- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
August 20, 2008
Exclusive: Is Obama's Attitude about Nuclear Attack Dangerous to National Security?
When it comes to a nuclear attack on the United States, Americans usually think of two possible scenarios: 1) an attack using ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads, or 2) a terrorist strike using nuclear materials smuggled into a big city and detonated there. But there is a third possibility that needs to be considered: an atomic-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could destroy electric systems and power grids - shutting off most televisions and radios, traffic signals and computers, to name only a few of the things that would be damaged. Asked how many Americans could die in such an attack, Dr. William Graham, chairman of "The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetnic Pulse Attack," created by Congress in 2001, put it this way: “Within a week or two of an attack, people would begin dying. People in hospitals would be in the worst jeopardy because many of them depend on power to stay alive," he said.
"You would have to go back to the 1800s to look at the size of population that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water and communication," Graham told journalist Kenneth Timmerman of Newsmax.Com. Acording to Graham, who also testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the topic in July, between 70 and 90% of the American population would ultimately perish in such an attack.
It's an issue that deserves attention in the presidential race (at least as much as weighty matters like Paris Hilton and comparisons of John McCain and Barack Obama's YouTube hits.) A wide variety of hostile international actors that include Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda may have the capability and motive to carry out such an attack. The good news is that the development of a national missile defense system could greatly lesson the risk. McCain and Obama disagree very substantially on the issue, with McCain a supporter of missile defense and Obama a harsh critic.
An EMP attack would work as follows: a hostile state or terrorist group could detonate a nuclear weapon anywhere from 25 miles to 200 miles above the earth's atmosphere over U.S. territory. The resulting blast would damage (if not destroy) practically every item with electronic wiring. Depending on where the explosion took place and how well-protected the wiring is on the ground, the blast could cause damage in an area covering all of the continental United States in addition to parts of Canada and Mexico. And it could damage the ability of the U.S. military to respond to crises around the world.
Iran, for example, has conducted high-altitude tests of the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile in a mode consistent with an EMP attack. This has included tests of the missile, which can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, using high-altitude explosions. Typically, the Western media has described these Iranian tests as "failures." But the Iranian government considers the tests successful - and that is precisely what they were if indeed Iran were practicing for an EMP attack on the United States. Iran has also successfully tested firing a missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea and Iranian military literature has included references to the damage that such a nuclear blast could do to U.S. military capabilities. "Advanced information technology equipment exists which has a very high degree of efficiency in warfare. Among these, we can refer to communication and information gathering satellites, pilotless planes and the digital system. Once you confuse the enemy communication network, you can also disrupt the work of the enemy command and decision making center. Even worse, today, when you disable a country's military high command through disruption of communications, you will, in effect, disrupt all the affairs of that country. If the world's industrial countries fail to devise ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, they will disintegrate within a few years," one Iranian political-military journal suggested in a January 1999 article titled: "Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars."
The article then added this chilling note: "American soldiers would not find food to eat, nor would they be able to fire a single shot" in the event of such an attack.
The military doctrines of Communist China and Russia also contain references to using EMP warfare against a potential enemy. Su Tzu-Yun, one of China's senior military experts specializing in information warfare, wrote that "China should focus on measures to counter computer viruses, nuclear electromagnetic pulse, and quickly achieve breakthroughs in those technologies in order to equip China without delay with equivalent deterrents that will enable it to stand up to the military powers in the information age and neutralize and check the deterrence of Western powers, including the United States."
Aside from the Iranian regime, no foreign government representatives have been as blatant as the Russians about the prospect of carrying out an EMP attack on the United States. On May 2, 1999, a bipartisan House Armed Services Committee delegation met in Vienna, Austria with their Russian counterparts. The meeting was aimed at reducing tensions between Washington and Moscow and obtaining Russia's help in resolving tensions in the Balkans. During the meeting, senior Russian parliamentarians bluntly informed the Americans: "Hypothetically, if Russia really wanted to hurt the United States in retaliation for NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia could fire a submarine-launched ballistic missile and detonate a single nuclear warhead over the United States. The resulting electromagnetic pulse would massively disrupt U.S. communications and computer systems, shutting down everything." Given Russia's recent thuggish behavior - which includes invading Georgia, hacking into and damaging Ukrainian and Georgian computer systems and threatening to attack Poland for agreeing to deploy a U.S.-backed missile defense system - we dismiss Russian EMP threats at our peril.
Fortunately, the United States is hardly defenseless against an EMP attack. One way to guard against them is to "harden" critical infrastructure like electrical and power facilities against the damage that could be inflicted by such an attack on the United States. But John McCain and Barack Obama could hardly be farther apart over one of the most critical components of a defense against such an attack: a missile defense system to protect the United States. McCain is a stalwart supporter of building this critical deterrent to an EMP attack. In the wake of Russia's invasion of Georgia, McCain reiterated his support for the just-signed U.S.-Poland missile defense system. By contrast, a spokeswoman for Obama's campaign gave an equivocal answer suggesting that the system might not work - a mantra that arms-control-advocate foes of missile defense have used to disparage every such proposal for the past 40 years. McCain made an excellent point regarding the system protecting Poland. He now needs to take the argument one logical step further - explaining to the American public how Obama's dismissive approach to missile defense would leave the United States vulnerable to an EMP attack and how missile defense of the American homeland could save countless innocent lives.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Joel Himelfarb is an editorial writer for The Washington Times. The views expressed here are his own. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
