THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Hiroshima Speech Obama Won’t Give
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Hiroshima Speech Obama Won’t Give
The possible catastrophic damage from an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) attack has been known for decades and yet very little has been done by our government to protect our country by hardening our electrical grid and damage proofing our various means of transportation . This article warns of North Korea’s latest satellite launching as a potential danger to us by an EMP as we are very vulnerable.For more information on this threat, ICON Lectures’ May 17 presentation will be on “The EMP Threat” given by James Jay Carafano, PhD, at 200 South Elliott Road, Chapel Hill at 7 p.m. Dr. Carafano has the responsibility for the Heritage Foundation’s entire defense and foreign policy team. For tickets and more information, please go to www.iconlectureseries.com NancyAMERICAN THINKERMay 2, 2016
North Korea Poses EMP Threat
The nightmare scenario of an America sent back centuries in time before electricity, refrigeration, and smart phones has grown unnervingly closer with the presence of two North Korean satellites with orbits over a blissfully unaware American populace and an Obama administration indifferent to the apocalyptic threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.
On Feb. 7, North Korea launched a second satellite, the KMS-4, to join their KMS-3 satellite launched in December of 2012. In an article in the Washington Times on April 24, R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Peter Vincent Fry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security as well as director of the Nuclear Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards, warned of the dangers of an apocalyptic EMP attack that these and similar satellites pose:
Please scroll down to read the U.S. News & World Report article entitled “
The EMP Threat is Real and Growing” which discusses a possibly catastrophic threat to this country that very few people are aware of.
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT
The EMP Threat Is Real and Growing
Building defenses against the electromagnetic threat has never been more urgent – or more doable.
We must harden our infrastructure to withstand electromagnetic threats.Ongoing crises make it difficult for policymakers to devote sufficient attention to electromagnetic threats, which are less prominent but potentially catastrophic. Events that reflect our growing vulnerability to these threats often slip quickly from the front page, as did the cyberattack against Sony Pictures. Others, such as solar storms across Alaska in March and the accidental power station explosion in April that left Washington, D.C. in the dark, go mostly unnoticed. And even events that dominate headlines, like the Iran nuclear agreement, don’t tell the whole story about electromagnetic threats. As a nuclear threshold state, Iran may quickly race to build a bomb that could be used to conduct a devastating electromagnetic attack against the United States.
The Pentagon is moving the headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) back into Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs, Colo., a decade after having largely vacated the site.
Why the return? Because the enormous bunker in the hollowed-out mountain, built to survive a Cold War-era nuclear conflict, can also resist an electromagnetic-pulse attack, or EMP. America’s military planners recognize the growing threat from an EMP attack by bad actors around the world, in particular North Korea and Iran.
An EMP strike, most likely from the detonation of a nuclear weapon in space, would destroy unprotected military and civilian electronics nationwide, blacking out the electric grid and other critical infrastructure for months or years. The staggering human cost of such a catastrophic attack is not difficult to imagine.
The primary headquarters for Norad, which provides early warning and command and control for the defense of the U.S. against nuclear attack, has for a decade been at nearby Peterson Air Force Base. Critical Norad operations are being moved back into Cheyenne Mountain, and the Pentagon recently awarded a $700 million contract to Raytheon RTN 1.04 % to upgrade electronics through 2020. (more…)
April 2, 2015 By the nuclear compliance standards of Barack Obama and John Kerry, North Korea was a model state—in 1992. In 1985, North Korea joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 1992 it and South Korea jointly declared the “denuclearization” of the Korean peninsula. North Korea next signed a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within months, the IAEA reported “inconsistencies” in North Korea’s nuclear program.
What follows is a quarter-century summary of arms negotiations with North Korea, based on the chronology assembled by the Arms Control Association. What happens in Lausanne doesn’t matter. No agreement is going to stop Iran. Agreements, and a lot of talk, did not stop North Korea.
After negotiations with North Korea (shortened here to “NK”)—and after the CIA reports that NK has separated enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons—the U.S. and NK in 1994 sign the Agreed Framework in Geneva. With NK promising to eliminate its ability to produce nuclear weapons, the Agreed Framework is hailed as a major diplomatic triumph for the Clinton presidency.
Through 1996-97, the U.S. negotiates with NK over ballistic-missile proliferation. On Aug. 31, 1998, NK launches the Taepo Dong-1 missile with a range of about 1,200 miles. The missile flies over Japan. U.S. intelligence admits “surprise” at the new third stage on the Paekdosan-1 launch vehicle.
Nonetheless, talks are held in December over a suspected underground nuclear factory. A U.S. inspection team visits the facility at Kumchang-ni and finds no violation of the Agreed Framework.
In 2000, the Clinton administration relaxes economic sanctions. Kim Jong Il tells visiting Secretary of State Madeleine Albright he won’t test the Taepo Dong-1 long-range missile again. The seventh round of missile talks is held in Malaysia.
In 2001, new U.S. President George W. Bush commits to “comprehensive” talks. In October 2002, the U.S. says North Korea has admitted it has had a secret program to enrich weapons-grade uranium. The State Department’s Richard Boucher calls it a “serious violation” of the Agreed Framework.
North Korea then cuts the IAEA seals on its nuclear factories, withdraws from the Non-Proliferation treaty and restarts a nuclear reactor. Talks resume in Beijing in April 2003. North Korea says it possesses nuclear weapons—but will dismantle its “nuclear facility” in return for fuel oil and food. (more…)
There is an op-ed in the Washington Post by Mark Kramer, director of the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard University, making the rounds today titled Five myths about the Cold War.
Like so many “Myth” themed pieces it is combination falsehoods and fields of burning straw men. Some of the myths aren’t even myths. In my view, if this actually represents the state of Cold War scholarship then four decades of American history have been as smoothly eradicated as anything contemplated by George Orwell.
We’ll take a look at the alleged myths but this is not scholarship. This seems to be part of the propaganda campaign emerging from the White House which is telling us that it is really no big deal if Russian president Vladimir Putin is snarfing up huge expanses of previously sovereign nations because Obama is On. The. Job. And this is not the Cold War.
1. During the Cold War, we knew who the enemy was.
Throughout the Cold War, fierce disagreements often arose about the nature of the threat. Debate raged in the late 1940s and 1950s about the danger posed by American communists and others with suspect loyalties. After President Harry Truman sent U.S. forces to the Korean Peninsula in 1950, some in Congress warned that getting bogged down in Asia would divert forces from the real threat Joseph Stalin posed to Europe. Protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s once again raised the question of the enemy: Was it China, the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese communists? Similar questions emerged in the 1980s in debates about aid to anti-communist guerillas in Nicaragua.
America’s main target changed with the times. Mao Zedong’s China was once seen as a great danger, but after China and the Soviet Union clashed in 1969, the U.S. government pursued a far-reaching rapprochement with Beijing . The United States also established a detente with the Soviet Union in the early 1970s, as did allies in Europe. When U.S.-Soviet tensions resurfaced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Western Europeans preserved their own detente with the Soviet bloc.
This is not a myth. It is a tendentious argument that at its core is nonsense. Of course we knew who the enemy was.
Until the Sino-Soviet schism in 1960 all communist threats, foreign and domestic, were rightfully viewed as part of a monolithic communist threat under the direction of the Soviet Union. Soviets, not Chinese, ran the intelligence apparatus that owned the West Coast longshoremen’s union and most of Hollywood. The Soviets pilfered the atom bomb. The argument about Korea was not who our enemy was, but rather one of strategy. Were we weakening our position in Europe by intervening? Many in foreign policy circles believed that Korea was a feint to draw our attention from NATO. No one doubted that the Soviets were heavily involved. The North Koreans drove T-34 tanks and Soviet Air Force pilots in Soviet MiG-15s squared off against USAF pilots in F-86s. The breach between Mao and Stalin took place, in part, because Mao believed he was promised Soviet military units to fight in Korea. (more…)
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: Strategically, our main military threats emanate from China and Russia, but we cannot overlook their proxies, North Korea and Iran. Further, we cannot fail to address the Islamic threat represented by the Muslim Brotherhood’s “silent jihad,” in which they have been able to penetrate virtually every key government agency involved in national security, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Such penetration has enabled influencing our policies and war-fighting strategy to the net disadvantage of our fighting forces…… Both China and Russia have considered “limited” nuclear-attack options, including employing electromagnetic pulse as the primary means of attack.
Is it a belief held by Mr. Obama, based on his Marxist upbringing that views American power as historically regressive because it is capitalistic, hence imperialistic; therefore, the erosion of American power should be seen as historically progressive. Clearly, eroding U.S. military capabilities at a time when we are being challenged by a multitude of increasing military threats is unconscionable. With the Middle East in turmoil, the potential for hostilities breaking out in the Western Pacific between our allies and China owing to China’s imperialistic actions in the South and East China seas is real. These threats are magnified by the decline in U.S. military power brought about primarily by our self-imposed draconian budget cuts. (more…)
Mr. Woolsey, a former CIA director, is chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a venture partner with Lux Capital. Mr. Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and served on the congressional EMP commission.
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: An EMP attack would collapse the electric grid and other infrastructure that depends on it—communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water—necessary to sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans.
EMP effects can be made more powerful and more catastrophic by using an Enhanced Radiation Warhead. This is a low-yield nuclear weapon designed not to create a devastating explosion, but to emit large amounts of radiation, including the gamma rays that generate the EMP effect that fries electronics.
Over the past three days, North Korea has launched six short-range guided missiles or projectiles in tests that landed in the Sea of Japan. The launches were of a piece with Pyongyang’s springtime custom of muscle-flexing, undertaken to extract concessions from the West in exchange for stopping the provocations. The Obama administration would do well to ignore these minor fireworks and focus on the much greater threat of a long-range North Korean missile carrying a nuclear warhead.
So far President Obama has seemed content to parry North Korea’s thrusts, much as his White House predecessor did. The George W. Bush administration did not distinguish itself in recognizing, or acting on, the danger from North Korea. Last month, in a worrying sign of similar detachment, Mr. Obama essentially dismissed the Defense Intelligence Agency conclusion that North Korea has probably been able to fit a nuclear warhead on a missile. He certainly did not suggest that he would consider a pre-emptive strike to halt the North Korean nuclear program.
The president may want to rethink that position.
Much has happened since 2006, when former Secretary of Defense William Perry and now-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter urged President Bush to pre-emptively destroy North Korea’s long-range Taepodong 2 missile on its launch pad in a surgical strike with conventional weapons. Writing in the Washington Post, they advocated drawing “a line in the sand” against North Korea’s test of a missile designed to deliver nuclear weapons against the United States. (more…)