Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
1,475
Location
Rural, CT
No problem at all... Iran already has a small fleet of Kilo class silent subs
and could easily park a couple off our eastern seaboard...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen - March 29, 2009
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro...2009/03/29/197257.ht
ml?s=al&promo_code=7D18-1


A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has been all but ignored.
On Feb. 3, 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 also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than 45 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: In fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct 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 Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.
Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the United States' reluctance 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 also could have served 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 that dream in a matter of minutes.
Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because "at best" they will have only 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 continent-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 percent 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.
We most likely would never recover from the blow.
Two things need to be done now and without delay:
1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that, if either Iran or North Korea launches a rocket on a trajectory headed toward 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 30 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 at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, 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.
[Editor's Note: Get William Forstchen's book depicting a nuclear EMP attack, "One Second After" — Go here now.]
 
Register to hide this ad
No problem at all... Iran already has a small fleet of Kilo class silent subs
and could easily park a couple off our eastern seaboard...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen - March 29, 2009
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro...2009/03/29/197257.ht
ml?s=al&promo_code=7D18-1


A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has been all but ignored.
On Feb. 3, 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 also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than 45 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: In fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct 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 Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.
Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the United States' reluctance 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 also could have served 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 that dream in a matter of minutes.
Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because "at best" they will have only 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 continent-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 percent 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.
We most likely would never recover from the blow.
Two things need to be done now and without delay:
1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that, if either Iran or North Korea launches a rocket on a trajectory headed toward 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 30 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 at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, 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.
[Editor's Note: Get William Forstchen's book depicting a nuclear EMP attack, "One Second After" — Go here now.]
 
Originally posted by roundgunner:

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct 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.

No one has detonated a nuclear device in space to my knowledge, so wouldn't this be somewhat theoretical? I'm not trying to downplay the threat; I truly don't know. Anyone??
 
Google up a story called "Lights Out" about an EMP attack knocking out the U.S. electrical grid.

Anyway, science types disagree about how many nukes it would take and what the effect would be in order to knock out power all over the U.S. A lot googling will turn up different theories. Then you might want to go out and buy a 1980s Ford 4x4 just in case.

It would likely be construed the same as a regular nuclear attack on the United States. If we had any type of effective leadership, that would likely result in massive retaliation. (Even if you knock out the power grid, the silos are hardened against such and the Navy's sub fleet has a percentage of their vessels at sea for just such emergencies.)
 
While in some scenarios in prior decades, "whoever" launches such a device would be turned to fused sand, do we have such capacity/intention/plan in this era?

And while the Original opponent might even glow in the dark, what of the rest of the hyena pack circling beyond the camp fire?

Let's pretend for a moment, that no effective US miltary presence remained for say, a few days or weeks....

THEN WHAT?
 
I watched a show on Discovery or Military or something and it was pretty convincing. Nuclear weapons usage is all pretty much theory. I spent most of my active duty time in very close proximity to nucs as a guard and security responder. Then I switched over to submarines hauling the really big ones.

I'm pretty sure they are going to work as advertized. I would hate to think I gave up all those years for a dud.
webster.jpg

thmush.gif
 
Truck,
EMP is real and was discovered because of above ground (atmospheric) testing during the 50's and early 60's. The 63' atmospheric test ban treaty ended them. When solid state electronics began being used that operated at lower voltages and miniaturization brought circuits into closer proximity to one another, the effect was noticed. The principal is via induction an errant current will/can be produced by collapse of a magnetic field across conductive materials. This is the same prinicipal in operation in a cars ignition coil. Lots of military stuff is hardened against it, civilian stuff barely at all. I know of it due to the magazines of the era, Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.
 
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.......
This is another of those things that I just can't get myself up to worrying about. Kind of like an asteroid strike, if it happens, it happens and all my fretting about it won't make any difference. I am as prepared as I feel it is worth to me, so why worry.
 
Originally posted by roundgunner:
I watched a show on Discovery or Military or something and it was pretty convincing. Nuclear weapons usage is all pretty much theory. I spent most of my active duty time in very close proximity to nucs as a guard and security responder. Then I switched over to submarines hauling the really big ones.

I'm pretty sure they are going to work as advertized. I would hate to think I gave up all those years for a dud.
webster.jpg

thmush.gif

That is my new background-nice picture
 
I seem to recall when we got a defector's latest version of a Russian MIG back in the 70s everyone sort of laughed at their backward technology -- steel skin, vacuum tube electronics, etc. Then someone thought, oh, Faraday cage and vac tubes not sensitive to EMP....hmmm.

But I agree with deadin, or as Kwai Chang Caine so eloquently put it in Kung Fu, "If you worry, will the future change?"
 
That is the Daniel Webster SSBN 626. It was originally made with bow plains like the Brit boats. We found out they made noise by the sonar dome and refitted it. Now we are doing it again on the new boats.

The Webster is now decommissioned but is being used as a Nuclear power training vessel in Charleston.
 
Originally posted by m657:
While in some scenarios in prior decades, "whoever" launches such a device would be turned to fused sand, do we have such capacity/intention/plan in this era?

Yes. There's a theory amongst those who pay attention to such things that the United States currently has the capability for a "perfect" first strike - one that can destroy the ability of a foe (Russia or China) to retaliate - for the first time since the 1940s (when no one else had nukes). Whatever the currently popular term for what was once called SDI is supposed to complete this.

NATO doctrine has also quietly changed to allow for the "first strike" use of nuclear weapons.

Since the 1950s, launching nukes does *not* require Presidential authority. There are "designated commanders" who can authorize their use in an emergency when the chain of command may have been severed or no longer exists. That's been the rule since Eisenhower. "Uh oh, the Martians got D.C. and there goes Omaha. Nuke 'em."

When you go to become an officer in the Airforce there's a stack of papers that you have to sign that state that you'll "release" (their term) nukes in accordance with Air Force policy if ordered to do so (with an implied "or else").

Edit to add, our ever helpful government has seen fit to make the standards used by the DoD for protecting critical facilities against EMP weapons available via the net. Follow the link here if you're truly bored and want to read the details -

http://assist.daps.dla.mil/qui...?ident_number=204459

The 2008 Congressional report can be found at http://www.empcommission.org/ The Dr. Graham mentioned helped develop these weapons for the DoD. There is some supposition that the report was politically motivated saber rattling related to Iran. Shrug.
 
Back
Top