I am starting this post because of an article I just read about the threat of a nuclear EMP (nuclear blast detonated in the atmosphere above an area which causes massive EM (electromagnetic) pulses which destroy electrical devices) from terrorists and rogue states such as Iran. The author (Clifford D. May) also states that the best way to deal with this threat is a missile defense shield. He concludes by pointing out that Obama has said that if elected he will cut off all missile defense shield funding - something to ponder in the upcoming election. Rather than try to summarize this article, I am cutting and pasting it here in its entirety.
The link is at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2EyYmMwZWJhOTcxNWE5ZmI1OTg0ZjA1MGUxZmQyMzI=
Future Shockwave?
Why aren’t we taking the steps to prevent the next terrorist atrocity?
By Clifford D. May
If you don’t live in Washington, New York, or another big city, you may think: “Even if the terrorists do strike again on American soil, my hometown and my family probably aren’t in danger.” Think again.In 2001 the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack.” The commission recently reported to Congress that if a nuclear warhead were to be detonated at high altitude over the American mainland the blast would produce an EMP — a shockwave so powerful that it would “cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure.”
Lights would go out. Telecommunications would fail. Computers would crash. Bank accounts would disappear. The stock market would cease operation. Refrigerated food warehouse would shut down. Sanitation and emergency services would be crippled.Before long, millions of Americans would, as the Wall Street Journal flatly phrased it, “die of starvation or want of medical care.” It would require months or even years for America to climb out of the pre-industrial hole into which it had been flung.Any number of terrorists groups would be proud to carry out such an attack. But, as the EMP commission also reported, only Iran (1) is attempting to develop nuclear weapons; (2) has recently conducted multiple missile tests of its nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missiles; (3) has done so from cargo ships in the Caspian Sea; and (4) also has detonated those missiles at high altitude. What’s more, the CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, comments: “Iran's interest in developing EMP capabilities suggests that in the near future, Iran could be able to carry out an asymmetric attack involving a mid-air nuclear detonation.”Capability is one thing. Intention is another. Or is it? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: “The time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.” He has added: “A world without the United States . . . can be achieved.”An EMP attack would achieve that goal most rapidly because it would require only one nuclear weapon, and by using a ship as the launch pad, it would obviate the need for very long-range missiles (which Iran has not yet acquired).You may be thinking: “Ahmadinejad and his mullah masters wouldn’t dare! They must know the destruction we’d rain on them in response.” First, those who believe — as, for example, Islamist suicide-bombers do — that death in a war against infidels leads to martyrdom and heavenly rewards cannot be deterred. For them, as Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis has observed, “mutually assured destruction in not a deterrent — it is an inducement.”
Second, if such an attack were launched from a ship off the U.S. coast — and that ship were, say, registered in Liberia and crewed by Hezbollah terrorists from Lebanon — assigning blame conclusively would be no simple matter.So what can be done? It would help if Iran were to be prevented — by whatever means — from acquiring nuclear weapons. Failing that, the EMP threat surely adds to the arguments in favor of missile defense.
It is not impossible for the U.S. to have a system in place that would destroy missiles after launch and before they reach their targets. Critics say we don’t yet have the technology to guarantee that missile defense would work. But if the choice is between a 70-percent chance of stopping a nuclear-tipped missile and a 0-percent chance, which would you prefer? And further research and development on missile defense systems — including land-based, sea-based, and space-based components — can better the odds over time.In 1983, Islamist terrorists used a truck and explosives to slaughter 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut. In 1993, Islamists terrorists used a truck and explosives in an attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in New York.The terrorists learned from those experiences — America’s political leaders did not. They failed to imagine or prepare for what the terrorists might do next — what the terrorists did do on September 11, 2001.Given this history, you might think we would never make such a mistake again. But Sen. Barack Obama has said that, if he is elected president, he will cut off all missile-defense funding. Think of that what you will.
— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting article Phil. I never realized the possible threat of an EMP nuclear warhead.
In the next post from Tom Glen Beck has this to say regarding the cold war with Russia:
“Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led the effort to bring down the Soviet Union, partly by spending them into oblivion. We had the resources, we unleashed our economy, and we won (at least temporarily). We won by using the same principles that Saakashvilli talked to me about.” (italics, bold added). In retrospect the statement “We had the resources should be changed to a question “did we have the resources?” Sure we won the battle, but did we really win the war? The Soviet government collapsed mostly from their stupid communist policies, but also from trying to outspend us. The debt that financed the cold war for us has not been repaid and has been collecting interest for the last 20+ years putting us in a precarious economic predicament as well. The time has come for us to question matters of U.S. security from a dollars and cents perspective.
I agree mostly with Obama’s opinion that we should scuttle the Missile defense program. Contrary to military lobbyists in Washington we don’t have unlimited resources to spend on defense, especially programs like Star Wars when the threat of a long range nuclear strike is smaller than it has been for decades. A good example is the missile defense shield that we are planning to build in Poland. How is that going to protect us from an Iranian EMP that was launched from a ship? Is their any real threat of long range nuke’s headed our way? No, so why are we wasting this money that we can’t afford when we are already burdened by a huge and unreasonable debt?
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats tax and spend while Republicans borrow and spend. I like the fiscal (perhaps unpopular) responsibility that Obama is showing on this issue.
Phil and Sparrow both have interesting points about the missile shield. It seems hard to make a decision either way, since I don't feel like I have access to the real cost-benefit analysis, nor the kind of security threats our nation realistically faces. I have to admit that it does seem a little far-fetched to me, to warrent spending untold billions. In my opinion there has to be a pretty real threat to our national security to justify such spending.
I think it is important though, not to represent all Republicans as neo-conservatives like Bush, and arguably John McCain, who seem to have limitless spending philosophy (at least as far as our Military is concerned). A lot of conservatives actually believe in a balanced budget. Let's not forget the Clinton years, where the government was shut down because the Republicans refused to approve Clinton's vast over expenditure budget. They were criticized and ridiculed at the time, but imagine how much better off our economy would be now if a balanced budget precedent would have been set at that time. Also, more recently, the California government is currently at a similar gridlock. California is at a huge deficit. Democratic solution: Keep all the programs in full force, and raise taxes to fund them. Republican solution: Don't raise taxes, and cut some of the programs back. Not surprisingly, the democrats are using the same tactics as they did in the Clinton years. They created videos that give all kinds of sob stories about how greedy Republicans are trying to ruin lives by cutting back spending.
Also, the only tax I've ever heard that Obama wants to raise is the capital gains tax, and a few other very minor taxes that Bush did away with. Other than that, he have vowed to lower taxes for the "working class"-what ever that is. Regarding the capital gains tax, Charlie Gibbs pointed out in the Democratic debates that history has shown that an increase in capital gains taxes decreases government revenue. Raising taxes certainly does not translate into a linear increase in government revenue. The discouragement that high taxes have on business often results in the opposite effect. So how is Obama going to "take care of my health care, gasoline bill, and energy bill", like he has promised so many times? Simple. Borrow the money, and then when the dollar falls even further, and the economy continues to spiral downward, find some scapegoat. The big rich oil companies is always a good one.
Although conservatives are going to have to work to keep the party lines in these realms, I still think that the Republican platform is to reduce government, and thereby reduce taxes. The democratic platform is to increase government, and thereby raise taxes.
My big question for the future, is how smart are the voters? Are they going to keep voting purely based on who promises the most handouts? Where does such a "democracy" end up?
The sad fact of the matter is, that with such irresponsible voters, how can we continue to expect responsible leaders?
Good comments, guys. I agree totally that both democrats and republicans are to blame for the government overspending over the years. Republicans used to be the more fiscally conservative party but Bush has been as "spend happy" as the democrats normally are. I think it's important to have a president (and congress) who are not going to be beholden to special interests who have too-often-wasteful pet projects they want tax dollars for and that is one thing that I really agree with Ron Paul on. However, I know there are still other republicans like him out there which are more traditionally fiscally conservative (Romney being one). I do see McCain as being more fiscally conservative than Obama. From what I can tell, Obama is about as liberal a senator as they come, and with that comes a tax and spend philosophy. However, there should be more than ample money to fund national defense and still have plenty left for other important purposes, if those purposes are chosen wisely.
Back to the subject at hand: The EMP threat, I am convinced will have to be dealt with as soon as possible, by taking alot of different, overlapping and redundant preparation and prevention techniques, only one of which could be some kind of missile defense shield. Perhaps the missile defense shield will not be effective, but it, along with many other techniques, at least those that have a good chance of working, should be planned for and funded, so that if some fail, the others will be there for backup. I see one effective technique being a huge back-up supply of electric and electronic components stored in thousands of strategic locations across the country, stored in lead or other EMP-proof, shielded containers, for use in the event of an attack. These would be things like parts needed to rebuild power plants, sub-stations, refrigerators, etc. etc. These and other prevention and fast recovery ideas could be implemented and still maintain a balanced budget. The EMP threat seems to be mostly the threat of destruction of electric and electronic devices, as a nuclear explosion that high in the atmosphere apparently poses little or no radiation threat to life.
Post a Comment