. . . In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests. Read the entire article.
In a world on the edge of unchecked nuclear proliferation, an asymetric threat can also be an existential one.
With that in mind, here is an interesting question. To do the most damage to the U.S., where would you detonate a single nuclear warhead? Hidden in a Sea-Land container in NYC? Perhaps carried in the hull of a ship going to port in LA? Or somewhere else?
If you said Kansas, go to the head of the line.
If you said 250 miles or so above Kansas, give yourself a gold star. You know your weapons of mass destruction.
That is the "EMP" threat. It would knock our entire country from the modern age to the horse and buggy era in under a second. It would be the penultimate form of asymetric warfare. And there are indications that Iran is seeking such a capability.
________________________________________________________
When a nuclear weapon explodes, it produces a high energy magnetic pulse that can do damage at distances vastly beyond the blast radius of a nuclear weapon. As a rule of thumb, the distance at which an EMP will be felt will be to the end of the visual horizon as seen from the point of detonation. Thus a blast 250 miles above Kansas would effect all of the continental U.S. An EMP is not dangerous to humans, but it will fry unprotected electronics. When I say unprotected, I mean virtually all of the non-military electronics in the U.S. on which we are dependent for everything from energy to transportation to communications. It is an incredibly serious threat.
Ken Timmerman, writing at NewsMax, describes troubling tests by Iran that suggest they are seeking to develop an EMP capability:
One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.
“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”
Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”
Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.
The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.
“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”
The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation’s critical infrastructure.
"If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned.
While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.
“The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies,” Graham said.
As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be “truly massive traffic jams,” Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.
“So you would be walking. You wouldn’t be driving at that point,” Graham said. “And it wouldn’t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn’t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.”
The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because “we wouldn’t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,” Graham said.
The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.
. . . In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the CIA at his commission’s request, “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.”
Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East coast — a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests — U.S. investigators might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology, it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship that had been used to launch it, Graham said.
. . . While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that “one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”
. . . Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and EMP capability.
“An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” he told the Claremont Institute conference on Saturday. “If you’re a terrorist, this is your ultimate goal, your ultimate asymmetric weapon.”
Noting Iran’s recent sea-launched and mid-flight warhead detonation tests, Rep. Franks concluded, “They could do it — either directly or anonymously by putting some freighter out there on the ocean. . . .“
Who, by the way, was the idiot not too long ago who said we have no reason to feel threatened by Iran?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Iran & The Nuclear EMP Threat
So Boys, Are You Just Happy To See Me . . .
Would-be suicide bombers could be using explosives “underwear briefs” rather than explosives jackets to evade “conservative” body searches, sources said on Wednesday. This is nothing more than the evolution of tactics against counter-tactics, but it does present a problem for the sexually repressive regimes of the Middle East who not only prescribe clothing that is fully adapted to hiding bombs, but who also proscribe nearly anything that hints of sex in the public realm. Trying to adapt 7th century culture and taboos to 21st century technology in the hands of psychopaths who want a complete return of society to their vision of the 7th century sets up an interesting conundrum.
Or are you just an Islamic suicide bomber packing explosives in your cod piece?
__________________________________________________________
If one goes to the latest Islamic Radical fashion show and ganders at the cat-walk, they will find suicide vests are out, but that suicide cod pieces for the men and anal floss for the ladies are now apparently all the rage. This from Pakistan's Daily Times:
Sihala Police College forensic lab sources told Daily Times that the study of recent suicide attacks showed that suicide bombers used “explosives-laden” under-garments, briefs in particular, to carry out the attacks.
The sources said that the explosives could weigh between five kilogrammes to seven kilogrammes, made deadly by adding glass splinters, metal ball bearings and bullets. The law enforcers normally search upper body parts sparing the “privates”, the sources said, hence assailants are increasingly using the lower body parts to dodge the searches. The sources said that forensic experts were trying to devise methods to pre-empt suicide bombing. The experts have achieved successes in “Post Bombing Investigation,” the sources said, adding that resources are sharpening “Pre Bombing Investigation” techniques.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Watcher's Council Nominations
Each week, the members of the Watcher's Council nominate one of their own posts and a second from outside the Council for consideration by other council members in a contest for best post. Historically, the Watcher publishes the results each Friday morning.
As reported last week, the Watcher has withdrawn from the council. A new, permenant Watcher will likely be appointed shortly. For this week, Bookworm Room is acting as Watcher. This week's nominations are:
_______________________________________________________
Council Nominations:
1. The Razor: Here’s my response to Jack Markell’s commercial
2. Done With Mirrors: Us and Them
3. Wolf Howling: Stop The Destruction of Our Environment — Drill Now
4. Soccer Dad: Hating israel more than loving palestinians
5. Cheat-Seeking Missiles: An Awful Idea for Renaming a Perfectly Good Mountain
6. The Colossus of Rhodey: And Phil Gramm got grief? How come?
7. The Glittering Eye: Ooh-ooh-ooooh!
8. Rhymes With Right: Obama Desecrates Holiest Site In Judaism
9. Joshua Pundit: “Ich Bin Ein Beginner!”
10. Hillbilly White Trash: China
11. Bookworm Room: Nobody here but us biased chickens
Non-Council:
1. Bjorn Lomborg: How to Get The Biggest Bang for 10 Billion Bucks
2. Daniel W. Drezner: America’s soft power military
3. Jammie Wearing Fool: A Real Democrat Party
4. Maryland Conservatarian: Visiting Poland : A Warning
5. Patrick Poole - Pajamas Media: Anti-Patriot Act Poster Boy Kidnaps Own Kids
6. The Atlantic Online: Electro-Shock Therapy
7. Gregory Scoblete - Real Clear Politics: Will Obama Really Withdraw from Iraq?
8. UrbanGrounds: Barry in Berlin — I Am Not a Presidential Candidate
9. Jay Cost - Real Clear Politics: On Obama’s Message
10. Investor’s Business Daily Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism
11. Jeff Jacoby Missing from that Berlin speech
Amateur Hour
Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let's be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that's a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency. You actually have to break into exponential notation to show the mathmatical relationship between the oil to be had from drilling our own resources and the pittance to be saved from tire inflation. This really is amateur hour.
We better hope this man is not as totally clueless as he appears when speaking extemporaneously.
_______________________________________________________
Obama cannot seriously believe what he is saying here. Even the crowd of Obama supporters, whose silence is defeaning, seem to understand that what Obama is saying does not pass the laugh test. Given that the latest CNN poll shows over two thirds of all Americans support offshore drilling and the exploitation of our own resource, it would seem there were a few of that two thirds in the audience.
This from Powerline:
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling?"
ANWR: 10,000,000,000 barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18,000,000,000 barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1,000,000,000,000 barrels . . .
The press will have a field day with this tomorrow. There is no way they can try to cover-up a gaffe of this magnitude on this important of an issue. So you know the press corps are sharpening their quills now. Just hold your breath and wait for it . . .
Trying To Defend The Indefensible
Q. Can you clear up the controversy about visiting the troops in Germany, the Pentagon said you were more welcome to come but you cant bring the media and were not allowed to bring campaign staff other than that you are more than welcome anytime, inaudible, we have gotten a few conflicting claims... Ms. Sweet, like the Washington Post and like Obama, simply does not get it. "Having spent two years as the Command Sergeant Major at Landstuhl Hospital, I am always grateful for the attention that facility receives from members of Congress. There is no more important work done by the United States Army than to care for those who have been
The left, led by the Washington Post, is complaining that the attack on Obama for his decision not to visit wounded soldiers at the Landstuhl RMC is unjustified. They clearly do not understand that there is a bright line here, and however you try and spin it or justify it, Obama displayed extremely poor judgment and lack of concern by crossing it.
___________________________________________________________
Landstuhl RMC is where the U.S. military transfers its seriously wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama was scheduled to visit the wounded soldiers there. The military contacted Obama's staff, letting them know that he was welcome, but that his "army" of reporters and staff were not, including one of his campaign advisors who was also a retired AF General. Obama then chose not to attend, putting the best possible spin on it - that he did so out of concern for the troops.
Lynne Sweet at the Chicago Sun Times asked Obama for a clarification which she believes makes Obama's decision justifiable.
OBAMA: The staff was working this so I don't know each and every detail but here is what I understand happened. We had scheduled to go, we had no problem at all in leaving, we always leave press and staff off that is why we left it off the schedule. We were treating it in the same way we treat a visit to Walter Reed which I was able to do a few weeks ago without any fanfare whatsoever. I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisors, former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the senate staff.
That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns. So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were that. So that essentially would be the extent of the story.
Some things are apolitical. Visiting soldiers who are severely wounded is one of them. It is never inappropriate. It should never be weighed on the scales of political expediency.
Mr. Obama's ostensible concern for the staff having to sort through "whether this is political or not" is pure bull. His campaign was already told that he personally would be welcome, minus his entourage. His further reasoning that the troops "might get caught up in the crossfire between the campaigns" is equally baseless and even more inexplicable. Those troops at Landstuhl now know two things. Obama visited Germany to speak before 200,000 screaming Euro-lefties, but then did not make the visit over to the quieter section of Germany where they lie in beds convalescing from attacks by enemies of our country. As an aside, regardless of what anyone thinks of McCain, is it possible to envisage him criticizing Obama for visiting our wounded soldiers personally?
Obama made a decision. It was a wrong one. Apologists can spin this one any way they want to, but Obama's decision not to visit our troops crossed a bright line.
I wrote yesterday, in response to a different matter, "I could think of no man less qualified to be commander in chief than Obama. That belief is far from predicated on his lack of any military experience. It seems clear that his decision making will be guided by political expediency rather than principle. It seems clear that his decision making will always prioritize the political over military necessity or force protection. . . ." Obama's decision not to visit our wounded soldiers without press and staff falls completely in line with my assessment. No matter how anyone spins it, it showed his very poor judgement.
Let's give the former CSM of Landstuhl RMC, Craig Layton, the last word on this matter: