A sign from an earlier era at the Seattle Fire Department headquarters. Photo by Alex Garland

A sign from an earlier era at the Seattle Fire Department headquarters. Photo by Alex Garland

Washington lawmakers seek to increase nuclear attack preparations

Bipartisan bills in the House and Senate could remove Cold War-era emergency planning restrictions.

For the first time in more than 30 years, emergency planning in Washington state could include preparations for potential nuclear attacks thanks to bipartisan bills entering both the House and Senate.

In 1983, the Legislature voted to ban nuclear war preparations from emergency planning procedures. The prohibition specifically applies to planning for evacuation and relocation of citizens. The move was made as a result of increasing tensions between the United States and the former Soviet Union. With former President Ronald Reagan taking an aggressive stance against what he called the “evil empire,” lawmakers in Washington state were concerned that preparing for a nuclear war would draw the ire of Russian leaders.

Rep. Dick Muri (R-Steilacoom) said that such fears have been extinguished with the fall of the Soviet Union and the United States’ status as the world’s sole superpower. A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, Muri stated that a routine part of his job during the Cold War involved surveying air fields in case of nuclear attacks. He believes the biggest threat of nuclear war today comes from “rogue” nations like North Korea and Iran. Muri is the primary sponsor of House Bill 2214, which would remove the prohibition on preparing for a nuclear attack.

“The idea is that we would hopefully have some plans in place that would mitigate any potential attack,” Muri said at the bill’s public hearing Jan. 22. “It’s unthinkable, but we should plan.”

President Donald Trump said in August 2017 that North Korea would face “fire and fury” should they continue nuclear testing. The comment was made in response to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report that suggested the communist regime had developed nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S. mainland.

HB 2214 passed the House Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday afternoon and now heads to the House floor for debate. A companion piece of legislation, Senate Bill 5936, will be heard in committee Friday morning.

Seattle resident James Thomas testified in opposition to the bill, citing the same concerns that brought about the ban in the first place. Thomas said he has been studying nuclear policy since 1981.

“Relocation of people in anticipation of an attack could be perceived by our adversaries as a step leading to a first nuclear first strike and would increase international tensions,” Thomas said. “Washington state should not do anything to add fuel to the fire.”

Another concerned citizen, Glen Anderson, argued against the bill, but focused his criticisms on the logistics of preparing for nuclear war.

“I believe in honesty and practicality,” said Anderson, a previously honoree of the Dispute Resolution Center of Thurston County. “Public policy should help people recognize truth and not deceive people.”

Anderson believes a bill like this would create an “illusion” that nuclear war is survivable, a notion which he said has been discredited. Anderson said there is no feasible response to a nuclear attack, and that the effort would be better spent on reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons.

But Muri expressed an opinion to the contrary. The bill sponsor said that in the event of a nuclear attack it would be necessary to assist survivors. He said this would include developing shelters and ensuring that enough supplies are on hand to deal with the effects of radiation and fallout.

“Everybody thinks that a nuclear weapon hitting a part of our state would be the end of the world,” Muri said. “It would not.”

This report was produced by the Olympia bureau of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association.

More in Northwest

King County approves low-income Metro fare waivers

Low-income transit riders could see their King County Metro fares waived beginning… Continue reading

Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht gave a response to an Office of Law Enforcement Oversight report on Feb. 25 before the King County Law and Justice Committee. The report recommended ways her department could reform use of force policy and internal investigations. Aaron Kunkler/staff photo
Council unsatisfied with Sheriff’s response to use of deadly force report

The King County Sheriff’s Office could be required to explain why it didn’t implement recommendations.

King County Council has nine members who each represent a district. Courtesy of kingcounty.gov
Charter amendments could allow King County Council to remove elected officials

The change was recommended by the charter review commission.

Washington State Capitol Building in Olympia. File photo
Democratic lawmakers roll out spending plans for climate change, homelessness

Republican opposition calls for tax relief, rather than spending the increased revenue.

PNW plant-based foods could help in climate fight

Animal products create a lot of emissions, but veggie alternatives are coming from King County.

The Colstrip Power Plant in Montana. Puget Sound Energy owns 25 percent of the remaining two units. File photo
PSE files to sell part of Colstrip coal plant

The utility owns two units at the Montana power plant.

Fentanyl (Courtesy photo)
Fentanyl overdoses keep increasing in King County

Meth overdoses are on the rise as well, continuing a trend reported on last year.

Charter review could overhaul King County Sheriff’s Office

Several changes to the King County Sheriff’s Office were proposed.

The language of the original bill prohibited privately-owned detainment facilities from being contracted by local, state, or federal government entities, but a last-second amendment was adopted to substantially narrow the focus of the legislation. File photo
Lawmakers flinch on banning for-profit detention facilities

Last minute amendment exempted ICE detainment facility.

Most Read