explosion and acute radiation sickness for potentially thousands of people who would die excruciating deaths over several days to a week or more.” The use of low-yield nuclear weapons would also undermine global security. “Were the US to use such weapons,” Dr. Sidel said, “it would be crossing the nuclear threshold for the first time since the US used nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 50 years ago. This is not only morally repugnant, but it would start us down the slippery slope to the use of nuclear weapons of greater yield — something the entire world has been trying to prevent since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The study concludes with a policy assessment in which the authors state that further development of EPWs could require underground nuclear testing, breaking the current world moratorium and destroying prospects for eventual universal accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Both the resumption of nuclear testing and the production of new nuclear weapons will fuel global nuclear weapons proliferation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- The Threat of Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons to Civilian Populations: Nuclear “Bunker Busters” and Their Medical Consequences Victor W. Sidel, MD, H. Jack Geiger, MD, MSHyg, Herbert L. Abrams, MD, Robert W. Nelson, PhD, and John Loretz Executive Summary Nuclear weapons advocates in the Bush Administration and the Congress wish to introduce new low-yield nuclear weapons into the US arsenal — part of a growing trend to lower the nuclear threshold and to make the use of nuclear weapons more acceptable. A very low-yield nuclear earth-penetrating weapon (EPW) exploded in or near an urban environment, however, will disperse radioactive dirt and debris and other radioactive material over several square kilometers. A nuclear EPW with a yield less than one-tenth of that of the nuclear weapon used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, if detonated in an urban environment, could result in fatal doses of radiation to tens of thousands of victims. Key Points The United States currently deploys both conventional and nuclear EPWs, including about 50 nuclear-tipped B61-11s, which can penetrate 2-3 meters and have reported yields between 0.3 kilotons and 340 kilotons. The 2003 Department of Energy (DOE) budget specifically requests funding for a “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator” (RNEP) that would be more effective than the B61. Even a very low-yield nuclear weapon used in an urban environment would risk producing tens of thousands of civilian radiation casualties. Casualties of this magnitude would overwhelm even the most effective medical care system. An EPW explosion will inevitably breach the ground surface and throw out radioactive dirt and debris over an area of several square kilometers. Radiation is invisible and, without radiation monitors, civilians would be unaware of their exposures and consequent risks. Those within about 1 kilometer of the epicenter would receive fatal doses of radiation within 1-5 hours; others with acute radiation sickness would suffer from protracted vomiting, diarrhea, fluid and electrolyte loss, profound anemia, hemorrhaging, infection, and other symptoms; those exposed to lethal doses could take several days to a week or more to die. Infants, children, the elderly, and the chronically ill are especially vulnerable. Hazardous materials stored in underground bunkers are unlikely to be incinerated by an EPW; there is a high probability that biological and chemical agents against which nuclear EPWs are targetted would be disseminated to the ground surface and to the atmosphere, causing additional deaths and illnesses. There are no specific therapies for acute radiation injury; supportive treatment (intravenous fluids, blood transfusions, antibiotics) is crucial in permitting survival through acute illness and may lead to eventual recovery, but such care is unlikely to be available in Iraq or in other places where use of nuclear EPWs has been proposed, such as North Korea and Iran. Most of the total radiation dose received from fallout occurs in the first few hours after the detonation, making rapid evacuation essential. A low-yield nuclear EPW detonated in a crowded urban area such as New York City would require the rapid evacuation of millions of people. Because Baghdad, with 5 million people, has a greater population density than New York, even more people would have to be evacuated from any affected area. The use of low-yield nuclear weapons would cross the nuclear threshold for the first time since the US used nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 50 years ago and may weaken the restraints against the use of nuclear weapons of greater yield. Further development of EPWs may require underground nuclear testing, breaking the current world moratorium and destroying prospects for eventual universal accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Both the resumption of nuclear testing and the production of new nuclear weapons will fuel global nuclear weapons proliferation. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk