This DomPrep survey focused on mass-casualty preparedness and response in general and responses to a nuclear event in particular. Although many believe that a mass-casualty event caused by a nuclear detonation is highly unlikely, evidence from the intelligence community suggests a high probability of occurrence within the next 3-5 years. This information may have been a key factor in the Obama administration’s re-evaluation of the U.S. Government’s (USG’s) policies in the field of weapons. President Obama has not only recently announced the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty document but also released a statement of re-focused USG policy on nuclear threats that highlighted the need to focus on non-state actors and their apparent intent to create a catastrophic event using a nuclear detonation. That threat, of course, has major implications for the U.S. security community and its mission to prevent such an event. It also raises questions about the nation's domestic ability to respond.
Dr. Craig Vanderwagen, former assistant health and human services secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR), who prepared the survey, has pointed out that the current response "environment" may be "more focused on other causes of mass casualties – large earthquakes, chemical exposures, or a bio-event involving a large population and such – but the dynamics of managing a large number of individuals needing medical care and public health interventions apply directly to nuclear detonation.” The nation's human and physical assets would be tested severely by such large-scale events, and the planning requirements are therefore multi-sectoral – even though the focus will continue to be on saving lives and reducing the additional burden of disease. Also not to be underemphasized are the nation's ability to recover from such an event and the resiliency of the American people, and institutions, in swiftly ameliorating the impact of the event on everyday functioning.
Key Findings: DomPrep readers and members of the DomPrep40 are generally doubtful over the nation’s ability to manage the consequences of a mass-casualty event. A solid plurality view regional planning as the crux of a solution.
Click for Full Report