What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do -
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.
Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us. And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:
First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.
Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.
Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.
Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.
Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.
The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."
Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.
Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.
But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.
This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.
A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.
Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.
The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.
An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.
#1
A bit too much hyperbole here for the author to be taken seriously. Sorta the Al Gore approach. While I acknowledge the impact of an EMP attack would be devastating, I am confident that we would know how to respond. Love the "container lowered into the sea" scenario.
#4
In 1945 the Japanese Army tried to argue that the U.S. had only one bomb. Then they received word about Nagasaki.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/24/2008 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...The thing to keep in mind is that EMP is a function of burst strength and altitude. A likely Iranian bomb is going to be about the same size as the Hiroshima bomb (approx. 20 kilotons) - pop it 300 miles over Chicago, and the Windy City - along with Detroit, Madison, and a few other good sized cities - suddenly drop back to 1875, but the rest of the country is okay. We know it won't have been launched by the Norks and the Paks aren't THAT insane. That leaves the Iranians, who have (as the author points out) practiced the over-the-side scenario. The mullahs die an hour or so later.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/24/2008 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The only actual N threat I expect from Iran would be an "undeliverable" device suitable only for placing in a shipping container and detonating it in place while still on board a ship/train/truck/whatever.
It's one thing to build an operable device that will fission and quite another to produce a deliverable weapon. Besides, Iran picks its people based on loyalty, not competence.
Still, their program makes a great excuse to whack Iran, and whack them hard. Excessive force should be authorized. It's overdue by 29 years.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/24/2008 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The USN is already giving its AEGIS Ships + select Subs BMD-TMD capabilities > IMO what the USN needs now are BATTLESPACE "MOTHERSHIPS" = ARSENAL SHIPS and the like to operate BMD-TMD DIRIGIBLES, for below-orbit, end-stage/trajectory missle defense.
* MAG-LEV PLATFORMS = "AIR SKIMMERS"???
ALso, IIRC consider WIRED NEWS? > seems the USA + NASA-JPL are dev plans for FUTURE MOON-BASED "NUCLEAR BASES"???
An Iranian armed force held civil defense drills on Sunday to prepare for any hostile air strikes after Saturday's reports that the United States would activate an anti-missile radar system in Israel by mid-December.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11140 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > ISRAELI THINK TANK: IRAN MISSLE SHIELD [ADS, Anti-CM, Anti-BM Warhead/BMD] MAY BE READY IN 2009 [Summer]. S-300PMU-3 Multi-defense ADS.; + WORLD MILITARY FORUM > CHINA MAY SELL YJ-62A ANTI-CARRIER MISSLES TO IRAN.
#2
defense drills on Sunday to prepare for any hostile air strikes after Saturday's reports that the United States would activate an anti-missile radar system in Israel by mid-December.
If "they" have an anti-missile radar system in place, it's actually a shield for protecting "their" country against your (Russian/Iranian) missile systems, whilst permitting "them" to conduct an offence against you (Russia/Iran).
Because that is what you (Russia/Iran) would do to "them" if you had an anti-missile system in-place.
#4
The establishment of a sound ADA/missle defense is a precursor to offensive action. The signature of the missle/aricraft defense installation has undoubtedly alerted the Iranians to the likely IAF strike plans. I think the middle to late January is a good time to bunker in.....
A former Israeli commander says the West must consider assassinating Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to halt Tehran's nuclear program.
Former Israeli Army Chief of Staff Moshe "Boogie" Ya'alon told the Australian daily The Sydney Morning Herald that the West should consider all options to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear drive, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Sunday. "We have to confront the Iranian revolution immediately," Ya'alon said. "There is no way to stabilize the Middle East today without defeating the Iranian regime. The Iranian nuclear program must be stopped."
"We have to consider killing him (President Ahmadinejad). All options must be considered," the Israeli official added. He claimed that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Persian Gulf littoral states would welcome any military strike against Iran.
Ya'alon said that he had been surprised when the US decided to go into Iraq instead of Iran in 2003.
Ya'alon had declared that he would join the hardliner Likud Party's list to participate in the faction's primaries.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11137 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Sorry, problem goes deeper than that. The Ayatollahs will find another rube if you get rid of the current one.
#9
I concur w/OS in that they would find another dufus to be their mouth piece. I'm still not opposed to killing the monkey anyway. I think we should be working over time to wet-work all these *ssholes. Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, etc.
#11
Wouldn't that be loverly? Anyway, what's the downside?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/24/2008 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I agree with Uleck Ghibelline9225. Take out the leadership. Let them try to take out ours if they can. We have a plan for orderly transition of power and dictatorships, even with shame democratic fronts, rarely do.
Also they would likely cause a Holy War if they tried to kill "The One"
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
