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.

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

1 Comment for Is Obama’s Attitude about Nuclear Attack Dangerous to National Security?