Interesting Point of View on Terrorism

Joined
Jan 18, 2000
Messages
275
I've copied the entire content of the article as it was provided to me via a distribution to the Emergency Services and Management Community.

It's an interesting perspective.

Diligence
*********************
14-Feb-2003

Taking the Terror out of Terror Weapons
A Soldier's Viewpoint on Surviving Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks

From: SFC Red Thomas (Ret) Armor Master Gunner Mesa, AZ

Unlimited reproduction and distribution is authorized. Just give me
credit for my work, and, keep in context.

Since the media has decided to scare everyone with predictions of
chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare on our turf I decided to write a
paper and keep things in their proper perspective. I am a retired military
weapons, munitions, and training expert.

Lesson number one: In the mid 1990s there were a series of nerve gas
attacks on crowded Japanese subway stations. Given perfect conditions for an
attack less than 10% of the people there were injured (the injured were better
in a few hours) and only one percent of the injured died.

60 Minutes (TV) once had a fellow telling us that one drop of nerve gas could
kill a thousand people, well he didn't tell you the thousand dead people
per drop was theoretical.

Drill Sergeants exaggerate how terrible this stuff was to keep the
recruits awake in class (I know this because I was a Drill Sergeant too).
Forget everything you've ever seen on TV, in the movies, or read in a novel
about this stuff, it was all a lie (read this sentence again out loud!). These
weapons are about terror. If you remain calm, you will probably not die.

This is far less scary than the media and their "Experts," make it sound.

Chemical Weapons

Chemical weapons are categorized as nerve, blood, blister, and
incapacitating agents. Contrary to the hype of reporters and politicians
they are not weapons of mass destruction, they are "area denial," and terror
weapons that don't destroy anything. When you leave the area you almost
always leave the risk. That's the difference; you can leave the area and
the risk but soldiers may have to stay put and sit through it and that's why
they need all that spiffy gear.

These are not gasses, they are vapors and/or airborne particles. The agent
must be delivered in sufficient quantity to kill/injure, and that defines
when/how it's used. Every day we have a morning and evening inversion
where "stuff," suspended in the air gets pushed down. This inversion is why
allergies (pollen) and air pollution are worst at these times of the
day. So, a chemical attack will have it's best effect an hour of so either side
of sunrise/sunset. Also, being vapors and airborne particles they are
heavier than air so they will seek low places like ditches, basements
and underground garages. This stuff won't work when it's freezing, it doesn't
last when it's hot, and wind spreads it too thin too fast. They've got to get this stuff
on you, or, get you to inhale it for it to work. They also have to get the
concentration of chemicals high enough to kill or wound you. Too little and
it's nothing, too much and it's wasted. What I hope you've gathered by
this point is that a chemical weapons attack that kills a lot of people is
incredibly hard to do with military grade agents and equipment so you
can imagine how hard it will be for terrorists.

The more you know about this stuff the more you realize how hard it is
to use. We'll start by talking about nerve agents. You have these in your
house, plain old bug killer (like Raid) is nerve agent. All nerve agents
work the same way; they are cholinesterase inhibitors that mess up the
signals your nervous system uses to make your body function. It can harm
you if you get it on your skin but it works best if they can get you to inhale
it. If you don't die in the first minute and you can leave the area you're
probably gonna live. The military's antidote for all nerve agents is
atropine and pralidoxime chloride. Neither one of these does anything to
cure the nerve agent, they send your body into overdrive to keep you
alive for five minutes, after that the agent is used up. Your best protection
is fresh air and staying calm.

Listed below are the symptoms for nerve agent poisoning:

Sudden headache, Dimness of vision (someone you're looking at will have
pinpointed pupils), runny nose, excessive saliva or drooling, difficulty
breathing, tightness in chest, nausea, stomach cramps, twitching of
exposed skin where a liquid just got on you. If you are in public and you start
experiencing these symptoms, first ask yourself, did anything out of the
ordinary just happen, a loud pop, did someone spray something on the crowd?
Are other people getting sick too? Is there an odor of new mown hay, green
corn, something fruity, or camphor where it shouldn't be? If the answer is
yes, then calmly (if you panic you breathe faster and inhale more
air/poison) leave the area and head up wind, or, outside.
Fresh air is the best "right now antidote." If you have a blob of liquid
that looks like molasses or Kayro syrup on you; blot it or scrape it off
and away from yourself with anything disposable. This stuff works based on
your body weight, what a crop duster uses to kill bugs won't hurt you unless
you stand there and breathe it in real deep, then lick the residue off the ground
for a while. Remember they have to do all the work, they have to get the
concentration up and keep it up for several minutes while all you have
to do is quit getting it on you/quit breathing it by putting space between you
and the attack.

Blood agents are cyanide or arsine which effect your blood's ability to
provide oxygen to your tissue. The scenario for attack would be the same
as nerve agent. Look for a pop or someone splashing/spraying something and
folks around there getting woozy/falling down. The telltale smells are
bitter almonds or garlic where it shouldn't be. The symptoms are blue
lips, blue under the fingernails rapid breathing. The military's antidote is
amyl nitride and just like nerve agent antidote it just keeps your body
working for five minutes till the toxins are used up. Fresh air is the your
best individual chance.

Blister agents (distilled mustard) are so nasty that nobody wants to even
handle it let alone use it. It's almost impossible to handle safely and
may have delayed effect of up to 12 hours. The attack scenario is also
limited to the things you'd see from other chemicals. If you do get large,
painful blisters for no apparent reason, don't pop them, if you must, don't let
the liquid from the blister get on any other area, the stuff just keeps on
spreading. It's just as likely to harm the user as the target. Soap,
water, sunshine, and fresh air are this stuff's enemy. Bottom line on chemical
weapons (it's the same if they use industrial chemical spills); they are
intended to make you panic, to terrorize you, to heard you like sheep to the
wolves. If there is an attack, leave the area and go upwind, or to the sides of
the wind stream. They have to get the stuff to you, and on you. You're more
likely to be hurt by a drunk driver on any given day than be hurt by one of
these attacks. Your odds get better if you leave the area. Soap, water, time, and
fresh air really deal this stuff a knock-out- punch. Don't let fear of an isolated
attack rule your life. The odds are really on your side.

Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear bombs. These are the only weapons of mass destruction on earth.
The effects of a nuclear bomb are heat, blast, EMP, and radiation. If you
see a bright flash of light like the sun, where the sun isn't, fall to the
ground! The heat will be over a second. Then there will be two blast waves,
one outgoing, and one on it's way back. Don't stand up to see what happened
after the first wave; anything that's going to happen will have happened in
two full minutes.

These will be low yield devices and will not level whole cities. If you live
through the heat, blast, and initial burst of radiation, you'll probably
live for a very, very long time. Radiation will not create fifty foot
tall women, or giant ants and grass hoppers the size of tanks. These will be
at the most 1 kiloton bombs; that's the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT.

Here's the real deal, flying debris and radiation will kill a lot of exposed
(not all!) people within a half mile of the blast. Under perfect conditions
this is about a half mile circle of death and destruction, but, when it's
done it's done. EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse and it will fry
every electronic device for a good distance, it's impossible to say what and
how far but probably not over a couple of miles from ground zero is a good
guess. Cars, cell phones, computers, ATMs, you name it, all will be out
of order. There are lots of kinds of radiation, you only need to worry about
three, the others you have lived with for years. You need to worry about
"Ionizing radiation," these are little sub atomic particles that go whizzing along
at the speed of light. They hit individual cells in your body, kill the
nucleus and keep on going. That's how you get radiation poisoning, you have so
many dead cells in your body that the decaying cells poison you. It's the
same as people getting radiation treatments for cancer, only a bigger area gets
radiated. The good news is you don't have to just sit there and take it,
and there's lots you can do rather than panic. First; your skin will stop
alpha particles, a page of a news paper or your clothing will stop beta
particles, you just gotta try and avoid inhaling dust that's contaminated with
atoms that are emitting these things and you'll be generally safe from them.
Gamma rays are particles that travel like rays (quantum physics makes my brain
hurt) and they create the same damage as alpha and beta particles only
they keep going and kill lots of cells as they go all the way through your
body. It takes a lot to stop these things, lots of dense material, on the
other hand it takes a lot of this to kill you. Your defense is as always to
not panic. Basic hygiene and normal preparation are your friends. All canned
or frozen food is safe to eat. The radiation poisoning will not effect
plants so fruits and vegetables are OK if there's no dust on em (rinse em off
if there is). If you don't have running water and you need to collect rain
water or use water from wherever, just let it sit for thirty minutes and
skim off the water gently from the top. The dust with the bad stuff in it
will settle and the remaining water can be used for the
toilet which will still work if you have a bucket of water to pour in
the tank.

Biological Weapons

Finally there's biological warfare. There's not much to cover here. Basic
personal hygiene and sanitation will take you further than a million
doctors. Wash your hands often, don't share drinks, food, sloppy kisses, etc.,
with strangers. Keep your garbage can with a tight lid on it, don't have
standing water (like old buckets, ditches, or kiddie pools) laying
around to allow mosquitoes breeding room. This stuff is carried by vectors,
that is bugs, rodents, and contaminated material. If biological warfare is so
easy as the TV makes it sound, why has Saddam Hussein spent twenty years,
millions, and millions of dollars trying to get it right? If you're clean of
person and home you eat well and are active you're gonna live. Overall
preparation for any terrorist attack is the same as you'd take for a big
storm. If you want a gas mask, fine, go get one. I know this stuff and
I'm not getting one and I told my Mom not to bother with one either (how's
that for confidence). We have a week's worth of cash, several days worth of
canned goods and plenty of soap and water. We don't leave stuff out to
attract bugs or rodents so we don't have them. These people can't
conceive a nation this big with this much resources. These weapons are made to
cause panic, terror, and to demoralize. If we don't run around like sheep they
won't use this stuff after they find out it's no fun.

The government is going nuts over this stuff because they have to protect
every inch of America. You've only gotta protect yourself, and by doing
that, you help the country.

Finally, there are millions of caveats to everything I wrote here and
you can think up specific scenarios where my advice isn't the best. This
letter is supposed to help the greatest number of people under the greatest
number of situations. If you don't like my work, don't nit pick, just sit down
and explain chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare in a document around
three pages long yourself. This is how we, the people of the United States, can
rob these people of their most desired goal; your terror.

SFC Red Thomas (Ret) Armor Master Gunner Mesa, AZ
 
Great post!!!!!!

I have for many years done had a interest in Bacteria and Virus' in relation to some of the new theories of why we get sick in the context of Darwinian medicine. Due to media hype, the last few years I have concentrated on "Bioterrorism", and have found that it is MUCH harder to use these things as weapons of mass destruction than the media is making it seem.

Again, a great post.
 
In the back of mt head, I guess I knew this. I have relatives in the service and they have for years told me not to worry about these things, but they have not elaborated on why. Now I know. Thanks for sharing.


Cerberus
 
A fascinating, informed perspective. Unyielding determination to survive and level-headed thinking can be your best assets when facing these situations.

I often hear statements about gas masks (for civilians) like, 'once you realize you're under attack it's too late.' Based on the article, I think a hankerchief (fine weave, folded) may help by reducing the amount of particulates, vapors, or mists inhaled. Of course you aren't going to just stand around with a hankerchief to your face, but it might improve your odds of suvival while bugging out. Anyone can carry it, you can have it with you all the time, and it's useful for so many other things.

What do you guys think? Let's share some more practical survival tips.
 
The article puts forth a lot of opinions but without any support. The author might even be correct, but he gives his readers no reason to believe that he is.
 
Hmmm! And all along I thought VX and sarin and tabin and mustard gas and thermonuclear warheads and weaponized anthrax and smallpox and ebola and Marberg and Lassa fever and the other hemoragghic fevers were actually dangerous!
 
Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
The article puts forth a lot of opinions but without any support. The author might even be correct, but he gives his readers no reason to believe that he is.
The same could be said about your post, the post that I'm typing right now, or any post for that matter. After all, the only real support of his claims is someone who experiences such attacks and survives based on his recommendations. I don't think anybody here can say they have such first-hand experience.

What support are you looking for? Something along a more scientific or technical nature? The author has already given some of his credentials but we can always ask for more details. Case studies might also be helpful, such as the Toyko subway sarin attack or the effects of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

FWIW I have studied the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the article in that respect agrees with what I've read in the past. Those atomic blasts were not as low-yield as a likely terrorist warhead but the effects are similar, on a smaller scale.

The article by itself should be taken FWIW. Your caution and skepticism are understandable. Based on my understanding of NBC terrorism though, the article's opinions are entirely reasonable. YMMV, IMHO, etc.;)
 
Originally posted by SteelDriver
The same could be said about your post, the post that I'm typing right now, or any post for that matter. After all, the only real support of his claims is someone who experiences such attacks and survives based on his recommendations. I don't think anybody here can say they have such first-hand experience.
Err? That I offered no evidential support for my post is obviously true, but only trivially so. I had no position that I was pushing. It seems to me that if one is trying to overturn wrongheaded dogma, as the OP would hope to do, then that is most easily accomplished by offering better/different evidence than that offered to establish the dogma in the first place.

Unevidenced assertions do nobody any good. Those that already agreed will still agree, and those that didn't will still disagree...and those without a dog in the fight will wonder why he even bothered.
 
Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Unevidenced assertions do nobody any good. Those that already agreed will still agree, and those that didn't will still disagree...and those without a dog in the fight will wonder why he even bothered.
Not necessarily. Just because the author did not provide evidence for every assertion does not mean the reader cannot benefit from the article. It seems that the article is intended to give an overview of surviving NBC terror attacks, not to provide historical or scientific basis for such survival. Such an omission is deliberate, as the author himself states in the last paragraph.

Some readers with no prior knowledge of the topic may simply accept the assertions based on the author's credentials. Some may find that the article agrees/disagrees with what they already know. Some may be spurred on to research the topic further, and (hopefully) post the evidence here. Maybe we'll hear viewpoints from different sides of the issues and arrive at a better understanding; maybe we'll even change our opinions. For those reasons I think that the article and our discussions thus far are beneficial. As for evidence, I sure would like to know more myself.
 
That's a fair point, SteelDriver; let me do my part to get the discussion rolling. Very quickly, here are some of the warning flags that were raised for me in the first section of the OP. I would (and probably will) go through more, but I've got an appointment that started about five minutes ago!

Originally posted by Diligence
Lesson number one: In the mid 1990s there were a series of nerve gas
attacks on crowded Japanese subway stations. Given perfect conditions for an
attack less than 10% of the people there were injured (the injured were better
in a few hours) and only one percent of the injured died.
Frankly, there are plenty of reasons why a specific attack may have failed that don't indicate that the weapons utilized are more benign than we are being told.

60 Minutes (TV) once had a fellow telling us that one drop of nerve gas could
kill a thousand people, well he didn't tell you the thousand dead people
per drop was theoretical.
Ummm... Yes they did when they said "one drop of nerve gas *could* kill a thousand people".

Drill Sergeants exaggerate how terrible this stuff was to keep the
recruits awake in class (I know this because I was a Drill Sergeant too).
Forget everything you've ever seen on TV, in the movies, or read in a novel
about this stuff, it was all a lie (read this sentence again out loud!). These
weapons are about terror. If you remain calm, you will probably not die.
What "stuff" exactly are we talking about here? And I find statements like "[e]verything you've ever seen...it was all a lie" to be particularly troubling because it is doubtful in the extreme that there is no reliable reportage regarding the threats of these weapons. Nowhere? It's *all* lies?
 
I'm beginning to see your point tribalbeeyatch. Let me begin by saying that a supposed chemical attack nowadays will likely cause mass panic, especially in enclosed spaces. IIRC the tragic stampede in the Chicago club that caused 21 deaths was triggered by mace sprayed to break up a fight. This is a real risk that must be accounted for; even if you don't panic the masses panicking around you could cut off your escape route or even kill you.

Here's a useful site: USAMRICD

Under Medical Aspects of CBW , I found a few interesting quotes:

In Ch. 30 "Defense Against Toxic Weapons" regarding delivery of biological toxins (ricin, botox, etc.):
"As stated above, most toxins are neither volatile nor dermally active. Therefore, an aggressor would most likely attempt to present them as respirable aerosols. Toxin aerosols should pose neither a significant residual environmental threat nor remain on the skin or clothing. The typical toxin cloud would, depending on meteorological conditions, either drift with the wind close to the ground or rise above the surface of the Earth and be diluted in the atmosphere. There may, however, be residual contamination near the munitionrelease point. Humans in the path of a true aerosol cloud would be exposed as the agent drifts through that area. The principal way humans are exposed to such a cloud is through breathing. Aerosol particles must be drawn into the lungs and retained to cause harm."

I'm still wondering if a hankerchief would help...:(

Table 30-5 on page 12 (still Ch. 30) has a chart displaying different signs and symptoms of nerve agents, botulism toxin, and staphy B. The info seems to agree with the article's description on these points.

These are just two points that caught my eye while skimming the document; the entire textbook available as pdf files is massive. There are so many variables, so many types of CBW weapons, it's pretty crazy.

Can we really trust the government, the military, or the press? It's hard to say if they're downplaying, exaagerating, or on-the-level with this threat. And the 'threat' of terrorism is subjective to begin with. Are we more at risk today than on 9/11/2001? Argh, I need a break from all this thinking! :D
 
I know this sounds like a whopper, but I had a very close friend, recently deceased, who spent a substantial part of his career in the Marine Corps. training DI's how to train Marines about NBC. He even had a stint training the Japanese training cadre the same topic, as he spoke the language well. We had several long discussions about the topic over the years, and to summarize, he told me that what the troops get taught isn't necessarily scientifically accurate, but it is justified by military necessity. From what he told me, the essay that lead off this discussion sounds like some of that material. He also indicated that by and large the complete truth was so scary the brass didn't dare tell it to the troops, so they taught them information carefully designed to make them better soldiers, the truth be damned. Having to teach people lies is one of the reasons he eventually became disillusioned and resigned (full pension). I swear this is a true story and I totally believe what he told me was the truth. FWIW.
 
I think so.

I went to Chem NCO ANCOC at Ft. McLellan AL (now closed.) We were one of the first classes to use the CDTF (Chemical Decontamination Training Facility) where US Army troops are trained to decon their way out of ACTUAL agents. Yes it works.

Although I didn't read the article to pick apart it sure looks correct to me.

The first ARMY NBC class I had I sat next to an officer (CPT) with a MS in Chemical Engineering. I've also discussed many of these things with a friend who is a local university professor that teaches all the med/pre med bio chem and o-chem courses. (BTW my degree is busness / econ NOT chemistry or medecine...) There is some VERY nasty stuff out there. But "Red" is correct when he speaks of the TYPICALLY high concentrations necessary.

TOTAL "downwind" hazard for anything persistent is under 6 miles - no biggie, with approxx 1.5 mile acutal area of contamination. THis is from Rockets/Arty Bombs not a small cannister. - of course I live in the desert not NY, LA or Chicago.

This is why the attacks all take place in CLOSED areas (subways etc) -they need a high enough concentration.

Of course (Terr's close your eyes here) that's why some nation states have mixed persistent (VX/Sarin) with DMSO - this really is the one drop scenario.

Nerve agents are cholenesterase (SP? - it's been way too long since Corps School) inhibitors and atropine and 2Pam work well, but if there's enough of a concentration, all bets are off.

Blister is a logistical nightmare to employ.

With nucs if the flash/blast dosen't get you you've really got a pretty good chance unless you shower in fallout.

The biggest Nuc concern seems to be using conventional munitions to spread radiation - could be VERY messy.

Of course if you want to start crappin' your pants now and not stop until the fat lady sings, look up stuff like endogenous bio regualtors.

Please fell free to e-mail. If I don't know something or give you an opinion, I'll tell you that, too. - Maybe I do have a hunk a 'tude about this, but I also spent a lot of time following all the non-military info available while I was a Chem Nco, in addition to training the chem and rad portions of the chemical defense course.

Dragon Warriors...

US Army Chem Corps unofficial motto: Up their ass with bugs and gas. (I just wish I could remember this in Latin - it looks MUCH better...)

BTW - I also tell everyone that protective masks are a waste of good money for civ's. I certainly DON'T own one. If you reqularly take subways or work in a LARGE bldg. you'd probably be better off with an evac-u-ate and getting the hell out.
 
If any of you would like more detail on the efforts of the Aum Cult that perpetrated the Japanese Subway gassing and all of their other attempts to poison the Japanese population at large, read the book "Cult at the End of the World". This is one of the scariest things I have ever read and it is not fiction! It tells in great detail how, when, where and why the agents, chem and bio, did not work and how very difficult it was to design a delivery system for those agents. It was not difficult at all for them to procure those agents. I found the book very educational with regards to how really difficult it is for a non national/military organisation to develop their own chem/bio weapons. Even while employing chemical and biological experts. A good read for todays situation. I also found the above article to be in general 'good common sense'.

My two bits worth.
 
My scouting counselor for Environmental Science merit badge was the lead dude at the Tooele Army Depot and Dugway Proving Grounds for biological agents. Spendlove. I also had the hots for his daughter so I spent some time with the family and with him on these issues. Distance is the key. Bio and chem agents are fairly localized issues and they don't generally travel. Sure there are exceptions. As a highlevel overview of the generalities, the original post is OK. It won't save your life at ground zero, but little will.

Phil
 
Sarge is right on the technical aspect of the issues, but I think wrong in another. Living in Arizona, Calgary or Salt Lake City, one can be confident that no bad guys will unleash Bio or Chem agents. He noted that Agents must be delivered in substantial amounts to do any damage.
Well, here in NYC, you do have the concentration in people, the infrastructure which allows about a dozen different ways into the city, and the racial diversity for people to go about unnoticed. You have a mindboggling number of trucks and 18 wheelers entering and leaving the city, along with several hundred thousand aircraft and ships entering the metropolitan area.

Yes, it takes a lot of the stuff to do damage, but to deliver it here, and for it to be effective, it's not that hard.
 
I think that in some situations, the author is correct. However, one cannot make blanket statements when it somes to things like this.

Chemical agents are no biggie? Has anyone seen pictures of the gas atacks in WW1? What about the modern uses, such as those Iraq used against Iran in their war? (By the way, it'a a fact that when Saddam gassed that Kurdish villiage back in '88, it's because he thought it was full of Iranians. The Iranians had since pulled out, and he didn't know that. The Pentagon knew he was using gas all over the place, and originally covered for this specific mistake by saying that the Iranians did it!)

All nuclear attacks will be small-scale? Some might be, but to say that no terrorist will ever get a hold of the big bombs is a gross oversimplification. Lots of city-levelling nuclear weapons have been produced in the world, and it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to see some falling into the hands of terrorists.
 
Wow ....... this all makes great reading!
Firstly I'd like to say thanks to Diligence for the story. I found it reasonable and in my mind in most parts believable, ...... or perhaps I'd like it to be completely true.
My thoughts are that we should be more than careful in any of these given types of attacks and try to avoid panic. I say "good on ya" to the trainers for instilling a fear that may save us.
 
I have found a lot of good information on nuclear attack here
http://www.surviveanuclearattack.com/
Regarding the danger of bio attack it cannot be underestimated. I live in Toronto where the city is half paralized by SARS now.Andthis is just a variation of common cold. Imagine plague or small pox. As it turned out no one in Toronto new how many ventilators are available in hospitals. And we might be running out of them soon.
Regarding the original post. It was mentioned that if you let the water contaminated by radiation sit for half an hour and then take the top layer off it is safe to drink?? BS. FEMA says that the only way to clean water contaminated by radiation is to distill it. They explain on their site how to do it in field condition. If anyone interested I can describe few methods here. And one more thing . I am originally from Kiev which is 100km from Chernobyl. We were there during the accident. One year later my father died from leukemia. So just the fact that yuo will survive initial blast does not garantee a long life. These are my thoughts on the topic.
 
I also would like to add in regards to original post that after nuclear attack fruits and vegetables are only OK to eat if they were picked before the attack. Afterwards do not eat anything that grows in your area. It gets contaminated thru uderground water that fruits /veggies absorb. Also do not eat meat of grazing anymals from this area and do not drink milk. I had to learn these things the hard way after Chernobyl.
 
Back
Top