The Nature of Nuclear AttackAuthor(s): IAN CARRSource: Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne de Sante'e Publique, Vol. 74, No.1 (January / February 1983), pp. 16-18Published by: Canadian Public Health AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41987900 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Canadian Public Health Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toCanadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne de Sante'e Publique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:18:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Nature of Nuclear Attack

IAN CARR, M.D., Ph.D., FRC Path, F.R.C.P.(C)

This subject is not essentially a facet of the study of war. It transcends war. It is not an aspect of politics. It goes deeper than politics. It is rather a consideration of one of the great biological turning points of our species. The ability to wage nuclear war is the inevitable result of the quarreling of humankind and of the awesome technical advance of humankind. We are discussing whether human civilization can survive this century. We are too apt to assume perman- ence. There are optimists and there are pessimists. I am an optimist - I believe we have a 51% chance. But if nuclear war happens, it is likely to be global and total because of early destruction of command, communication and control systems. There should be no mistake. In such an event human survival is unlikely.

How is this relevant to us as Canadians? We are members of a nuclear armed alliance, committed to the decisions of that alliance, protected by the power of that alliance, and subject to the fearful doom of that alliance if things go wrong. There are nuclear weapons on our soil. Nuclear armed planes have rights of overflight in time of war. We are the West Germany of North America, we live between the protagonists. The fallout will fall on us; it is likely that the missiles are aimed at us. If more than one or two nuclear weapons are exploded, then you and I, our families, our homes, our patients, our institutions will be destroyed. Our civilization will die - either quickly in a bright flash or more slowly, by fallout, starvation or disease.

What is the nature of a nuclear explosion and its effects? There are no facts about nuclear war. There are facts about two nuclear explosions. The 15KT bomb (a kiloton is 1,000 tons of TNT) dropped on Hiroshima killed 100,000 people. We now talk in megatons - one million tons of TNT. There are no facts about a war involving over 50,000 weapons, involving the exchange of more than 10,000 megatons. The 1976 U.S. National Academy of Science report said that the unpredictable effects are likely to be worse than the predic- table effects. The "facts" presented here come from U.S. Defence Department and Disarmament Agency sources,

Professor and Head Department of Laboratory Medicine St. Boniface General Hos- pital 409 Tache Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R2H 2A6

and from the literature of Physicians for Social Responsibil- ity. They are correct at best to p 25 %.

An advertisement signed by 700 physicians in the New York Times (2 March, 1980) reminds us of the effect of ONE SINGLE 20 megaton bomb exploded at ground level on an American city. It is the generation of a small sun on the earth's surface. The fireball would be one-and-a-half miles in diameter and have a temperature of 20-30 million degrees Fahrenheit, vaporizing everything. At six miles from the explosion centre a silent heat flash moving at the speed of light would kill everyone and melt glass. Supersonic shock waves and wind would flatten buildings. To ten miles there would be 50 % dead and 40 % injured, and to 20 miles 50 % dead or injured by direct heat and blast. Random spontane- ous fires from gas lines and oil storage tanks would coalesce into a firestorm 1,000 square miles in area. Immediate deaths would be between one and two million people. Any survivors of this would die of radiation - and everyone up to a hundred miles downwind could receive a lethal dose of radiation. Sublethal doses of radiation would produce fetal malformation, cancer and persistent genetic change. A cal- culation of 1 megaton = 1 megadeath is probably approach- ing the likely facts. If a firestorm is generated, the lethal area is increased five fold. This can occur because a pressure wave travels outwards at more than the speed of sound, followed by a wind at greater than 1500 km per hour. This creates a low pressure area. The surrouding air rushes in and fans fires which, inevitably, have started.

One U.S. government estimate is that 150 million people would die in an all-out nuclear attack on the U.S.A. Food, air and water would be contaminated. Survivors would die of thirst and starvation, radiation sickness and uncontrolled infection. The widespread destruction of hospitals and health personnel would incapacitate health care. Other pap- ers in this symposium discuss this at greater length. Deaths in excess of 40 million are expected in the U.K. where recent Health Service "plans" for survival include widespread shooting of the sick and injured who cannot be treated, and include cordons of armed police around the doomed cities BEFORE the attack occurs.

16 Canadian Journal of Public Health Vol. 74, January/ February 1983

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:18:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Similar events would occur in Eastern Europe. The aftermath would be a ruined world. In the words of Lord Mountbatten (no pacifist), "Our fine great buildings, our homes will exist no more, the thousands of years it took to develop our civilization will be lost. Radio, television, news- papers will disappear. There will be no means of transport. There will be no hospitals. No help can be expected for the few mutilated survivors in any town to be sent from a neighbouring town - there will be no neighbouring towns left, no neighbours, there will be no help, there will be no hope."

It is likely (from U.S. government estimates) that 600 million people worldwide would die in the early days of megadeath war and that almost as many would die of delayed effects, or of starvation and other results of social disruption. A guess may be hazarded that one thousand million (one billion) people would die as a result of mega- death war.

Mankind has already more than 50,000 nuclear bombs of various sizes; and the number is increasing. Planners now talk of a nuclear war in terms of the number of megatons involved - and a common (but modest) figure is the 10,000 Megaton War - the explosive equivalent of ten billion tons of TNT. The U.S. National Academy of sciences suggests that it is likely that there would be massive fallout of strontium-90 and other radioactive substances, that dust and nitrogen oxide injection into the atmosphere would modify the climate, probably in the direction of cold. For two years or more there would be a 50 % reduction in ozone in the atmosphere; there would be significant contamination of food crops for years to come. There would be an increase in cancer death rate of 2- 10 % and an increase of up to 2 % in congenital abnormalities. The complex effects of even minor climatic change, and severe disruption of the mecha- nisms of civilization in North America, the world's bread basket, would lead to world-wide famine in a world already short of food.

These are likely effects of thermonuclear war - one horse- man of the Apocalypse. To these can be added to the effects of biological warfare - one scenario is bubonic plague in a bombed city. And of chemical warfare - the binary nerve gases are being made in quantity. The horror of the men who coughed to death on the Somme is now much more "refined".

The ultimate result could be the collapse of human organ- ization, of the apparatus of civilization. In a post-war world we will starve not just because there is no bread, but because there is no truck to bring the bread.

What is the evidence that Canadian cities are targeted? None. But just as the political boundaries of Eastern Europe are not believed to affect U.S. targeting plans significantly, so the Russians tend to regard Canada and the U.S. as a whole - capitalist North America. We don't know what is on the U.S. National Strategic Target List and Single Inte- grated Operational Plan - nor what is on its Russian coun-

terpart. But we don't know where Russian missiles are aimed. We know that U.S. defence, civil defence and dis- armament agency detailed studies assume a target threshold of 20,000-50,000 ( 1 976-80). We know that major bridges are targeted in the U.S.S.R. we know U.S. planes armed with nuclear weapons have rights of overflight and landing in wartime. U.S. airfields would be destroyed early. The Cana- dian Emergency Measures Organization suggests that Cal- gary is not targeted; this statement about a city of over 500,000 with an international airport, the centre of the oil industry is so nonsensical as to cast grave doubt on the accuracy of the figures put out by that organization.

My conclusion is simple. Any Canadian City over 50,000 - probably over 20,000 - possessing an airport is a likely nuclear target. As will be discussed in a later paper in this symposium, hospitals and health care facilities would be destroyed. All the seriously injured would die. Fallout over most of populated Canada would be heavy - at least in the 200-500 rem level. Normally, many of those exposed to such levels could be nursed to recovery. The facilities to enable this recovery would be destroyed. In the conditions of a nuclear war, infectious disease would spread among the irradiated, immunosuppressed, ill-housed survivors causing heavy mortality. It is likely that functionally in the condi- tions of nuclear war the lethal irradiation dose would be about 100 rem. Most Canadians who survived the actual explosions would receive that much.

And all of these statements are based on current EMO fallout figures. Now (1982) fallout would certainly be heav- ier because 1,000-2,000 megatons are targeted on silos just south of our border and on the U.S. Trident base at Seattle. No one can predict the fallout patterns from explosions of such magnitude - but the natural explosion at Mt. St. Helens (in the 4 megaton range) led to fallout over substan- tially all of North America.

On these assumptions my conclusion is that 1 5-20 million Canadians would die in a nuclear war. I think we should press the Canadian government to confirm or refute this statement.

Civil defence has its uses - in providing protection against minor catastrophes. Particularly in Britain it has been used to create an illusion that nuclear war is survivable. This is perilous. Dr. Eric Chivian pointed out at a recent Pugwash meeting that the shelters can provide no protection of urban populations against nuclear attack. The American alternative, mass evacuation, is equally ludicrous. It assumes, he points out, that: 1) Nuclear war would start slowly. Three days are needed for evacuation 2) Govern- ment resolve exists to determine the critical level for evacua- tion. Mass evacuation of 140 million people would cost $5 billion a day in lost output and would be internationally provocative. 3) Mass populations would understand, believe and obey. 4) Mass evacuation would be physically possible (as opposed to causing the biggest traffic jam on record). 5) There is a predictable "safe" area where ade-

January/February 1983 17

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:18:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

quate fallout protection is available. Such protection would be needed for a minimum of 2 weeks during which such basic problems as provision of heat, water, food, medical and psychiatric care would be vital. 6) "Safe areas" would not be retargeted. Retargeting of missiles now takes only 15 min- utes. 7) It would be possible to determine when it would be safe to emerge from shelter. If all these assumptions are not correct, then civil defence by evacuation is as useless as defence by provision of shelters in urban areas.

There is no defence against nuclear attack. It means the destruction of the fabric of human society. It means extinc- tion.

How do we face this? Humankind faces death from the moment cognition - indeed, perhaps this recognizance is

an essential part of being human. You, the reader, and I, and our patients, our families, our neighbours have a high chance of dying in nuclear war. Be it 10 % as some believe, or 90 % as others believe - I don't think it is necessary. My remit is to describe the nature of nuclear attack - it is extinctive there is no survival. The only hope is to rouse the concern and the anger of the people of the world.

I believe that we can save the frail beauty of this world -

though the time is short. I believe that we who are desper- ately worried and afraid, are part of the great majority of humankind. I believe that the future lies with us - or there is none. I believe that we - and not the rest - are sane. And I believe that we will win.

The Arms Race: Cancer in the Global Village

DONALD G. BATES, M.D., Ph.D.,

The primary theme of the symposium is what would happen if nuclear war occurred. However, it is important to discuss what is happening and will continue to happen even if the nuclear button is never pushed - that is, the arms race and the role of militarism in the world today.

First, we should put this phenomenon into some perspec- tive as to trends and scale of significance. The arms race is at least as old as this century; by some definitions, much older. As a percentage of the world's total output, the peak of the arms race was reached in the early 1950's when military expenditures represented 9 % of the world's "GNP." This contrasts, for example, with the 4 % level reached on the eve of World War I, a war often claimed to have started as a result of an arms race.

Since the early 50's the percentage has declined from that high of 9 % to its present level of about 6 % This might seem a cause for some relief until the nature of that decline is more closely examined. In the past 20 years, it is not that less is being spent on arms, but that world productivity has gone through an enormous surge, partly in the industrial world, but particularly in developing countries. Thus, productivity is a misleading yardstick against which to measure military spending.

If, instead, we look at those expenditures in constant dollars, we find that they have increased four times since the end of World War II and 25 times since the beginning of the century. In fact, they have attained a level which, until

Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Studies in Medicine, McGill Uni- versity, Montreal, Quebec

recently, was comparable to the combined GNP of all the countries in Africa, Central and South America.

Moreover, the global distribution of these expenditures is changing. The decline in percentage of global GNP to which we referred is entirely a decline in the spending of developed countries which, because of their much larger absolute expenditures in this regard, cause a net decline in the world figure. But developing countries are steadily increasing the percentage of their GNP devoted to arms.

At the human level, more than $110 for every man, woman and child on earth was consumed by military spend- ing in 1980. In developed countries, the per capita expendi- ture was approximately $1,000. In developing countries, it was less, but, given their much lower per capita incomes, the actual economic burden was very much higher. This global military effort has only recently been overtaken by the amount spent on public education, but there are more peo- ple in military or paramilitary uniform, worldwide, than there are teachers. Moreover, the developing countries as a group, spend more on arms than on learning, even though armaments contribute essentially nothing to their industrial- ization while learning is fundamental.

For any developing nation, capital formation plus research into means of innovation and development are the keystones to progress. But what the world spends on arms adds up to roughly the same amount as all of the capital formation being generated by those struggling societies. Worse still, the money spent on research and development oriented to military objectives is six times greater than that spent on research and development for all purposes in the less developed countries. Or, to make a comparison which is more relevant to the industrialized world, the amount of 1. "Study On The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development by a United Nations Group of Governmental Experts, UN document A/36/356, p. 167.

18 Canadian Journal of Public Health Vol. 74, January/February 1983

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:18:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions