Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Terrorist groups do not currently live by democratic rule. The terrorist groups we seek out to destroy or dismantle make no qualms of wanting the death of other people to achieve their won goal of salvation.
I never said it was an easy choice or even one without consequences. The only other choice we have is to put our future in the hands of people that would like nothing more than to watch everyone else be murdered in a jihad.
The decisions we have in front of us are not easy. But inaction in the presence of unpleasant facts would be near criminal. Obama didn't make this decision easy. It's not like he has broad support on either side for it. He gets to see information that we, the common man, do not get to see until later. Only a few in congress get to see that information and are they speaking out? Their actions should speak very loud. I don't like putting my future in the hands of anyone in congress but in my research of known facts I can only come to the conclusion that they have no choice but to decide what they have. I feel very strong that Americans, in general, would never knowingly go to war for no reason. I can think of no free people that would willingly pick war over peace. Despite the rhetoric that comes out about American Imperialism. We've had the only government in recent times that has had a huge nuclear arsenal that willingly backed down after war interest seceded.
And what will you people say if terrorist get a hold of a nuclear weapon and 100,000's of people are murdered? What will your answer be if they get a hold of a ballistic missile and blow it up in the upper atmosphere and 1,000,000's go hungry and mass hysteria and the times of biblical predictions come true? Will you stand up and say I was a staunch anti-war activist and I was wrong?
Well, I will tell you that your grammar and spelling is atrocious, your scare tactics reprehensible, and your predictions the height of folly. Might I suggest a bit of higher education to help you polish your writing abilities and hopefully your critical thinking in the process?
Well, I will tell you that your grammar and spelling is atrocious, your scare tactics reprehensible, and your predictions the height of folly. Might I suggest a bit of higher education to help you polish your writing abilities and hopefully your critical thinking in the process?
Oh geez... You can't respond so you resort to self-appointing yourself as the grammar police. Move along simpleton.
Setting aside the question of whether or not escalating the war in Afghanistan is especially beneficial to our national security I think we, as a country, have a moral responsibility to leave it in a better condition than it was when we invaded. It would be morally reprehensible to allow the Taliban to reestablish control over the population of Afghanistan. The Taliban are unbelievably cruel and authoritarian; if we abandon Afghanistan without stabilizing it first they will regain power and the populace, which is already among the most impoverished in the world, will be subjected to even greater suffering. We fancy ourselves to be the leader of the international community so we should act like a responsible member of it by 'cleaning up our messes.'
Well, I will tell you that your grammar and spelling is atrocious, your scare tactics reprehensible, and your predictions the height of folly. Might I suggest a bit of higher education to help you polish your writing abilities and hopefully your critical thinking in the process?
Terrorist groups do not currently live by democratic rule. The terrorist groups we seek out to destroy or dismantle make no qualms of wanting the death of other people to achieve their won goal of salvation.
I never said it was an easy choice or even one without consequences. The only other choice we have is to put our future in the hands of people that would like nothing more than to watch everyone else be murdered in a jihad.
The decisions we have in front of us are not easy. But inaction in the presence of unpleasant facts would be near criminal. Obama didn't make this decision easy. It's not like he has broad support on either side for it. He gets to see information that we, the common man, do not get to see until later. Only a few in congress get to see that information and are they speaking out? Their actions should speak very loud. I don't like putting my future in the hands of anyone in congress but in my research of known facts I can only come to the conclusion that they have no choice but to decide what they have. I feel very strong that Americans, in general, would never knowingly go to war for no reason. I can think of no free people that would willingly pick war over peace. Despite the rhetoric that comes out about American Imperialism. We've had the only government in recent times that has had a huge nuclear arsenal that willingly backed down after war interest seceded.
i can easily think of free people being manipulated into war, by an already out of control congress. fear is always the motivating factor for escalating war action, just as fear was the motivating factor for bailing out wall street.
why don't you tell me what we have accomplished with these years of fighting in afghanistan? what have we WON so far? going back, what did we win when we fought in vietnam? clearly, you understand with escalation that we now have a need to go into pakistan and that pakistan is not going to react well to this news.
do we NEED to bankrupt our country? how do you explain not closing our borders off if this threat is in any way imminent to the united states? if you believe that america is the greatest country in the world, then we lead by example, not by intimidation.
The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack was established by Congress through Title XIV of Public Law 106-398.
Looking out 15 years, the Commission was tasked to assess:
1) The nature and magnitude of potential high-altitude EMP threats to the United States from all potentially hostile states or non-state actors that have or could acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles enabling them to perform a highaltitude EMP attack against the United States within the next 15 years.
2) The vulnerability of United States military and especially civilian systems to an EMP attack, giving special attention to vulnerability of the civilian infrastructure as a matter of emergency preparedness.
3) The capability of the United States to repair and recover from damage inflicted on United States military and civilian systems by an EMP attack.
4) The feasibility and cost of hardening select military and civilian systems against EMP attack.
Quote:
The physical and social fabric of the United States is sustained by a system of systems; a complex and dynamic network of interlocking and interdependent infrastructures (“critical national infrastructures”) whose harmonious functioning enables the myriad actions, transactions, and information flow that undergird the orderly conduct of civil society in this country. The vulnerability of these infrastructures to threats — deliberate,
accidental, and acts of nature — is the focus of greatly heightened concern in the current era, a process accelerated by the events of 9/11 and recent hurricanes, including Katrina and Rita.
The increasingly pervasive use of electronics of all forms represents the greatest source of vulnerability to attack by EMP. Electronics are used to control, communicate, compute, store, manage, and implement nearly every aspect of United States (U.S.) civilian systems. When a nuclear explosion occurs at high altitude, the EMP signal it produces
will cover the wide geographic region within the line of sight of the detonation.1 This broad band, high amplitude EMP, when coupled into sensitive electronics, has the capability to produce widespread and long lasting disruption and damage to the critical infrastructures that underpin the fabric of U.S. society.
The time required for full recovery of service would depend on both the disruption and damage to the electrical power infrastructure and to other national infrastructures. Larger affected areas and stronger EMP field strengths will prolong the time to recover. Some critical electrical power infrastructure components are no longer manufactured in the United States, and their acquisition ordinarily requires up to a year of lead time in routine circumstances. Damage to or loss of these components could leave significant parts of the electrical infrastructure out of service for periods measured in months to a year or more. There is a point in time at which the shortage or exhaustion of sustaining backup systems, including emergency power supplies, batteries, standby fuel supplies, communications, and manpower resources that can be mobilized, coordinated, and dispatched, together lead to a continuing degradation of critical infrastructures for a prolonged period of time.
Electrical power is necessary to support other critical infrastructures, including supply and distribution of water, food, fuel, communications, transport, financial transactions, emergency services, government services, and all other infrastructures supporting the national economy and welfare. Should significant parts of the electrical power infrastructure be lost for any substantial period of time, the Commission believes that the consequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities. In fact, the Commission is deeply concerned that such impacts are likely in the event of an EMP attack unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and for rapid restoration of electric power, particularly to essential services. The recovery plans for the individual infrastructures currently in place essentially assume, at worst, limited upsets to the other infrastructures that are important to their operation. Such plans may be of little or no value in the wake of an EMP attack because of its long-duration effects on all infrastructures that rely on electricity or electronics.
The consequences of an EMP event should be prepared for and protected against to the extent it is reasonably possible. Cold War-style deterrence through mutual assured destruction is not likely to be an effective threat against potential protagonists that are either failing states or trans-national groups. Therefore, making preparations to manage the effects of an EMP attack, including understanding what has happened, maintaining situational awareness, having plans in place to recover, challenging and exercising those plans, and reducing vulnerabilities, is critical to reducing the consequences, and thus probability, of attack. The appropriate national-level approach should balance prevention, protection, and recovery.
Significant historical events that provide insight into the potential impact of damage or upset to control systems include Hurricane Katrina; the 1996 Western States blackout; the August 14, 2003, Northeast blackout; a geomagnetic storm in 1989; the June 10, 1999, Bellingham pipeline incident; the August 19, 2000, Carlsbad pipeline incident; the July
24, 1994, Pembroke, United Kingdom, refinery incident; and a Netherlands electromagnetic interference (EMI) incident. The following paragraphs discuss the relevance of four of these incidents to an EMP event. The other four incidents — Hurricane Katrina; the Western States blackout; the August 14, 2003, blackout; and the 1989 geomagnetic storm — are described in Chapter 2, which is dedicated to a discussion of EMP effects on the electric power grid.
Planning for multiple failures, particularly when they are closely correlated in time, is much less common. It is safe to say that no one has planned for, and few have even imagined, a scenario with the loss of hundreds or even thousands of nodes across all the critical national infrastructures, all simultaneously. That, however, is precisely the circumstance contemplated by an EMP attack scenario.
No infrastructure other than electric power has the potential for nearly complete collapse in the event of a sufficiently robust EMP attack. While a less robust attack could result in less catastrophic outcomes, those outcomes would still have serious consequences and threaten national security.
Should the electrical power system be lost for any substantial period of time, the Commission believes that the consequences are likely to be catastrophic to civilian society. Machines will stop; transportation and communication will be severely restricted; heating, cooling, and lighting will cease; food and water supplies will be interrupted; and many people may die. “Substantial period” is not quantifiable but generally outages that last for a week or more and affect a very large geographic region without sufficient support from outside the outage area would qualify. EMP represents such a threat; it is one event that may couple ultimately unmanageable currents and voltages into an electrical system routinely operated with little margin and cause the collapse of large portions of the electrical system. In fact, the Commission is deeply concerned that such impacts are certain in an EMP event unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and to provide for rapid restoration of service, particularly to essential loads.
The magnitude of an EMP event varies with the type, design and yield of the weapon, as well as its placement. The Commission has concluded that even a relatively modest-tosmall yield weapon of particular characteristics, using design and fabrication information already disseminated through licit and illicit means, can produce a potentially devastating E1 field strength over very large geographical regions. This followed by E2 impacts, and in some cases serious E3 impacts operating on electrical components left relatively unprotected by E1, can be extremely damaging. (E3 requires a greater yield to produce major effects.) Indeed, the Commission determined that such weapon devices not only could be readily built and delivered, but also the specifics of these devices have been illicitly trafficked for the past quarter-century.
A key issue for the Commission in assessing the impact of such a disruption to the Nation’s electrical system was not only the unprecedented widespread nature of the outage (e.g., the cascading effects from even one or two relatively small weapons exploded in optimum location in space at present would almost certainly shut down an entire interconnected
electrical power system, perhaps affecting as much as 70 percent or possibly more of the United States, all in an instant) but more significantly widespread damage may well adversely impact the time to recover and thus have a potentially catastrophic impact.
Example:
Quote:
For example, a nuclear explosion at an altitude of 100 kilometers would expose 4 million square kilometers, about 1.5 million square miles, of Earth surface beneath the burst to a range of EMP field intensities.
by the way, they need to do a better job updating that site, especially with today's fallen soldier.
if we wind up in a nuclear confrontation we wind up in one,(it is always a possibility in an unstable world facing a financial crisis) but escalating war action certainly isn't going to PREVENT it. how could anyone imagine that it would? when you are having a war of words with someone, does pushing stop the fight?
by the way, they need to do a better job updating that site, especially with today's fallen soldier.
if we wind up in a nuclear confrontation we wind up in one,(it is always a possibility in an unstable world facing a financial crisis) but escalating war action certainly isn't going to PREVENT it. how could anyone imagine that it would? when you are having a war of words with someone, does pushing stop the fight?
Theoretical? It wouldn't be a war. One nuclear bomb exploded outside of our planet in space would render all other nuclear bombs useless. In fact it is planned that if a nuclear war broke out an EMP bomb would be purposely denoted to try and "save" civilization.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/images/spacer.gif
It is important to note that there is no "national power grid" in the United States. In fact, the continental United States is divided into three main power grids:
The Eastern Interconnected System, or the Eastern Interconnect
The Western Interconnected System, or the Western Interconnect
The Texas Interconnected System, or the Texas Interconnect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EMP weapon video
