Is This the Greatest Threat to America?
by Guy Rodgers
ACT! for America Executive Director
Electromagnetic pulse. The potential devastation that could be caused by an EMP attack triggered by a nuclear detonation above our country may well be the most serious threat we face from radical Islamists bent on destroying or subjugating us.
As I noted in yesterday’s email, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (http://empcommission.org/) reported one year ago:
“…the cascading effects from even one or two relatively small weapons exploded in optimum location in space at present would almost certainly shut down an entire interconnected electrical power system, perhaps affecting as much as 70% or possibly more of the United States, all in an instant…”(If you missed yesterday’s email, I urge you to read it before you read this Part Two. It’s that important. Click here to find it in our email archives).
The Commission’s report stated it plainly – America is at genuine risk from an EMP attack triggered by just one or two nuclear weapons detonated above our atmosphere.
It is almost impossible to imagine an America without electric power, paralyzed for weeks, even months. In such a scenario, all other infrastructures – communications, transportation, food and water, finance, law enforcement, government – would be crippled. Life as we know it would no longer exist. According to the Commission report, millions and millions of Americans would die.
I know this sounds hard to believe, but model simulations, coupled with a history of real-life events that are similar to a premeditated EMP attack, led the Commission to draw the dire conclusions it did.
We have been warned.
Do our enemies understand our vulnerability to an EMP attack? According to Senate testimony given four years ago, an Iranian military journal had already addressed the issue of an EMP attack against the West:
“Once you confuse the enemy communications network…you will, in effect, disrupt all the affairs of that country. If the world’s industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults then they will disintegrate within a few years.” (EMPACT publication, Global Single Point Failure: The EMP Threat).As the EMPACT publication points out, among our enemies the Iranian Islamist government, with the assistance of North Korea, has been conducting missile tests whose objective appears to be to simulate an EMP attack. In other words, as Iran marches inexorably toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons, its leaders know about the potential devastation from an EMP attack, they are planning and preparing for it, and they understand that it would only take a few – or even one – strategically deployed nukes to trigger an EMP attack that would cripple America.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons capability, it is not hard at all to envision a scenario in which they hide such a weapon, and a mobile missile launcher, in the belly of a cargo ship. Then, after sailing the ship to the coastal waters of our eastern seaboard, they launch the missile(s) into the atmosphere over America.
The successful detonation of one or more such missiles could create an EMP that, as the EMP Commission stated, would have the potential for “unprecedented cascading failures of our major infrastructures” – such as our electrical power grid.
This is not science fiction. This threat is very, very real. And because the scope of the threat is so enormous (the Commission estimates 70% or more of our power grid could be destroyed), we simply cannot afford to ignore it. To ignore this threat would be like playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun capable of killing tens of millions of people and destroying our way of life.
After reviewing various reports and discussing this issue with experts in the field, we in the leadership of ACT! for America have determined that we must take action this year to ensure that America is prepared to deal with the threat of an EMP attack. With some intelligence estimates predicting Iran will have enough enriched plutonium in less than two years to produce a nuclear warhead, there is no time for delay.
The good news is there are actions we as a country can take to fend off this threat. We do not need to look on helplessly as enemies of America, such as the mullahs in Iran, plot our destruction.
What is missing is the sufficient political will in Washington to take the actions necessary.
It is for this reason that ACT! for America has prepared a multi-pronged action plan that will need every bit of grassroots support we can muster. Next week we will lay out for you the actions we propose to take this year that will, hopefully, persuade the Obama administration and the Congress to do what is necessary to prevent the unthinkable from happening.
In closing, I urge you, I exhort you, to please take this threat seriously. We must not succumb to fear, but we must also not dismiss this as an imagined threat or a fantasy threat or a hyped-up threat. I know it’s tempting to think that something as devastating as the destruction of our electricity and other infrastructures simply couldn’t happen. Surely, the government is doing everything it can to protect us from this, right?
The ACT! for America motto is “rising in defense of our security, our liberty, and our values.” I can’t think of a threat from radical Islam where this motto is more appropriate than protecting ourselves against the threat of an EMP attack.
We can do this. We must do this. We will do this.
Guy Rodgers is Executive Director of ACT! for America, www.actforamerica.org.
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.
HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.
"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"
NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."