In October 2011, Front Page Magazine posted a great article on EMP in which it is pointed out that North Korea and Iran have been cooperating on a number of things, to which they believe EMP is one. We might be closer to the real possibility of an attack than had been originally thought.
Last week, Iran fired a surface to surface missile, successfully they say. What other missiles do they have? Could they fire one from a freighter located in the Great Lakes, the Gulf, the Atlantic or Pacific and cause massive outages in the US? If done correctly one missile could take out our entire grid!
Read the article and let us know what you think. It scares me! Here is the post:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/04/an-emp-attack-on-america/
Conservative Tom
Last week, Iran fired a surface to surface missile, successfully they say. What other missiles do they have? Could they fire one from a freighter located in the Great Lakes, the Gulf, the Atlantic or Pacific and cause massive outages in the US? If done correctly one missile could take out our entire grid!
Read the article and let us know what you think. It scares me! Here is the post:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/04/an-emp-attack-on-america/
Conservative Tom
Fact-checking….
ReplyDeleteCONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF GEN. ROBERT T. MARSH, U.S. AIR FORCE, RETIRED, AND CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION…
"In summary, there is much promise in this technology, but today I do not see any evidence that suggests capabilities seriously threatening our critical infrastructures.
The present likelihood of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear weapon is uncertain. But even if it happened, generating the high-altitude explosion required to produce a devastating EMP attack would be extremely challenging. There are many easier, less costly, and more dramatic ways for terrorists to use nuclear weapons than delivery to a high altitude. Such an event is so unlikely and difficult to achieve that I do not believe it warrants serious concern at this time."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm#0
-----------------
Tom, are you going with Rich Santorum now?
--David
David -- many of the same experts never considered that people would fly planes into buildings!
ReplyDeleteThis testimony is 5 years old, before Iran has successfully launched several missiles.
Do not believe "experts" who poo poo ideas. Many of these guys have the imagination of a gnat.
As far as a candidate, I have none at this moment but one thing for sure it will never be Dr. Paul. Sorry, I cannot fathom his foreign policy being any more successful than Jimmy Carter's.
"Carter had a number of notable foreign-policy successes -- the return of the Panama Canal, the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China, and of course, the establishment lasting peace between Egypt and Israel with the Camp David Accords. Getting both sides to sign the accords was undoubtedly Carter's crowning achievement, and he invested his full prestige in the job. Displaying the intense attention detail for which he was often mocked, Carter personally led the negotiations and absorbed all the facts relevant to Israeli and Egyptian concerns about settlements, airfields, and oil reserves in the Sinai.Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin noted at the signing of the accords that "the president took a great risk for himself and did it with great civil courage."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/the_real_jimmy_carter?page=0,0
---------
As a person who is so concerned about the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, I'd think you would give some credit to the president who was very personally involved in making it happen. Anyway, Carter's foreign-policy shortcomings pale in comparison to the Iraq War. Ron Paul would be the first president since Carter who did not get the U.S. into foreign major military interventions. Must our country be in wars all the time? I know it's good business for the defense industry, but I am ready for 8 years of peace for a change!
Remember, there is a great difference between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism" foreign policy -- a difference which Ron Paul's critics deliberately muddle.
--David
I still do not think the return of the Panama Canal was any sort of victory. If the wrong dictator gets in place, there will be no movement of ships through the canal, a vital passage from east to west which saves millions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteRelations with China were normalized during the Nixon Administration, I believe.
Yes, Carter did negotiate a settlement with Begin and Sadat. It also resulted in the death of Sadat and the rise of Mubarak who to his credit kept the peace. The one thing I know about agreements, they are only as good as the two people (countries) that sign them. Egypt will void the agreement in the next year.
You will need to define the difference between isolation and non-interventionism as they both sound the same to me!
Ron Paul explains isolationism vs. non-interventionism...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM&hd=1
To take Egypt as an example, the U.S. should not interfere with their internal politics. If they want to have an Islamist government and decide they want no treaty with Israel, that is their business. If they attack a neighboring country, that is violating that country right of self-termination and will face the same international resistance as Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait. I consider an isolationist foreign policy as essentially pacifist -- no wars under and conditions. Non-interventionists are not pacifists.
--David