WND has been reporting on the threat to America from EMP, the electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear explosion high in the sky, since early in the 2000s when former CIA chief James Wooley, former Defense Department staffer F. Michael Maloof and former Congressional EMP Commission member Dr. Peter Vincent Pry were sounding the alarm.
It was only weeks later that North Korea as a possible aggressor was brought into the conversation.
Nothing has gotten better since then, according to Pry, who agreed to an interview with WND on Friday, and in fact, it’s worse.
In fact, the sabre-rattling from North Korea dictator Kim Jong Un in recent days and weeks, the threats to destroy America, the warnings about “nuclear thunderbolts,” and more, should be taken very seriously, he suggested.
It’s not just that North Korea may have missiles that could reach the United States, and may have a nuclear warhead that could be fitted on the rockets, it could have already put in place the potential for a nuclear blast and EMP attack when it wants.
It’s because, Pry explained, North Korea first launched one satellite, then a second, in oddly circuitous orbits that have them approach from the south of America, where there are no early warning systems, there are no interceptor missiles, or any defense.
And the satellites, in fact, could actually contain a nuclear weapon ready to detonate.
Pry, who is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, and served on the Congressional EMP Commission, as well as the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission and more, says the alarm truly is serious.
“All of us,” he said, referring to a team of experts in the field, “have written we think that the threat, the possibility of a super-EMP warhead is so great, the United States should take them [North Korea’s satellites] down,” he told WND.
“We ought not tolerate them orbiting,” he said, because nobody knows for sure what’s on the satellites, which are in that suspicious orbit which was identified years earlier as a possible route should the Soviet Union ever decide to mount an assault on the U.S., the south polar trajectory.
The problem is that a significant EMP attack properly carried out in the skies over the United States could take down the nation’s electronic infrastructure.
Electronic systems. All of them. Computers, networks, communications, systems that provide fuel and electricity. Systems that provide fuel and food, banking, medical systems, everything.
The estimates range widely but there easily could be multiple tens of millions of fatalities across the U.S. following such an attack, because food wouldn’t be available, as all the electronics allowing the shipping systems to operate all would be gone.
Pry said it would be, literally, a new stone age.
“The dark ages can come back… literally…. It’s that stark: A cliff waiting for us to fall over,” he said.
The EMP threat, he said, is the one way where a rogue nation like North Korea could inflict horrible damage on the U.S., possibly even neutralize it. After all, if the electronic controls were gone, would it even be possible for the nation to respond to an attack militarily?
The U.S., he said, would be “blind and defenseless.”
He said the suspicions about why the satellites were put into an orbit that approaches the U.S. from a concealed direction, and fly directly overhead, are great.
“What does North Korea want to do, helps us with our problem with climate change?” he wondered. “It’s so implausible.
Unless they are practicing for an attack.
An unidentified North Korean ballistic missile exploded seconds after it was launched Sunday, April 16, from a site near the port city of Sinpo, just as US Vice President Mike Pence arrived in Seoul for talks with the South Korean government on how to deal with Pyongyang's belligerence.
The medium-range missile failure occurred the day after a spectacular military parade rolled through central Pyongyang to mark the 105th anniversary of North Korea’s founder Kim Il-sung. It showcased 50 missiles, including the first display of a submarine-launched missile.
Missile launches have failed before - and not just in North Korea. But worth noting are the comments by US officials before and after the North Korean missile detonated: “We had good intelligence before the launch and good intelligence after the launch,” was one. The US Pacific Command said it had detected and tracked what it assessed to be a North Korean ballistic missile launch. Another US official remarked: “It’s a failed test. It followed another failed test. We don’t need to expend any resources against that.”
The responses of US officials and the concurrence of the failed detonation with the arrival of the US vice president suggest that North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs are closely monitored by US intelligence, electronic and cyber tools. A previous North missile launch on April 5 suffered an in-flight failure before the weapon crashed into the Sea of Japan. There was also an unsuccessful missile launch in late March.
Out of a basketful of aggressive options, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence experts pick the four most likely methods the Americans may have applied to thwart the latest North missile launch:
1. Sabotage of the missile’s fuel, guidance, or communications systems, or of its exterior or the launch pad.
Method: Cutting of cables or fuel lines, changing the flight system’s programming, etc.
Possible perpetrators: Engineers secretly collaborating with the US or those motivated by hatred, jealousy or other factors.
2. Sabotage of the missile’s command and control system, such as changing its flight commands, ignition system, or ordering it to self-destruct, as is done to avoid landing in an unintended location or falling into enemy hands.
Method: Secretly planting instructions in the command and control system, or interfering with the controllers in charge of sending instructions to the missile
Possible perpetrators: mission control staff or military engineers involved in the composition of the command and control programs.
3. Electronic warfare against the command and control systems in the mission control center by sending powerful electromagnetic pulses to disrupt communications with the missile.
Method: US warships, surveillance planes or satellites
Possible perpetrators: US army or navy
4. A cyberattack against the missile’s control system that changes the electronic commands and downs the missile
Method: Planting of malware that enables the attackers to seize control of the computer system without being detected
Possible perpetrators: US intelligence agencies, first and foremost the National Security Agency.
Seemingly confirming what we hinted at previously, The Sun newspaper reports that the US may have sabotaged Kim Jong-un’s missile test yesterday through a cyber-attack causing the rocket to spectacularly flop, according to a former British foreign secretary.
In light of the recent NYT report that the US has been able to sabotage and remotely control North Korean launches for years courtesy of cyberattacks, we previosuly wondered if the US did not play at least a minor role in this attempted, but failed, launch.
Three years ago, President Barack Obama ordered Pentagon officials to step up their cyber and electronic strikes against North Korea’s missile program in hopes of sabotaging test launches in their opening seconds.
Soon a large number of the North’s military rockets began to explode, veer off course, disintegrate in midair and plunge into the sea. Advocates of such efforts say they believe that targeted attacks have given American antimissile defenses a new edge and delayed by several years the day when North Korea will be able to threaten American cities with nuclear weapons launched atop intercontinental ballistic missiles.
And now, as The Sun reports, Sir Malcolm Rifkind claims American intelligence has used cyber warfare to successfully foil missile tests before and that there is a “strong belief” that President Trump’s administration was behind North Korea’s latest failed launch.
Sir Malcolm, who served as foreign secretary from 1995 to 1997 in John Major’s government, did warn that despite the missile flop, North Korea remains a serious nuclear threat. He said:
“But don’t get too excited by that, they’ve also had quite a lot of successful tests.
“They are an advanced country when it comes to their nuclear weapons programme. That still remains a fact – a hard fact.”
Shell-shocked North Korean experts admit the secretive nation now appears far more advanced than previously thought. Dave Schmerler, a research associate at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California, told The Wall Street Journal: “We’re totally floored right now. I was not expecting to see this many new missile designs.”
Sabotage or not, one can't help but wonder if the US intelligence agencies have the capability to blow up a North Korean missile after launch, do they also have the capability to 'launch' a North Korean missile, setting in motion yet another 'safe' false flag to enrage the world?
The entire Western world is being swamped by an Islamic invasion. But Muslims aren’t coming in uniforms and carrying guns. They’re arriving en masse with the assistance of Western governments.
Some call it refugee resettlement. Others simply believe it is just immigration. Few are willing to call it what it is – an “act of conquest,” according to traditional Islam.
One of those few is Paul Nehlen, producer and director of the new documentary “Hijrah: Radical Islam’s Global Invasion.” Nehlen is best known as the populist Republican who challenged House Speaker Paul Ryan in a primary campaign in 2016. In “Hijrah,” Nehlen provides a compelling examination of the issues surrounding immigration and terrorism he discussed during his bid for office.
Nehlen claims establishment media are complicit in covering up the truth about what Islam truly represents.
“When the media talks about religion, they pick out the pieces they want to talk about, the narrative they want to share or spin,” he says in the film. “But what we’re going to talk about is political Islam. We’re going to talk about how Islam developed over the years, and what basic tenets of Islam have been the same from the time it was created until now. … It’s different from what the mainstream media will tell you. It’s the truth.”
The purpose of the documentary is to introduce Westerners to the double meaning in the term “hijrah.” Nehlen argues the media is eager to project an innocent meaning onto the term, which is often used to refer to the journey of the Islamic prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. It can also be used in a more abstract, spiritual context as a kind of “flight from sin.”
But Nehlen says there is a more sinister meaning, as the term can also refer to conquest via immigration.
“Learning the dual meanings of the word ‘hijrah’ is critical to your understanding of the manufactured refugee crisis and the migration in the name of Allah,” Nehlen proclaims in the film.
Nehlen is not alone in regarding Islamic immigration this way. As WND’s Leo Hohmann reported in 2014, Muslim leaders with direct connections to the Muslim Brotherhood have explained immigration is part of the movement’s strategy to take over the West.
Counter-terrorism expert and former Department of Homeland Security Agent Philip Haney, co-author of “See Something, Say Nothing,” also argued immigration is a tool Islamic radicals use to pursue their goal of conquest.
“We always have to come back again to this gravitational force of Shariah,” said Haney. “The power that drives the global Islamic movement isn’t actually jihad. It is the goal to implement global Shariah law. Jihad is the tactic that is employed via various kaleidoscopic forms by the different groups that are all seeking the same thing.”
The end goal of imposing Shariah law is the driving force behind the global Islamic movement. And Nehlen assembles reams of evidence in “Hijrah” to show how mass immigration and “refugee resettlement” are furthering the core objective of the jihadists.
Finally, Nehlen shows how refugee resettlement, far from being a charity, is a lucrative business, with federal contractors receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Western governments to facilitate the Islamic invasion. Among the contractors who are being heavily subsidized are many Christian and Jewish religious organizations – the very same organizations the establishment media loves to quote to claim refugee resettlement is a moral necessity. As Nehlen shows, such organizations are really just protecting their bottom line.
A society that cares less about policy cares more about police. Nothing could illustrate this better than the recent experience of The Rebel’s own David Menzies while reporting on the Conservative Riding Association of King-Vaughan, northwest of Toronto.
When the rule of law is no longer respected by an organization’s supposed elite, the force of law is all that’s left. Due process bows out; the little guy bows down. That’s how it works.
Put another way: a society that cares less about truth cares more about power. We see this inverse relationship everywhere. We live inside a culture prone to fraud but eager for accolades. We’ll gladly lie and cheat for fame— which is just one way of saying that we’ll gladly trade the truth for power.
Think of the myriad ways in which fantasy is peddled in the hope of celebrity. We barely blink anymore at those bottom-dwelling web-ads which tell us that some blonde local-yokel is now earning $8K/week. Pictures apparently don’t lie— she’s partying right now on her private jet. And, amazingly, she’s from everyone’s hometown!
Where truth becomes irrelevant, what remains is power. This trend has various facets. A society that no longer cares about impartial principle becomes increasingly interested in advocacy. And what, precisely, is advocacy if it is not the desire for greater influence and power?
Hence, in times when truth matters less, partisanship matters more. Tribes and tribalism matter more.
Sounds like us.
A society that cares less about truth cares more about political image. That’s us, for certain.
Additionally, a society that cares less about truth doesn’t bother to argue on truth’s behalf. It increasingly finds the justice system too adversarial, and the parliamentary system embarrassing and distasteful. Perhaps this is why Liberal Senate leader Peter Harder, when musing upon ideals, thinks a caucus of organized opposition is detrimental to Senate politics.
Actually, he’s only partly correct. In truth, organized opposition is in no way detrimental to the quest for truth. Predictably, however, organized opposition is detrimental to power.
And there is yet another oddity about these times in which we find ourselves. As universities have debated less about philosophy and theology, they have obsessed more about the issue of power. Moral authority has been disqualified, shouted-down and even beaten-down, by hostile theories and accusations of “privilege”. The Marxist-inspired rage is palpable, and even predictable, because the issue is one of power, not of truth.
Historically, envy and political rage once put a man on a cross. His purpose, he said to Pontius Pilate, was “to bear witness to the truth”. Pilate didn’t care about truth, and even said as much. Not long after, however, he did say this to Jesus: “Do you realize that I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Of course, Pontius. In a raw Roman world, what matters is Caesar and not Socrates.
Power will generally attempt to kill the truth— all the way up to the One who says, “I am the truth”.
It is a sobering political principle, well worth remembering.
And, to this day, well worth rejecting.
Post a Comment