Yet another total failure in policy by our lord and savior
- Thread starter Dogmeat
- Start date
It's not about the fallout, it is about disruption to our entire electrical grid. Read on.....
Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America
Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23 PM
By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen
There is a sword of Damocles over our heads. It is a threat that is real but has been all but ignored.
On February 3rd, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit can also drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than forty-five minutes.
Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States given our retaliatory power. A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim:
One small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can, in fact, destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a by-product of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.
This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.
Even as the new Administration plans to spend trillions on economic bail outs, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the reluctance by the United States 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?
Fifty years ago it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit could also serve as an ICBM.
Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge.
The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation. . .can now at last achieve their dream of our annihilation in a matter of minutes.
Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will only have one or two nuclear weapons, ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons.
Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude—to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States—would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continental-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation and communications infrastructure.
Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90% 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.
It is a blow we most likely would never recover from.
Two things need to be done now and without delay.
1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that if a rocket is launched by either Iran or North Korea on a trajectory headed towards the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for thirty minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part.
2. Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which after twenty five years of research is at last becoming viable, would be an action of criminal negligence.
Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. William Forstchen is the author of "One Second After," an account of a town struggling to survive after an EMP weapon is used against the United States.
Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America
Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23 PM
By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen
There is a sword of Damocles over our heads. It is a threat that is real but has been all but ignored.
On February 3rd, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit can also drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than forty-five minutes.
Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States given our retaliatory power. A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim:
One small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can, in fact, destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a by-product of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.
This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.
Even as the new Administration plans to spend trillions on economic bail outs, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the reluctance by the United States 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?
Fifty years ago it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit could also serve as an ICBM.
Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge.
The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation. . .can now at last achieve their dream of our annihilation in a matter of minutes.
Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will only have one or two nuclear weapons, ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons.
Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude—to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States—would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continental-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation and communications infrastructure.
Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90% 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.
It is a blow we most likely would never recover from.
Two things need to be done now and without delay.
1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that if a rocket is launched by either Iran or North Korea on a trajectory headed towards the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for thirty minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part.
2. Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which after twenty five years of research is at last becoming viable, would be an action of criminal negligence.
Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. William Forstchen is the author of "One Second After," an account of a town struggling to survive after an EMP weapon is used against the United States.
Z
Zachcreek
Well-known member
Didn't say that he did Jackazz. I am now going to ignore your anti-American/ Israel outlook.
But it is good to see a pro-Iranian on the forum. Add a sig..... Praise Ala, or death to the infidels. Please become a martyr this evening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL6dtFU_Wl4
Z
Zachcreek
Well-known member
In defense of our defense.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uskorea31-2009mar31,0,7072293.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uskorea31-2009mar31,0,7072293.story
Sorry Ollie gona have to play your devils advocate. George Santayana said "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" History: Had europe and the us not allowed Hitler to advance his power, which they could have, the world would have been saved a great tradgedy and a lot of lives. If Eisenhower had allowed Patton to march on russia, as he wanted and could have, many people and countries would have been saved the hell communism. Had Macarthur been allowed to cross the yangtze river and remove the chinese comunists, which he would have, Asia would have been spared the horrors of Communisim and The Vietnam war and the killing fields of cambodia would not have occured. Are we seeing a pattern here of not learning from history. Kennedy learned he stopped cuba from getting missles during the cuban missle crisses. Swampy
Wow do I detect a strong antisemetic attitude? The post was about Iran not Isreal yet you immediatelly bring Isreal into the debate. Don't worry about Isreal they could wipe out the entire mideast muslim population if the needed yet they have constantly tried to work with arabs and muslims. If you don't understand the vile hatred whackjob has for the west you should read his words.Swampy
S
skooter
Well-known member
swampwater, tell me again how we can solve all our problems with 40 million?nice math.
Your reaction is one of the completely brainwashed. America fights wars for Israel why? The families that own the very private federal reserve that is currently robbing you ,are israeli. You cant add it up because quite frankly ,you cant add.
Your reaction is one of the completely brainwashed. America fights wars for Israel why? The families that own the very private federal reserve that is currently robbing you ,are israeli. You cant add it up because quite frankly ,you cant add.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Sorry Ollie gona have to play your devils advocate. George Santayana said "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" History: Had europe and the us not allowed Hitler to advance his power, which they could have, the world would have been saved a great tradgedy and a lot of lives. If Eisenhower had allowed Patton to march on russia, as he wanted and could have, many people and countries would have been saved the hell communism. Had Macarthur been allowed to cross the yangtze river and remove the chinese comunists, which he would have, Asia would have been spared the horrors of Communisim and The Vietnam war and the killing fields of cambodia would not have occured. Are we seeing a pattern here of not learning from history. Kennedy learned he stopped cuba from getting missles during the cuban missle crisses. Swampy
Hindsight is always 20/20.
To look back and say, see how it could have been is a bad way to set policy.
Who decides which countries are to stand and which are to fall?
Who decides who gets to advance and who doesn't.
What are the criteria for determining when to intervene and when not too?
When a country tries to play god they end up getting in bed with the devil.
What is the difference between us telling Iran they can't have nuclear energy and the dems telling you and me that we can't ride snowmobiles anymore?
They can come up with all kinds of possible horror stories and reasons to justify what they are doing to us just as the government can come up with all kinds of reasons to justify interfering in Iran getting nuclear power.
Hitler came up with all kinds of reasons to do what he did also.
The bottom line (to me anyway) is as long as it is an internal issue (to Iran) then it is their buisness. When and if it ever leaves their borders, then it becomes an international issue. Till then, it isn't our place to dictate what they can and can't do.
I partially agree with you, until a country has set a precidence of being hostile to US
Has not Iran set that precidence?
If a country isn't hostile, then let em have at it. What we need is a fail proof way of shooting down ANYTHING that breaches our safe zone.
Another scary thing Iraq could do is hide a nuke on a barge and tow it close to the US and launch a nuke from it. We'd think its a shipment of oil or toilet paper...whatever.
Has not Iran set that precidence?
If a country isn't hostile, then let em have at it. What we need is a fail proof way of shooting down ANYTHING that breaches our safe zone.
Another scary thing Iraq could do is hide a nuke on a barge and tow it close to the US and launch a nuke from it. We'd think its a shipment of oil or toilet paper...whatever.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
By all means, we should have the right to build what ever internal defence system we want to take out anything fired, flown or launched at us. We already have the means to take out any country that launches an attack. We just don't have leaders with a backbone.
Iran is but one example, and we could argue the merits of their "alliance" all day long...supposidly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are allies too. I think of them as surface allies, runs skin deep while they hate us at the core and even facilitate (don't wanna use the T word here) bad guys with our oil money.
If theres a bad guy out there, and I have reason to believe he wants to harm my family I'm not just going to buy an alarm system for the house and hope its enough.
If theres a bad guy out there, and I have reason to believe he wants to harm my family I'm not just going to buy an alarm system for the house and hope its enough.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
But that's the question.
How far can you go?
What can you actually do?
If a man stands in front of your house and your sure he is up to no good what can you do?
Now he hasn't actually done anything.
He hasn't actually threatened you.
Has stated he hates you and wants you to leave.
Does that alone give you the right to take action?
What action should you take?
What do you do if after you take action you find out that the reason he hates you is because your actions caused him to lose his house or his car or something important to him. Is he then not justified to take action against you??
Same thing with Iran.
We have meddled in their internal affairs for 30 years.
We have dictated what they can and can't do.
We sit back and justify what we do and what we feel we should denign them based on the fact they hate us, yet they hate us because of the way we treat them.
So who is at fault?
Them now or us for the past and present way we treat them?
We could quit meddling, I'm fine with that lets get our own oil at home. Our past meddling doesn't mean we should stand there and take a bullet to the chest..were not talking about taking a slap on the face and turning a cheek. A nuke or three would kill us if properly applied.
We've been the police state, or nanny nation for a long time. I agree this has led to our current problem. I wouldn't mind looking out for #1...right now we need to get our govt back in check #1 priority!!
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Agreed, however, our past meddling doesn't give us the right to continue to meddle because we made another country mad at us. Iran has no more intent to use a nuke than the US does. It would however, give them the same deterent we have enjoyed for 50 years. If you attack, we will wipe you from the face of the earth.
The reference you made about "if he had a nuke I would use mine first", if that were the case, both Russia and the US would be a radioative waste land. The mere presence of a weapon, be it a nuke or a rifle does not in and of itself denote violence. I own a small arsenal, doesn't mean I am any more dangerous than the guy with a baseball bat.
My whole point was we need to stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations and get our chit in order here at home.
The real question is why are you pro terrorist? Exactly what war has the US fought for Isreal? The people of Iran love Americans but if you're going to defend their leaders, you're an idiot, they hate us and would blow us off the face of the earth if they could.
I am NOT a fan of Isreal at all and would argue that Isreal should not be there but why do you support the terrorist acts of Palistine? Talk about brainwashed, you have joined the Hollywood fad, the poor Palistine people. We give them money so they can eat and they buy bombs and use them.
What do you think is going to happen when we put the National Guard on the Mexican border? The drug loards are going to start hucking bombs over the boarder at our troops to drag us in to this mess. Then, as soon as 1 Mexican child gets killed by us defending our selfs, your little brainwashed Hollywood buddys are going to come to the rescue. Same type of deal..
Thats the quandry isn't it? In Iraq Bush told us they had WMD's (and I think he honestly thought they did) and sponsored Terrorists. The second part I beleive true so didn't have a big problem with the Iraq war that a lot of people had. Another theory is the WMD's were exported out before we went in or buried, how would we know and look at the damage that caused with the Americian people loosing faith in the war effort....and the Hate Bush mantra begins in ernest.
We don't know if Iran has nukes or how close they are to getting them. What we DO know is the dude is a wack job, we don't know what he will or won't do but we know what he's done in the past and what he threatens to do.
Russia was a whole different ball game. We had a red line direct to Moscow, most of the tension between us was war games. We did have a close call with them during the Cuba crisis.
Point is Russia and Iran are vastly different. I don't begrudge Iran nuculear power, but why did they make the centrifuges to weaponize plutonium then?? not to make power I can assume. It would be very dangerous to let them have a functional nuke, both for US and Isreal.