Great find by Emmerson Hakim Yusuf Biggins posted in Banned by IAEA
He suggests we see page 9 in this 2013 US Department of Defense report about "Homeland Security" about the possibility of Fukushima-type disaster in the US:
US Department of Defense (2013) "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities," http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/dod/homeland-defense-dsca-2013.pdf
[Excerpted from page 9] Hazards: The 2011 Great Eastern Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear reactor disaster created a complex catastrophe of immense scope. A similar convergence of a large-scale natural disaster and a resulting manmade crisis or technological failure could result in a complex catastrophe in the United States, with cascading effects that overwhelm national response and recovery capabilities.
Majia here: as Emmerson points out, the DoD clearly recognizes that Fukushima is a threat to homeland security and a similar scenario could occur in the US.
That said, the entire tone of this report is rather concerning. Under what conditions what forces other than the National Guard be deployed INSIDE the U.S.?
The Foreword reads:
I am releasing this new Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities to elaborate the priorities for these core Department of Defense (DoD) missions. This Strategy reflects the direction of the Department’s civilian and military leadership and the advice of our Federal preparedness partners. It postures DoD to address the range of current and emerging threats to the homeland and natural and manmade hazards INSIDE the United States for the period 2012-2020, and it is in keeping with current fiscal realities.
This Strategy relies first and foremost on those partnerships that are vital to DoD’s ability to successfully fulfill its homeland defense and civil support missions….
Leon E. Panetta
(former Director of the CIA 2009-2011)
(former Secretary of Defense from 2011-2013)
here is an EXCERPT FROM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[Excerpted from page 1] This Strategy identifies two priority missions for the Department’s activities in the homeland from 2012 to 2020. DoD works with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other actors to achieve these missions:
Defend U.S. territory from direct attack by state and non-state actors; and
Provide assistance to domestic civil authorities in the event of natural or manmade disasters,
potentially in response to a very significant or catastrophic event.
These priority missions are reinforced, supported, or otherwise enabled through the pursuit of the following objectives:
Counter air and maritime threats at a safe distance;
Prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland through support to law enforcement;
Maintain preparedness for domestic Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) incidents; and
Develop plans and procedures to ensure Defense Support of Civil Authorities during complex catastrophes.
Majia here: What exactly would the DEFENSE SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES entail?
This report reminds me of an earlier version that was produced by the US Army War College "Known Unknowns." This report laid the foundation for using the US military for responses to domestic shocks, including civil unrest brought upon my natural or economic disaster:
In November 2008 the Army's Strategic Studies Institute issued a report titled “Known Unknowns: Uncoventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development” authored by Nathan Freier. The report summary explains its objectives to anticipate and develop contingency plans for unconventional “dangerous future shocks” that “manifest themselves in ways far outside established defense convention” (vii). Although most of the shocks are anticipated to be “nonmilitary in origin and character,” Department of Defense (DoD) planning is recommended. The types of shocks included in this planning document include the following:
[Excerpted] Threats of context might include but are not limited to contagious un- and under-governance; civil violence; the swift catastrophic onset of consequential natural, environmental, and/or human disaster; a rapidly expanding and uncontrollable transregional epidemic; and the sudden crippling instability or collapse of a large and important state. Indeed, pushing at the boundaries of current convention, it would be prudent to add catastrophic dislocation inside the United States or homegrown domestic civil disorder and/or violence to this category as well. (p. 17)
The report explains that most of these “contextual threats” are the origins of shocks since they operate as triggers or catalysts. The DoD will be forced to “fundamentally reorient strategy, capabilities, investments, and concepts in response” (p. 18). Shocks emerging within or external to the U.S. would force the DoD “to radically re-role for domestic security, population control, consequence management, and stabilization” (p. 18).
Paths to domestic civil violence that would require the DoD to reorient priorities “to defend basic domestic order and human security” include deployment of “weapons of mass destruction, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and economic order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency,” etc (p. 32).
Civil violence might require the “use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States” (p. 33). Moreover, the DoD “would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance” (p. 33). In other words, the report outlines when and how the DoD would assume responsibility for direct domestic governance
In 2010 it was reported that the Pentagon planned to have 20,000 uniformed trained troops inside the U.S. by 2011, purportedly to help state and local officials respond to a terrorist attack or some other domestic catastrophe (Hsu and Tyson A1). The Washington Post reports resistance to this plan:
Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security. (Hsu and Tyson A1)
Majia here: CREEPING MILITARIZATION of homeland security sounds about right to me.
So, if we have a nuclear meltdown here in the US we can expect our military to be called upon to ensure domestic order. Can you imagine that scenario?
I wonder whether Japan's Self Defense troops will be ever called upon to ensure domestic order in Fukushima prefecture?