Replies

I used to think the EMP threat scare was a tin-foil-hat type scenario, until I started reading up more on it. Turns out that many military experts see that as a very serious, credible threat.

Too bad that our military experts IN the military don’t get to make the decisions - community organizer sodomite activists do.

Let's see... Option 1) Spend billions more to deploy a device that may or may not actually result in the desired effects, as really, we're simply talking theory at this point with a few scattered tests to give validity to the theory.

Option 2) Use the billions already spent on nuclear devices to deliver a devastating neutron blast on the target(s).

Both option 1 & 2 result in an immediate response of launching pretty much anything and everything to turn your country into a irradiated parking lot, no matter what the occupier of the White House might have to say about the matter.

To counter this threat, we again make up theories as to what might actually work and deploy it nationally, spending trillions on a possibility that is far less likely than a nuclear exchange.

Then again, we spend billions with McAfee for protection against trojans, viruses, and other programs that are only likely if the user is actively visiting sites that involve illegal activities. In exchange, we sacrifice roughly 20% of our normal computing power and 15% of our computing memory to their bloatware - which actually doesn't work against anything new until after it has already delivered it's payload.

I did some research and found the possibilities are mixed. While there are lots of doomsayers out there...there are more cases where they say your car will stop. But then it will start right up again after.

This is one of those things I am not going to worry about.