Five
Ways a Wider Syrian War Could Go Nuclear
In
the wake of an apparent break in the march to a wider war, the
reality of a nuclear dimension in Syria remains largely unspoken.
by Harvey Wasserman
13 September, 2013
(Illustration
based on graphics from Wikimedia Commons)
There
are at least five key reasons why American military intervention in
Syria’s civil war could go nuclear:
It
is relatively small, by most accounts containing about a kilogram
(2.2 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium. That’s not much in the
scheme of things when it comes to building an atomic bomb. But as
Alexsandr Lukashevich of the Russian Foreign Ministry puts
it,
“If a warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature
Neutron Source Reactor (MSNR) near Damascus, the consequences could
be catastrophic.”
Of
prime concern would be “contamination by highly enriched uranium”
throughout the immediate environs. At the very least, it would be “a
serious local radiation hazard,” according to Mark Hibbs of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, speaking on Russia Today.
Lukashevich
also predicts that “it would no longer be possible to account for
nuclear material, its safety and control.” Such material, he warns
darkly, could fall into “the wrong hands.”
If
the U.S. does ultimately attack Syria, it would want to avoid hitting
that reactor. It’s also possible that in the ensuing chaos, one of
the myriad unaccountable factions roaming through the civil war could
target that nuke. Such a group could blame the U.S. or claim credit,
depending on its particular orientation.
Whether
it happens, that reactor is just another sitting atomic duck awaiting
a random shooter and the cover of new chaos.
(2)
Despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s promise of an “unbelievably
limited” attack, once the U.S. military commits to action in Syria,
it is unlikely to hold back any of its tactical arsenal. That would
almost certainly include depleted uranium (DU).
When
shells made of this super-hard material penetrate armored vehicles,
hardened bunkers and other structures, the DU disperses into fine
radioactive particulates that are easily inhaled. Wherever
deployed—as in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan—DU inflicts
horrifying health
consequences,
including cancer among people of all ages and birth defects among
children born well after its use. Uranium-238 has a half-life of
4.5 billion years, imposing virtually permanent contamination.
Should
DU weaponry be used yet again, this time in Syria, the contamination
would be widespread and irreversible. Many thousands of innocent
people—including the countless unborn—would suffer greatly. As
with all radioactive fallout, the lethal effects will stretch through
the generations.
(3)
When the world’s superpowers collide, nuclear war is always a
possibility.
At
this point, the U.S. and Russia appear to be coming together. But in
this too-often irrational global tinderbox, the stakes could not be
higher.
In
such situations, we hope for the best, but can’t lose sight of the
potential worst.
In
Tuesday night’s speech, President Obama mentioned the use of
chemical weapons during World War I. He might also recall that a
bizarre assassination in Sarajevo by a tiny handful of young Serb
nationals somehow touched off a four-year war that killed 10 million
people outright, plus another 10 million—including 500,000
Americans—in the influenza
epidemic that
followed.
To
this day, the circumstances that sparked that war are virtually
impossible to comprehend. They seem, indeed, to have somehow acquired
a devastating momentum all their own.
Yet
the instability of the Balkans back then pales before the flashpoint
that is today’s Middle East. A protest in Syria turned into a civil
war, and then a proxy war. It could easily expand into a regional
and, in the worst case, global, conflict.
Looming in the background
of the tense, torturous negotiations yet to come is the reality that
despite everyone’s best wishes, diplomatic failure is a distinct
possibility—one that could ultimately become synonymous with the
atomic unthinkable.
(4)
In the bottomless turbulence that defines today’s Middle East, the
Americans and Russians so far seem to retain some shreds of
rationality. But given the Peaceful Atom’s half century of
weapons-grade proliferation, we cannot know which nations or marginal
groups might now have atomic devices and what random impulses might
prompt their use.
In
a profoundly unpredictable world, each of the more than 400
commercial-sized reactors still operating continues to produce
radioactive materials that could fuel a nuclear weapon.
Each
of those reactors is itself a profoundly vulnerable target. Should
the situation in Syria devolve to a wider war, the likelihood of a
freelance atomic “situation” becomes all too probable.
(5)
While the world’s attention is focused on Syria, the global-scale
disaster at Fukushima spirals out of control.
The
more serious the crisis in Syria, the more it will divert attention
from an existing nuclear disaster.
Millions
of tons of heavily contaminated water continuously flow through the
site in central Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Millions more
accumulate in flimsy tanks already breaking apart, all within the
specter of the next earthquake.
The
three melted cores at Fukushima Daiichi have yet to be found. The
common radioactive waste pool near Unit Four is surrounded by
buildings whose foundations are being undermined by the continuous
flow of radioactive water.
Most
terrifying, the entire core of Unit Four remains perched in a damaged
fuel pool 100 feet in the air, atop a structure that’s sinking.
Should it crash to the ground, that core could potentially spew into
the ocean and atmosphere more than 20,000 times the radiation
released at Hiroshima.
A
sane species would be pouring all its resources into somehow healing
the open apocalyptic wound that still festers at Fukushima.
Yet
we are tied up in Syria. We can be deeply grateful that the situation
there today seems at least slightly less dangerous than it did
yesterday.
But
atomic danger lurks without warning in every facet of this crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.