In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
WSJ: What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Night Stalker
Member Posts: 11,967
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 24, 2008
OPINION
What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense
against an EMP attack.
By BRIAN T. KENNEDY
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.
Let us be clear. 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 * 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.
November 24, 2008
OPINION
What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense
against an EMP attack.
By BRIAN T. KENNEDY
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.
Let us be clear. 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 * 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.
Comments
ive seen the movies...and read the books...but one thing i still dont understand...in space there is no oxygen..how then would an atomic weapon..or even a conventional one explode? there would be no oxygen for the blast to work properly?
Not necessary. It happens on the atomic level. There is no chemical conversion.
EDM has to be really big to effect a small area.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
ive seen the movies...and read the books...but one thing i still dont understand...in space there is no oxygen..how then would an atomic weapon..or even a conventional one explode? there would be no oxygen for the blast to work properly?
I thought of that also; until I realized that the sun is nothing more than a giant nuke running in the vacuum of space.
That also brings up the question: would a 9mm or any bullet for example fire in space considering its entirely self contained. I would like to think it would work, if the cold did not fracture the polymer of a Glock or the firing pins itself. I guess the closest thing to that would be the nasa vacuum test chamber.
At least you would not have to worry as much about being a poor shot since gravity would not effect the trajectory.
Former Member U.S. Navy Shooting Team
Former NSSA All American
Navy Distinguished Pistol Shot
MO, CT, VA.
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
ive seen the movies...and read the books...but one thing i still dont understand...in space there is no oxygen..how then would an atomic weapon..or even a conventional one explode? there would be no oxygen for the blast to work properly?
And am gripping one UAW BUILT Model 1911 Colt 45.
Laying in my lap my UAW BUILT Colt AR15 ready to RUMBLE. War ready[:D]