Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on March 31, 2009 By Draginol In Politics

Anyone who reads enough of my posts can probably tell that I’m a kook. As I get older, I become more and more of a kook.  I have some theories as to why people in my position inevitably become more and more weird as they get older but that’s for another conversation.

Former speaker Newt Gingrich has a fantastic article pointing out something that many people who follow this stuff are not just well aware of ut preparing for but is probably news to most Americans: There is a pretty good chance that in our lifetime we will suffer a catastrophic terrorist attack in the form of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).

Newt’s full article is here:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gringrich_emp_weapon/2009/03/29/197257.html

As he says:

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.

Now personally, when I say there’s a good chance, I am saying that the odds are probably a bit better than 1 in 10.  But that’s still an awful big chance in my book if you have the resources to do something about it.  That’s why I’ve looked into Faraday cages and the new house I’m building is designed to be self-sufficient if necessary so that if something like this happened, my family and friends wouldn’t starve.

Consider this: Look at your own household and tell me how long you could survive without going to the grocery store for food.  2 days? 3 days? An EMP pulse, that North Korea or Iran is likely to be capable of producing in the next 5 years, would, as Newt says, take out our infrastructure for years. 

What does that mean? It means it would probably be a solid week before city water came back on-line. Electricity would likely be offline for months. But the real killer would be food. That’s because food must be shipped and an EMP would wipe out all cars and trains.  I have no idea how long it would take for food to start getting re-distributed but unless you lived in a major urban center where emergency supplies could be distributed, you’d be in big trouble (in other words, if you live in the subs, you’re going to likely die of starvation).  If this sort of thing happened in the Winter, you would likely be looking at millions of deaths.

So when friends come over to “Future House” and see the bee hives and the apple orchard and the gardens (my wife won’t let me have chickens unfortunately) along with the “Kook” supplies (i.e. the capability to defend our physical assets effectively) hopefully we’ll all have the benefit of just laughing at how weird I’m getting.  Hopefully I’ll always be just a kook as opposed to a survivor.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Apr 01, 2009

Mr. Obama is our president, weak sister that he may be he is our leader. We need to stand behind him on all foreign matters

Considering we have been threatened with a new terror attack, i don't plan on standing in frojnt of him. I will stand behind him and I will have his back too..... way back.

and stand against him on all domestic matters that threaten our lives

If I tell him he has a hot body, do you think he'll hold it against me?

It is the patriotic thing to do.

Yea, lets pay our taxes just like so many of Obama's pics for his Administration who decided to pay their back taxes once they were picked. Yea baby.

 

on Apr 02, 2009

So when friends come over to “Future House” and see the bee hives and the apple orchard and the gardens (my wife won’t let me have chickens unfortunately) along with the “Kook” supplies (i.e. the capability to defend our physical assets effectively) hopefully we’ll all have the benefit of just laughing at how weird I’m getting. Hopefully I’ll always be just a kook as opposed to a survivor.

Now the bees make sense.  This is genius.  Most I've ever done is hang on yo my Dad's old Euell Gibbons book.

on Apr 03, 2009

There's actually a few significant differences between an ICBM and a rocket capable of launching a satellite, but that's not important.

The real flaw in Gingrich's argument is that it assumes the Iranians/North Koreans/whoever are suicidal, and sufficiently suicidal to think that causing a major inconvenience is enough to excuse their complete destruction. If you're going to commit suicide, you'd want to strike a more telling blow.

I say major inconvenience because the US, while significant in its vulnerable production capabilities, could like much of the world fix its factories etc with parts from elsewhere. That and the likely world aid programs would bring it back within the several years Newt suggests.

If you doubt the US would attract aid, I suggest you think again. There are heaps of countries like Australia who shelter behind the wall of US military might. If you think they would let China take advantage of the situation, you're dead wrong. Every penny the West has spare would go to US restoration, even from cheese-eating surrender monkeys like France.

That, your multinationals and the US carrier fleets which enforce the Pax Americana would pretty much guarantee your revival.

To borrow from someone whose name I've briefly forgotten, if there was no US, we would have to (re)create it.

on Apr 05, 2009

The real flaw in Gingrich's argument is that it assumes the Iranians/North Koreans/whoever are suicidal, and sufficiently suicidal to think that causing a major inconvenience is enough to excuse their complete destruction. If you're going to commit suicide, you'd want to strike a more telling blow.

What are you talking about? How would it be suicidal for them to attack us? We were attacked on 9/11 and as soon as the anger faded the peacenicks wanted out of the war and fought against winning the war ever since. We have given every indication that if attacked again we would do little if anything especially with the current administration. When we were attacked during the Reagan administration Mr. Reagan sent troops out to hunt down terrorists. It worked well. When Mr. Clinton disbanded the hunter killer teams, they started planning attacks again and on 9/11 after six years of planning they attacked. Mr. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists but they had scattered by then. Saddam threatened us and we attacked him and the peacenuts went insane. What would give you the misguided idea that we would sustain a war against anyone that attacked us? We have a track record of running away from a fight since the Korean War. You know, the reason the potbellied dictator is in power because we ran away from that war. The same war that has not ended because no winner was declared. You may not know this but since the cease fire was ordered in the 50’s a state of war is still on going in Korea. If the North Korean government chooses to resume the fighting it won’t be a sneak attack because we have been at war with them for over 50 years. If Iran attacks us we will have the same peace idiots say how it is our fault and we deserve to be attacked. They will also say that retaliation is out of the question because we would be making war with Islam not Iran and you don’t want to go to war with a billion people. If china attacks us we are in the same boat, a billion people.

 

Every indication we have given as a nation has been that we will get mad then we will throw something at you, and then we will go back to business as usual. Mr. Obama does not seem to want to win in Iraq or Afghanistan he just wants our troops out of there. Winning wars prevents wars. Coming in second or a tie begs for someone else to attack us.

 

on Apr 06, 2009

What are you talking about? How would it be suicidal for them to attack us? We were attacked on 9/11 and as soon as the anger faded the peacenicks wanted out of the war and fought against winning the war ever since. We have given every indication that if attacked again we would do little if anything especially with the current administration.

Right. 9/11 was a nuclear strike that killed a million people. I forgot that.

You need to get a sense of proportion - a nuclear attack would be a completely justified response to a nuclear attack, and I suspect it would be popular too. Even after 9/11 people like yourself would have been happy to see Iraq/Afghanistan nuked or bombed into rubble, so just imagine the response to a major attack.

on Apr 06, 2009

We were attacked on 9/11 and as soon as the anger faded the peacenicks wanted out of the war and fought against winning the war ever since

Strange, I thought the opposition was generally to the war in Iraq, a country unrelated to 9/11. 9/11 resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan, which even Europe supported with the US. In fact ironically it was the war hungry republicans who neglected Afghanistan to go after Iraq, and the Democrats who have decided to refocus on Afghanistan, meaning that the democrats were keener in effect to avenge 9/11 than the republicans.

Either way, for a nuclear scenario to be realistic, it requires the person prepared to 'throw the first stone' to hate their target so much that they're prepared to wipe themself (and everyone around them) out to injure it. It's highly unlikely a terrorist state would be able to obtain the arsenal capable of completely destroying the US, whereas the US has the arsenal to destroy most counties many times over.

More realistic IMO would be a terrorist cell obtaining a nuke and causing significant (but more localised) damage with it.

on Apr 06, 2009

Right. 9/11 was a nuclear strike that killed a million people. I forgot that.

You need to get a sense of proportion - a nuclear attack would be a completely justified response to a nuclear attack, and I suspect it would be popular too. Even after 9/11 people like yourself would have been happy to see Iraq/Afghanistan nuked or bombed into rubble, so just imagine the response to a major attack.

US policy states that any weapon of mass destruction will be retaliated by nuclear weapons. If we are hit with nerve gas, anthrax or farts our response is the same. We ended our stockpile of other WMD’s and put all our eggs in the nuclear basket. So when any WMD is used against America our response will be nuclear bombs.

 

Your answer already is qualifying our response. If they don’t use nukes does that mean we can’t fight back? The reason we were so concerned with the anthrax attacks was if we found out which country did it we would be forced to nuke them as our only retaliatory response or let the matter drop.

 

I pointed to the attacks on 9/11 because it showed and escalation in the boldness of attacks. At first they attacked individuals and got away with it. Next they attacked planes and got away with it. Then they bombed stores and got away with it. Then they attacked several cities at once and we sent in troops. The proper response to the attack on individual citizens is the swift attack and destruction of any and all people involved. Historical point; old Rome had a problem, their citizens were attacked outside of Rome and robbed, beaten and murdered. The response was that any attack on a Roman citizen was an attack on all of Rome. The Roman army would march in and make life difficult for everyone until the guilty were found and killed.

 

Terrorist kidnapped a Soviet citizen in the Middle East. The KGB found out who was involved and kidnapped an uncle of one of the terrorists. They sent his thumbs in the mail with a note that if the soviet citizen was returned unharmed they will stop cutting off pieces of the uncle. The Soviet citizen was released unharmed and they did not bother the Soviet Union again. Barbaric? Yes! Effective when dealing with barbarians? YES!!! On the other hand we talked and begged and showed our concern for their cause and offered them humanitarian aid and they still hanged our general officer and then sent us the video tapes of his murder. We did nothing and it escalated to 9/11 a nuke is not far off because we allowed them to think they can get away with it.

 

I don’t like your insult. People like me? Is an insult that I choose to be offended. It is people like me that keep you safe at night. It is people like me that give up our comforts in order to allow you the freedom to bitch and moan.

 

on Apr 06, 2009

Strange, I thought the opposition was generally to the war in Iraq, a country unrelated to 9/11. 9/11 resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan, which even Europe supported with the US. In fact ironically it was the war hungry republicans who neglected Afghanistan to go after Iraq, and the Democrats who have decided to refocus on Afghanistan, meaning that the democrats were keener in effect to avenge 9/11 than the republicans.

Nice dodge. It was the democrat controlled Congress that authorized the war in Iraq. Afghanistan was a useless target and if the Bush Administration had their way we would not have gone in there. The weeks before 9/11 all the training camps and headquarters had moved out of Afghanistan in anticipation of our retaliation. Only the Taliban and a few AQ types were left. On the other hand once we started our attacks in Afghanistan the news media started showing pictures of wounded AQ types in Iraqi hospitals.  This was in violation of what the Congress put into law. Below is part of an article I wrote called “It all started with the Shah of Iran”.

 

September 14, 2001

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed (This was written by Senator Daschel)

 

 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

September 18, 2001 the first in a series of anthrax mail attacks targets government and the media.

 

October 7, 2001 after being criticized by the democrats for not having attacked anyone yet, President Bush authorizes the invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of Al-Qaeda’s safe havens. Liberals claim we can’t win. Why in the world did they scream we should bomb people if they don’t think we can win?

 

November 12, 2001 the ruling Taliban is driven out of the capitol city of Kabul. Wait, it can’t work and we will lose is what we are told yet in over a month we took the capitol city?

 

December 9, 2001 the Taliban collapses baffling liberals around the world who said it could not be done. After all the Soviets fought for ten years and lost badly and we did it in 2 months. The war is not over but the enemy is in retreat and is forced to fight only in summer months and in small pockets of the country.

 

January 29, 2002 President Bush identified Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil” and pledges to deny them WMD. We were told that the president should not have done that, it will make these people angry at us and they might attack us. Iran has been attacking us since 1979, North Korea has been messing with us for 50 years, Iraq is the new kid on the block with only 11 years of messing with us.

 

October 2, 2002 Congressional resolution in part states:

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

on Apr 07, 2009

Your answer already is qualifying our response. If they don’t use nukes does that mean we can’t fight back? The reason we were so concerned with the anthrax attacks was if we found out which country did it we would be forced to nuke them as our only retaliatory response or let the matter drop.

 

If they don't cause mass destruction then i don't think nukes are justified. If the attacks can't be tied directly to a country, then a police action would be advisable. Force the local government to accept FBI 'advisers' in the investigation. It's what Australia did after the Bali bombings and it worked a treat. We got nearly all of them. The US has had a bit less success with bin Laden, but then again bin Laden hasn't been a priority and the Taliban was much, much more hostile. Still, the principal is sound.

 

Treat violence as a crime and you rob it of its symbolism.

I don’t like your insult. People like me? Is an insult that I choose to be offended. It is people like me that keep you safe at night. It is people like me that give up our comforts in order to allow you the freedom to bitch and moan.

By 'people like you' I mean people who believe that barbarism must be met with barbarism. You've always been a strong advocate of the annihilation of all enemies, so I'm surprised you choose to take it as an insult. You can if you want to, but keep in mind I too believe that history needs butchers as well as shepherds. I'm sure your views have done good as well as harm.

on Apr 07, 2009

By 'people like you' I mean people who believe that barbarism must be met with barbarism. You've always been a strong advocate of the annihilation of all enemies, so I'm surprised you choose to take it as an insult. You can if you want to, but keep in mind I too believe that history needs butchers as well as shepherds. I'm sure your views have done good as well as harm.

Just to be clear, during the Reagan and Bush administrations ran an operation where service people were sent to Europe and Asia with the express orders of taking out the leadership of terror organizations. The bad guys were vetted by three different security organizations then they were dealt with. No credit was taken for this action the leaders just disappeared. It got so bad for them that they refused to take the leadership role for five years. Osama Bin Laden was number six on the list before the Clinton administration disbanded the units and brought everyone home. Five years later we had 9/11. Was this barbaric? Most likely. Did it work. Partially. Since we were only going after the leadership, independent nuts did attack us but it was not coordinated and the loss of life was low. Please understand I am not blaming the Clinton administration for that aspect of the attacks on 9/11 just like I don’t blame the Carter administration for closing down the CIA operations worldwide and the attack on our embassy in Iran. Both actions were contributing factors but not the root cause.

Please understand that I have been in antiterrorist work since the 70’s when no one cared about stupid goat herders that blew themselves up and took a few innocents with them. We saw this coming and only two presidents did anything to stop it or at least stem the tide. I guess that makes me one of the butchers. I like to think of it more as conservationist thinning the herd and keeping the scales tipped on our side.

on Apr 07, 2009

Treat violence as a crime and you rob it of its symbolism.

But the people are still dead, injured or traumatized.

The symbol will still be there. The attack on the world trade center was prosecuted as you suggested and people were sent to jail. Did it stop the next attack from the same people? No. It proved that car bombs did not work so they went to a different system of attack. Treating terrorism like a common crime will not work because the root cause is an ideology not the usual motivations for crimes, such as greed, or anger and jealousy for murder. Common sense tells you that you will lose your freedom if you kill someone and maybe your life. But the attackers were happy to trade their lives to kill others. It is the leadership that does not lose their freedom or their lives. This is why the operation years ago were so effective. We went after the ones that gave the orders not the rank and file nutjobs that were willing to die for their beliefs. The old saying still holds true. "Cut off the head and the snake dies".

If they don't cause mass destruction then i don't think nukes are justified. If the attacks can't be tied directly to a country, then a police action would be advisable.

So based on this we can’t attack the attackers. Here is what I mean. Saddam Hussein said he would provide WMD to any organization (terrorists) that would promise to use them on Israel or the United States. If he were allowed to follow through on his promise then a terrorist group would take the weapons and use them, who do we attack? Iraq did not attack us they just provided the weapons. The terrorists are not a nation state so we could not attack them where they are based or where the plans were made without going to war with the nation they were in and in some cases those countries are our friends such as the Philippines. It was Abu sayyaf a splinter group of Al Qaeda that came up with the original plan for 9/11. It was the Philippines where it was first tested. If they used some bio weapon and it fizzled, by that I mean it was like the anthrax attack that only killed a few people we would not be able to retaliate because our only response is nuclear attack.

When the USS Cole was attacked we demanded they allow FBI into Yemen. This was not allowed until we got rough with them and then the FBI was severely constrained. Everyone that was arrested has since escaped (let go) and is free to attack us again. What did we accomplish by sending the federal police to another nation state? We showed the world that we are suckers. They went through the motions and then the people were set free to do it again. Great symbol don’t you think? A dead terrorist can not repeat the crime. The symbol of, "if you mess with us we will kill everyone involved" is a better deterrent than putting them in jail.

on Apr 07, 2009

sorry double posting

on Apr 07, 2009

Wow, that's weird.  Not just a month ago my family was talking about this exact same possibility, of the US being hit by an EMP.

I don't know if that means that we're kooks, or if we're just foresighted.

on Apr 07, 2009

What happens if your neighbours are aware of this, and in this cataclysmic scenario decide they'll take it from you by force (since if they're starving they won't have much to lose, while such an event would likely incapacitate the security services)?

Part of being a kook means knowing how to defend oneself.

on Apr 08, 2009

Part of being a kook means knowing how to defend oneself.

Could you please explain why it is that if one is assaulted we must not defend ourselves and if we do we are the kooks? Especially when it goes bad for the attacker. The poor man was only trying to rob me of my belongings. Why is it that my life should be forfeit because some clown does not wish to earn his keep?

 

Last year I took in a homeless single mother and her 17 year old son who was on probation. The little bastard stole money and things from my home and continued to sell drugs. When he was confronted with this his mother jumped to his defense. I kicked them out of the house and two months later I get a collect call asking me to provide a lawyer for the boy, well he is a man now, it was three days after he turned 18 that he was arrested for burglary. This idiot wanted me to post his 57 thousand dollar bond. For six months I provided shelter, food, and clothing for them both and was treated like a sucker and when he got caught he runs to me for help as if the thefts and the drug use and sales should not matter. As of yesterday he is looking at three counts of grand theft, four counts of burglary, and two counts of possession of burglary tools. But he maintains he is innocent. Some racist cop is picking on him just because he is white. About every three or four days they add new charges to his list.

 

Just to be fair I also took in another 17 year old boy and he during the same time got his GED and is planning on joining the military. His parents are so pleased with his change in attitude that they came and picked him up and allowed him to move back in with them.  The parents did it mostly out of shame because they did not like their son living with a black man who was getting results they could not, but the kid was happy to be home again and as long as he is doing well I don’t care about the parents. Yup, I am a kook!

3 Pages1 2 3