EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive

19 01 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Launched from a barge off the U.S. coast, an EMP attack consisting of one nuclear warhead attached to a single missile might shut down much of the country and kill all except 30 million Americans.[2] Such an attack has been described as “a ‘giant continental time machine’ that would move us back more than a century in technology to the late 1800s”—and effectively destroy our great nation.[3] Yet, President Obama seems oblivious to this fact, and is doing nothing to protect us from perhaps the greatest threat faced by the United States.[4][5]

Reporting to Congress, an EMP commission concluded that little in the private sector is hardened to withstand such an attack, and the American military has only limited protection.  According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, “China and Russia have the capability to launch an EMP weapon—and have let us know it.”[6] However, imagine if such a weapon falls into the hands of al-Qaeda or other terrorists who are willing to commit suicide to destroy America.  What has really scared the commission members is a relatively unsophisticated EMP weapon in the hands of these terrorists.  As frightening as such a possibility seems, it is very real and likely unless we take action now.

According to the Journal’s editorial, “Mother of All Blackouts,” an EMP or “Electromagnetic Pulse” attack occurs “when an enemy sets off a nuclear explosion high in the Earth’s atmosphere.  The electromagnetic pulse generated by the blast destroys the electronics and satellites in its field of vision.  For a detonation above the Midwest, that could mean the entire continental U.S.”[7] The editorial continues:

No American would necessarily die in the initial attack, but what comes next is potentially catastrophic.  The pulse would wipe out most electronics and telecommunications, including the power grid.  Millions could die for want of modern medical care or even of starvation since farmers wouldn’t be able to harvest crops and distributors wouldn’t be able to get food to supermarkets.

The editorial adds: “[I]magine a blackout that lasts for months, or years.”  Also, “[a]fter an EMP assault, the nation would be highly vulnerable to secondary attack by conventional forces or a biological weapon.”[8]

Frightening beyond belief, to say the least.  But it gets worse.  The “Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack” (or the EMP Commission)[9], which was created in 2000 to examine the possibility of an EMP attack and its aftermath, delivered its reports to Congress in 2004 and thereafter.  Yet, they have been languishing while the Democrats seek to push through ObamaCare, which a majority of Americans oppose—and which would be rendered moot by an EMP attack because there would not be any health care in the U.S., as all medical facilities close.

The difference between a conventional nuclear attack—such as the World War II atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, at the end of the war in the Pacific with Japan—and an EMP attack is that the former destroys cities primarily; whereas, an EMP attack potentially destroys our country as a whole and kills most Americans.  Also, such a calamity might be accomplished by our enemies with a single warhead that is launched from the Gulf of Mexico, the Sea of Cortez, or off our Atlantic or Pacific Coasts.  In fact, one wonders why any sophisticated enemy of the United States would contemplate an attack other than with an EMP weapon.

As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial stated:

The Commission offers a series of recommendations for reducing U.S. vulnerability.  It calls for better intelligence, particularly in coastal waters.  Also needed are “vigorous interdiction and interception efforts” such as missile defense.  Critical components of civilian infrastructure—especially the electrical power grid—need to be EMP-hardened.  Most new units can be hardened for 1% to 3% of cost if done at the time of design and manufacture.  Hardening existing systems can cost 10 times as much.[10]

Tragically, President Obama and the Democrats have been cutting back on our military precisely when it has been performing magnificently and its continued strength is needed most.  For example, they have been paring down our missile defenses, which are critical to protecting us against an EMP attack from which we might not recover.[11]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] See, e.g., http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/gringrich-emp-weapon/2009/03/29/id/329110 (“Some studies estimate that 90 percent of all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety, law enforcement, and medical infrastructures collapse”), http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2512.cfm

[3] See http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109226576685389289,00.html; see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564702233840875.html?mod=d and http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/gringrich-emp-weapon/2009/03/29/id/329110 and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503432517397934.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews and http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html

[4] Before and after the presidential election of 2008, I was in touch with someone who has been and remains very close to Barack Obama and at least two of his principal advisers—one of whom is at the president’s side constantly in the White House.  I warned the person repeatedly about the risk of an EMP attack that might destroy the U.S. and kill all except for about 30 million Americans.  For example, in July 2008, I described such a possibility as follows:

Aside from threats from China and Russia, the use of such an attack by terrorists could be devastating to this country.  Clearly, measures must be taken now to “harden” the U.S. against such attacks, and to prevent them in the first place.  Having worked in military intelligence at the Pentagon, my guess is that an EMP attack may be high on the list of options for terrorists, because the impact of such an attack might make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park.

In late October 2009, I went on to discuss “an EMP attack by (1) al-Qaeda, (2) Iran and its proxies, (3) North Korea, (4) Russia and its surrogates, and/or (5) China and its surrogates,” and I concluded:

Everything else (e.g., ObamaCare, the economy, Afghanistan) pales beside it.  Indeed, it might determine the future of our kids and their kids.  Again, . . . hopefully you can use your influence to address this issue now.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done by this person or the president to deal with this issue of critical importance to the welfare and survivability of the American people.

[5] See http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/gringrich-emp-weapon/2009/03/29/id/329110 (“Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority.  To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, would be an action of criminal negligence”—and potentially grounds for impeachment of Obama)

[6] See http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109226576685389289,00.html (or http://www.naegele.com/documents/MotherofAllBlackouts.pdf); see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564702233840875.html?mod=d (“Iran may already have the capability to target the U.S. with a short-range missile by launching it from a freighter off the East Coast.  A few years ago it was observed practicing the launch of Scuds from a barge in the Caspian Sea.  This would be especially troubling if Tehran is developing EMP—electromagnetic pulse—technology.”)

[7] See http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109226576685389289,00.html

[8] See id. See also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564702233840875.html?mod=d (“A nuclear weapon detonated a hundred miles over U.S. territory would create an electromagnetic pulse that would virtually shut down the U.S. economy by destroying electronic circuits on the ground”).  Gone would be lights, heat, air conditioning, TVs, computers, phones, the Internet and all other forms of electronic communications, and all gasoline pumps for cars and trucks . . . and the list goes on and on, seemingly forever and covering all electronic equipment on which a modern society like the U.S. depends.

[9] See http://www.empcommission.org/

[10] See http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109226576685389289,00.html

[11] Compare http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564702233840875.html?mod=d (“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Prague signing an agreement that’s a first step toward protecting Europe from ballistic missile attack”) with the fact that upon assuming the presidency, Barack Obama scuttled the missile defense system for Eastern Europe to appease Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Putin—who is a smoother version of Stalin, and should be treated as our enemy.  See also http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/gringrich-emp-weapon/2009/03/29/id/329110 (“Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense.  Furthermore, the United States’ reluctance to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear deterrent is a serious concern.  What good will a bailout be if there is no longer a nation to bail out?”)


Actions

Information

67 responses

8 02 2010
naegeleblog

Iran Set To “Stun” The West

Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said that his country is set to deliver a “punch” that will stun world powers during the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution. See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe2.521&show_article=1

Certainly, an EMP Attack would “stun” the United States and the world; however, it is unlikely that Iran or any other country or terrorist group would announce it beforehand. It would just happen—and Americans would wake up and watch the country that we know and love literally slip away from us, along with the lives of approximately 90 percent of our fellow Americans, including our loved ones and even our own.

It would be a human tragedy of incalculable and epic proportions, dwarfing all other man-made cataclysmic events in recorded history (e.g., Hitler’s Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust, Mao’s Chinese Holocaust) many times over.

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin’s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao’s-chinese-holocaust/

Like

8 08 2011
wnettles

Is there any table of probability (from a reliable source, like the war college) that could give a likely time table for the development and deployment of such a nuclear EMP strike against the United States?

Just wondering if the think tanks had the figures on this.

Like

8 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your questions.

I am not aware of any. As my article above stated:

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial [dated August 12, 2004], “China and Russia have the capability to launch an EMP weapon—and have let us know it.”

That was almost exactly seven years ago, so presumably they—and our other enemies—have come a long way since.

Like

9 02 2010
Ralph Blach

No doubt this could happen, but good oll Sol, (our Sun) could (will) do the same thing. This has already happened to a degree in Canada.

A large sunspot caused unusually large ground currents (millions of amps), of electrical energy moving through the ground and it shut there power system down.

The only solution is to have fast shutdown of the electrical system,

Chip

Like

8 08 2011
wnettles

A space based defensive weapons platform, containing an x-ray laser, could knock down a launched nuke, given the appropriate timeliness of the order to do so.

Also, the THAAD system could, if given the order soon enough after launch detection, knock it down.

The lower in altitude that the threat is neutralized, the less the impacted area.

Like

8 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your additional comments.

Yes, this might be true, but God help us if one launch is successful and the impact is nationwide.

Like

5 02 2014
WorriedCitizen

This is very difficult in practice. In the vastness of space, one warhead is not large, and a nation-sized adversary has a large stockpile of warheads, delivery vehicles and of course decoys.

Making matters worse, an EMP warhead need not travel a long ICBM arc nor does it need to be aimed; it merely needs to be somewhere around the correct altitude over some part of the target territory. In short, it doesn’t need to travel far and so is not exposed to missile defense for long. It doesn’t need to be launched from a flagged enemy ship; it could be done off a drug-smuggler’s near-surface sub, or from a container ship of an Islamic-owned US-based freight company.

I’d be all in favor if it would actually work, but it seems that evading the system would be too easy.

Like

5 02 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you in large part.

As I mentioned before, it might be launched from a “barge” off our Atlantic or Pacific Coasts, or in the Sea of Cortez or the Gulf of Mexico.

Like

6 02 2014
wnettles

The THAAD system, if allowed to be completed, would, in my opinion, offer one of the best protections against such a “freighter based” attack. Mind you, however, that the proper command and control protocol must be followed in a very timely manner to limit any damage from such an attempted attack. The THAAD system is a land based, interceptor missile system, and, given the success that the Aegis sea based system has had in multiple target, decoy ridden tests, I feel that a land based system like THAAD could be a valuable resource in the deterrence of such a missile threat.

Like

6 02 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

They represent my understanding too.

Like

11 02 2010
naegeleblog

9/11 Remembered

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html

Enough time has passed that many of us can look at these extraordinary images with a certain sense of detachment, unlike the horror that still affects others of us who were right at the scene or within a short distance of it.

Quite amazing photographs, which I had never seen before today.

Please realize that as tragic as 9/11 was, an EMP Attack on the United States would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park by comparison. Yes, human tragedies are all tragedies; however, some are life-threatening, while others are that and nation-threatening too.

Like

30 03 2010
naegeleblog

Finally, Mainstream Media Wakes Up

The Wall Street Journal was out front on this issue years ago, as mentioned in my article, but Time magazine is just catching up. Better late than never.

See http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1976224,00.html

Like

28 05 2010
naegeleblog

Avatar Is Shades Of An EMP Attack On America

Whatever the parallels between the movie, “Avatar,” and the destruction of ancient civilizations, perhaps the most poignant link—which most viewers will miss—is between an EMP Attack on America and the catastrophic results shown in the film before its ending.

As the article above points out, the devastation stemming from an EMP Attack would be real and decisive; and maybe 10 percent of Americans would survive, only to be conquered by others. Yes, it seems far-fetched to make comparisons to Hollywood’s fantasy films, but this one is real and a wake-up call—albeit unintended by the filmmakers.

Like

29 05 2010
naegeleblog

Thank God!

The highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization is reporting:

This Memorial Day, nearly three-out-of-four Americans (74%) have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 12% hold an unfavorable opinion, and 13% are not sure.

These figures have held steady for the past two years.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/may_2010/74_have_favorable_opinion_of_u_s_military

In the wake of what our Vietnam veterans went through, it is wonderful to see the support for our military, especially with two wars in progress, one of which is winding down.

Barack Obama ought to heed these results, and do nothing to weaken our military; and in fact, he should take all steps necessary to strengthen it in light of deadly challenges from China, Russia, North Korea, terrorists and elsewhere.

See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/MarkHelprin-FarewelltoAmericasChinaStation.pdf and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

Like

23 06 2010
Brian H.

While the facts seem to underscore the possibility of an EMP attack, I don’t believe there is a high probability of one occurring. (Former USAF pilot and best-selling author Chris Stewart has written an interesting fictional account of what this country might be like after an EMP attack.) But should it happen, as tragical as it would be, there would be millions of citizens who would survive and then rally and build up this country again. Contrary to what our enemies think, this country will not be destroyed.

Like

23 06 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you for your comments, Brian.

I respectfully disagree, as my article indicates—and so does the Commission. The effects would be nation-threatening/ending, in all likelihood.

As for the possibility of it happening, no one would have thought that 9/11 could happen, or the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they did. Our enemies may be planning an EMP Attack as we write these words.

Let’s hope and pray that such an attack never happens or succeeds, but the only way to insure it is to be prepared with a strong missile defense “shield” in place, and a hardened military and civilian infrastructure.

Like

23 06 2010
Brian H.

“…but the only way to insure it is to be prepared with a strong missile defense ‘shield’ in place, and a hardened military and civilian infrastructure.” Agreed. And that’s why I don’t believe an EMP disaster will occur. But should it, eventually, we will prevail. During every major war, conflict, disaster, many were convinced that the world as we knew it was coming to an end. Yet we’ve always rallied to become better. I will continue to believe (and hope and pray) that this country’s unconquerable spirit will cause it to overcome whatever disaster–be it manmade or natural–confronts it. Regardless of the number of incompetents in our government, we will overcome. Thanks for your well-written articles.

Like

9 11 2010
jeff

One point to consider is that knowledge and technological know how is not lost, we would still have the ability to rebuild local communications as well as rebuild other infrastructure.

Like

9 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Jeff, for your comments.

If an EMP Attack produces the catastrophic consequences discussed in my article—which simply mirrors what the commission and Wall Street Journal have described—I do not believe that what you suggest would be possible.

Like

8 08 2011
wnettles

Glad that you are so sure that we cannot be destroyed. You might try convincing the tyrants in Iran and North Korea, as well as about a dozen other countries around the world that would like to take us down, that we cannot be taken down.

You might try reading “The Art of War”, by Sun Tsu. It might give a little better idea of what our enemies plan to do to us.

Like

8 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again for your comments.

Quite to the contrary, there is no certainty that we cannot be destroyed.

Like

23 06 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you for your additional comments, Brian.

Obama has taken steps already to weaken our missile defenses, which were far from being perfected before he started “gutting” them. Also, as the Commission emphasized, little in the private sector is hardened to withstand such an attack, and the American military has only limited protection.

I believe in this great country, as you do; however, we are vulnerable to an EMP Attack just as we were to the attacks on 9/11, and at Pearl Harbor. You stated:

I will continue to believe (and hope and pray) that this country’s unconquerable spirit will cause it to overcome whatever disaster—be it manmade or natural—confronts it.

Both of us hope and pray that you are correct. However, our enemies are likely to have made an EMP Attack “priority one,” and we are not prepared for it. The alarm bells need to go off; and there is reason to believe that they will never go off at the anti-war, anti-military, far-Left Obama White House.

Thank you again.

Like

24 08 2010
naegeleblog

A Sign Of Things To Come?

The electricity just went off, and the electric company indicates that the power outage is affecting approximately 5,000 residences in the community. It will not be restored for about 4-5 hours, or so they are predicting. I will live through that, as most people will in the area. However, imagine if this were an EMP Attack, which destroyed our power grids nationwide.

First, there would not be any TV or landline phones that worked. Our cell phones would die because they could not be “recharged,” which would be true of our laptop and other computers that run on electricity. The Internet would be down, and history. Gas pumps would stop working; and when cars and trucks ran out of fuel—including the vehicles used by law enforcement and our military—they would be useless. Gas stations would be empty and unusable.

The food in our refrigerators and freezers, and restaurants, would go bad in a short time; and there would not be food in our supermarkets to buy. Hospitals would be useless, if anyone could get to them. Schools would be closed too. Our water supplies would be cut off, because pumps are needed to provide it. Diseases would mount, inter alia, because there would not be any doctors available to prevent it, or the means to get to doctors or hospitals except by walking; and once they ran out of medicines, there would not be any more.

I just heard sirens, first from a police car and then from one or more fire trucks, or so I believe, probably going to handle traffic signals that are not working, or perhaps even a fire. In the event of an EMP Attack, criminals would be free to loot and kill at will; and fires would burn until they were extinguished by rain or they had burnt themselves out. It would be chaos, pure and simple.

. . .

It is about an hour later, and the power has been restored, ahead of schedule. In the event of an EMP Attack, our society would collapse—not in an hour or four hours, in most cases, but within days, weeks or months after we were attacked. Unbelievable you say, and fear mongering? Perhaps so, but a presidential commission and the Wall Street Journal have warned us already; and we would be fools not to heed their warnings and advice. One hour passed in the wink of an eye, but lifetimes can pass quickly too if we were attacked, 90 percent of all American lives, unless we plan for a possible EMP Attack before it ever happens.

Like

22 09 2010
naegeleblog

Obama: “I’m Doing Defeat, And Cut And Run In Afghanistan. I’m Giving America Another Vietnam.”

The quote above is not actual, but a synthesis of Barack Obama’s policies with respect to his Afghan War. Like Lyndon Johnson before him, America’s supreme narcissist Obama thinks that he knows how to run a war. Leave aside the fact that he has never run anything in his life, much less successfully, and that he even failed as a community organizer in Chicago, he has the gall to believe that he can run a war.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The Washington Post has a fine article about Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars,” which sums up the situation in Afghanistan:

Woodward quotes [Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan] as saying, “You have to recognize also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It’s a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”

Yet, the Post article cites Obama:

“I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html

Having ignored the advice of America’s military leaders, Obama has crafted a strategy that insures defeat in Afghanistan . . . and the probable loss of Pakistan too, with its nuclear arsenal. There is little doubt that Obama will go down in history as America’s worst president and its greatest failure as a leader.

What is crystal clear from the Post article is that Obama is a fool and a feckless naïf, who must be driven from the presidency using every constitutional means possible. Among other things, the Post article reports:

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

This oaf is apparently unaware that the greatest threat to the United States and the American people—with respect to whom he swore an oath to defend and protect—comes in the form of an EMP Attack that might be launched from a barge off our Atlantic or Pacific coasts, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez.

It has been estimated that only 30 million Americans would survive such an attack; and it is criminal for Obama to say (or think) that “[w]e can absorb a terrorist attack.” Aside from his conclusion being preposterous and utter nonsense militarily, it is dangerous, irresponsible and traitorous!

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/09/on_terrorism_barack_obama_is_n.html and http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-we-can-absorb-another-9-11/

Like

11 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Cheney’s Greatest Fear: A Nuclear Weapon In The Hands Of Terrorists

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed, and said that his greatest fear is a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist.

See http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x618251210/Business-Conference-Lynne-Cheney-interviews-Dick-Cheney

This is my greatest fear too: an EMP Attack!

Like

27 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Finally . . .

. . . the mainstream media, other than the Wall Street Journal, is recognizing the risks of an EMP Attack!

In an excellent article entitled, “One EMP burst and the world goes dark,” USA Today states:

The sky erupts. Cities darken, food spoils and homes fall silent. Civilization collapses.

End-of-the-world novel? A video game? Or could such a scenario loom in America’s future?

There is talk of catastrophe ahead, depending on whom you believe, because of the threat of an electromagnetic pulse triggered by either a supersized solar storm or terrorist A-bomb, both capable of disabling the electric grid that powers modern life.

Electromagnetic pulses (EMP) are oversized outbursts of atmospheric electricity. Whether powered by geomagnetic storms or by nuclear blasts, their resultant intense magnetic fields can induce ground currents strong enough to burn out power lines and electrical equipment across state lines.

The threat has even become political fodder, drawing warnings from former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a likely presidential contender.

“We are not today hardened against this,” he told a Heritage Foundation audience last year. “It is an enormous catastrophic threat.”

Meanwhile, in Congress, a “Grid Act” bill aimed at the threat awaits Senate action, having passed in the House of Representatives.

Fear is evident. With the sun’s 11-year solar cycle ramping up for its stormy maximum in 2012, and nuclear concerns swirling about Iran and North Korea, a drumbeat of reports and blue-ribbon panels center on electromagnetic pulse scenarios.

. . .

At risk are the more than 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines that cross North America, supplying 1,800 utilities the power for TVs, lights, refrigerators and air conditioners in homes, and for the businesses, hospitals and police stations that take care of us all.

“The electric grid’s vulnerability to cyber and to other attacks is one of the single greatest threats to our national security,” Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said in June as he introduced the bill to the House of Representatives.

Markey and others point to the August 2003 blackout that struck states from Michigan to Massachusetts, and southeastern Canada, as a sign of the grid’s vulnerability. Triggered by high-voltage lines stretched by heat until they sagged onto overgrown tree branches, the two-day blackout shut down 100 power plants, cut juice to about 55 million people and cost $6 billion, says the 2004 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force.

. . .

Simple physics, big worry

The electromagnetic pulse threat is a function of simple physics: Electromagnetic pulses and geomagnetic storms can alter Earth’s magnetic field. Changing magnetic fields in the atmosphere, in turn, can trigger surging currents in power lines.

“We have understood the electromagnetic effect since the 1800s,” says Butt, who this year reviewed geomagnetic and nuke blast worries in The Space Review.

Two historic incidents often figure in the discussion:

• On July 9, 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support Agency detonated the Starfish Prime, a 1.4-megaton H-bomb test at an altitude of 250 miles, some 900 miles southwest of Hawaii over the Pacific Ocean. The pulse shorted out streetlights in Oahu.

• On March 9, 1989, the sun spat a million-mile-wide blast of high-temperature charged solar gas straight at the Earth. The “coronal mass ejection” struck the planet three days later, triggering a geomagnetic storm that made the northern lights visible in Texas. The storm also induced currents in Quebec’s power grid that knocked out power for 6 million people in Canada and the USA for at least nine hours.

“A lot of the questions are what steps does it make sense to take,” Legge says. “We could effectively gold-plate every component in the system, but the cost would mean that people can’t afford the rates that would result to pay for it.”

“The high-altitude nuclear-weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse is one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold our society seriously at risk,” concluded a 2008 EMP Commission report headed by William Graham, a former science adviser to President Reagan.

The terror effect

In the nuclear scenario, the detonation of an atomic bomb anywhere from 25 to 500 miles high electrifies, or ionizes, the atmosphere about 25 miles up, triggering a series of electromagnetic pulses. The pulse’s reach varies with the size of the bomb, the height of its blast and design.

Gingrich last year cited the EMP Commission report in warning, “One weapon of this kind that went off over Omaha would eliminate most of the electrical production in the United States.”

But some take issue with that.

“You would really need something the size of a Soviet H-bomb to have effects that cross many states,” Butt says. The massive Starfish Prime blast, he notes, was at least 70 times more powerful than the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima in 1945, and it may have blown out streetlights but it left the grid in Hawaii intact.

One complication for rogue nations or terrorists contemplating a high-altitude nuclear blast is that such an attack requires a missile to take the weapon at least 25 miles high to trigger the electromagnetic pulse. For nations, such a launch would invite massive nuclear retaliation from the USA’s current stockpile of 5,000 warheads, many of them riding in submarines far from any pulse effects.

Any nation giving a terror group an atomic weapon and missile would face retaliation, Butt and others note, as nuclear forensics capabilities at the U.S. national labs would quickly trace the origins of the bomb, Butt says. “It would be suicide.”

Super solar storm

On the solar front, the big fear is a solar super storm, a large, fast, coronal mass ejection with a magnetic field that lines up with an orientation perfectly opposite the Earth’s own magnetic field, says solar physicist Bruce Tsurutani of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Tsuritani and other solar physicists view such an event as inevitable in the next 10 to 100 years.

“It has to be the perfect storm,” Tsuratani says.

. . .

Solutions?

. . .

Although the physics underlying the geomagnetic and nuclear pulses are fundamentally the same, they have different solutions. A geomagnetic storm essentially produces a long-building surge dangerous to power lines and large transformers. A nuclear blast produces three waves of pulses.

Limiting the risk from the geomagnetic-storm-type threat involves stockpiling large transformers and installing dampers, essentially lightning rods, to dump surges into the ground from the grid. Even if such steps cost billions, the numbers come out looking reasonable compared with the $119 billion that a 2005 Electric Power Research Institute report estimated was the total nationwide cost of normal blackouts every year.

“EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences,” Graham testified to a congressional committee last year, endorsing such mitigation steps.

Stephen Younger, former head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, last year argued against the catastrophic scenarios in his book, The Bomb, suggesting the effects of a pulse would be more random, temporary and limited than Graham and others suggest.

The June NERC report essentially calls for more study of the problem, warning of excessive costs to harden too much equipment against the nuclear risk. “If there are nuclear bombs exploding, we have lots of really, really big problems besides the power grid,” Legge says.

See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-10-26-emp_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Like

9 11 2010
John Armstrong

An EMP attack has been a factor for quite some. I fail to see how this is the fault of Obama when the commission was formed in 2000 and delivered it’s report in 2004, four years before he was elected in 2008. You raise some interesting points but you are needlessly politicizing this issue with your own bias.

Like

10 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, John, for your comments.

Obviously the threat of an EMP Attack preceded Obama, so I am not blaming him for the risks involved. However, his failure to address such risks, much less adequately, may prove catastrophic for Americans and this great country in the future.

Like

5 02 2012
wnettles

Both George Bush and Barack Obama have been made very aware of the EMP Commission’s report, and, both men have chosen not to protect and defend our nation against this most greivous threat. This is not a political football. This is reality. An EMP attack, just ONE EMP ATTACK, will be all that is needed to reduce this nation to a continent of about 30 million starving and sick human beings.

Yes, such an attack would likely result in the utter nuclear destruction of the offending nation and all of it’s inhabitants. That is, IF there is anyone left that can determine who is responsible, once all of our military satellites and intelligence gathering capabilities are fried.

So, let’s not think this thing is too political in nature. Survival is a matter of preparedness and a very good and fast termination of the attack vehicle in boost phase.

Like

5 02 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree completely.

It is a wonder that more Americans of all walks of life are not aware of this danger, and the possibility that it would end our great nation and our way of life forever.

Such an attack would make Pearl Harbor and 9/11 seem like child’s play; and if we were in our enemy’s shoes, this is all we would be concentrating on. In terms of the game of chess, it would be “checkmate.”

Like

9 11 2010
Dave

Well written piece and very good points but I must take issue with the finger pointing. The commission delivered it’s report in 2004 – Obama wasn’t elected in 2004, someone else was…in addtion, it was delivered to strongly Republican controlled Congress (Dems took over in 2006).

Look, these are important issues and I wholeheardedly agree…take the finger pointing out entirely (both sides) and I can stand by it. Leave it and it’s dismissed as a partisan jab.

Like

10 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Dave, for your comments.

Please see my response to John Armstrong above.

Clearly, the risk of a catastrophic EMP Attack is not partisan in nature. Like 9-11 or Pearl Harbor before it—which were “child’s play” when compared to what an EMP Attack might produce—every American will suffer beyond belief if we fail to address this risk, which may be the greatest risk confronting the United States and the American people today and in the foreseeable future.

Like

7 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Attack On Pearl Harbor, and America—Again?

Exactly 69 years ago today, Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands was attacked, and America’s innocence was lost. We recovered as a people, and went on to defeat our enemies in World War II, and to become the world’s only superpower—a great nation in a sea of those who would destroy her if given half a chance.

Today, the threats against her come from a variety of sources, but the most serious is the possibility of an EMP Attack, which is described in the article above. We must be ever vigilant; and despite temptations to reduce our military might—and slash Pentagon budgets—in troubled economic times like these, we must resist such temptations and easy solutions.

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Like

10 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

The Terrorists’ “Nuclear Option”

Where would we be today without any Internet, cell phones or the like? Can any of us fathom if the Web ever went down worldwide, and stayed down? Arguably, the world runs on it today. Destroying it would be the ultimate terrorists’ “nuclear option,” aside from an EMP Attack that is discussed in the article above.

This might be the world’s and America’s “Achilles’ heel.”

Like

22 12 2010
Nick Rebori

Timothy,
while your credentials are certainly far more impressive than mine, they are notably lacking in any “tech” field, and you base your information on a WSJ editorial. Popular Mechanics and Popular Science both covered possible EMP scenarios over 6-8 years ago. For an EMP to work on the scale you seem to fear, an extremely large warhead would have to be launched into the atmosphere above the US’s Sovereign air space. Tell me who has the capabilities to launch such a rocket? China?

As someone on the supply/design side of the socioeconomic equation, I will agree that we are very much at war with China, but it is not a war of bombs. It is a philosophical/economical war. They have NOTHING to gain by such an attack, when they can instead purchase our country a piece at a time.

Consider this – when I am prototyping an invention and need steel or aluminum for a frame and capacitors, transistors, resistors and integrated circuits, it is actually CHEAPER for me to purchase an assembled Chinese product and take it apart than to buy just the materials from a US manufacturer. For instance, I can get an entire China made t6 aluminum car jack for $30-$50, where as just the t6 aluminum sheet would cost me MORE from a US manufacturer, and I also get a hydraulic cylinder. THAT is the real war being fought, and MANY WSJ commentators can’t seem to comprehend this. Whether it is because they work in financial sectors and have no idea what is happening on the supply side of this country, or they are blinded by their dividends, I can not say.

The BIGGEST thread to America is not the EMP. It is the possibility of nuclear material falling into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. For an EMP, they need a warhead and a launch site. For a “dirty bomb” all they need is several grams of nuclear isotope and ANY detonator device. When such a bomb goes off, there won’t be a nuclear reaction, but it will spread radioactive material in a plume, leaving a radius of 5-25 miles (depending on amount of isotope) of completely uninhabitable land. Can you imagine such an attack in a city such as New York? One guy with a suitcase could destroy the entire subway transit system for the rest of our lives and our grandchildren’s, and you worry about a possible EMP attack?

That Is why it was so vital that START be passed. While I am not so Naive as to assume we will have access to Russia’s entire nuclear arsenal, I am cynical enough to believe that they won’t get access to our entire arsenal either. The threat is their OLD warheads, which are no longer relevant. They have two choices of what to do with them. They can either disassemble and store them underground (like we do at Y-12, which is where I live near, or Los Alamos) OR they can sell them off to the highest bidder. Which option sounds more appealing to – as you put it – ” a third world country masquerading as a superpower?”

You seemed to appreciate reasonable discourse, and were one of the few on the WSJ comments section who didn’t immediately label anyone who supported START as a “libral kommie socializt, so I am very interested to hear your responses to my arguments. Know that I have voted Republican in every election except re election of our last governor to a second term (Phil Bredesen, a dino) and the last presidential election, in which I abstained due to the sour taste left by McCains picking of Palin as a running mate.

Like

22 12 2010
Nick Rebori

disclaimer: I DO NOT intend to say that the EMP is not a threat, I simply contend it is not -by far- the largest threat to our country at this current juncture.

Like

22 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Nick, for your extensive comments, as well as your disclaimer.

First, as stated in my article above and its footnotes, and in my comments above as well, I did not base my information on a Wall Street Journal editorial at all. As indicated, the EMP Commission was created in 2000 to examine the possibility of an EMP attack and its aftermath; and it delivered reports to Congress in 2004 and thereafter. Having staffed a presidential commission as a young attorney with the U.S. Senate when I first began working on Capitol Hill, I realize how important such commissions can be, as well as the enormous classified and unclassified resources that are at their disposal.

See, e.g., http://www.empcommission.org/

Second, the commission members have not been “lightweights.”

Third, with all due respect to you and Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, the commission’s access to information has gone well beyond what is available to the public. This was true of the presidential commission that I staffed. Having served as an Army officer at the Pentagon assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency—where my civilian boss reported directly to the Director of DIA, and I participated in important briefings—I realize how much critical classified information is available, which is not available publicly.

Fourth, as indicated, one likely scenario involves the launch of a relatively unsophisticated EMP weapon from a “barge” located in the Gulf of Mexico, the Sea of Cortez, or off our Atlantic or Pacific Coasts. Some years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran had done testing in this regard, which has presumably advanced since then.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/IransMissileThreat.pdf

Fifth, as you point out, enormous risks involve nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorist groups, which can come from any number of sources inciuding but not limited to North Korea and Pakistan—which are not covered by the treaty.

Sixth, I do not trust the Russians one iota, much less their ability to control and safeguard nuclear materials.

Seventh, I agree with you that an EMP Attack may not be the largest threat to the United States in terms of the probability of it happening. However, it is certainly the largest threat to the American people if it did happen, because of its truly devastating consequences. Neither our military nor civilian infrastructure are “hardened” to withstand such an attack; and our ability to recover from one is questionable, to say the least.

Eighth, you began by suggesting that I was relying on a Wall Street Journal editorial, which I was not, as discussed above. However—and not to tout the Journal too much—it is probably the finest and most reliable publication in the United States. By and large, its articles are excellent and right on target. In the case of a possible EMP Attack on the United States, its two editorials on this subject, which are cited in footnote 3 of my article, are still excellent and worth reading.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/MotherofAllBlackouts.pdf and http://www.naegele.com/documents/IransMissileThreat.pdf

Lastly, I am not an EMP expert by any means, nor do I profess to be one. Hence, with all due respect, I do not have the time or interest to debate you on this subject. You and I share, however, a love for our country as well as a concern about its vulnerabilities. I do not believe that the New START Treaty makes us any safer; and perhaps most importantly, it gives legitimacy and actually helps Putin and his brutal regime, which must be swept from power and replaced by a democratic nation that lives at peace with the world.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1167

Like

27 12 2010
Nick Rebori

Thank you, Timothy, for the well written and thought out response. One of the great tragedies of the digital age is that our “sound byte” culture has almost completely destroyed reasonable discourse, especially in Washington. It is extremely refreshing to participate in one.

I realize you said you do not care to debate the subject, so you can consider this a clarification on my part, and I won’t be offended if you do not respond.

WSJ. While I appreciate their reporting, I find most of their editorial and commentary to be completely off the mark – in regards to the part of the country that I live in. For instance, there is a world of difference between $250K/year income in TN (which has an extremely low cost of living in no small part due to TVA and Y12 pork) and $250K in New York. That is getting off topic, though. I was reading the WSJ comments tab on a START article and saw you link to this several times, which then led to me spending a couple hours reading your blog. While I don’t always agree with your posts, they are well written and concise, and delve much further into underlying issues than the talking points I typically seen thrown around.

As for committees, I will have to take your word for it, as I know only what is passed down through the media machine. As a member of a younger generation living in the heartland, I watched a disproportionate number of my friends and neighbors march off to Baghdad based on information from a committee on WMDs. As a former serviceman, I’m sure you can even more fully appreciate their sacrifices than I can. BY NO MEANS do I mean to try to discredit or cast a negative light upon any committee work you may have participated in, I merely seek to show that as a younger man I have perhaps an unhealthy skepticism of government committees.

New START – Both my Republican Senators (Alexander, 3rd ranking, and Corker) voted for New START after Alexanders amendment that added 89? Billion for modernization. A large chunk of that goes to Y-12, and to decreasing our storage facilities to 1/15th the current size. It is currently sprawling and -IMHO- a large security risk. The amendment also clarifies that the treaty does not hamper our abilities to build a defense shield. It still leaves us with more than enough weapons to, as Alexander put it, “blow the world to kingdom come” many times over, and it improves ties with Russia.

While I don’t deny that Putin is a monster, it is always easier to deal with one foe at a time. North Korea, Iran, and Global Jihadists are bigger security threats, and my personal belief is that Rising China threatens our way of life the most, but in a non violent manner.

The EMP. While the EMP is a threat, we can eliminate that threat with some modernization of infrastructure. While I do not know the math concerning electron pulse of a nuclear warhead, everything electrical generates a small magnetic force. Most everything we use now a days (save for infrastructure) uses what is called a faraday cage, or a shield. If you cut a USB cable open, you will find a thin metal shielding around the transmission wires. This is to shield it from interference from all of your other devices. While I do not know if it would stop an EMP, the point is the fix for an EMP threat is one of the easier solutions facing us today, and I fear the fallout of the conventional nuclear warhead used for the EMP more.

Here is a rather new development, and seen in some circles as proof that our carriers are already shielded from EMPS, or in the process of becoming so.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/navys-next-gen-electromagnetic-carrier-launch-system-hurls-its-first-planes-skyward

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-20026394-42.html

Basically, the first test of the Navy’s new Electo Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). The Electromagnetic pulse generated by said system is done so by a 1,000,000HP motor. How the rest of the ships navigation and control equipment is shielded by the pulse is something that is heavily debated by commentators. Whether it is because the entire metal chassis of the carrier is acting as a giant faraday cage for the rest of the equipment, or they are adding some new shielding material, I can not say, but I can not help but see it as both proof that 1. we already have the technology to deal with an EMP, we just have to implement it, and 2. The military is already working on doing so with military assets. If we broadcast that we are doing so, all we do is create an opportunity for our enemies.

Like

28 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Nick, for your additional comments, and for taking time to read this blog.

First, there are governmental committees, and then there are presidential and congressional commissions. They are often apples and oranges. For example, the commissions are for the most part handsomely funded, and often have large staffs and terrific access to classified and unclassified information. Based on what I know, the EMP Commission fits that bill; and its findings have been sobering, to say the least.

Second, with respect to issues of national security, the Wall Street Journal is generally right on target, and accurate, again based on what I know and my experiences.

Third, the reasons why the New START Treaty should not have been ratified, and why the next Republican administration should withdraw from it, are set forth elsewhere, so I will not repeat those discussions here.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1195

Fourth, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion: “[T]he fix for an EMP threat is one of the easier solutions facing us today. . . .” Quite to the contrary, as my article above states: “[L]ittle in the private sector is hardened to withstand such an attack, and the American military has only limited protection.”

The effects of an EMP Attack on the United States might be catastrophic, and end all of our lives.

Fifth, any shielding relating to EMALS is like a drop of water in the vast oceans, by comparison with the idea of “hardening” our military and civilian infrastructures, which has not been done to any measurable extent yet. Among other things, the costs of doing so are staggering.

Like

27 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

73% Of American Voters Fear Terrorists More Than A Nuclear Attack

This is the conclusion of the latest Rasmussen Poll. However, it neglects to mention that an EMP Attack can be launched by terrorists into our atmosphere, using a relatively small nuclear weapon, thereby producing truly cataclysmic results.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/russia/73_fear_terrorists_more_than_nuclear_attack

Like

29 12 2010
Nick Rebori

One last clarification before I check out the Obama blog link.

While the cost of infrastructure shielding would be *astronomical* (I can’t figure out how to italicize), my point was that the technology to do so exists in a working form. On the other hand, the technology to stop a nuclear warhead launched from an off-coast barge for an EMP, is the same technology that would be needed to shoot down a conventional nuclear warhead launched from the same barge, aimed at a high value US target.

Since we have been working on a “star wars” program to do so for almost my entire life, still have zero results, and have spent billions, I believe that money would be better invested in upgrading our infrastructure. I don’t fear the nuclear warhead, I fear the dirty suitcase nuke.

I think Geiger counters should be placed in the vicinity of all high priority targets, at all times. The only way to counter them would be to used a lead-lined suitcase, and I like to believe that most Americans are going to be suspicious enough of a guy lugging around a suitcase he can barely lift!

Like

29 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Nick, for your comments.

As stated in my article above, quoting the Wall Street Journal:

Most new units can be hardened for 1% to 3% of cost if done at the time of design and manufacture. Hardening existing systems can cost 10 times as much.

Also, we have operational missile defenses now, which have proved to be effective, and need to be expanded dramatically.

Yes, I agree that dirty suitcase bombs are a major threat, but an EMP Attack is potentially the most devastating by many magnitudes.

Like

18 01 2011
Joshua Bretz

I am a professional power supply designer, working on medical AC/DC supplies that are integrated into many different pieces of hospital equipment. I am aware of the EMP threat and the electrical consequences for our power grid. I want to spend that extra 1% to 3% you speak of on my design to implement hardening, and yet I find it difficult to find any design guidelines. Many EMP specifications are classified as secret, which doesn’t help at all.

Like

18 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Joshua, for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, I understand the issue. You might wish to contact (1) the EMP Commission, (2) the Pentagon, and/or (3) the committees on the Hill that are charged with oversight responsibilities. What you have encountered must be true of lots of other businesses, large and small, foreign and domestic. As you indicate, there should be design guidelines, which are not “off limits” because of secrecy classifications.

Like

28 01 2014
wnettles

I, also work on large industrial electrical systems and there seems to be very little considerations given by companies with regard to EMP protection in the design and construction of electrical switchgear. Some of our power factor correction equipment has some integral protection, however, in the event of a large and fast EMP, it would fail miserably. What’s one to do? 1% to 3% is not a lot of money when you consider the results of failure in this realm.

Like

28 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your insightful comments as always.

I agree completely with your statement:

1% to 3% is not a lot of money when you consider the results of failure in this realm.

We live in a nation that often only greases the “squeaky wheel,” and does not anticipate serious, potentially-nation threatening problems ahead, much less ones of a seemingly-lower priority.

Pearl Harbor was an example of this. 9/11 was too. However, the consequences of an EMP Attack are too serious and deadly to ignore or to relegate one iota.

I have reread your other thoughtful comments, and one stands out:

Survival is a matter of preparedness and a very good and fast termination of the attack vehicle in boost phase.

I agree completely.

Like

2 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Are We Moving Closer To A Nation-Threatening EMP Attack On America?

With the Middle East disintegrating, and America’s “Hamlet on the Potomac”—or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama being in full and hopeless retreat from the region (see, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1357), the other “shoe” may be falling too. It has been announced that al Qaeda is on brink of using one or more nuclear bombs:

A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a “nuclear 9/11″.

. . .

Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

. . .

Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a “small time hustler” in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.

In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder—yellowcake—out of the compound in plastic bags.

. . .

Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to “extremists” who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons.

Anthrax and other biological agents including smallpox, and avian flu could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn.

The security of the world’s only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, America, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by “a growing chorus of voices” at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables.

See http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Qaida+brink+using+nuclear+bomb/4205104/story.html

Also, in an article entitled, “WikiLeaks: tension in the Middle East and Asia has ‘direct potential’ to lead to nuclear war,” the UK’s Telegraph has reported:

Rogue states are also increasing their efforts to secure chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deploy them, leaving billions in the world’s most densely populated area at risk of a devastating strike, the documents show.

The WikiLeaks cables in full

States such as North Korea, Syria and Iran are developing long-range missiles capable of hitting targets outside the region, records of top-level security briefings obtained by WikiLeaks show.

Long-running hostilities between India and Pakistan – which both have nuclear weapons capabilities – are at the root of fears of a nuclear conflict in the region. A classified Pentagon study estimated in 2002 that a nuclear war between the two countries could result in 12 million deaths.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8298427/WikiLeaks-tension-in-the-Middle-East-and-Asia-has-direct-potential-to-lead-to-nuclear-war.html

Like

2 03 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Pentagon Report Reveals China May Have Triggered Economic Crash

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Terrorists and other ‘financial enemies’ were likely responsible for the near collapse of the U.S. financial system in 2008, a new Pentagon report has concluded.

The 2009 report, Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses, said financial terrorism by Jihadists or countries such as China may have cost the global economy $50 trillion in a series of co-ordinated strikes against the U.S. economy.

In an astonishing conclusion, the report claims two unidentified traders deliberately devalued trillions of dollars’ worth of stocks at the height of the crisis.

The report also concludes that untraceable actors undertook a three-tiered attack beginning in 2007, and that ‘Phase III [of the attack] may be under way right now.’

‘In addition, these same actors have clearly demonstrated the means to carry out such an attack.

‘There is sufficient justification to question whether outside forces triggered, capitalised upon or magnified the economic difficulties of 2008.’

The report concluded that: ‘Without question, there were actors who had the motive to harm the U.S. economy.

The report was commissioned in early 2009 by the Pentagon’s Irregular Warfare Support Program—which prepares U.S. government and military agencies for emerging non-traditional threats.

. . .

Although never classified, sources indicated that the report emerged only after concerned Congressmen and Defence Department officials highlighted its existence to media sources.

. . .

The attacks, according to the report, were part of a three-phase strategy.

The first phase was the deliberate inflation of oil prices in 2007 that generated as much as $2 trillion of excess wealth for oil-producing nations. . . .

. . .

In the second phase, untraceable investors attacked financial institutions such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers in a ‘bear raid’.

The term refers to a strategy where investors try to force the value of companies down through malicious rumours or complex financial trades that impact its stock price.

The report says that as the crisis began, ‘virtually overnight’ two relatively small brokers emerged to trade, ‘trillions of dollars worth of U.S. blue chip companies.’

Crucially, these as yet unidentified investors are currently the number one traders in, ‘all financial companies that collapsed or are now financially supported by the U.S. government’ . . . .

Attacks on banks, especially Lehman Brothers which collapsed in 2008, caused interbank lending to seize up and stock markets around the world to collapse.

The U.S. government then had to step in and bail the system out.

Following this, the ‘third phase’ has seen the massive U.S. public debt now threatening the primacy of the dollar as a global currency.

‘Such an event,’ the report says, ‘has already been discussed by finance ministers in major emerging market nations such as China and Russia as well as Iran and the Arab states.

‘In short, a bear raid against the U.S. financial system remains possible and may even be likely.’

The report also points to evidence by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who said in 2008 that the Russian government had made a ‘top-level approach’ to the Chinese, asking them to dump shares in American mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—forcing both into insolvency.

The Chinese military, according to the report, ‘has been advocating the potential for an economic attack on the U.S. for 12 years or longer as evidenced by the publication of the book Unrestricted Warfare in 1999.’

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361898/Financial-terrorists-bankrupted-America-New-Pentagon-report-blames-U-S-enemies-financial-crisis.html

There is no question whatsoever that China and “dictator-for-life” Putin’s Russia are America’s enemies. Anyone who ignores this fact, or is oblivious to it, is more than simply naïve. He or she is potentially traitorous. Among other things, according to a Wall Street Journal editorial, “China and Russia have the capability to launch an EMP weapon—and have let us know it.” As a result of such an attack, only 30 Million Americans might survive.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”) ; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/

Like

8 05 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

OSAMA IS DEAD, AND OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED
Time: Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden
Multiple sources have confirmed that 9/11 terrorist mastermind, bin Laden, is dead. The Wall Street Journal has reported:

Although Mr. bin Laden was not thought to be a critical operational leader of Al Qaeda, he had been the worldwide symbol of the terrorist network.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569404576297941397558496.html?mod=#articleTabs%3Darticle; see also http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE74370620110504 (“Photos show three dead men at bin Laden raid house”) and http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/de-Borchgrave/2011/05/03/Commentary-Pakistans-split-personality/UPI-50101304416227/ (“The sad truth about bin Laden’s burial at sea is that it will have little impact on the global war on terrorism“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382760/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Will-cutting-snakes-head-kill-Al-Qaeda.html (“Will cutting off the snake’s head kill Al Qaeda when Bin Laden was little more than an isolated figurehead?”—”If anything, there could be an increase in attacks on the West to avenge the killing of Bin Laden“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382831/Senator-Scott-Brown-heading-Afghanistan-National-Guard-training.html (“I commend President Obama, former President Bush and the highly capable men and women in our military and intelligence community whose tireless work over the last decade made this day possible”) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382815/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Who-Obamas-Navy-SEALS-Team-6.html (“They are the U.S. military’s super soldiers . . . Navy SEALs from the famed SEAL ‘Team Six’—these secretive warriors are one of the most fearsome fighting forces in the world . . . the best of the best . . . [and] the success of the bin Laden raid proves just how versatile they are”—and “It hurts my heart that such warriors are needed . . . [but it] makes my heart swell with pride that the US has them”) and http://www.sealswcc.com/seal-default.aspx and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383482/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Did-US-forces-use-stealth-helicopters-raid.html (“Did U.S. forces use secret stealth helicopters in bin Laden raid?”) and http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stealth-chopper-20110507,0,3304582,full.story (“Bin Laden raid reveals another elusive target: a stealth helicopter”)

Osama bin Laden’s death is a victory for U.S. intelligence and the heroic American military, not for Barack Hussein Obama who has been “gutting” the U.S. military and plans more of the same—which is why Leon Panetta is going to the Pentagon. At best, Obama is a narcissistic demagogue who is weakening the security of the United States; and he must be impeached.

As former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey warned in a Wall Street Journal article, the killing of Osama bin Laden was a great victory for the U.S. intelligence community, but it may well be the last one because of Obama’s refusal to use tough tactics such as waterboarding on terror suspects:

Seized along with bin Laden’s corpse was a trove of documents and electronic devices that should yield intelligence that could help us capture or kill other terrorists and further degrade the capabilities of those who remain at large.

But policies put in place by the [Obama administration] promise fewer such successes in the future. Those policies make it unlikely that we’ll be able to get information from those whose identities are disclosed by the material seized from bin Laden. The administration also hounds our intelligence gatherers in ways that can only demoralize them.

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. “Do this for all the brothers,” he advised his interrogators.

Abu Zubaydeh was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of 9/11. Bin al Shibh disclosed information that, when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydeh, helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the United States.

Another of those gathered up later in this harvest, Abu Faraj al-Libi, also was subjected to certain of these harsh techniques and disclosed further details about bin Laden’s couriers that helped in last weekend’s achievement.

The harsh techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA. Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of these techniques.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said that, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations. The Bush administration put these techniques in place only after rigorous analysis by the Justice Department, which concluded that they were lawful.

. . .

The current president ran for election on the promise to do away with them even before he became aware, if he ever did, of what they were. Days after taking office he directed that the CIA interrogation program be done away with entirely, and that interrogation be limited to the techniques set forth in the Army Field Manual, a document designed for use by even the least experienced troops. It’s available on the Internet and used by terrorists as a training manual for resisting interrogation.

In April 2009, the administration made public the previously classified Justice Department memoranda analyzing the harsh techniques, thereby disclosing them to our enemies and assuring that they could never be used effectively again. Meanwhile, the administration announced its intentions to replace the CIA interrogation program with one administered by the FBI. In December 2009, Omar Faruq Abdulmutallab was caught in an airplane over Detroit trying to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear. He was warned after apprehension of his Miranda rights, and it was later disclosed that no one had yet gotten around to implementing the new program.

Yet the Justice Department, revealing its priorities, had gotten around to reopening investigations into the conduct of a half-dozen CIA employees alleged to have used undue force against suspected terrorists. I say “reopening” advisedly because those investigations had all been formally closed by the end of 2007, with detailed memoranda prepared by career Justice Department prosecutors explaining why no charges were warranted. Attorney General Eric Holder conceded that he had ordered the investigations reopened in September 2009 without reading those memoranda. The investigations have now dragged on for years with prosecutors chasing allegations down rabbit holes, with the CIA along with the rest of the intelligence community left demoralized.

. . .

We also need to put an end to the ongoing investigations of CIA operatives that continue to undermine intelligence community morale.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576305023876506348.html

Clearly, Obama must be removed from office. He is a threat to the security of the United States, and the American people.

See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384070/Osama-Bin-Ladens-death-9-11-families-angry-Obamas-handling.html (“‘He took the spotlight': 9/11 families angry over Obama’s handling of Bin Laden’s death“); and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected (see also the footnotes and other comments beneath the article) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383860/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-George-Bush-angry-Obama-does-Ground-Zero-victory-lap.html (“Jilted George Bush angry at lack of credit for catching Bin Laden as Obama prepares for Ground Zero ‘victory lap'”) and http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/evil_does_not_die_of_natural_causes/2011/05/05/AFhTKG2F_story.html (“[T]he bin Laden operation could never have happened [without the] Global War on Terror infrastructure that critics, including Barack Obama himself, deplored as a tragic detour from American rectitude“) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43326 (“Thanks to our feckless president, most of the Middle East is rapidly degenerating into a terrorist fever-swamp“) and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576306941215709576.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADSecond (“Bin Laden’s Death Changes Little“) and http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ericholder-guantanamobay-closure/2011/05/09/id/395712?s=al&promo_code=C3C3-1 (“Eric Holder Vows to Close Guantanamo“)

. . .

Also, in an important article entitled, “Pakistan: Cutting to the quick,” UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave states:

Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi reckoned he would be next on Bush 43’s hit parade. So he quickly surrendered all his nuclear paraphernalia, still in unopened crates, to Britain’s MI6 and the CIA, an impulsive move he must rue today.

. . .

[In Pakistan,] China is waiting in the wings to step in to the breach.

Forty-four percent of Pakistanis can’t read a newspaper or write a simple letter in any language. It jumps to 90 percent of rural females in Baluchistan. Some 50 TV channels find it hard to distinguish between yellow journalism and straight news. And they are almost all anti-American.

Madrassas, or single-discipline Koranic schools, teach boys 6 through 16 to recite the entire Koran by heart—in Arabic. Ten years after 9/11 there are still some 12,000 madrassas that also teach youngsters that Pakistan’s real enemies are America, India and Israel. And in the past 10 years they have graduated almost 2 million young men unfit for decent jobs, easy to recruit for extremist causes and an endless supply of potential suicide bombers.

The government can’t afford to fund a proper network of state schools as over half the budget goes to the military.

. . .

Since 9/11, the United States has spent about $1 trillion on 17 intelligence agencies and the Defense Intelligence Agency. They have finally got their Most Wanted Terrorist. But this may generate more rather than less terrorism by al-Qaida and its “Associated Movements,” from Belgium to Bangladesh and from Spain to Somalia. Revenge is a great motivator.

Congress is prone to punish Pakistan for harboring bin Laden. This would be a grave geopolitical blunder. There is no solution in Afghanistan without Pakistan. And Pakistan says there is no solution without Taliban, which it can deliver by virtue of having originally created Taliban.

Pakistan also controls one of NATO’s two supply lines to Afghanistan.

Like bin Laden, Taliban leader Mullah Omar and his “Quetta Shura” organization are tucked away under the surveillance and protection of ISI’s Section S, most probably near Quetta in Baluchistan.

With Taliban about to launch its spring-summer-fall offensive in widely scattered parts of Afghanistan, it would behoove the Obama administration to cut to the quick and begin negotiations for the inevitable exit. Obama originally backed the Afghan campaign, now in its 10th year, because “that’s where al-Qaida is.”

A Taliban spokesman denied any relationship with al-Qaida. Mullah Omar was already highly critical of bin Laden 10 years ago. With 65 percent of Americans against the war, the danger now is what experts call “a mini Tet.”

It was the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam—simultaneous Communist attacks on 27 cities and towns—that hastened the final 1973 agreement to end the war.

In Afghanistan, simultaneous Taliban attacks on five or six widely scattered towns would see a NATO rush for the exit signs. Better to talk from a position of strength—with Pakistan preaching/ordering compromise to its Taliban proteges.

See http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/de-Borchgrave/2011/05/06/Commentary-Pakistan-Cutting-to-the-quick/UPI-20221304676040/; see also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/5/evidence-at-bin-ladens-home-raises-nuclear-concern/ (“Evidence at bin Laden’s home raises nuclear concerns“)

. . .

One “hostile government” that might get clues to sensitive U.S. military technology from what is left of the American helicopter that crashed at the bin Laden compound in Pakistan—if it has not done so already—is of course China, whose presence in Pakistan is considerable. Indeed, China would like nothing more than to fill the vacuum if, or rather when, the United States withdraws from Afghanistan.

One must never forget that China was on the spot almost immediately after the American F-117 Nighthawk was shot down over Serbia in 1999—and we failed to destroy the wreckage. Indeed, the Chinese gleaned some of their technological know-how from that crash; and there is evidence to support the fact that China’s new stealth aircraft is the result of reverse engineering gained from the crash.

History may repeat itself in Pakistan, as our enemy China seeks to leap frog American technological advances.

See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305573936767298.html (“Crashed Copter Sparks Concern About Secrets”) and http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-raid-pakistan-hints-china-peak/story?id=13570573 (“Osama Bin Laden Raid: Pakistan Hints China Wants a Peek at Secret Helicopter”) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385728/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead–stealth-helicopter-blackhawk-china-Pakistan.html (“Pakistan to let Chinese plunder secret U.S. stealth helicopter downed in Bin Laden raid“)

. . .

Also, a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would constitute the death knell of Afghan women—and their rights—who were brutalized by the Taliban before the United States invaded the country.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1102

Like

21 06 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Russian Despot Putin’s Repression Continues, While Obama Is Endorsed

A bloated Putin and his lap dog Medvedev

In an article entitled, “Medvedev hints he and Putin won’t be 2012 rivals,” Reuters has reported:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed talk of a deepening rift with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in remarks published Monday, strongly hinting they would not run against each other for president next year.

In a Financial Times interview, he also said he hoped Barack Obama, who has helped improve Russian-U.S. ties, would win a new term as U.S. president next year.

. . .

Many analysts . . . believe it is Putin who will decide whether to return to the country’s top job or endorse his protégé for a second term. With a marginalized opposition, either one would be likely to win.

. . .

Medvedev sounded far less equivocal about the U.S. election in November 2012, praising Obama and accusing some of his opponents of turning Russia into a scapegoat.

“There are representatives of a very conservative wing who are trying to resolve their political tasks in part by whipping up passions about Russia,” he said.

He suggested a Republican victory could chill ties after a period that included the signing of a new nuclear arms reduction pact and U.S. support for Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organization.

“I would like Barack Obama to be elected to the office of president of the United States a second time,” he said.

See http://ca.news.yahoo.com/medvedev-hints-putin-wont-2012-rivals-213400461.html

It is not surprising that his lapdog, Medvedev, will not oppose Russia’s “Hitler,” Putin, in perpetuating his brutal de facto dictatorship. Hitler’s henchmen and those of Stalin did not oppose them either.

Similarly, it is not surprising that they would endorse and embrace Barack Obama, who was responsible for giving them the New START Treaty. George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty, which had expressly prevented major advances in missile defense. The next GOP administration must withdraw from the New START Treaty as soon as it comes to power.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1137 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1147 (“Obama And His Democrats Did Not Get The Message—Their Ranks Need To Be Thinned Even More, Starting With Obama”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1167 (“Russia Warns Against START Changes—So What?”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1182 (“Republicans Who Voted To Ratify START Should Be Defeated”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1194 (“The New START Treaty Is Another Obama Travesty—Like ObamaCare—Which The Next GOP Administration Should Withdraw From Immediately”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1245 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1397 (“WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets”) and http://www.theotherrussia.org/2011/06/09/russia-nato-missile-defense-negotations-break-down/ (“Russia-NATO Missile Defense Negotations Break Down”)

In important testimony before Congress, former world chess champion and chairman of the United Civil Front—a pro-democracy group—and co-chair of the Russian Solidarity Movement, Garry Kasparov stated:

After I left the sport, I joined the pro-democracy movement in my country, motivated by the disturbing course change away from freedom that Russia was undergoing under President Vladimir Putin. I could not accept that my own children would grow up in a totalitarian state as I had. And to those who have suggested that I should leave Russia for my family’s convenience and safety, I say that it is my country, one I proudly represented around the world for decades, and so let the KGB leave, not me.

. . .

More recently, I traveled across almost all of Russia to talk to and listen to my countrymen, which is the only way for most Russians to hear from a critic of the Putin regime, since we are banned from the mass media. My colleagues and I are dedicated to bringing individual freedom and the rule of law to Russia, and we know very well by now that this cannot happen as long as Putin is in power. We protest in the streets, we provide legal defense for those who are punished for standing up to the regime, and we try to let Russians know that they are not helpless and that they are not alone.

When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, we on the other side of the Wall felt far more hope than you can imagine. Yes, there was fear and confusion as well, but thanks to the courage of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and others who followed them, hundreds of millions of people had the opportunity to grasp the freedom that the western world takes for granted. It was a great moment in world history and those leaders who did not forget about us will in turn never be forgotten by us.

For those who do not follow events in Russia, that is often where the story ends. Communism was proved bankrupt, the Cold War ended, and Russia joined the free world. Unfortunately, that last item on the agenda was never quite completed. Russia under Boris Yeltsin quickly acquired many of the mechanisms of democracy and freedom, but the values and traditions that support them never had a chance to put down roots. Economic chaos, rampant corruption, and widespread violence left many Russians with the impression that these were the fruits of democracy. When former KGB lieutenant-colonel Vladimir Putin took control of the country in 2000, he and his cronies were very quick to exploit that impression, just as the Communists had done in the previous election against Yeltsin.

By the way, I refer to Russia’s state security apparatus as the KGB for the expediency of this more widely recognized acronym. Its name has been changed many times over the decades, but calling it the FSB, its current name, does not change its nature. I admit that I had some hopes that the rampant corruption of the last Yeltsin years would be reined in by this unknown but efficient KGB man Putin. I could have never imagined that in just a few years, a bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky, forefather of the KGB, that had been torn down by jubilant crowds over a decade earlier, would soon find its way back to the plaza, both figuratively and literally.

The new regime quickly began the process of dismantling the fragile new institutions of honest elections and a free media. Rivals and dissenters were purged from the political and business realms, power was tightly centralized in the executive, and the flow of federal money from the wealthy center to the rest of the country was reversed, creating what most resembles a feudal oligarchy. The Putin regime also contains elements of Mussolini’s corporate fascism, with giant private monopolies working together with the state. It’s really a combination of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. The expenses are nationalized while profits are privatized.

One of the most common, and most ignorant, commentaries we of the opposition hear about the situation in Russia today is that we should be grateful, because things are better now than they were in the USSR. This is damning with very faint praise! Why go back to the 1970s to make comparisons? What about 1991? Or 1998? We had many problems then, yes, but we also had far more liberty and the potential to stay on a course to join the free world. Putin took that from us. We are also often told that Russians want a strong hand, a Tsar, and do not really want democracy. I reject completely this notion of a mysterious genetic tendency. Consider China and Taiwan, East and West Germany, and the two Koreas.

Putin’s economic miracle is another common myth. If you look at the numbers, the real economy was ready to boom in 2000 even with oil prices in the teens. Russia was recovering from the 1998 default and market reforms were taking effect despite the high corruption level. And yet now, even with oil back near $100, the outlook is still poor. The country is falling apart as the oligarchs steal the money faster than it can be pumped out of the ground. We are quickly becoming a resource-dependent petro-dictatorship. Putin and his gang are not Communists, or nationalists, or anything else. There is no ideology, only power and money.

But we have elections, yes, we do have elections. We go through the motions of voting and put on a show of campaigning and counting, all as if it really mattered—even though we all know it is all only for show. Putin is so secure in his power he did even bother changing the constitution to take another term. He simply put his shadow, Medvedev, in his chair temporarily, and continued business as usual. America and the rest of the free world prefer to go along with the charade, to allow Russia a place in the G-8 as if Russia were a real democracy. To those who say that Putin is popular, and that fake elections and suppression of dissent are irrelevant, I ask them, “how do you know?” Would you trust opinion polls in a police state? If he is so popular, why jail opposition activists, why blacklist so many rivals and so many topics from the media?

As for Medvedev, he is bait for a trap. For more than three years now, first as Putin’s hand-picked “candidate” and now as president, he has been making statements that give credulous Russians and willingly duped foreign officials false hope that he will lead a liberalization movement against Putin. But how can a man be in conflict with his shadow? For all his talk, Medvedev has done nothing to ease the oppression while doing much to make it worse. Laws have been passed that broadly define opposition members as extremists, even terrorists, and the list of political prisoners continues to grow longer. In theory, Dmitri Medvedev can create the Medvedev Era with one stroke of his pen, by signing an order to relieve Vladimir Putin from his post as prime minister. But as the popular joke in Russia goes, “There are two parties in Russia today. The Putin party and the Medvedev party. The problem is Medvedev doesn’t know which one he belongs to.”

A cynic may ask, “why does it matter to us if Russians do not have freedom of speech? We have enough problems now, why take a stand?” For decades, America led the fight to contain the spread of Communism. Not only because it threatened American interests, but because every president understood that being America meant standing up for American ideals worldwide. The USSR was not just a threat, it was, in Reagan’s typically blunt term, the evil empire, to be resisted on moral grounds. Its people were victims to be aided, not enemies to be destroyed.

When the wall fell, the free world celebrated and in so doing, let down its guard. Just as all the professional analysts were surprised by the collapse of the USSR, it seems today few are willing to admit Russia has slipped back into darkness. This is a terrible mistake, as the spread of the corruption of Putin’s corporate state is a serious threat to freedom worldwide. It only imitates capitalism, while in reality it is a state-run machine for looting national resources in Russia and the shareholders of companies abroad. Corruption, not oil or gas, has become Russia’s biggest export. The western appeasement crowd that keeps calling for engagement that will eventually transform Russia cannot see that it is the West, not Russia, that is being transformed by this contact.

Drawn by the lure of big profits, western presidents, prime ministers, and corporations have lined up to sacrifice their professed ideals in order to do business completely on the Kremlin’s terms. Transparency International ranks Russia as 154th of the 178 nations on their corruption index. On their list of the world’s twenty-two largest exporting nations, Russia scores by far the worst in evaluating its corporations’ readiness to pay bribes while doing business abroad. After over a decade of Putin and increasing economic engagement with the rest of the world, Russia’s rankings have gotten worse, not better. The neighboring nations most closely allied with Putin’s government have also dropped steadily in the corruption rankings. The problem inside Russia has become epidemic. According to estimates made by the leading Russian expert in corruption, Georgyi Satarov, the overall amount of bribes in the Russian economy skyrocketed from $33 billion to more than $400 billion per year during Putin’s rule.

Putin is also not above the old-fashioned use of force, as he demonstrated by invading neighboring Georgia and annexing its sovereign territory. Which, by the way, is still occupied by military force and where Putin continues to make threats. Kremlin provocations inside Georgia continue via a series of terrorist bombings that have been strongly linked to Russian intelligence officers operating from the annexed territory of Abkhazia. An official list of these state-sponsored terror attacks issued by the Georgian government is attached to my submitted testimony. The Kremlin has had no qualms blackmailing its neighbors and Europe over natural gas, at one point cutting supplies and causing shortages to half of the European Union during winter. Always looking for new sources of cash, the Kremlin continues to supply military and nuclear technology to belligerent states like Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. It is often said that the US needs Russia’s help in various regions, but it has been clear many times that the Kremlin’s only interest is self interest. Putin is delighted to help the United States stay stuck in Afghanistan and to stir up conflict in the region, as any incident drives up the price of oil, the money from which keeps the oligarchs in power.

. . .

Putin’s closest allies, those who keep him in power, are not faceless gray Politburo members who aspire to nothing more than a nice house or car. Putin’s oligarchs own global companies, buy real estate in London, Biarritz, New York City. The money they have pilfered from Russia’s treasury goes to buy art, yachts, and American and British sports teams. In short, they wish to enjoy the spoils and this makes them vulnerable. Putin needs the West’s support because that is where they all keep their money.

They are vulnerable to limitations on banking, acquisitions and travel, leading to what I call the “Do not Fly, Do not Buy List.” Even the suggestion that their investments abroad might be investigated would cause shockwaves in the Kremlin power structure. So many of their assets come from shady deals and looted properties that if the West ceases to rubber-stamp their money-laundering operations they will cease to treat Putin as the all-powerful guarantor of their wealth. As the famous Washington saying goes, follow the money and you will get results.

This treatment of denying visas and investigating investments must not be reserved for Putin’s wealthy supporters. The entire Kremlin power structure, especially the judiciary, is made up of loyalists with no regard for the rule of law. Those who violate their oaths and betray the laws they should be upholding should not be granted immunity by the civilized world. The police and prosecutors who fabricate evidence, the judges who rubber-stamp the convictions, the officials who rig the elections, they can and must be held accountable. They are following orders from above, yes, but just because they will not pay for their crimes in Russia does not mean they should be treated as decent citizens when they leave the protection of the KGB police state.

. . .

The creation of a new police state in Russia is not an anonymous, blameless crime. I have included with my submitted testimony lists we have compiled of the officials involved in numerous grave violations of Russian law and Russia’s international commitments. There are many precedents for taking action against such individuals. The members and leaders of the Cosa Nostra, the Italian mafia, were above the law in their native Sicily. But many were refused entry to the United States due to their criminal connections. Those who whitewash the murders of journalists and opposition members and those who carry out the repression of Putin’s Russia should be treated with equal scorn by the civilized world. These are not warlords or soldiers, they are bureaucrats who side with power because they want the easy life. If their lives become less easy, you will be surprised at how quickly things can turn.

The final argument is that Russia is too strong, that its oil and gas reserves make the Kremlin too powerful and influential to resist. This is similar to the theory that the US cannot stand up to China on Tibet or anything else because China holds so much American debt. But the Chinese are not fools. They know that the day after America defaults, the Chinese economy would explode to the moon. It’s economic mutually assured destruction, and the same principle is in effect with Russian resources. Russia cannot cease selling oil and gas to the West, despite the occasional threat. The pipelines are in place, the contracts are written, and the entire Kremlin oligarchy depends on the high profit margins to stay in power. Without the cash surplus that comes with $100 per barrel oil, the hollow state of the Russian economy would quickly be revealed.

. . .

I look forward to the day when a strong, independent, and economically and culturally vibrant Russia takes its place among the leading nations of the world as an equal partner. This can only happen when our people are free to choose their leaders and free to achieve their dreams. Our problems are for us to solve; we do not beg for help. What we ask is that America and the other leading nations of the free world live up to their own traditions and rhetoric. End the hypocrisy of treating Putin’s regime like a democratic ally. Stop treating the oligarchs who plunder our nation like legitimate businessmen. Stop allowing the agents of a police state to travel without restrictions or shame.

When I was growing up in the Soviet Union, in Baku, Azerbaijan, we were told America was the enemy. But most of us understood that there must be something good there if the government was so keen on keeping it from us. Generations of American leaders faced down nuclear annihilation to fight for the rights of those behind the Iron Curtain. Surely the threat of Putin’s Russia is nothing in comparison. From the Marshall Plan to Jackson-Vanik, the United States has listened, spoken, and acted. There is no longer a wall that needs to be torn down, but courage is still necessary to protect our most sacred values. I thank you again for inviting me here today and I wish you all the courage to act.

See http://www.theotherrussia.org/2011/06/19/kasparov-asks-congress-to-take-a-courageous-stand/ (“Kasparov to Congress: Take a Courageous Stand [And Stop Treating Vladimir Putin And Other Corrupt Russian Officials As Members Of An Actual Democracy]”) (emphasis added)

The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt has added with respect to Kasparov:

Given that chess champions are rock stars in Russia, he could have settled into an easy life of celebrity there. Or he could have joined the opposition to Putin’s kleptocracy, as he has, but from a safe and comfortable apartment in London or Manhattan.

Instead, he has maintained a life in Russia, where—given the grisly fate met by many journalists and human rights advocates—he lives with bodyguards and anxiety.

He does not live without hope for Russia’s future, however. And to that end, he came to Washington (meeting with executive and congressional officials) with three essential messages:

First, the ostensible power struggle between Putin, now prime minister, and his hand-picked president, Dmitry Medvedev, is a sham. Putin pulls the strings. Americans, including the Obama administration, have been taken in by this shadow play, Kasparov says, which is useful for Putin—Medvedev gives the regime a friendlier face to the West—but essentially irrelevant.

Second, Putinism is not working, and therefore its continuation is not inevitable. Despite being an oil exporter at a time of sky-high oil prices, Russia’s economy is ailing. Capital is fleeing, infrastructure is decaying, and people are noticing.

. . .

And having quarantined Russia from democracy movements that flared in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, Putin now has to worry about infection from the Arab Spring. “Putin did everything to prevent an Orange Revolution, but now comes the ghost of Tahrir Square,” Kasparov said.

Finally, the United States has at its disposal a practical tool that could help undermine Putin’s hold on power—specifically, a bill sponsored by Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin that would ban visas for and freeze assets of Russian officials implicated in rank abuses of justice or abrogations of freedom inside Russia.

“To outsiders, this may not seem like much,” Kasparov said. But it would undermine what Kasparov sees as the fundamental principle and purpose of Putin’s regime: that officials who are loyal to Putin can accumulate assets and park them abroad—and that Putin can protect them.

“If you are loyal to the boss, to the capo di tutti capi, you are safe, inside Russia and out—in Dubai, London, Lake Geneva,” Kasparov said. “If something happens to even a small group of these people, it will cause a dent in the monolith of power.”

Putin has bought off and corrupted so many European officials that Europe will not act first, Kasparov said. But the United States could—and because Russian oligarchs increasingly are investing in the United States, U.S. action would make a big difference.

“Don’t tell me you don’t have leverage,” Kasparov said.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/garry-kasparov-has-a-suggestion/2011/06/17/AGPUyiYH_blog.html

The KGB lieutenant-colonel who became Russia’s ruler, Putin, must be tried, convicted for his many crimes globally, and terminated. His lackey, Medvedev, is also complicit; and he too must be tried, convicted and imprisoned, at the very least.

The West’s goal must be to bring down a Russia increasingly focused on domination and replace it with a democratic nation that lives at peace with the world—and this is true with respect to China as well.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (see also all of the footnotes and comments beneath the article and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin’s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao’s-chinese-holocaust/#comment-900)

Like

2 07 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Future Still Belongs To America

This is the title of an important Wall Street Journal article by Professor Walter Russell Mead—subtitled, “This century will throw challenges at everyone[, but the] U.S. is better positioned to adapt than China, Europe or the Arab world”—which states in pertinent part the following:

It is, the pundits keep telling us, a time of American decline, of a post-American world. The 21st century will belong to someone else. Crippled by debt at home, hammered by the aftermath of a financial crisis, bloodied by long wars in the Middle East, the American Atlas can no longer hold up the sky. Like Britain before us, America is headed into an assisted-living facility for retired global powers.

This fashionable chatter could not be more wrong. Sure, America has big problems. Trillions of dollars in national debt and uncounted trillions more in off-the-books liabilities will give anyone pause. Rising powers are also challenging the international order even as our key Cold War allies sink deeper into decline.

But what is unique about the United States is not our problems. Every major country in the world today faces extraordinary challenges—and the 21st century will throw more at us. Yet looking toward the tumultuous century ahead, no country is better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities or manage the dangers than the United States.

Geopolitically, the doomsayers tell us, China will soon challenge American leadership throughout the world. Perhaps. But to focus exclusively on China is to miss how U.S. interests intersect with Asian realities in ways that cement rather than challenge the U.S. position in world affairs.

. . .

In Asia today China is rising—but so is India, another emerging nuclear superpower with a population on course to pass China’s. Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and Australia are all vibrant, growing powers that have no intention of falling under China’s sway. Japan remains a formidable presence. . . . Asia today looks like an emerging multipolar region that no single country, however large and dynamic, can hope to control.

This fits American interests precisely. The U.S. has no interest in controlling Asia or in blocking economic prosperity that will benefit the entire Pacific basin, including our part of it. U.S. policy in Asia is not fighting the tide of China’s inexorable rise. Rather, our interests harmonize with the natural course of events. Life rarely moves smoothly and it is likely that Asia will see great political disturbances. But through it all, it appears that the U.S. will be swimming with, rather than against, the tides of history.

Around the world we have no other real rivals. Even the Europeans have stopped talking about a rising EU superpower. The specter of a clash of civilizations between the West and an Islamic world united behind fanatics like the unlamented Osama bin Laden is less likely than ever. Russia’s demographic decline and poor economic prospects (not to mention its concerns about Islamic radicalism and a rising China) make it a poor prospect as a rival superpower.

When it comes to the world of ideas, the American agenda will also be the global agenda in the 21st century.

. . .

Fascism, like Franco, is still dead. Communism lingers on life support in Pyongyang[, North Korea,] and a handful of other redoubts but shows no signs of regaining the power it has lost since 1989 and the Soviet collapse. “Islamic” fanaticism failed in Iraq, can only cling to power by torture and repression in Iran, and has been marginalized (so far) in the Arab Spring. Nowhere have the fanatics been able to demonstrate that their approach can protect the dignity and enhance the prosperity of people better than liberal capitalism.

. . .

Closer to home, Hugo Chavez and his Axis of Anklebiters are descending towards farce. The economic success of Chile and Brazil cuts the ground out from under the “Bolivarean” caudillos. They may strut and prance on the stage, appear with Fidel on TV and draw a crowd by attacking the Yanquis, but the dream of uniting South America into a great anticapitalist, anti-U.S. bloc is as dead as Che Guevara.

So the geopolitics are favorable and the ideological climate is warming. But on a still-deeper level this is shaping up to be an even more American century than the last. The global game is moving towards America’s home court.

The great trend of this century is the accelerating and deepening wave of change sweeping through every element of human life.

. . .

This tsunami of change affects every society—and turbulent politics in so many countries make for a turbulent international environment.

. . .

This challenge will not go away. On the contrary: It has increased, and it will go on increasing through the rest of our time. The 19th century was more tumultuous than its predecessor; the 20th was more tumultuous still, and the 21st [century] will be the fastest, most exhilarating and most dangerous ride the world has ever seen.

Everybody is going to feel the stress, but the United States of America is better placed to surf this transformation than any other country. Change is our home field. It is who we are and what we do. Brazil may be the country of the future, but America is its hometown.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/TheFutureStillBelongstoAmerica.pdf (bold emphasis added); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”)

The only thing on the horizon that might dampen the American future that Professor Mead has described is a nation-ending EMP Attack, which might kill all except for 30 million Americans, and end any future that we might envision.

Query whether we are totally and absolutely protected against such an attack, or whether America’s “prince of darkness”—and its consummate narcissistic demagogue, “Hamlet on the Potomac” and “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama, is weakening our great nation’s military strength in ways that will dramatically change the course of history?

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/

Like

2 07 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Stuxnet-Like Attacks On Our Power Grid And Other Infrastructure

Concerns have been raised about Stuxnet-like attacks, and whether they would be just as devastating—or more so—than a deadly and possibly nation-ending EMP Attack, and when such attacks might occur.

First, there are some who predict that an EMP Attack will occur sooner rather than later; and one person who has contacted me believes one will happen sometime next year.

Second, I cannot predict the timing of either type of attack, much less with precision. All we can do is be prepared as much as humanly possible. Needless to say, if an EMP Attack occurs, it might make Pearl Harbor and 9/11 seem like child’s play.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare#Various_case_histories (“In September 2010, Iran was attacked by the Stuxnet worm, [which] . . . is said to be the most advanced piece of malware ever discovered and significantly increases the profile of cyberwarfare”) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet and http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/us-industrial-processes-vulnerable-stuxnet-attack

Both types of attacks—and others—might be devastating to the United States. However, I am most concerned about the possibility of an EMP Attack, which has been described as “a ‘giant continental time machine’ that would move us back more than a century in technology to the late 1800s,” and effectively destroy our great nation and kill most Americans.

Like

3 07 2011
Nie Jiggins

It’s an interesting theory in that it mirrors virtually the same scenario described by Andrew Collins. Except that the source of the electromagnetic anomaly would come from a mass ejection of neutron particles from a binary star located in the Cygnus Constellation over 1500 light years away.

He proposes that this was / is the natural phenomena that caused the evolution as well as the “set back” in technology, that reverts man back into the stone age, over and over again, eon after eon.

Would the question be, at what time intervals would our solar system come in alignment with this mass ejection? Could it be that the mass ejection hitting our sun would cause our sun to over energize and throw off larger flares that would effect the Earth?

That would also explain the highly advanced capabilities of lost civilizations. Archeologist unearthing amazing ancient stone monuments and celestial observatories that only could have been manufactured by advanced machine tools with laser accuracy.

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/thecygnusmystery.htm

Like

22 07 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

There Are Zero Questions That China Is America’s Enemy As It Builds EMP Weapons For Use Against Us

The Washington Times’ highly-respected columnist and reporter, Bill Gertz, has written:

China’s military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.

Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China’s so-called “assassin’s mace” arsenal—weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.

EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an aboveground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii.

The declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China’s military in the past made only passing references to the arms.

“For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) … to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland,” the report said.

. . .

“China’s [high-altitude] EMP capability could be used in two different ways: as a surprise measure after China’s initial strike against Taiwan and other U.S. [aircraft carrier strike group] assets have moved into a vulnerable position, and as a bluff intended to dissuade the United States from defending Taiwan with a CVBG,” the Pentagon acronym for carrier strike groups.

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/21/beijing-develops-radiation-weapons/; see also http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-27-china-strengthens-military_n.htm (“China’s military flexes its muscle”) and http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_COUNTERFEIT_PARTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-08-13-41-48 (“Fake weapons parts [from China are] ‘ticking time bomb'”)

Like

24 07 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Will The Euro Crisis Will Give Germany The Empire It Has Always Dreamed Of?

This issue is discussed in an excellent and very sobering article by Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, which states in pertinent part as follows:

There was one crucial message from yesterday’s shambolic and panicky eurozone summit: today’s predicament contains terrifying parallels with the situation that prevailed 80 years ago [when Wall Street embarked on a second and even more shattering period of decline, by the end of which shares were worth barely 10 per cent of their value at their peak], although the problem lies (at this stage, at least) with the debt rather than the equity markets.

After the catastrophe of 2008, many believed and argued—as others did in 1929—that it was a one-off event, which could readily be put right by the ingenuity of experts. The truth is sadly different. The aftermath of that financial debacle, like the economic downturn after 1929, falls into a special category. Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy—a good example is the downturn of the late 1980s. But in rare cases, they are far more sinister, because their underlying cause is a structural imbalance which cannot be solved by conventional means.

Such recessions, which tend to associated with catastrophic financial events, are dangerous because they herald a long period of economic dislocation and collapse. Their consequences stretch deep into the realm of politics and social life. Indeed, the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world, helping bring the Weimar Republic to its knees and easing the way for the rise of German fascism.

The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. Back in 1929, politicians and central bankers assumed that the convertibility of national currencies into gold (defined by the economist John Maynard Keynes as a “barbaric relic”) was a law of nature, like gravity. European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences.

There is only one way of sustaining this policy, as the International Monetary Fund argued ahead of yesterday’s summit in Brussels . . . the only conceivable salvation for the eurozone is to impose greater fiscal integration among member states.

. . .

By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.

This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago—which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis.

It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone—but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal—and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy—are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions.

While these nations relapse into pre-modern economic systems, Germany is busy turning into one of the most dynamic and productive economies in the world. Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods. Yesterday’s witching hour of the European Union means that Germany has come very close to realising Bismarck’s dream of an economic empire stretching from central Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean.

History has seen many attempts to unify Europe, from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons and Napoleon. This attempt is likely to fail, too. Indeed, a paradox is at work here. The founders of the European Union were driven by a vision of a peaceful new world after a century of war. Yet nothing could have been more calculated to create civil disorder and national resistance than yesterday’s demented move to salvage the single currency.

See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100098260/this-crisis-will-give-germany-the-empire-its-always-dreamed-of/ (emphasis added); see also http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c087c30e-b3be-11e0-855b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Smxa2CKN (“Athens’ ability to stay course in doubt”) and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8653579/Europe-steps-up-to-the-plate.html (“Europe’s economic recovery is sputtering out”) and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8656572/Eurozone-debt-crisis-Europes-politicians-will-be-punished-for-a-deal-dripping-with-moral-hazard.html (“At some point the Germans will realise that the package is a thinly-veiled fiscal union which makes the transfers they funnelled into East Germany look like small change, and they will revolt at the ballot boxes”)

. . .

There are those who preach the tenets of creating a global government; and they maintain that the constitution of a new world order is essential to maintain democracy. Also, they contend that the regulation of the economy by a global financial institution can be a solution to the financial crisis that began in 2007, and such an institution would be a first step towards the creation of a global government, of which the European Union is an illustration.

Barack Obama agrees with this; and it is among the many reasons why he must not be reelected next year. Indeed, he will “retreat” either to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library.

“Global governance” is pure and utter nonsense. Indeed, lots of Americans would gladly get rid of the UN, and ship it to France or elsewhere in Europe, and let the French or other Europeans pay for it. Global governance is “Mary Poppins-esque” and/or “Alice in Wonderland-esque.”

Americans do not want Germany or France participating in the governance of anything relating to the United States, any more than Hitler’s Germany should have done it. This is among the reasons why World War II was fought by the United States. America’s history abhors “meddling” in our affairs, which is exactly what global governance entails, and much much more. A majority of Americans might be willing to give up their lives fighting to insure that this never happens.

France did not win World War II. Americans saved Frenchmen from “enslavement” by the Germans. But for the United States, the French might be speaking German today as their “native” tongue. Indeed, a German-American—Dwight David Eisenhower—destroyed Hitler and his monstrous “Thousand-Year Reich.” France did not do it. France was flat on its pathetic back.

The United States has real enemies in this world today, who want to destroy us (e.g., China’s military, Putin and his Stalinist thugs in Russia, North Korea, Islamic fascists). We cannot rely on France or Europe to defend us—militarily, economically or in any other way. Indeed, France and Germany are perhaps the last countries in the world to preach to the United States about democracy. Americans have given their lives for it. France has only “talked” about it.

Lastly, Americans are not about to trust their survival, the survival and national security of our great country, and our freedoms and democracy to France or Germany, two countries that lost World War II.

Like

6 10 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Steve Jobs’ Legacy

When I first started using the Web, and put up a Web site, the Internet was being referred to as a “dirt road,” and not an information superhighway. Since then, it has grown geometrically and become much more sophisticated; and the current estimates are that out of the 6.9 billion people globally, approximately 2 billion use the Internet today.

See http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Wow . . . all of us may say or think. How far we have come in a relatively short period of time. We bank with it; we meet our spouses (or significant others) using it; we buy most things via it; information is exchanged, and teaching is conducted like never before; revolutions are begun and continued because people connect through the Web; and elections are won or lost based on the Internet. Yet, few users realize how vulnerable it is to an EMP or other attack, which might bring it crashing down.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/ (“Exclusive: Computer Virus Hits U.S. Drone Fleet”) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046660/U-S-drones-killed-American-Al-Qaeda-boss-infected-virus-amid-fears-terrorists-logging-move.html (“U.S. drones that killed American Al Qaeda boss ‘infected by virus’ amid fears terrorists are logging their every move”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/are-colleges-dinosaurs/

What Steve Jobs accomplished, as great as it has been, would not have been possible without the Internet. I am using my fifth-generation Apple laptop; and over the years, I have purchased lots of other Apple products, beginning with a PowerBook 160 almost 20 years ago. Like many other Apple users, I swear by them. Some of us have even communicated in the past with Steve, who has been receptive to many new ideas.

While the future is exceedingly bright, it is also fraught with enormous problems and challenges. China, Russia and other countries try to hack into the Pentagon’s computers on a regular basis; and they must be treated in substantially the same manner as if an enemy launched missiles against our cities. Fraudsters bilk Americans and others out of billions of dollars; and this will only get far worse with the passage of time. Law enforcement seems paralyzed when trying to address such problems, because they cross jurisdictional lines; and the necessary resources are not there, owing principally to declining budgets.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/lawyers-and-internet-scams/

Steve was a hero to so many people, yet his final verdict may become available shortly, when an authorized biography is released; and in the future when true “insiders,” such as John Lasseter of Pixar/Disney, share their views of Steve and having worked with him and contributed mightily to many of his enormous successes.

See http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/10/05/pixars-john-lasseter-on-the-death-of-steve-jobs/?KEYWORDS=Lasseter

With tributes pouring in from around the world, an article in the UK’s Economist may have said it best about Steve:

[He was] somebody who was able to make people love what had previously been impersonal, functional gadgets. Strangely, it is this last quality that may have the deepest effect on the way people live.

See http://www.economist.com/node/21531529

Indeed, as much as Bill Gates and Microsoft undoubtedly have been very successful, this may be Steve’s lasting legacy, and not that of his competitors. He made computing fun, for lots of us who are not geeks and never will be; and we will always thank him and honor him for that gift.

Like

8 11 2011
cecaria

Hello Mr. Naegele,

I have no idea if you respond to comments made on your old blog posts but never hurts to try. I have a question.

You seem to understand EMPs well. I was just wondering, the use of weapons to create EMP attacks has long been known since the 1940’s (maybe even earlier) with Fishbowl and was further tested in Russia. What’s more interesting is that the weapon made for an EMP attack could be like the ones the U.S. used in the 1940’s testing. There’s all these articles on how the U.S. is so vulnerable—and really with that, any technologically reliant nation.

So why hasn’t some terrorist nation attacked us yet? They could somewhat easily do it. They have the resources—and the capabilities for well over 30 years.

thanks,
Cecaria

Like

8 11 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

First, to launch a successful EMP Attack, a terrorist group or nation must have (1) a nuclear warhead; (2) a missile or delivery system that is fully capable of reaching high enough into our atmosphere that the desired effect is achieved; and (3) a “launch pad,” which might be a barge or other ship located off our coast (e.g., the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, the Sea of Cortez). Absent the presence of all three elements, such an attack cannot happen.

Second, to date, no terrorist group or nation seems to have put all three elements together, and had the will to attack. I am concerned, however, that we are vulnerable to such an attack, which might happen at any time. While I have great faith and trust in the American military, attacks can happen; and the events of 9/11 underscore this fact.

Third, as Obama seeks to “gut” our military, the risks increase enormously.

Like

1 05 2012
Damon Whitsell

Just wanted to say thanks for the article and discussion!!!

Like

1 05 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Damon. :-)

Like

18 06 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

House Plan Would Help Protect Nation’s Electricity From EMP Attack

The Washington Examiner has reported:

Amid growing fears of a massive electromagnetic pulse hit from either a solar flare or a terrorist nuclear bomb, House Republicans on Tuesday will unveil a plan to save the nation’s electric grid from an attack that could mean lights out for 300 million Americans.

Dubbed the Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act, the legislation would push the federal government to install grid-saving devices such as surge protectors to protect against an attack.

“It is critical that we protect our major transformers from cascading destruction. The Shield Act encourages industry to develop standards necessary to protect our electric infrastructure against both natural and man-made EMP events,” said Rep. Trent Franks, the Arizona Republican who is offering up the bipartisan bill.

Electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, has come into focus because of fears the sun is pushing out unusually big solar flares that can disrupt the electric grid. Defense officials are also worried about a terrorist attack, possibly in the form of a small nuclear bomb exploded overhead.

“This is serious stuff,” said former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy. But, he added, there is a growing bipartisan consensus to protect the electric grid.

Any EMP attack could be damaging, said Gaffney. He cited a new Lloyds of London report that determined that the area from Washington, D.C., to New York could be without electricity for up to two years in a major solar flare-up.

The legislation will be introduced Tuesday by Franks and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at a meeting of the House EMP Caucus. Officials said that the legislation . . . will include information from a recent EMP commission report that “contemporary U.S. society is not structured, nor does it have the means, to provide for the needs of nearly 300 million Americans without electricity.”

Gaffney [said] that there are some 300 huge electric transformers around the nation that control the grid and that have to be protected. “You are basically talking about surge protectors, of a somewhat exotic kind, but it is a means of interrupting the pulse,” he said.

See http://washingtonexaminer.com/lights-out-house-plan-would-protect-nations-electricity-from-solar-flare-nuclear-bomb/article/2532038

Like

31 08 2013
David Scott

Read the last chapter of “I.T. WARS” – the author says that EMP doesn’t throw us back to ‘the 1800s” – it’s much worse. The 1800s was a progressing society, with coherent paper records, food growth/production near where it was consumed. An EMP attack to our society would result in immediate chaos – no banking, no record of assets, no emergency responses, rotting food, no potable water (unless you have a well with a hand-pump). Read that last chapter of I.T. WARS – published in ’07 and still the best articulation of what we’ll experience., it describes what will happen if there’s an EMP attack – also talks about our vulnerability to natural disasters due to lack of planning (like failing to head warnings for 40 years about New Orleans’ vulnerability to Cat4/5 hurricanes like Katrina).

Like

31 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, David, for your comments.

There are many articles on this subject, including my own (above). The best source may be the “Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack.”

See http://www.empcommission.org/

The bottom line is that it would be a catastrophe . . . of unimaginable and nation-ending proportions.

However, it must be remembered that the United States has the ability to launch such an attack against our enemies, wherever they are located.

Like

10 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is Gutting Our Military Forces, Which Will Affect Our National Security For Decades To Come

Obama Guts Our Military

As I wrote more than four years ago:

International terrorism and other very real national security concerns still loom, which might produce flashpoints at any time. We have enemies who seek to destroy us—a fact that is sometimes forgotten as 9/11 recedes in our memories. While it might be attractive . . . to take a “meat ax” to the Defense Department, it would be foolhardy to gut our military precisely when it has been performing magnificently and its continued strength is needed most. America’s economic and military strength go hand in hand. Both are indispensable ingredients of our great nation’s future strength.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html (“Euphoria or the Obama Depression?”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/#comment-3125 (“Obama Accused Of Military Purge”)

John Lehman, who was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and a member of the 9/11 Commission, has written in the Wall Street Journal:

As we lament the lack of strategic direction in American foreign policy, it is useful to remember the classic aphorism that diplomatic power is the shadow cast by military power. The many failures and disappointments of American policy in recent years, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Russia and Iran are symptoms of the steady shrinkage of the shadow cast by American military power and the fading credibility and deterrence that depends on it.

Although current U.S. spending on defense adjusted for inflation has been higher than at the height of the Reagan administration, it has been producing less than half of the forces and capabilities of those years. Instead of a 600-ship Navy, we now have a 280-ship Navy, although the world’s seas have not shrunk and our global dependence has grown. Instead of Reagan’s 20-division Army, we have only 10-division equivalents. The Air Force has fewer than half the number of fighters and bombers it had 30 years ago.

Apologists for the shrinkage argue that today’s ships and aircraft are far more capable than those of the ’80s and ’90s. That is as true as “you can keep your health insurance.”

While today’s LCSs—the littoral-class ships that operate close to shore—have their uses, they are far less capable than the Perry-class frigates that they replace. Our newest Aegis ships have been upgraded to keep pace with the newest potential missile threats, but their capability against modern submarines has slipped.

Air Force fighter planes today average 28 years old. Although they have been upgraded to keep pace with the latest aircraft of their potential adversaries, they have no greater relative advantage than they had when they were new. There are merely far fewer of them in relation to the potential threat. In deterrence, quantity has a quality all its own.

There is one great numerical advantage the U.S. has against potential adversaries, however. That is the size of our defense bureaucracy. While the fighting forces have steadily shrunk by more than half since the early 1990s, the civilian and uniformed bureaucracy has more than doubled. According to the latest figures, there are currently more than 1,500,000 full-time civilian employees in the Defense Department—800,000 civil servants and 700,000 contract employees. Today, more than half of our active-duty servicemen and women serve in offices on staffs. The number of various Joint Task Force staffs, for instance, has grown since 1987 from seven to more than 250, according to the Defense Business Board.

The constant growth of the bureaucracy has resulted from reform initiatives from Congress and by executive order, each of which established a new office or expanded an existing one. These new layers have accumulated every year since the founding of the Department of Defense in 1947. Unlike private businesses—disciplined by the market—which require constant pruning and overhead reduction to stay profitable, each expansion of the bureaucracy is, to paraphrase President Reagan, the nearest thing to eternal life to be found on earth.

The Pentagon, like Marley’s ghost, must drag this ever-growing burden of chains without relief. As a result something close to paralysis is approaching. The suffocating bloat of overstaffing in an overly centralized web of bureaucracies drives runaway cost growth in weapons systems great and small. Whereas the immensely complex Polaris missile and submarine system took four years from a draft requirement until its first operational patrol in February 1960, today the average time for all weapons procured under Defense Department acquisition regulations is 22 years.

The latest Government Accountability Office report, released in October, estimates that there is $411 billion of unfunded cost growth in current Pentagon programs, almost as much as the entire 10 years of sequester cuts if they continue. The result has been unilateral disarmament.

What is to be done? As with most great issues, the solution is simple, the execution difficult. First, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel must be supported in his announced intention to cut the bureaucracy of uniformed and civilian by at least 20%. Each 7,000 civilian reductions saves at least $5 billion over five years. Second, clear lines of authority and accountability, now dissipated through many bureaucratic entities, must be restored to a defined hierarchy of human beings with names. Third, real competition for production contracts must be re-established as the rule not the exception. Fourth, weapons programs must be designed to meet an established cost and canceled if they begin to exceed it.

While sequester is an act of desperation that adds more uncertainty to an already dysfunctional system, it does seem to be acting as a spur to focus Congress on the urgent need to stop our unilateral disarmament by making deep cuts in bureaucratic overhead throughout the Pentagon, uniformed and civilian.

The way forward for Republicans is not to default to their traditional solution, which is simply to fight sequester cuts and increase the defense budget. Instead, Republicans should concentrate on slashing and restructuring our dysfunctional and bloated defense bureaucracy. With strong defense chairmen on House and Senate committees already sympathetic to the overhead issue, and a willing secretary of defense, this Congress can do it. That will place the blame for the consequences of sequester and the earlier $500 billion Obama cuts squarely where it belongs, on the president and the Democrats.

The way will thereby be prepared for Republican victory in the 2016 elections based on a Reagan-like rebuilding mandate that can actually be carried out by a newly streamlined and more agile Defense Department.

See http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303562904579227842506498188 (“More Bureaucrats, Fewer Jets and Ships”) (emphasis added)

I respectfully disagree with Lehman. Obama and Hagel seek to gut our military, not make it more efficient. The Pentagon has always been bureaucratic. In fact, it is the only portion of American government that functions effectively and relatively efficiently. It must be strengthened; and we must stop Obama’s unilateral disarmament.

Obamacare is destroying our national health care system—or one-sixth of the American economy. Obama must not be allowed to destroy the U.S. military. Our very survival depends on it!

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/#comment-3156 (“Why Liberals Are Panicked About Obamacare”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That“) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ (“Russia’s Putin Is A Killer“) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-next-major-war-korea-again/ (“The Next Major War: Korea Again?“) (see also the comments beneath the articles)

Like

25 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Imagine If The Internet Went Down: Court System Hit With Cyberattack

Internet

POLITICO has reported:

Unidentified hackers took aim at the federal court system Friday, blocking access to its public website while preventing lawyers and litigants from filing legal documents online.

The incident affected uscourts.gov, the federal court’s public hub, as well as most if not all federal court sites—not to mention the federal court system’s electronic filing system and its access page, PACER, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said Friday.

The aide described the incident only as a denial-of-service attack, and that the court system, which manages its own cybersecurity, is still investigating the exact nature of the incident and who’s responsible.

Earlier Friday, a federal court clerk from Arkansas indicated in an email obtained by POLITICO that it appeared to be a “new national cyberattack on the judiciary,” but he did not provide any additional information about the type of attack or who might be behind it.

The Justice Department, for its part, did not comment for this story. The Department of Homeland Security, which plays a key role monitoring federal networks and disseminating information about cyber threats, could not be reached for comment.

See http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/cyberattack-federal-courts-102594.html

I can personally confirm that certain courts could not be accessed yesterday.

A bigger question involves: could any documents be changed or deleted as a result of a Cyberattack?

Anything is possible. However, the federal court system maintains hard copies of recent filings, which are also available online. Thus, it is unlikely that hacking would make a difference in that regard.

Because America’s court system is already burdened by budget cuts (e.g., shorter hours, layoffs), hacking’s immediate effect is to create chaos in the system.

It seems that this hacking episode was relatively short lived. A sustained and effective hacking effort could bring the legal system to a screeching halt. So many filings are made online these days.

Yet, one must realize that the federal system is way ahead of State systems. Docket sheets and individual filings are not available online in many if not most States. However, as the States transition to fully online systems, they will become vulnerable too.

Obviously, all of this raises the larger questions about efforts to bring down the Internet itself and destroy the United States:

Imagine if someday we went online and there was nothing except a blank screen.

Worldwide terrorism is growing, not receding; and anything is possible.

Clearly, an EMP Attack would bring this country to a screeching halt . . . killing millions of Americans in the process.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“); see also http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_US_NAVY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (“IRAN SENDING WARSHIPS CLOSE TO US BORDERS“)

Like

13 04 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

North Korea Capable Of EMP Attack On USA

EMP Attack on USA

It has been reported:

A long-suppressed report prepared by the Department of Homeland Security for the Defense Department concludes that North Korea could deliver on its threats to destroy the United States with a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack.

The report remains blocked from release to the American public.

However, a copy obtained by Peter Vincent Pry from sources within DHS finds North Korea could use its Unha-3 space launch vehicle to deliver a nuclear warhead as a satellite over the South Pole to attack the U.S. from the south.

Pry, executive director of the congressional advisory Task Force on National and Homeland Security, pointed out that the U.S. “has no early warning radars or interceptors” to stop a missile from the south.

Read the book that’s documenting the worry about the EMP threat, “A Nation Forsaken.”

Pry also was the staff director to the congressionally mandated EMP commission, which concluded that the damage from either a natural or man-made EMP event on the nation’s unprotected electrical grid would have a cascading impact on life-sustaining critical infrastructures as well as electronic components and automated control systems.

Along with the electrical grid system, the critical infrastructures include telecommunications, banking, finance, petroleum and natural gas pipelines, transportation, food and water delivery, emergency services and space systems.

DHS conducted the study after the spring 2013 nuclear crisis with North Korea in which the communist government’s leadership threatened a “preemptive” nuclear strike on the U.S. and then released videos depicting a nuclear attack on Washington.

Pry said North Korea successfully practiced the EMP attack scenario three months before the crisis.

During the crisis, he said, North Korea issued a general mobilization order to its “nuclear forces” that included “space forces.”

“The North Koreans are seeing what they can get away with,” Pry said. “It shows that Pyongyang is planning something big against the U.S.”

Vulnerable backside

In its suppressed study, DHS said that if North Korea attempted to deploy the Unha-3 space launch vehicle or the Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile, the Defense Department should destroy the missile on its pad before launch.

At the time, however, President Obama and the White House “repeatedly asserted that North Korea did not yet have the capacity to attack the United States or U.S. allies with nuclear missiles.”

Separately, former U.S. Ambassador Henry Cooper, who was the first director of the Strategic Defense Initiative under then-President George H.W. Bush, said that North Korea generally tests its missiles by launching toward the South Pole.

He said, however, that the U.S. does not have its missile defense system oriented toward an attack from a southern polar missile launch attack on the U.S. Instead, all missile defenses are positioned for an attack from the north.

In addition, he said, the U.S. lacks adequate missile defenses against an attack on the East Coast.

Cooper has called for the deployment of existing Navy Aegis missile defense systems, both on ship and on land.

He said the Aegis system is capable of intercepting a nuclear weapon approximately 150 miles above the Earth, the height at which a high-altitude nuclear EMP attack would be most effective.

Nationwide disaster

In its December 2012 test, North Korea was able to launch a satellite, Cooper and Pry told WND, that could have been a nuclear weapon capable of orbiting the Earth and detonating on command over the United States or anywhere else.

In his interview with WND, Pry said Pyongyang in April 2013 had launched a satellite that was tracked orbiting over the U.S., first in the middle of country and then over the eastern most populated corridor between Boston and Washington.

Pry said that if the satellite were a nuclear weapon exploded above the middle of the U.S., the EMP effect on the vulnerable grid system would have been nationwide.

In its numerous underground nuclear tests, North Korea has been testing low-kiloton nuclear weapons that Pry said was a “super EMP” device designed to emit a large number of gamma rays, a form of electromagnetic energy.

Devious intent

In an interview with WND, Pry said the revelations in the suppressed DHS report are only the latest indications of North Korean intentions aimed at a possible nuclear EMP attack on the U.S.

He said the prospect is the latest in a series of recent North Korean actions.

Pry referred to the revelation of a Soviet-era nuclear-capable ground-to-air SA-2 missile that was discovered on a North Korean ship detained in the Panama Canal in July 2013 after leaving Cuba, only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

U.S. intelligence believes the missile was headed back to North Korea for refurbishment.

Cuba is assessed to have some 100 of the ground-to-air missiles ostensibly designed to knock out aircraft. However, Pry said that armed with a nuclear weapon and exploded over the East Coast, one or two of the SA-2s being launched over the East Coast would knock out the Eastern grid, which services some 70 percent of the U.S. population.

At the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the SA-2s were not an issue of contention for elimination from the island. Instead, the focus was on the ground-to-ground missiles the Soviet Union then removed. However, the SA-2s remain in Cuba to this day.

Revelation of a Cuban SA-2 on a North Korean ship also brought into focus the increasingly close military ties Pyongyang is developing with Havana.

Pry said that an EMP attack on the U.S. would not have to originate from North Korea but could be a missile, such as the SA-2, launched from a freighter off the U.S. East or Gulf Coasts. At that point, there would be no missile defense capable of halting such an event.

With a missile launched from a freighter, it could be difficult to identify who is responsible for an attack.

See http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/dhs-study-north-korea-capable-of-emp-attack-on-u-s/ (emphasis added); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“)

Like

16 04 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

WORLD WAR III

World War III-Drudge

Has it begun already?

Is this what Barack Obama’s betrayal of Ukraine thus far has given us? Will he go down in history as the Neville Chamberlain of our times, who handed Crimea, Ukraine and more to Russia’s Putin without a fight, like Hitler was appeased? Will Obama be viewed by history as a coward, a racist and a liar—and much much worse?

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-4422 (“BARACK OBAMA’S COWARDLY BETRAYAL OF UKRAINE”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) and http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-americans-believe-obama-lies-on-important-issues/article/2547367 (“Poll: Most Americans believe Obama lies on important issues”)

Both Drudge and Edward Lucas—writing for the UK’s Daily Mail—have raised the specter of World War III, having begun already with Putin’s aggression, like Hitler before him. Lucas states:

Deep in the flat and featureless landscape of eastern Ukraine, it is all too ­possible that the outline of World War III is taking shape.

Whipped up by the Kremlin ­propaganda machine and led by Russian ­military intelligence, armed men are erecting road blocks, storming police stations and ripping down the country’s flag.

They are demolishing not just their own country—bankrupt, ill-run and beleaguered—but also the post-war order that has kept most of Europe and us, here in Britain, safe and free for decades.

Vladimir Putin is striking at the heart of the West.

His target is our inability to work with allies in defence against common threats. The profoundly depressing fact is that the events of the past few months, as Russia has annexed the Crimea and ­suppressed opposition in Ukraine, have shown the West to be divided, humiliated and powerless in the face of these land grabs.

We are soon to face a bleak choice. We can chose to surrender any responsibility we have to protect Ukraine and the Baltic states—almost certainly Putin’s next target—from further Russian incursion. Or we can mount a last-ditch attempt to deter Russia from furthering its imperial ambitions.

If we do choose to resist Putin, we will risk a terrifying military escalation, which I do not think it an exaggeration to say could bring us to the brink of nuclear war.

Putin knows that. And he believes we will choose surrender. For the real story of recent events in Ukraine is not about whether that country has a free-trade deal with Brussels or gets its gas from Moscow.

It is about brute power. It is about whether Putin’s Russia—a rogue state on Europe’s doorstep—can hold its neighbours to ­ransom, and whether we have the will to resist him. So far the answer to the first question is yes. And to the second a bleak no.

The Russian leader believes the collapse of the Soviet Union was a ‘geopolitical catastrophe’. He believes Russia was stripped of its empire by the West’s chicanery. And quite simply, he wants it back.

When the Soviet Union was ­dissolved in 1991, the former captive nations of Eastern Europe scrambled into Nato and the protection it offered as fast as they could.

But the bitter truth is that Russia did not reform its ambitions in 1991. The Kremlin has always retained its imperialist outlook.

While modern Germany has ­forsworn militarism and empire, and is liked and admired even by countries such as Poland, which suffered horribly at Hitler’s hands, Russia has not.

Putin believes its historic destiny gives Russia the right to seize land, intimidate and blockade its neighbours. The Russian leader sees Ukraine not as a real country, just a territory, and one he is determined to dominate.

First he took ­Crimea. Now he has launched an operation in the east and south of Ukraine.

Russian troops are prowling the border as the Ukrainian authorities launch a desperate attempt to regain control of government buildings and police stations in key ­cities that have been seized and occupied in recent days.

Only yesterday it was reported that between four and 11 people had been killed as Ukrainian troops re-took Kramatorsk ­airfield from pro-Russian forces.

Putin has presented the Ukrainian leaders with an impossible choice. Either they consent to the dismemberment of their country. Or they fight a war they cannot win.

Ukraine’s ill-trained, ill-equipped and ill-led soldiers are quite unsuited to deal with the fraught challenge facing them.

Any bloodshed against a single Russian soldier will give Putin a pretext to use his military might. For her part, Russia has played a brutally clever game. She has ­deliberately sought to humiliate and destabilise Ukraine.

Now Putin can claim his soldiers must be allowed to intervene because the very social disorder his outriders have engineered demonstrates that the authorities cannot maintain order.

The hypocrisy is breath-taking. But the Ukraine adventure is ­stoking a patriotic frenzy at home which ­distracts the public from his regime’s incompetence and thievery.

But the biggest benefit to the ­Russian president lies abroad. He makes no secret of his hatred for the West. He is contemptuous of, yet fears, our soft power. He resents the laws, liberty and prosperity that our citizens enjoy. They throw into bleak contrast the dismal life that his own ­corrupt and incompetent rule offers Russians.

He also despises our weakness. He sees a Europe and America that talk tough but have failed to ­provide a united response to the growing catastrophe. Yes, we talk a good game—Foreign Secretary William Hague has called for ‘a clear and united international response’—but our deeds do not match our words, and Putin knows it.

In his bleak world view, only force and money count. He believes we in the West are too weak to defend ourselves when threatened. So far, his assessment looks right. Even Nato—the bulwark of our security since 1949—is creaking under the strain of the Ukraine crisis.

Nato’s gutsy commander, General Philip Breedlove, wants to share international intelligence with Ukraine and boost Nato’s forces in its most vulnerable member countries: Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

But the White House has blocked the first recommendation. And European countries such as ­Germany are blocking the second.

Vainly, our leaders hope diplomacy will make Putin back down. Surely he can be made to understand that confrontation is not in Russia’s interests? The markets are already punishing the rouble and big ­Russian companies.

But that approach fundamentally misunderstands a man like Putin. He is prepared to make his people suffer economic pain and risk war for what be believes is their national interest. We in the West are not.

Having taken Ukraine, he will turn his attention to the Baltic states. Members of the EU and Nato, their lawful societies, elections and ­thriving economies are an implicit rebuke to those who preside over sleaze and brutality in Russia.

Now Putin sees a chance to humiliate them—and the West. He does not need to invade, just to provoke. Using social division and agitation he will raise the pressure—whether economic or political—on one or more of the Baltic states until it becomes unbearable.

Nato and the EU—on current form—will merely appeal for ­dialogue and threaten sanctions. ­But nothing will happen. Which means the Baltics will buckle, and Putin will take back lands which he believes are rightly Russia’s.

That will be the end of Nato—and the dawn of a terrifying new world in which international rules count for nothing and the strong dominate the weak. Russia—ruthless and greedy—can play divide and rule for decades to come.

Suppose we do try to resist, with our shrunken armed forces and craven allies? With the latest round of cuts, the British Army is about to become the smallest it’s been since the Napoleonic wars.

Meanwhile, our once ‘special ­relationship’ with America was tested by our ­failure to support Obama over intervention in Syria.

What’s worse, the West’s ­intelligence operations have been severely ­compromised by the exploits of Edward Snowden, the former U.S. intelligence contractor who has taken refuge in Moscow, having stolen tens of thousands of secret state documents.

Deplorably, the complacent and self-indulgent journalists who so damagingly published the West’s intelligence secrets and effectively blinded our spies have been awarded America’s greatest journalistic honour, the Pulitzer Prize.

If the West does stand up to ­Russia, Putin will put its nuclear forces on alert, all the while decrying our ‘aggressive behaviour’.

As the centenary of the Great War in July approaches, historians are vying to pinpoint the chain of events which started that conflict.

I may be wrong, but in 100 years time, will their successors look back at the events in Ukraine to make sense of the beginnings of the next world conflagration?

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605578/Edward-Lucas-I-hope-Im-wrong-historians-look-say-start-World-War-III.html (emphasis added); see also http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/17/jews-ordered-to-register-in-east-ukraine/7816951/ (“Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine“)

Lucas is correct that the Cold War never ended. It merely morphed into a different form, with Putin becoming Stalin’s heir—or Hitler’s, take your pick.

What Lucas fails to recognize is that the United States is still the world’s only Superpower, and the most powerful nation on earth, both militarily and economically. It has a broad array of more than adequate “non-military” tools at its disposal to decimate a weak Russia economically, and bring the pygmy Putin to his knees.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-4010 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-4452 (“Decimating Putin: America’s Financial Neutron Bomb”); see also http://watchdog.org/138940/solar-flare-emp/ (“Experts: Civilians not ready for EMP-caused blackout”)

War has begun. Russia must be dismembered; and Putin must be terminated.

Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 161 other followers

%d bloggers like this: