Monday, May 6, 2013

Fukushima, National Disasters, and Militarized Civil Defense

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,"

[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)

[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?



  1. Majia,
    We both now know that the US Government knew within 2 hours about the core ejection of #3 - now proven beyond a shadow of doubt - as the USS Reagan passed through the cloud and recorded panic-level radiation.

    After a few hours of panicked reaction, and a couple of days where I thought they were going to choose to do the right thing, they ultimately played dumb and covered the news up completely.

    I'm completely oblivious as to what is so important that you would be willing to abandon 6,000 sailors to deadly radiation. That you would abandon 50,000 US service members in Japan. That you would abandon the Pacific Ocean. That you would abandon the west coast of the United States and Hawaii. That you would allow your own daughters and sons and grandchildren to be dosed, That you would stand by and allow the Japanese government to abandon millions of its own citizens. That you would not even acknowledge that a signficant risk exists and needs to be reviewed.

    What i do know is this: based on these past actions, you cannot trust the government to be honest whatsoever about a nuclear accident - in fact you can pretty much count on complete dishonesty.

    1. very well said, James - entire thread too
      here's the press conference with 2 sailors in lawsuit (wonder where this story is right now...

  2. Ya, you will be forced to stay in the disaster zone to prevent panic.....

    A slow motion train wreck, unfortunately we shall have a front row seat.

    1. Exactly Stock.

      Dr Koide in New York May 4 2012 at Cinema Forum Fukushima:

      He concluded that humanity as a whole has never experienced this level of radiation contamination and he stated ‘I have no idea what will happen but we will be fighting this radiation on the order of tens, hundreds of years.’

  3. The rhetoric may be that it is to prevent panic, but the reality is that it is to cover up the truth because they do not want to be held accountable..

    Panic is a good thing when it causes people to move away from danger.

    So, as a result of finding the picture which shows the #3 RPV missing, I've been having a couple of discussions on other forums - which are supposedly dedicated to telling the truth about Fukushima.

    I've found almost every single one of them taken over by the propaganda machine.

    Anyone with any intent to expose the truth on Fukushima would jump on this information and publish it far and wide - because it exposes indisputably the truth.

    I find untruth is much more in demand than truth these days.

  4. I believe that they let spent fuel pool 4 burn without warning as well.

    The world's rulers (in corporations and government) are sociopathic.

    They will let us all die and their shills will comb the internet for sites where they can deny it all.

    They use risk-assessments to make it all seem so scientific and utilitarian.

  5. Majia,
    Sorry, but I disagree that "they will let us all die and their shills will comb the internet for sites where they can deny all"

    Because this radiation is not selective. You cannot buy your way out of cancer - ask Steve Jobs - oops, you can't.

    "They" are us.

    What we must understand is that any resistance to the truth is merely a short term ploy for money and in the larger scheme is insignificant.

    Sure the truth is going to rearrange our priorities and some will suffer economic consequences. However the results would be temporary

    If we shut down all the NPP's today - every nuclear engineer would be still employed for their lifetimes cleaning up this mess. In fact, their lifetime pay would likely be higher, because there would be fewer replacements graduating from college - which would drive demand for those skills up. So in reality it makes zero economic sense for an engineer to lie about the danger.

    At this point must be solely pride that causes the resistance to the truth - or possibly fear that they will be tarred and feathered.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.