So, a big question that we're facing now and have been for quite a number of years now: are we at risk of a nuclear attack? Now, there's a bigger question that's probably actually more important than that, is the notion of permanently eliminating the possibility of a nuclear attack, eliminating the threat altogether. And I would like to make a case to you that over the years since we first developed atomic weaponry, until this very moment, we've actually lived in a dangerous nuclear world that's characterized by two phases, which I'm going to go through with you right now.
我們現在面對的一個重大問題 這個問題已經存在許多年了 我們在核攻擊的威脅下嗎? 現在,有一個更大的問題 這個問題比之前的問題重要 是提議永遠消除 核攻擊的可能性 從而一起消滅威脅。 我想告訴你 自從我們發明了第一個核武器 到現在 我們其實活在一個非常危險的世界 他以兩個階段為特徵 我們現在會一起回顧
First of all, we started off the nuclear age in 1945. The United States had developed a couple of atomic weapons through the Manhattan Project, and the idea was very straightforward: we would use the power of the atom to end the atrocities and the horror of this unending World War II that we'd been involved in in Europe and in the Pacific. And in 1945, we were the only nuclear power. We had a few nuclear weapons, two of which we dropped on Japan, in Hiroshima, a few days later in Nagasaki, in August 1945, killing about 250,000 people between those two.
一開始,我們在1945年開始核時期 美國研發了幾種核武器 通過曼哈頓計畫 想法是很直白的 我們會用原子的力量 來結束這個殘酷,恐怖的 看似沒有盡頭的第二次世界大戰 我們在歐洲和太平洋都有參戰 在1945年 我們是唯一的核武國家 我們有少量的核武器 其中兩個我們轟在了日本的廣島 幾天以後在長崎,1945年8月 這兩次轟炸其間250,000人被奪取了生命
And for a few years, we were the only nuclear power on Earth. But by 1949, the Soviet Union had decided it was unacceptable to have us as the only nuclear power, and they began to match what the United States had developed. And from 1949 to 1985 was an extraordinary time of a buildup of a nuclear arsenal that no one could possibly have imagined back in the 1940s. So by 1985 -- each of those red bombs up here is equivalent of a thousands warheads -- the world had 65,000 nuclear warheads, and seven members of something that came to be known as the "nuclear club."
在這之後的幾年 我們是唯一的核武國家 但是在1949年,蘇聯決定 只有美國有核武器是無法令人接受的 他們試圖追上美國在核武器上的科技 從1949到1985年 是一段不尋常的時期 他們在建立一個核子軍備庫 這在那時候是難以想像的 這是1940年的時候 所以到1985年,這上面每一個紅色的炸彈 都相當於一千個彈頭 這個世界有 65,000個核彈頭 七個會員 被稱為"核俱樂部."
And it was an extraordinary time, and I am going to go through some of the mentality that we -- that Americans and the rest of the world were experiencing. But I want to just point out to you that 95 percent of the nuclear weapons at any particular time since 1985 -- going forward, of course -- were part of the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union. After 1985, and before the break up of the Soviet Union, we began to disarm from a nuclear point of view. We began to counter-proliferate, and we dropped the number of nuclear warheads in the world to about a total of 21,000. It's a very difficult number to deal with, because what we've done is we've quote unquote "decommissioned" some of the warheads. They're still probably usable. They could be "re-commissioned," but the way they count things, which is very complicated, we think we have about a third of the nuclear weapons we had before. But we also, in that period of time, added two more members to the nuclear club: Pakistan and North Korea.
這是一段不尋常的時期 我們會去看一下人們當時的心態 我們-美國人和全世界的經歷 但是我想指出95% 的核子彈不管在甚麼時間 自從1985年-往之前看- 都是美國和蘇聯的 軍火庫 1985年以後,和蘇聯分裂之前 從核的角度來看 我們開始卸下核武。 我們開始反擴散, 我們在世界上引爆了一定數量的核彈頭 一直到剩下21,000個。 這是一個很難解決的數字, 因為我們做的是 引用, 使某些彈頭”退役“了 他們可能還能使用,可以”重新啓用“ 但是他們數東西的方法,是非常複雜的 我們認為我們有三分之一 的核武器(相較以前) 但是我們也,在那段時間 加入了兩個核國家到核子俱樂部: 巴基斯坦和朝鮮。
So we stand today with a still fully armed nuclear arsenal among many countries around the world, but a very different set of circumstances. So I'm going to talk about a nuclear threat story in two chapters. Chapter one is 1949 to 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up, and what we were dealing with, at that point and through those years, was a superpowers' nuclear arms race. It was characterized by a nation-versus-nation, very fragile standoff. And basically, we lived for all those years, and some might argue that we still do, in a situation of being on the brink, literally, of an apocalyptic, planetary calamity. It's incredible that we actually lived through all that.
所以我們現在還是有全武裝的核軍備庫 在眾多的國家之上 但是這是一個非常不一樣的情況。 所以我會講 兩章關於核威脅的故事。 第一章是從1949到1991, 當蘇聯解體的時候 我們當時面對的,以及那幾十年 是超級大國的軍備競賽。 特徵是 國家對國家, 非常脆弱的僵持。 基本上, 我們活過那些年, 有些人會爭論說我們仍然在 一個情況: 我們在地球災難的 邊緣上 我們活過那些年是難以置信的
We were totally dependent during those years on this amazing acronym, which is MAD. It stands for mutually assured destruction. So it meant if you attacked us, we would attack you virtually simultaneously, and the end result would be a destruction of your country and mine. So the threat of my own destruction kept me from launching a nuclear attack on you. That's the way we lived. And the danger of that, of course, is that a misreading of a radar screen could actually cause a counter-launch, even though the first country had not actually launched anything. During this chapter one, there was a high level of public awareness about the potential of nuclear catastrophe, and an indelible image was implanted in our collective minds that, in fact, a nuclear holocaust would be absolutely globally destructive and could, in some ways, mean the end of civilization as we know it. So this was chapter one.
我們當時靠的 是這令人驚歎的縮寫, MAD 他代表Mutually Assured Destruction. 這意味著如果你 如果你攻擊我們,我們也會攻擊你 幾乎同時, 不論是你的國家還是我的 結果都是毀滅 所以自我毀滅的威脅 抑制我們國家向你的國家 發動核攻擊。這是我們怎麼活的。 而危險是, 雷達的誤導 有可能導致"反擊", 即使第一個國家甚麼也沒有發射。 在這第一章里 有高度的群眾覺知 關於這潛在的核威脅, 一個不可磨滅的圖像被灌輸到 我們的覺知 一場核災難 絕對全球毀滅性 並會,在某種程度上,意味著人類的滅亡。 所以這是第一章
Now the odd thing is that even though we knew that there would be that kind of civilization obliteration, we engaged in America in a series -- and in fact, in the Soviet Union -- in a series of response planning. It was absolutely incredible. So premise one is we'd be destroying the world, and then premise two is, why don't we get prepared for it? So what we offered ourselves was a collection of things. I'm just going to go skim through a few things, just to jog your memories. If you're born after 1950, this is just -- consider this entertainment, otherwise it's memory lane.
現在奇怪的是,儘管 我們知道有可能 會造成人類滅亡, 我們回應了,在美國,一系列的 而且,在蘇聯 一系列的回應計畫。 這是難以置信的 所以前提一是我們會毀滅世界, 而前提二是,我們為甚麼不為此作準備呢? 所以我們 我們給自己的是 一系列的物品。我會略講一些東西, 來帶起你的回憶。 如果你在1950年出生的,這只是 把這當成娛樂,不然就是回憶往事。
This was Bert the Turtle. (Video) This was basically an attempt to teach our schoolchildren that if we did get engaged in a nuclear confrontation and atomic war, then we wanted our school children to kind of basically duck and cover. That was the principle. You -- there would be a nuclear conflagration about to hit us, and if you get under your desk, things would be OK.
這是烏龜Bert. 這是一個嘗試 來教我們在學校的孩子 如果我們遭受核攻擊 在核衝突和核戰, 那我們希望我們在學校的孩子 基本上躲閃並覆蓋自己。 這是法則。你 會有一場核火災 快要攻擊我們了,如果你只要躲到桌底下, 就不會有事了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I didn't do all that well in psychiatry in medical school, but I was interested, and I think this was seriously delusional.
我在醫學院里的精神病學 並沒有做得特別好,但是我對此感興趣, 我覺得這是極度妄想。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Secondly, we told people to go down in their basements and build a fallout shelter. Maybe it would be a study when we weren't having an atomic war, or you could use it as a TV room, or, as many teenagers found out, a very, very safe place for a little privacy with your girlfriend. And actually -- so there are multiple uses of the bomb shelters. Or you could buy a prefabricated bomb shelter that you could simply bury in the ground. Now, the bomb shelters at that point -- let's say you bought a prefab one -- it would be a few hundred dollars, maybe up to 500, if you got a fancy one. Yet, what percentage of Americans do you think ever had a bomb shelter in their house? What percentage lived in a house with a bomb shelter?
第二,我們告訴人們 到底下室 建立一個放射性塵埃避難室。 也許會是一個研究,當我們不在核戰中, 或許你可以用來當電視機房,或者,許多青少年發現, 和女友一個非常,非常安全並且私密的地方。 事實上-避難室有很多用處。 或者你可以買一個預製的避難室 將他埋在底下。 現在,避難室 假設你買一個預製的。那大概會是幾百美金, 說不定500美金如果你買一個特別好的, 但是百分之多少的美國人 你認為有一個避難室在他們家里? 百分之多少人住在一個有避難室的家?
Less than two percent. About 1.4 percent of the population, as far as anyone knows, did anything, either making a space in their basement or actually building a bomb shelter. Many buildings, public buildings, around the country -- this is New York City -- had these little civil defense signs, and the idea was that you would run into one of these shelters and be safe from the nuclear weaponry. And one of the greatest governmental delusions of all time was something that happened in the early days of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, as we now know, and are well aware of their behaviors from Katrina. Here is their first big public announcement. They would propose -- actually there were about six volumes written on this -- a crisis relocation plan that was dependent upon the United States having three to four days warning that the Soviets were going to attack us. So the goal was to evacuate the target cities. We would move people out of the target cities into the countryside.
少於2%。大概1.4% 的人口,至少現在知道的, 在他們的地下室 騰出空擋 或者建立一個避難室。 許多建築物-這個國家里的公共建築物- 這是紐約市-有這些小民防標誌, 想法是你可以 跑進這些安全的避難所 並可以脫離核武器的威脅。 這是最迷惑群眾的政府措施之一 有些事情發生在 早期的 聯邦應急管理署, 我們稱之為FEMA, 我們從Katrina颱風的行動知道了他們。 這是他們第一個大型 公告。 他們提議-他們- 其實他們寫了六冊書- 一個災難疏散計畫 這是基於 美國有三到四天的預警 蘇聯會攻擊我們。 所以目標是疏散目標城市。 我們將人們撤離目標城市 到郊外。
And I'm telling you, I actually testified at the Senate about the absolute ludicrous idea that we would actually evacuate, and actually have three or four days' warning. It was just completely off the wall. Turns out that they had another idea behind it, even though this was -- they were telling the public it was to save us. The idea was that we would force the Soviets to re-target their nuclear weapons -- very expensive -- and potentially double their arsenal, to not only take out the original site, but take out sites where people were going. This was what apparently, as it turns out, was behind all this. It was just really, really frightening.
我告訴你,我在參議院作證 關於這個荒唐的想法 我們會撤離, 並且有三或者四天的預警。 這是完全不可能的。 原來他們還有另一個想法 在這背後,即便是 他們在告訴公眾,這會幸免我們於災難。 這想法是我們會逼蘇聯人 讓他們的核武器重新鎖定-這會耗費大量的金錢- 他們還可能使他們的軍備庫翻倍 不僅摧毀原定目標, 更摧毀人們要去的目標。 這很明顯會是計畫實施的後果。 這讓人十分,十分害怕。
The main point here is we were dealing with a complete disconnect from reality. The civil defense programs were disconnected from the reality of what we'd see in all-out nuclear war. So organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility, around 1979, started saying this a lot publicly. They would do a bombing run. They'd go to your city, and they'd say, "Here's a map of your city. Here's what's going to happen if we get a nuclear hit." So no possibility of medical response to, or meaningful preparedness for all-out nuclear war. So we had to prevent nuclear war if we expected to survive. This disconnect was never actually resolved. And what happened was -- when we get in to chapter two of the nuclear threat era, which started back in 1945.
我們的計畫 完全不現實。 民防組織的計畫脫離了 現實中的核戰爭爆發。 所以像社會責任醫生組織, 在1979年,開始大量地在公共場合談及這事: 他們會進行一系列的轟炸。他們會去你的城市, 他們會說,“這事你城市的地圖。 這是我們受到核攻擊後會發生的事。” 所以當核戰全面爆發時 醫療部門不可能反應 或者作有意義的準備。 所以我們要預防核戰 如果我們想要存活。 這個問題其實從來沒有被解決。 接下來發生的是 當我們進入第二章 那個核威脅的時代 它從1945年開始。
Chapter two starts in 1991. When the Soviet Union broke up, we effectively lost that adversary as a potential attacker of the United States, for the most part. It's not completely gone. I'm going to come back to that. But from 1991 through the present time, emphasized by the attacks of 2001, the idea of an all-out nuclear war has diminished and the idea of a single event, act of nuclear terrorism is what we have instead. Although the scenario has changed very considerably, the fact is that we haven't changed our mental image of what a nuclear war means. So I'm going to tell you what the implications of that are in just a second. So, what is a nuclear terror threat? And there's four key ingredients to describing that.
第二章從1991年開始。 當蘇聯解體, 我們有效地擺脫了對手 蘇聯是美國的潛在侵略者,和大程度來講。 它還沒有完全小時。我等一下會回到這裡。 但是從1991年開始 一直到現在, 2001年的攻擊突現出了, 一場全面爆發的核戰的想法 縮小了,而一個想法 恐怖分子發動核攻擊 是我們現在有的。 儘管情況轉變了 事實上 我們仍然沒有轉變我們腦中的想法 一場核戰意味著甚麼。 所以我會告訴你那代表甚麼。 所以,核恐怖威脅是甚麼? 有四個要點了描述它
First thing is that the global nuclear weapons, in the stockpiles that I showed you in those original maps, happen to be not uniformly secure. And it's particularly not secure in the former Soviet Union, now in Russia. There are many, many sites where warheads are stored and, in fact, lots of sites where fissionable materials, like highly enriched uranium and plutonium, are absolutely not safe. They're available to be bought, stolen, whatever. They're acquirable, let me put it that way. From 1993 through 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency documented 175 cases of nuclear theft, 18 of which involved highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the key ingredients to make a nuclear weapon. The global stockpile of highly enriched uranium is about 1,300, at the low end, to about 2,100 metric tons. More than 100 megatons of this is stored in particularly insecure Russian facilities. How much of that do you think it would take to actually build a 10-kiloton bomb? Well, you need about 75 pounds of it.
第一是全球核武器- 在儲備物資中我向你展示了原本的地圖- 他們並沒有那麼安全。 更不安全的是 在前蘇聯,現在俄羅斯。 有許多,許多擺放彈頭的地方 事實上,這些地方有很多有可分裂的材料, 像高濃度的鈾和鈈, 非常不安全。 他們能夠被購買,偷走等等。 這樣說吧,他們是能得到的。 由1993至2006年, 國際原子能機構 紀錄了175宗核能偷竊案, 18宗與高濃度的鈾和鈈有關, 他們是製造核武器的關鍵材料。 全球大量貯備的高濃度鈾 大概在1,300 到2,100噸。 它多餘100兆噸 儲存在特別不安全的 俄羅斯設施。 你覺得要多少 能夠造出一個10千噸的炸彈? 你需要75磅
So, what I'd like to show you is what it would take to hold 75 pounds of highly enriched uranium. This is not a product placement. It's just -- in fact, if I was Coca Cola, I'd be pretty distressed about this -- (Laughter) -- but basically, this is it.
我想給你看的 是 能夠容納75磅的 高濃度鈾的容器。 這不是產品推銷,這只是- 事實上,如果我是可口可樂,我會為此感到苦惱,但是- (笑聲) 但是- 基本上,就這樣了。
This is what you would need to steal or buy out of that 100-metric-ton stockpile that's relatively insecure to create the type of bomb that was used in Hiroshima. Now you might want to look at plutonium as another fissionable material that you might use in a bomb. That -- you'd need 10 to 13 pounds of plutonium. Now, plutonium, 10 to 13 pounds: this. This is enough plutonium to create a Nagasaki-size atomic weapon. Now this situation, already I -- you know, I don't really like thinking about this, although somehow I got myself a job where I have to think about it. So the point is that we're very, very insecure in terms of developing this material. The second thing is, what about the know-how?
這是你需要偷或買的東西 在那100頓的貯備中 他們相較下比較不安全 來製造用在廣島的 核彈。 你或許想看一下鈈 另一個可以分裂並可以用在炸彈里的物質 你需要10到13磅左右的鈈 現在,鈈-10到13磅- 這已經足以 製造像用在廣島的核彈了。 現在的情況是,我- 你要知道,我並不喜歡這樣想 儘管我獲得了這份工作 我的工作需要我想這方面的事,所以 重點是,我們非常,非常不安全 在研發這材料的方面 第二是,那些有這方面知識的人呢?
And there's a lot of controversy about whether terror organizations have the know-how to actually make a nuclear weapon. Well, there's a lot of know-how out there. There's an unbelievable amount of know-how out there. There's detailed information on how to assemble a nuclear weapon from parts. There's books about how to build a nuclear bomb. There are plans for how to create a terror farm where you could actually manufacture and develop all the components and assemble it. All of this information is relatively available. If you have an undergraduate degree in physics, I would suggest -- although I don't, so maybe it's not even true -- but something close to that would allow you, with the information that's currently available, to actually build a nuclear weapon.
有很多爭論關於 恐怖組織有那些有這方面知識的人 來製造一個核武器。 外面有許多有這方面知識的人。 有不可思議的數量的人們擁有這方面的知識。 有詳細的如何 從部份開始拼裝核彈的信息。 有關於如何建造核彈的書。 有建造“恐怖農場”的計畫 在那你可以建造並開發 全部部件,並拼裝。 這些信息都是可獲得的。 如果你有一個物理的本科學位, 我會建議- 儘管我不,所以這可能不是真的- 但是你能附近索取的資料, 用這些現有的資料, 來造一個核武器。
The third element of the nuclear terror threat is that, who would actually do such a thing? Well, what we're seeing now is a level of terrorism that involves individuals who are highly organized. They are very dedicated and committed. They are stateless. Somebody once said, Al Qaeda does not have a return address, so if they attack us with a nuclear weapon, what's the response, and to whom is the response? And they're retaliation-proof. Since there is no real retribution possible that would make any difference, since there are people willing to actually give up their lives in order to do a lot of damage to us, it becomes apparent that the whole notion of this mutually assured destruction would not work.
恐怖分子核威脅的第三個要素 是,誰會做這種事呢? 我們現在看到的恐怖威脅程度 那些非常有系統的人也有參與。 他們非常專心和堅定。 他們沒有國籍。 有人說過,基地組織 沒有回郵地址, 所以如果他們對我們實施核攻擊 我們如何反應,對誰反應? 他們是無可報復的。 因為沒有懲罰 能對他們造成任何影響, 有人願意獻出他們自己的生命, 來對我們造成大規模損傷, 很明顯 同歸於盡的方法 不會有用。
Here is Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, and Sulaiman was a key lieutenant of Osama Bin Laden. He wrote many, many times statements to this effect: "we have the right to kill four million Americans, two million of whom should be children." And we don't have to go overseas to find people willing to do harm, for whatever their reasons. McVeigh and Nichols, and the Oklahoma City attack in the 1990s was a good example of homegrown terrorists. What if they had gotten their hands on a nuclear weapon? The fourth element is that the high-value U.S. targets are accessible, soft and plentiful.
這是Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Sulaiman是拉登的重要上尉。 他寫過十分,十分多類似的聲明: “我們有權利去殺四百萬個美國人, 其中的兩百萬要是小孩。” 我們不用越洋 去找願意傷害美國人的人,不論他們的原因是甚麼。 McVeigh 和 Nichols 以及奧克拉荷馬州的襲擊 在90年代 是本土恐怖分子的好例子。 如果他們得到核武器會怎麼樣呢? 第四個元素 是美國的高價值目標 他們容易接近,態度偏軟,並且多。
This would be a talk for another day, but the level of the preparedness that the United States has achieved since 9/11 of '01 is unbelievably inadequate. What you saw after Katrina is a very good indicator of how little prepared the United States is for any kind of major attack. Seven million ship cargo containers come into the United States every year. Five to seven percent only are inspected -- five to seven percent.
這會是下次演講,但是美國 預備的程度 自從2001年的911事件 是不可思議的不夠充分。 在你看完Katrina颱風襲擊美國的情況 那是一個非常好的提示 美國對大型襲擊 有多麼準備充足。 七百萬個貨物集裝箱 每年進入美國。 只有5%到7%被調查- 5%到7%。
This is Alexander Lebed, who was a general that worked with Yeltsin, who talked about, and presented to Congress, this idea that the Russians had developed -- these suitcase bombs. They were very low yield -- 0.1 to one kiloton, Hiroshima was around 13 kilotons -- but enough to do an unbelievable amount of damage. And Lebed came to the United States and told us that many, many -- more than 80 of the suitcase bombs were actually not accountable. And they look like this. They're basically very simple arrangements. You put the elements into a suitcase. It becomes very portable. The suitcase can be conveniently dropped in your trunk of your car. You take it wherever you want to take it, and you can detonate it.
這是Alexander Lebed, 他曾經與Yeltsin共事, 他談過,並向議會提出 這個俄羅斯人所構思出來的想法 這些手提箱炸彈。他們很難被搜出: 0.1到1千頓 廣島的核彈大概是13千頓- 但是足以作出不可思議的損壞。 之後Lebed來到了美國 告訴我們許多,許多- 多於80個手提箱 其實不足一提。 他們看到,是很基本的安排。 你將元素放進手提箱。 它變得非常方便。 手提箱可以方便地被放置 在你的車箱。 你帶到哪裡去都可以,你也可以引爆。
You don't want to build a suitcase bomb, and you happen to get one of those insecure nuclear warheads that exist. This is the size of the "Little Boy" bomb that was dropped at Hiroshima. It was 9.8 feet long, weighed 8,800 pounds. You go down to your local rent-a-truck and for 50 bucks or so, you rent a truck that's got the right capacity, and you take your bomb, you put it in the truck and you're ready to go. It could happen. But what it would mean and who would survive? You can't get an exact number for that kind of probability, but what I'm trying to say is that we have all the elements of that happening. Anybody who dismisses the thought of a nuclear weapon being used by a terrorist is kidding themselves.
你不想造一個手提箱炸彈, 而你恰好得到那些不安全的 存在的核彈頭- 它的大小 廣島的“小男孩”核彈。 有9.8尺長, 重8,800磅。你去你 本地的Rent-a-Truck 只要大概50美金, 你就可以租到一輛有足夠空間的貨車 拿你的核彈, 並放在貨車上,你就準備就緒了。 這有可能發生,但是這意味著甚麼?誰會生存? 這種可能性下你得不到明確的數字 但是我想說的是 我們有發生的所有元素。 任何消除 恐怖分子使用核武器 的想法是在開玩笑。
I think there's a lot of people in the intelligence community -- a lot of people who deal with this work in general think it's almost inevitable, unless we do certain things to really try to defuse the risk, like better interdiction, better prevention, better fixing, you know, better screening of cargo containers that are coming into the country and so forth. There's a lot that can be done to make us a lot safer. At this particular moment, we actually could end up seeing a nuclear detonation in one of our cities. I don't think we would see an all-out nuclear war any time soon, although even that is not completely off the table. There's still enough nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the superpowers to destroy the Earth many, many times over. There are flash points in India and Pakistan, in the Middle East, in North Korea, other places where the use of nuclear weapons, while initially locally, could very rapidly go into a situation where we'd be facing all-out nuclear war. It's very unsettling.
我想有許多人在這有才智的社會里, 很多人從事這方面的工作, 認為這是無可避免的,除非我們做某些事情 來解除這個危機, 像更好的禁運,更好的預防, 更好的維修-你知道的, 更好的貨櫃篩查等等。 我們能做許多事情使我們更安全。 在現在這個時刻, 我們可能會 看到核爆在我們其中一個城市中發生。 我不認為我們會見到一場全面拓展的核戰 不久之後,儘管這不是全然不值得一提的。 世界上還有足夠的核武器 在超級大國的軍工廠 來毀滅地球,許多,許多次。 有衝突的地方,如印度和巴基斯坦, 在中東,北韓, 其他地方核武使用的地方, 一開始僅在本土使用, 有可能很快 進入一個全面 核武的狀態。 非常讓人擔憂。
Here we go. OK. I'm back in my truck, and we drove over the Brooklyn Bridge. We're coming down, and we bring that truck that you just saw somewhere in here, in the Financial District. This is a 10-kiloton bomb, slightly smaller than was used in Hiroshima. And I want to just conclude this by just giving you some information. I think -- "news you could use" kind of concept here. So, first of all, this would be horrific beyond anything we can possibly imagine. This is the ultimate. And if you're in the half-mile radius of where this bomb went off, you have a 90 percent chance of not making it. If you're right where the bomb went off, you will be vaporized. And that's -- I'm just telling you, this is not good.
好。我們來。 我在我的貨車上剛開過Brooklyn橋。 我們下橋, 將貨車開到 正如你剛才看到的 大概這裡,在Financial District. 這是一個十千頓的炸彈, 比以前廣島用過的 稍小。我想給你一些信息 來總結,我想 “你能用到的新聞”的概念。 第一,駭人的程度 是我們都難以想像的。 這是最大損傷。 如果你在核彈引爆的 半英里的半徑中, 你有90%的可能性會死。 如果你正處核彈點燃的地方, 你會蒸發,就這樣- 我只想告訴你,這不是好事。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
You assume that. Two-mile radius, you have a 50 percent chance of being killed, and up to about eight miles away -- now I'm talking about killed instantly -- somewhere between a 10 and 20 percent chance of getting killed. The thing about this is that the experience of the nuclear detonation is -- first of all, tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit at the core here, where it goes off, and an extraordinary amount of energy in the form of heat, acute radiation and blast effects. An enormous hurricane-like wind, and destruction of buildings almost totally, within this yellow circle here. And what I'm going to focus on, as I come to conclusion here, is that, what happens to you if you're in here? Well, if we're talking about the old days of an all-out nuclear attack, you, up here, are as dead as the people here. So it was a moot point. My point now, though, is that there is a lot that we could do for you who are in here, if you've survived the initial blast. You have, when the blast goes off -- and by the way, if it ever comes up, don't look at it.
你假設。 兩英里半徑,你有50%的機會 被殺, 到8英里以外- 我現在在講馬上殺死- 在10%到20%之間 的機會被殺死。 這意味著 核彈引爆的經歷將會是- 第一,數百萬華氏 核心中,即是被點燃的地方 有難以置信的能量 在這種形態的熱量,有十分眼中的輻射 以及爆炸效果。 很大的龍捲風似的風, 在這黃圈內 建築物基本上被完全摧毀。 我在這裡會集中地講,總結來講, 如果你在這裡 你會發生甚麼事? 如果我們在講舊時 那種全面爆發的核武, 你,在上面, 跟這裡的人一樣死。所以這是無考慮意義的。 我的見解是,即使,有很多我們 能為你做的, 如果你存活了初始的爆炸。 當爆炸時- 順帶一提,如果真的被引爆了,不要看它。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
If you look at it, you're going to be blind, either temporarily or permanently. So if there's any way that you can avoid, like, avert your eyes, that would be a good thing. If you find yourself alive, but you're in the vicinity of a nuclear weapon, you have -- that's gone off -- you have 10 to 20 minutes, depending on the size and exactly where it went off, to get out of the way before a lethal amount of radiation comes straight down from the mushroom cloud that goes up. In that 10 to 15 minutes, all you have to do -- and I mean this seriously -- is go about a mile away from the blast. And what happens is -- this is -- I'm going to show you now some fallout plumes. Within 20 minutes, it comes straight down. Within 24 hours, lethal radiation is going out with prevailing winds, and it's mostly in this particular direction -- it's going northeast.
如果你去看的話,你會變盲, 不是暫時性就是永久性。 所以如果你能避開, 像轉移目光,那會是好事。 如果你發現自己活著,但是 你在核爆的附近, 你有 十到二十分鐘,基於大小 以及核彈在哪裡被引爆, 你要在致命的輻射 從蘑菇雲掉下來 之前逃走。 在那十到十五分鐘,你要做的- 我是認真的- 是離開核爆 的一英里外 發生的是-這是- 我會向你展示一些放射性墜塵。在二十分鐘內, 它直接掉下來;在二十四小時內, 致命的輻射會隨風飄, 大部分都會 往東北方。
And if you're in this vicinity, you've got to get away. So you're feeling the wind -- and there's tremendous wind now that you're going to be feeling -- and you want to go perpendicular to the wind [not upwind or downwind]. if you are in fact able to see where the blast was in front of you. You've got to get out of there. If you don't get out of there, you're going to be exposed to lethal radiation in very short order. If you can't get out of there, we want you to go into a shelter and stay there. Now, in a shelter in an urban area means you have to be either in a basement as deep as possible, or you have to be on a floor -- on a high floor -- if it's a ground burst explosion, which it would be, higher than the ninth floor. So you have to be tenth floor or higher, or in the basement. But basically, you've got to get out of town as quickly as possible. And if you do that, you actually can survive a nuclear blast.
如果你在周圍,你必須離開。 如果你感覺到風, 非常大的風, 如果你感覺到的話,你會想要往 風的垂直方向, [不是側風或順風]。 如果核爆發生在你的正前方。 你必須離開那。 如果你不離開,你會馬上被 致命的輻射所感染。 如果你不馬上離開那里, 我們想你進入避難所,並留在那里。 在城市中的避難所意味著 你在深處的地下室 或你在高層 如果是在地上引爆的,這意味著 不高於9樓。所以你要在10樓或更高, 或者在地下室。 但是基本上,你要儘快出城。 如果你那樣做, 你更有可能在核爆後生存。
Over the next few days to a week, there will be a radiation cloud, again, going with the wind, and settling down for another 15 or 20 miles out -- in this case, over Long Island. And if you're in the direct fallout zone here, you really have to either be sheltered or you have to get out of there, and that's clear. But if you are sheltered, you can actually survive. The difference between knowing information of what you're going to do personally, and not knowing information, can save your life, and it could mean the difference between 150,000 to 200,000 fatalities from something like this and half a million to 700,000 fatalities.
接下來的幾天到一個禮拜, 會有放射雲- 會跟著風,並安定下來 大概15或20英里外- 在這個事例中在長島上。 如果你在那裡的直接放射性墜塵區, 你一定要到避難所或者離開, 那就可以了。但是如果你在避難所, 你還能存活。 知道信息 你要做甚麼, 和不知道信息的差別能讓你存活下來, 也可能會導致 150,000到200,000的死亡 從 500,000到700,000人死去。
So, response planning in the twenty-first century is both possible and is essential. But in 2008, there isn't one single American city that has done effective plans to deal with a nuclear detonation disaster. Part of the problem is that the emergency planners themselves, personally, are overwhelmed psychologically by the thought of nuclear catastrophe. They are paralyzed. You say "nuclear" to them, and they're thinking, "Oh my God, we're all gone. What's the point? It's futile." And we're trying to tell them, "It's not futile. We can change the survival rates by doing some commonsensical things."
所以,二十一世紀的反應計畫 既有可能實現,又有必要。 但是在2008年,沒有一個美國城市 有一個有用的計畫 來處理核爆危機。 一部分的問題是 緊急計畫的本身, 被核災難的想法 完全淹沒了。 他們痲痹了。 你跟他們說“核”,他們就會想, “我的天啊,我們都不會存在了。 有甚麼意思呢?我們甚麼都做不到。” 我們在嘗試跟他們說我們不是甚麼都做不到: 我們能夠以常識 來改變生存率。
So the goal here is to minimize fatalities. And I just want to leave you with the personal points that I think you might be interested in. The key to surviving a nuclear blast is getting out, and not going into harm's way. That's basically all we're going to be talking about here. And the farther you are away in distance, the longer it is in time from the initial blast; and the more separation between you and the outside atmosphere, the better. So separation -- hopefully with dirt or concrete, or being in a basement -- distance and time is what will save you.
所以目標是講死亡人數減到最低。 我想給你留下一些要點 我想你會感興趣。 生存核爆的重點 是逃出去, 並不要靠近危險的東西。 這基本上是我們全部要講的東西。 你離得越遠, 你和 第一個爆炸的時間 的距離就越大 在大氣層外的話,更好。 所以與核爆分離-最好跟塵土或混凝土, 或者在地下室內- 距離和時間能讓你存活下來。
So here's what you do. First of all, as I said, don't stare at the light flash, if you can. I don't know you could possibly resist doing that. But let's assume, theoretically, you want to do that. You want to keep your mouth open, so your eardrums don't burst from the pressures. If you're very close to what happened, you actually do have to duck and cover, like Bert told you, Bert the Turtle. And you want to get under something so that you're not injured or killed by objects, if that's at all possible. You want to get away from the initial fallout mushroom cloud, I said, in just a few minutes. And shelter and place. You want to move [only] crosswind for 1.2 miles.
所以這是你要做的。第一, 像我剛才說的,不要看核爆的閃光 如果你可以的話-我不知道你怎麼抗拒。 但是假設,理論上,你想那麼做。 你會想要張開嘴,那樣的話你的耳膜 不會因為壓力而爆裂。 如果你離核爆很近,你要彎下身並遮蓋 就像Bert跟你說的-烏龜Bert。 你想到某樣東西的底下,那樣的話你不會受傷 或者被東西殺死,如果可能的話。 你會想離開蘑菇雲的初始放射性墜塵, 我說,就在幾分鐘內, 避難所和地方。你會想順風 或者側風走1.2英里。
You know, if you're out there and you see buildings horribly destroyed and down in that direction, less destroyed here, then you know that it was over there, the blast, and you're going this way, as long as you're going crosswise to the wind. Once you're out and evacuating, you want to keep as much of your skin, your mouth and nose covered, as long as that covering doesn't impede you moving and getting out of there. And finally, you want to get decontaminated as soon as possible. And if you're wearing clothing, you've taken off your clothing, you're going to get showered down some place and remove the radiation that would be -- the radioactive material that might be on you. And then you want to stay in shelter for 48 to 72 hours minimum, but you're going to wait hopefully -- you'll have your little wind-up, battery-less radio, and you'll be waiting for people to tell you when it's safe to go outside. That's what you need to do.
你要知道,如果你在外面 並看到被摧毀的建築物 順著損傷較少的 建築物走, 你知道核爆在哪裡,並且你在往那個方向走 只要你橫過風就可以了。 一旦你逃出去並在撤離, 你會想遮蓋 你的皮膚,你的嘴和鼻子, 前提是遮蓋物不會阻礙你逃離。 最後,你會想儘快淨化。 如果你穿著衣服,你得脫下你的衣服, 你會在某個地方沖洗 移除你身上的輻射 以及有放射性的物質。 你會想在避難所呆至少48到72小時, 但是希望-你會有一台 無電池的收音機, 並等待人們告訴你 外面安全了。那是你要做的。
In conclusion, nuclear war is less likely than before, but by no means out of the question, and it's not survivable. Nuclear terrorism is possible -- it may be probable -- but is survivable. And this is Jack Geiger, who's one of the heroes of the U.S. public health community. And Jack said the only way to deal with nuclear anything, whether it's war or terrorism, is abolition of nuclear weapons. And you want something to work on once you've fixed global warming, I urge you to think about the fact that we have to do something about this unacceptable, inhumane reality of nuclear weapons in our world.
最後, 核戰沒有以前那麼可能發生, 但是並不能忽視,而沒有人能夠存活。 核恐怖主義有可能發生, 但是人們有可能存活。 這是Jack Geiger, 他是美國公共健康社會的英雄。 Jack說唯一解決 跟核有關係的東西, 不論是戰爭或是恐怖主義, 是廢除核武器。 你想要在全球暖化解決後做某件事。 我催促你去想 我們要對這個世界上 無法令人接受、 事實上不人道的核武器 做些什麼。
Now, this is my favorite civil defense slide, and I -- (Laughter) -- I don't want to be indelicate, but this -- he's no longer in office. We don't really care, OK. This was sent to me by somebody who is an aficionado of civil defense procedures, but the fact of the matter is that America's gone through a very hard time. We've not been focused, we've not done what we had to do, and now we're facing the potential of bad, hell on Earth. Thank you.
這是我喜歡的民防組織幻燈片,我- (笑聲) -我不想不文雅,但是- 這- 他不再在位了,我們不在意,好。 這是某人寄給我的 他是民防組織過程的酷愛者, 事實上 美國渡過了很困難的一段時間。 我們沒有將注意力放在,我們要做的事, 而我們現在面對的是 地球上的潛在地獄。 謝謝。