Bulletins

NUCLEAR TERRORISM: Medical emergency

In the event of a nuclear terror attack, hospitals will be among the first casualties.

In Chicago, Northwestern Memorial Hospital occupies a 2-million-square-foot expanse a few blocks from the Magnificent Mile, a commercial and business hub that includes the John Hancock Center and Wrigley Building. The Illinois Medical District, a cluster of hospitals and health-care facilities on the city's Near West Side, is located about 3 miles from the same area. Together, they provide Chicago with more than 2,000 hospital beds and its most specialized medical services–exactly the problem if terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon anywhere near the city's center.

Such an attack would devastate both hospitals, leaving the third largest U.S. city without vital elements of its health-care system when tens of thousands of people might require medical attention. The public health infrastructures of other U.S. urban areas are no safer, according to Cham Dallas, director of the University of Georgia's Institute for Health Management in Mass Destruction Defense. When he and his colleagues simulated nuclear terror attacks in Chicago, New York City, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, they found that the destruction would include a significant number of hospitals–and their personnel–in each of the cities.

So while first responders and the medical community game-plan for potential bioterror attacks, Dallas believes they shouldn't discount the contemporary nuclear threat. “It's considered a ‘high-impact, low-likelihood event,’” he says. “But at some point, we need to change how we distribute health care because we're going to lose a substantial portion of our ability to respond. Subsequently, all health care will suffer dramatically.”

JOSH SCHOLLMEYER

Areas of concern

Only 1,500 burn beds, such as this one in New Jersey, exist in the United States.

Scale. Hospitals understand how to treat trauma victims, but not at the volume a nuclear terror attack would create. “Ten bus crash victims come into the emergency room, and hospital personnel are very impressive,” Dallas explains. “But they can't grasp treating tens of thousands of victims due to the sheer volume, though qualitatively the type of injury is the same.”

Availability of remaining beds. “Let's not forget that day-to-day patient care goes on,” Dallas says. “Eighty to ninety percent of hospitals are filled with people who are sick.” Burn beds are particularly scarce, with only 1,500 in the entire country, most of which patients already occupy.

The traditional medical response. Practicing good medicine means always providing the highest quality care possible. But in an unprecedented mass casualty event, Dallas argues that physicians should settle for the acceptable: “If you have thousands of burn victims who need treatment within hours to survive, you must alter the care you administer. Therefore, once they've received the necessary supplemental training, dentists, pharmacists, and veterinarians could help with triage.”

Hospital security. Functioning hospitals will help no one if looters and a distraught public overrun them. Says Dallas, “The hospitals affected by Hurricane Katrina were asked what they would want if they were given an infinite amount of money; 9 out of 12 said, ‘Don't give me more doctors or equipment–give me security.’”

RE: ENVIRONMENT: Ecology in flux

Scientists predict that climate change could threaten as many as one million plant and animal species with extinction, as rising temperatures, droughts, tropical storms, and flooding devastate natural habitats. But Chris Wilmers, a conservation ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, offers a twist on this scenario: Some of the animal species most at risk could be those that live in places where an altered climate could change environmental conditions for the better, providing abundant food supplies that allow populations to thrive in exorbitant numbers.

For these animals, the good life can last only so long. “If you have a bad year, all of a sudden the population is so out of kilter with resources that everyone starves and dies,” Wilmers says. In some cases, the species might recover and thrive again, only to be hit with another poor year of weather. These “boom-and-bust” cycles can cause populations to fluctuate dramatically and with greater frequency, making them more vulnerable to disease and inbreeding. In an era of unpredictable ecological change, there may be no such thing as a safe haven.

Early warning: Scientists believe that climate change is reducing the number of Arctic fur seal pups.

GUEST: Lecture

TOPIC: Nicolas Sarkozy and French nuclear policy

LECTURER: Bruno Tertrais, senior research fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique in Paris

VIEWPOINT: Historically, French presidents remain conservative when it comes to their country's nuclear arsenal. Expect new French President Sarkozy to be no different.

After 12 years of Jacques Chirac's presidency, France will conduct a complete nuclear posture review, along with a general defense review. Defense policy–and nuclear policy in particular–are very much in the president's realm, and our last two nuclear policy reviews took place in 1996 and 2000. So this is something you would expect any new president to undertake.

Sarkozy has said that he wants a complete reexamination of the costs and benefits of all nuclear programs. His message here is that the nuclear budget should not be treated any differently than other parts of the defense budget. At some point, he might want to make a symbolic decision to place his mark on French nuclear policy–including perhaps a slight force reduction.

He also might be more explicit than Chirac about expanding French nuclear deterrence to vital European interests outside of France. His campaign statements indicate that he seems willing and ready to clearly say that the French nuclear force exists to protect the European Union as a whole.

Finally, he will be a bit more open than Chirac in terms of missile defense. Chirac was cautious about it, even though he said in 2006 that missile defense could “complement” nuclear deterrence. In general, Sarkozy will be more relaxed vis-á-vis cooperation with allies, including the United States.

By and large, though, Sarkozy's language on nuclear deterrence remains traditional, and he has refrained from using language that hints that he's willing to take French nuclear policy in a different direction. This is not surprising: Remaining conservative and reliable on nuclear issues is part of the French presidential aura.

So, on balance, expect more continuity than change.

THREAT ASSESSMENT: Trafficking terrorists

THREAT: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Chavez infuriates U.S. officials by blatantly forging political and economic alliances with Washington adversaries such as Cuba, Iran, and Syria. The Bush administration and members of Congress have responded by singling out Venezuela among terrorist threats in Latin America, most notably for allegedly providing false identity documents to foreign nationals, including those originating from countries known to harbor terrorists such as Pakistan, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. In an oft-cited 2006 report, “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” the House Committee on Homeland Security stated, “Venezuela is providing support–including identity documents–that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups.” Is Chavez providing financial and political support for terrorists looking to gain entry into the United States?

EXPERT: Fred Burton

A former State Department counterterrorism agent and current vice president of counterterrorism and corporate security at Stratfor, a private intelligence firm, Burton has followed the alien smuggling and illegal document industry for decades.

ASSESSMENT: “Any true assessment of Venezuela as a security threat must be separated from the political issues related to Chavez. On a practical level, there is ample opportunity for illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to enter Venezuela and obtain Venezuelan identity documents without any government assistance whatsoever. Long before Chavez came to power, Venezuela was a known major transit hub for illegal criminal enterprise. Osama bin Laden has no reason to call Chavez and ask for help; if you know the right people, it's easy and inexpensive to purchase genuine birth certificates and passports in Caracas–just as easy as in New York City, London, or Beijing.

“Could these channels be used to facilitate jihadists through criminal networks? Sure. But you don't have a choreographed effort on the part of the Venezuelan intelligence service to facilitate it Chavez would incur unnecessary risk to his position and his country if he were to knowingly assist jihadists planning a strike on U.S. soil. Could the security and intelligence services do more to clamp down? Absolutely. But they would be clamping down on criminal smuggling rings and corrupt individuals in the immigration service, and that problem is no different than in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Mexico.”

KIRSTEN JERCH

JULY/AUGUST 2007 BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS

Something's killing off honeybee colonies around the world, and entomologists at WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY think they know who's to blame: Mites, which feed on bee arvae, have infested the RESEARCH BRIEFS colonies, resulting in serious repercussions for agriculture dependant on pollination.

The entomologists treat the bees by feeding them a spearmint and lemon grass tonic to boost their mmunity, followed by fumigation with formic acid to kill the mites. In Florida, this treatment has killed 93 percent of the mites within 24 hours…. It's good to be green–and small. A report from the PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES encourages new nanotechnocrats to focus on ways to manufacture nanomaterials using environmentally sensitive methods that reduce time, energy, and chemical input.

Researchers are also looking at how nanoparticles can improve efficiencies in ongoing environmental projects such as water filtration…. Survivors of avian influenza may be the best source for finding a cure for the pandemic-in-waiting. DOCTORS IN VIETNAM, SWITZERLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES have successfully used antibodies from the blood of adult survivors to prevent and treat mice infected with the deadly H5N1 strain of the virus. The doctors found the antibody treatment effective even when administered up to 72 hours after infection.

[ON TOPIC] MISSILE DEFENSE

A ground-based interceptor missile at Fort Greely, Alaska.

Computer errors

When the Defense Department failed to shoot down a simulated ballistic missile strike in December 2004, it didn't surprise Rebecca Slayton. A historian of science and technology at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, Slayton studies how the computing establishment has affected the decades-long missile defense debate. And for more than 50 years, computer scientists have provided a consistent analysis: Missile defense can't be trusted. “Even if components of a hardware-software system are successfully tested, the software that coordinates the system as a whole could never be tested operationally until an actual attack,” Slayton explains.

In the 1960s, the objections of computer scientists were largely ignored, but their influence grew substantially by the 1980s, as they provided incisive criticism of the Reagan administration's Star Wars program. Today, the Pentagon and Bush administration maintain that a new development process can overcome missile defense's limitations. While many contest this point, it's not computer scientists making the argument. “Some computer scientists have spoken up,” Slayton says. “But they mostly speak to their peers and seem to be fairly irrelevant to the mainstream debate.”

Some of this dissent also stays hidden behind classified doors, according to Peter Neumann, a principal scientist with the SRI International Computer Science Lab who has worked on numerous defense projects. Moreover, many computer scientists concluded long ago that the problems inherent in the complex systems needed for a missile shield are so basic that they're insurmountable.

So Neumann and his colleagues are attacking the broader cultural assumption that technology answers all of society's ills, whether it's electronic voting machines to solve election problems, biometric programs to identify terrorists, or building a missile shield to stop a nuclear attack. “We're facing a political situation where if you believe technology will solve the world's problems then you invest in it,” Neumann says. “[But] the idea of a computer system that solves all of these problems is ludicrous.”

BRENDAN MCKENNA

Col. Cindy R. Jebb

In the next 20 years, is the U.S. military more likely to see conflicts like the Iraq War? Right now the army is hedging. We need to be ready for anything. My latest research deals with human security: What happens when individuals don't feel secure? This includes everything from their physical safety to not getting the basic necessities in terms of food and shelter. And what effect does that have on the state's stability and the stability of the region? The whole issue of sovereignty is being reassessed. If states can't take care of their people, it can have international effects. We're starting to look at regional organizations to help secure environments. Non-state actors have a profound effect on the security environment these days. Understanding that will have an impact on how we conduct warfare, who we conduct it with, and who we target. In the future, we need to implement policies that prevent societies or states from sliding into conflict. A lot of those policies will look at nonmilitary elements of power.

The security environment seen from the individual level gives you a more comprehensive and empathetic perspective. If we're trying to shore up legitimate and functioning states, we need societies whose needs are being addressed and who view their state as having legitimacy.

How can one help local stakeholders build legitimacy without imposing what seems familiar, both in terms of political and economic structures? Part of it is going in with humility. Understanding cultures and histories, before you go in, makes it much easier to appreciate what's meaningful for people and their society. I was in the Horn of Africa with the U.S. military's Center of Army Lessons Learned looking at the civil affairs portion of their mission. I saw folks who didn't impose a school or a healthcare center; they consulted with both formal and informal leaders, and together, they developed a project.

“If the United States is trying to shore up legitimate and functioning states, we need societies whose needs are being addressed and who view their state as having legitimacy.”

Doesn't knowing what works in your own culture foster an impatience with arduous consultations? U.S. culture is impatient. What's needed is education. In some of my research, I found that with the empowerment and education of women, you tend to see fertility rates go down. You tend to see better health care for kids. Yo u tend to see kids being encouraged to go to school. But it takes a long time for a whole generation to become literate. The process might be even more important than the outcome. And rushing to the outcome and skipping over the process makes for unintended consequences.

When people have been told U.S. values are evil, how does the United States convince that population that its intentions are good? There are ways. The United States gained great credibility when we helped with tsunami relief, for example. Actions speak louder than words, and when people see some of the helpful things that the United States does, it goes a long way. When you look at the polls where people are asked specific questions about our values, we actually score pretty high. When the question is “What do you think about American technology?” we usually get favorable responses. “What do you think about American education?” Usually very favorable responses. When you ask people “What do you think about American policies?” people might be more negative. We have a hard time articulating our own culture and our own values. But there are some core values that I find resonate with everybody. We talk about the pursuit of happiness or making the world better for our kids. These are core values that resonate cross-culturally, and that's where the United States, through actions, can make a difference in how people perceive us. The criticism levied against the United States–cultural hegemony or cultural imperialism–can also backfire on the radical Islamic ideologies. For example, in Niger, radicals are telling some of the tribes or ethnic groups that they shouldn't practice their traditional rituals or wear traditional dress. There's pushback. We can leverage that.

Professor and deputy head in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, Col. Cindy R. Jebb teaches courses in comparative politics, international security, cultural anthropology, and counterterrorism. Her latest book is The Fight for Legitimacy: Democracy Versus Terrorism (Praeger).

Do the actions of people in uniform speak louder than the actions of civilians? What I would hope for is that we continue to work collaboratively with civilian agencies in a unity of effort where we can do more and capitalize on each other's strengths. So I don't know which actions have greater impact. If you're talking about battle, you get immediate results. It might not be the results you want, but you get immediate results. But it's important that we conduct those actions with good intelligence and prudent judgment. Obviously, there are bad guys, and you have to go after them. But we also have to realize the importance of preserving the positive perception of the United States as we work within a population.

JOHN REZEK