Posted on 09/24/2011 9:13:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
In Part I of this series, "Iran at our Doorstep," published in the August issue of A Line of Sight, I documented Iran's continued quest to develop a nuclear weapon. Additionally, I explained the Iran-Venezuela-Russia alliance currently constructing a military missile base on the extreme northern coast of Venezuela well within reach of many heavily populated U.S. cities. The publicly stated purpose of building the base is to provide the capability for Venezuela to launch missiles at "Iran's enemies."
Subsequently on September 4 we published contributing editor Major General Paul Vallely's article summarizing the release by the United Nation's IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) of a "restricted report" regarding Iran's continued nuclear activity. Consistent with the documentation shared on these pages last month, the U.N. nuclear agency said it is "increasingly concerned" by a stream of "extensive and comprehensive" intelligence coming from "many member states" suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.
General Vallely now serves as Chairman of Stand Up America, a private organization that includes numerous former military and intelligence community experts and analysts. In his September 4 article, Vallely wrote, "SUA believes strongly that Iran now possesses low yield nuclear war heads that can be mounted on the Shehab missile and deployed on the oceans in container ships with the Russian provided Club K missile launch system." The General went on to explain that Iran's objective is to "launch EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) weapons on U.S. Coastal cities and freeze our national grid systems."
A June, 2011 RAND report agreed with Vallely's analysis. According to RAND senior defense policy analyst Gregory S. Jones, Tehran's nuclear program has progressed to the point that "it will take around two months for the Iranian regime to produce the 20kg of uranium enriched to 90 percent required for the production of a nuclear warhead."
The window may have slammed shut on the opportunity to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Americans are increasingly concerned about the vulnerability to a cyber-attack. On a personal level, that could involve the hacking into one's personal financial or other identity information. A cyber-attack could also escalate to a much larger scale of a corporate or large network cyber-theft, and certainly a cyber-attack that penetrated our various government, military or national security agencies could be catastrophic.
But, an EMP attack would be even far more destructive and life threatening. For those unfamiliar, one of America's most experience terrorism experts, RP Eddy, offers this layman's definition: "An EMP is a result of a nuclear explosion, or of another weapon, that releases a wave of electrons that will fry every electronic gizmo or tool that civilization needs to survive." Among his lengthy and distinguished credentials, Eddy served the Clinton Administration on the National Security Council as the Director of Counterterroism, and following the 9/11 attacks founded the Center of Tactical Counterterrorism in New York.
This isn't just theoretical or "Hollywood" fantasy. A quick search will yield a large library full of information and warnings about EMPs dating back over many decades. The U.S. found out about EMPs somewhat by accident during the World War II era when some of our own planes were affected by our own nuclear weapons tests. Although no nation has deployed an EMP, it is commonly accepted that many developed nations have such weapons. Since the technology required is considerably less sophisticated than advanced nuclear weaponry, experts believe that nations with developing nuclear capabilities and terrorist organizations may find EMPs far too appealing.
In a 2009 interview with Fox News, Eddy explained that part of the appeal to perceived lesser powers is that an EMP is far easier to build than a traditional nuclear weapon in part because it doesn't have to be as accurate nor as long range. And there are far too many bargain priced aged missiles lying around that can be picked on the cheap and nukes galore, too. Most estimates put the Russian stockpile alone of old and new nukes at more than 10,000. Eddy also referenced the ability to launch an EMP from a "floating barge" – the same Club K Russian weapons technology that looks like a common semi-truck trailer highlighted by Vallely in his September 4 article, and now being marketed to the world.
The above graphic is from 1997 congressional testimony, and it has been repeatedly referenced since that time to demonstrate that a single explosion sufficiently high in the atmosphere could paralyze the entire North American continent. As Eddy explains, an EMP attack would "fry" everything electric, and the "power grid would be out for months." Not only would our cell phones and computers not work, neither would hospital systems, air traffic control, food production and refrigeration, manufacturing, distribution of goods and services, financial transactions and records….you get the picture.
Frank Gaffney is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and was in charge of Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy at the Pentagon under President Reagan. Currently, Gaffney is President of the Center for Security Policy. His warning of the potential devastation from an EMP attack is terrifying. "Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead, because we can't support a population of the present size in urban centers and the like without electricity," he says. "And that is exactly what I believe the Iranians are working towards."
Senator Jon Kyl, previously the Chairman and now Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, is deeply concerned about the vulnerability to an EMP attack. He says that it "is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies – terrorist or otherwise. And it is probably the easiest."
"A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead on target with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere," Kyl wrote in the Washington Post. "No need for risk and difficulty of trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international waters – al Qaida is believed to own about 80 such vessels – and make sure to get it a few miles in the air."
In addition to the 9/11 Commission charged with review and making recommendations following the 9/11 attacks, the government established The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. The Commission released their first report in 2004, about the same time as the 9/11 Commission, and a subsequent report in 2008. Unfortunately, only a few politicians like Sen. Kyl even paid attention. In fact, there have been at least six national commissions as well as the government commissions to issue reports on the threat of EMP. But, virtually all of the warnings and recommendations of the experts have been ignored. "Congress has merely deliberated it, but has not taken substantive action," according to the Heritage Foundation. "The Administration and federal agencies remain mostly ambivalent."
One of the most damning indictments of the 9/11 Commission's findings was a "failure of imagination." America couldn't imagine that we were vulnerable to a terrorist attack inside our border on the scale of 9/11. Have we allowed our imaginations to fall asleep again?
As threatening as an EMP attack is, there is also a great deal that can be done. The EMP Commission says the "appropriate national-level approach should balance prevention, protection, and recovery." Both comprehensive reports by the Commission contain specific recommendations to accomplish that balanced strategic approach. Unfortunately, we have done virtually nothing while the capabilities of our adversaries continue to advance.
James Carafano, the National Defense and Homeland Security expert at the Heritage Foundation offers this straightforward agenda:
1. Fund comprehensive missile defense
2. Develop a National Recovery Plan and a plan to respond to severe space emergencies.
3. Require more research on the EMP Threat.
Carafano also voices a frustration that echoes across the pages of the EMP Commission's 2008 report. "Simply recognizing the EMP threat would go a long way toward better preparing America for the unthinkable."
It has been ten years since the 9/11 attacks, and America has not suffered another significant attack on the homeland during the decade. Our national bravado and the passage of time cause us to not dwell on the unknown nor take seriously "death to America" pledges by tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If as the experts warn, a single EMP attack could put America "back to the 19th century," do we not need to be vigilant?
In addition to a complacency developed from extended relative peace, by ignoring our increasing national security vulnerabilities and the capabilities of our enemies, America presented a target that was exploited by our enemies on 9/11. We have done much in the last ten years to prevent terrorists from flying planes into buildings, again, but are we ignoring an even bigger threat?
Iran either already has or is rapidly developing weapons technologies capable of great damage to America and our allies. In addition, the regime is expanding influence globally, particularly in South and Central America that further threatens our national security and global balance of power. In the coming weeks, we will expose more of the extended threatening web that the Iranians are weaving, and why it can neither be ignored nor tolerated.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our allies in unaffected Europe and Asia would help. Fleets of ships and planes would be here pronto to move food, rebuild, etc. Plus I imagine our military assets are hardened properly.
It would suck, and many would die, but it wouldn’t be devastating is my guess.
I was thinking along these lines myself.
An EMP attack would be bold and in your face. It would also provoke a powerful response. However, “the death by a thousand cuts” would eventually bleed out the victim before they’re aware of it. The communists in the Frankfurt School pioneered the effort; the Islamists are using the strategy by setting up schools within the enemy camp and slowly establishing shari’a. I fear that kind of subversion far more than a nuclear blast over Kansas.
If the same bomb is detonated at 120 miles altitude, the surface area of the electron shell at ground zero is 180,955 miles2. Dividing by the base line gives an effectiveness of 0.0625. Moving out to the specified radius of 1000 miles, the line of sight to the point of detonation is 1007.2 Miles with a surface area of 12,747,977 miles2 and an effectiveness of 0.000887 (if you could call that effective!)
Moving up to 300 miles with the same bomb you get 1,130,977 miles2 and an effectiveness of 0.0100 at ground zero. At 1470 ground miles, the line of sight is 1500.3 miles and the surface area of the shell is 28,285,644 miles2 with an effectiveness of 0.000399.
For the sake of argument lets assume X equals a 20 kiloton yield detonation which gives an effectiveness of 1 at 30 miles. To get the same effect at ground zero with a three hundred mile burst you would need a 2 megaton bomb. To cover the whole country coast to coast with an effective electron density of 1 would require a 50 megaton weapon (on 10 July 1961, the USSR tested the Царь-бомба 'Tsar Bomba' at 57 megaton, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested, I think they even scared themselves with that one!).
I picked 20 kiloton as a probable weapon because that is just a bit more then our original WWII designs. That is certainly greater then anything that North Korea has demonstrated. I believe that Pakistan's arsenal is about there as would be the Iranian's. I believe that India has turned the corner and has developed fission technology although they have not demonstrated that capability as yet. (Memo to Pakistan: Mind your P's & Q's!)
Implicit in the map are threats that defy the laws of physics. You can only spread so much energy over so much area and remain effective. The inverse square law rules!
Regards,
GtG
PS I ignored the curvature of the earth because my spherical trigonometry is a bit rusty and it doesn't change things all that much (decimal dust!)
Interesting information. Thanks for posting it. My fear, stated elsewhere, is the slow erosion of our culture by our enemies. I think they learned after Flight 93 a lot of us would be willing to fight and die if provoked, so the preferred method would have to be subversion. God help us.
NwM, I agree with redpoll. Thanks for the info. Do you have any sources that go over this in more detail?
I just found this. It has an explanation and strategy for handling preparations. I’ve only skimmed it so far, but I’m posting it for discussion as well as for others to see who are concerned about this.
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/emp-protection.html
Yes the infrastructure can be rebuilt. The problem is that itbwill take months or even years to replace the 300 or so heavy transformers that form the backbone of the electrical grid. We don’t make them here—they are manufactured abroad to order, and it takes months of lead time to procure them. Six months with no power will devastate the U.S.
We need to obtain and deploy spares now.
Now that’s interesting information.
I may have understated the problem.
From p.49 of the
Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2008):
“Recovery from transmission system damage and power plant damage will be impeded primarily by the manufacture and delivery of long lead-time components. Delivery time for a single, large transformer today is typically one to two years and some very large special transformers, critical to the system, are even longer. There are roughly 2,000 transformers in use in the transmission system today at 345 kV and above with many more at lesser voltages that are only slightly less critical. No transformers above 100 kV are produced in the United States any longer. The current U.S. replacement rate for the 345 kV and higher voltage units is 10 per year; worldwide production capacity of these units is less than 100 per year. Spare transformers are available in some areas and systems, but because of the unique requirements of each transformer, there are no standard spares. The spares also are owned by individual utilities and not generally available to others due to the risk over the long lead time if they are being used. Transformers that will cover several options are very expensive and are both large and hard to move. NERC keeps a record of all spare transformers.”
http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.