These maps show the potential impact of a nuclear attack on missile silos in the heart of the United States
Introduction
Last March, the U.S. Air Force released a two-volume report of over 3,000 pages detailing the environmental impact of its plans to replace all land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) “Minuteman” with new “Sentinel” missiles by the mid-2030s. This program is part of a $1.5 trillion effort to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons and its command and control infrastructure. The report, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, covers “the potential impacts on human and natural environments from deploying the Sentinel system” and from refurbishing existing ballistic missiles and building new service roads and communication towers. However, it does not mention the most significant risks to surrounding communities: what happens if those missiles, intended to be targets for enemy nuclear weapons, come under attack.
Original Purpose of the Ground-Based Missile System
The original purpose of the ground-based missile system was to deter a nuclear attack from an adversary by threatening a swift and devastating retaliation, but one of the main arguments for the continued and now renewed ground missiles is to provide a large number of fixed targets that drain enemy resources. Since 1962, when the first intercontinental ballistic missiles were installed in the heart of the United States, competition from the legs of the nuclear triad has led to evolving justifications for ground-based weapons. In the 1970s, when the U.S. Navy deployed long-range ballistic missiles on submarines, the Air Force placed 1,000 Minuteman missiles in silos across seven states. With the improvement of missile guidance systems, it became clear that ground-based weapons were vulnerable to attack due to their fixed locations, whereas stealthy sea-launched weapons had much better protection.
Increased Risk of Accidental Nuclear War
Ground-based missiles significantly increase the risk of accidental nuclear war. To prevent the possibility of enemy weapons being destroyed in their silos, the Air Force maintains its fleet on high alert, ready to launch at the order of the president – within minutes of detecting an enemy missile launch. This “launch on warning” posture makes ground-based missiles the most provocative component of the U.S. nuclear triad (which also includes air-launched and submarine-launched missiles). During the Cold War, there were several false alarms regarding enemy attacks. If a similar error led to the launch of land-based ballistic missiles, the enemy would certainly respond by launching its own nuclear arsenal at military, industrial, and demographic targets in the United States.
Impact of a Nuclear Attack on Ground-Based Missiles
An attack on a ballistic missile requires detonating one or two nuclear warheads with an explosive yield equivalent to 100,000 tons of TNT near the buried target. The enormous fireballs generated by the nuclear explosions will vaporize everything in their vicinity and produce devastating shockwaves capable of destroying missiles in their silos. Since the warheads would explode near the ground, the nuclear fireballs will absorb soil and other debris, mixing it with radioactive bomb fallout as it rises into the air. After about 10 minutes from the detonation, a mix of debris and fission products will form high-level radioactive nuclear clouds, which will be dispersed by winds to areas downwind. A nuclear missile is buried under the intercontinental ballistic missile silos shown on the left in this image. The silo entrance, located west of Garrison, is constantly monitored by cameras and other sensing devices. Credit: Nina Berman
Impact of a Nuclear Attack on Surrounding Areas
Studies of the expected fallout from a nuclear attack on missile fields, published in Scientific American in 1976 and 1988, showed that radioactive particles could travel hundreds of miles downwind. A 1990 report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency emphasized the dangers and risks posed by both natural and nuclear disasters, further confirming these assessments, adding that there is no place in the United States free from the risk of receiving lethal levels of radiation. Current FEMA publications focus on the effects of individual nuclear explosions; the agency no longer publishes nationwide assessments of the risks posed by nuclear attacks.
Risks
Continuous Risks for Local Communities
Even if there is no nuclear war, people in communities near missile fields will continue to face serious risks that have not been discussed in the environmental impact statement. One is the accidental release of radioactive materials, such as plutonium, in warheads due to mechanical shock, fire, or explosion. The second is the accidental detonation of a warhead leading to a nuclear explosion. The history of the U.S. nuclear missile program provides many examples of missiles or warheads catching fire and missiles exploding in launch silos. Once, in 1964, a warhead fell from the top of its missile into the bottom of its 80-foot deep silo. Incidents involving nuclear weapons are not always discussed publicly. The Air Force, for example, did not disclose the nature of the “incident” that occurred in 2014 while workers were repairing a Minuteman missile. The incident cost $1.8 million for the missile, which had to be removed from its silo.
Transparency About Real Risks
The Air Force should be more transparent about the real risks of its fleet of land-based nuclear missiles so that the American public can make informed decisions about living with this danger for another half-century.
How Fallout and Fatalities Vary with Wind
A successive nuclear attack on missile silos in the heart of the United States would produce radioactive dust that travels with prevailing winds. Sebastian Philip and his colleagues at the Princeton University’s Science and Global Security program used archived weather data to simulate the dust dispersal patterns for 48 hours, where most of the dust settles. As wind directions change daily, the researchers calculated fallout dispersal from a 800-kiloton warhead exploding simultaneously in each of 450 silos on any given day in 2021. The choices below (A-I) illustrate the variation in wind directions and thus external radiation doses received over four days of radiation exposure. The scientists also combined these simulations with population density and building height data to calculate resultant fatalities. A person absorbing four gray (equivalent to four joules of radiation energy per kilogram of body weight) has a 50% chance of dying, but people taking shelter in larger buildings will receive lower doses. Depending on wind patterns, a nuclear attack on missile silos could kill several million people.
Expected Death Toll
For a simulated attack on any day in 2021, the scientists calculated the resultant fatalities. The chart shows the impact of changing wind patterns on estimated deaths after four days of exposure. Estimates range from 340,000 (for an attack on July 1) to 4.6 million (on December 2). The estimated average number of deaths is 1.4 million. The curve shows the probability (technically, the probability density) of specific death counts on the vertical axis.
Most Dangerous Locations
To calculate the average risk of radiation exposure at any particular location in North America from a nuclear attack on missile fields, Philip and his colleagues aggregated the simulation results for any day in 2021 and divided them by 365. Thus, they averaged the effects of changing wind patterns on radioactive fallout across the continent. This map illustrates the average dose of external radiation across North America after four days of exposure. Communities near missile fields could receive several times more than 8 gray, which scientists consider lethal. Most residents in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Minnesota will receive average doses greater than 1 gray, leading to fatalities from acute radiation syndrome, especially among children. Americans will receive average doses greater than 0.001 gray annually, which is the current annual limit for public exposure.
Worst
Scenarios
By examining simulations for each day of 2021, researchers at Princeton calculated the worst possible outcome at each site of a successive nuclear strike on missile fields. This map illustrates all the worst-case scenarios across North America. Not all locations will experience the worst outcomes from the same strike; it depends on wind patterns on the day of the attack. In general, most people in North America live in areas where the chance of receiving an external dose greater than 1 gray is about 1 percent. The chances of receiving a lethal dose increase as one gets closer to the missile fields, where three million are at risk of receiving 8 gray or more. These simulations do not assume anything about accessibility to healthcare or emergency services. They also do not include other sources of exposure such as immediate radiation from nuclear explosions.
Sébastien Philippe is a scientist in the Global Security Program at Princeton University. He develops methods to monitor nuclear weapons and models the effects of nuclear blasts.
Source: “Sacrifice Zones” in Scientific American, Vol. 329, No. 5 (December 2023), p. 46
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item img{
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
object-fit: cover;
aspect-ratio: 1 / 1;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item.lwrp-empty-list-item{
background: initial !important;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
}@media screen and (max-width: 480px) {
.lwrp.link-whisper-related-posts{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-title{
}.lwrp .lwrp-description{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container{
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container ul.lwrp-list{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
padding-top: 0px;
padding-bottom: 0px;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-double,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-triple{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container{
justify-content: initial;
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
};
}
Leave a Reply