Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Weapons Author Michael May

1. Thoughts on the Day After

Author:
Michael May
Publication Date:
04-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation
Abstract:
This note consists of some observations on the “Day After, ” or perhaps “Minutes to Months After” that I thought might be useful. They are derived from work done in the past few years, in part for DHS and its predecessor agencies. That work included observing and providing comments on the Topoff 2 Federal-State-Local coordination exercise of 2002-2003. These notes also derive from a workshop we did in 2002 that brought together first responders, media and scientists to discuss the aftermath of a nuclear explosion in the SF Bay Area. I make no attempt at being comprehensive but note a few things that, in our experience, have not seemed obvious to all participants. The notes are divided into two parts, “Response and Recovery” and “Political Reaction”.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
San Francisco

2. Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons against Buried Biological Agents

Author:
Michael May and Zachary Haldeman
Publication Date:
06-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation
Abstract:
This report describes the results of some calculations on the effectiveness of penetrating nuclear weapons of yield 1 and 10 kilotons against targets containing biological agents. The effectiveness depends in detail on the construction of the bunkers, on how the bio-agents are stored, on the location of the explosions with respect to the bunkers, the bio-agent containers and the surface of the ground, and on the yield of the explosion and the geology of the explosion site. Completeness of sterilization of the bio-agents is crucial in determining effectiveness. For most likely cases, however, complete sterilization cannot be guaranteed. Better calculations and experiments on specific target types would improve the accuracy of such predictions for those targets, but significant uncertainties regarding actual geology, actual target layouts, and knowledge of the position of the explosion with respect to the target would remain. Aboveground effects of the nuclear explosions, all of which would vent to the surface, are estimated. They include intense local radioactivity and significant fallout, air blast, and seismic effects to kilometers distances. It is likely, however, that casualties from those effects would be less than the casualties that would result from the dispersal of large quantities of bio-agents.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States

3. Container Security Report

Author:
Michael May, Tonya L. Putnam, and Dean Wilkening
Publication Date:
01-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation
Abstract:
During the week of August 18–23, 2002, the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) of the Institute for International Studies (IIS) at Stanford University hosted four summer studies sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. One of these studies, the Container Security study, examined how to apply existing technology and resources most effectively to prevent the transport of illicit nuclear materials for use in terrorist activities by means of international commercial shipping.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Science and Technology
Political Geography:
United States

4. Verifying the Agreed Framework

Author:
Michael May, Nancy Suski, Robert Schock, William Sailor, Wayne Ruhter, Ronald Lehman, James Hassberger, Zachary Davis, George Bunn, and Chaim Braun
Publication Date:
04-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation
Abstract:
The Agreed Framework (AF) between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), signed in Geneva on October 21, 1994, has become the centerpiece of recent US efforts to reduce the threat of conflict with North Korea. In particular, it seeks to bring the DPRK into compliance with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) not to acquire nuclear weapons. The AF document sets goals, outlines programs, initiates a US-led nuclear-power consortium, and notes linkages. The AF refers to a wider range of diplomatic and international security initiatives, such as the NPT and the agreement on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and is meant to reinforce others, including those related to the reconciliation of the two Koreas.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, East Asia, and Korea