U.S. Ignores Threat of EMP Attacks

U.S. ignores threat of EMP attack
April 25, 2009

We can all breathe easier now that the feds have successfully protected us from the TEA party crowd. In the days leading up to April 15, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano alerted law enforcement officials to the dangers of “right-wing extremism activity.”

You have to admit, no crazed veterans hijacked a plane, no outraged school choice advocates staged a suicide attack, no average Americans worried about their children’s financial future beheaded a spender.

Of course, most Americans, including many Democrats, were outraged at the transparent attempt to demonize political opposition by using the guise of security concerns. But the bigger problem is that we have never developed a coherent strategy to protect ourselves from the jihadists and rogue states who aspire to perpetrate the next 9/11. We’ve spent enormously (again), but it’s gone mostly to such nonessentials as remodeling rural police stations and supporting a massive new federal bureaucracy.

The problem is more serious than wasted money and politicized “alerts.” Security issues that do matter are ignored, especially if they don’t have much political cache. Case in point: an electromagnetic pulse attack.
EMP is a shower of ionizing radiation that results from a nuclear warhead detonated above the Earth’s surface. Unlike surface explosions, where the ground absorbs much of the radiation, in an EMP attack the radioactive particles knock out anything below connected by cables or wires. Entire electrical grids, including communications systems and computers, are instantly incapacitated. The chaos and suffering that would result are unimaginable.

If you’ve never heard of EMP, that’s part of the problem. It’s not science fiction, it is “one of a small number of threats that could hold our country at risk of catastrophic consequences,” according to Bill Graham, former deputy head of NASA and presidential science adviser.

Now, as chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, he is one of several distinguished scientists trying to encourage policy makers to address EMP.
EMP was discovered in 1962 when a nuclear warhead tested at altitude over the Pacific Ocean knocked out its own monitoring equipment. During the Cold War, we “hardened” some of our military equipment against EMP, but the major civilian threat then was a massive nuclear exchange with the Soviets in which EMP would have had a minor role.

All that has changed now. Nuclear-armed terrorists are already nearly capable of launching an EMP attack. Iran, obviously developing nuclear weapon capacity, is conducting missile tests from sea-based platforms. Moreover, the Iranians are testing the detonation of missiles at the apex of their trajectory.

A short-range ballistic missile could conceivably sail undetected within range of U.S. territory on a nonmilitary vessel. It is estimated that even a relatively small warhead, if well placed, could knock out 75 percent of the electrical grid on the East Coast.

Graham and his colleagues have met massive indifference to EMP from Congress. A recent hearing on the topic played to mostly empty seats. The president and the Department of Homeland Security secretary have been silent. No influential lobbyists work on EMP issues and no powerful interest groups demand we be protected from EMP. As a result, EMP research received just $5 million in next year’s pork-stuffed budget.

Even more alarming, strategic missile defense, our main protection against rogue nuclear attacks, was actually cut from a modest $9 billion to $7.6 billion. This is somewhere between dangerous and immoral, since missile defense systems are more needed than ever. The objections of our enemies, who would like to see us remain vulnerable, speak volumes about the effectiveness of missile defense.

So let’s review our priorities. EMP research is funded at about the same level as the earmark on “wood materials use.” We give hundreds of billions to feckless investment banks and insurance companies, but $9 billion is too much for a missile defense system that would make us less vulnerable to a devastating attack. We fuss more about the political opposition than jihadists.

A DHS secretary serious about her job would see there’s a problem here.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired emergency room physician and former state senator.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/138405