Tommy The Obviously Wrong Clown wrote:

<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114783196.c350c018c5f8f31d6f60d9624cca126e@teranews...

The CO wrote:

Not to mention that the launch would be detected by other
sats that do nothing but watch for launch events.

So what, it would be too late.

Nope, remeber the Gulf War, Patriots were shooting down inbound
SCUDs.

LOL!!!

Our own studies have concluded that the Patriot was all but useless
in that war.

Tony

If the fact it has had a launcher built into it was spotted when it was
being done.

Come on now.

Not to mention that the launch would be detected by other
sats that do nothing but watch for launch events.

So what, it would be too late.

Consider also that no
single warhead (unless it was quite large AND much higher than the
service ceiling of any Scud or improved variant (ie on the order of
200nm or so). Remember if you want an EMP to have good coverage you
need to lob it fairly high and use a fairly big device. The Scud has
limits in the size of the warhead and I reiterate that making a big bomb
and then getting it to fit on the end of a rocket are two different
levels of technology. Realistically you are wanting a multi megaton
weapon which almost certainly means either a seriously boosted fission
design (the technology of which is non trivial and requires some exotic
materials) or a two stage (thermonuclear) device. Both of these are
well beyond the simple unboosted fission devices the likes of North
Korea possesses and the likes of Iran is trying to develop. Such exotic
designs would require a test detonation program to develop. Getting a
two stage weapon to work reliably was non trivial even for the US. At
least one of the Bikini/Johnson shots waa a 'fizzle' which produced only
about 8kt of yield instead of the designed multi megaton yield when the
second stage didn't ignite. Nuclear warhead design make rocket science
look simple.

I understand all of this, but that doesn't mean it isn't being
planned.

Frankly, if they decided to have a go at *anyone* I would expect it to
be Israel.

Probably,

Closer to 'almost certainly' I would think. Israel has basically told
them straight that if they continue to develop nukes their facility will
be taken out before they get to the point of having a functional weapon.
Bear in mind also that having a functioning bomb is of little use unless
it has a delivery system. It's unlikely they could get a carrier
aircraft to Israel so a missile would be needed, and nuclear warheads
for missiles is an entirely different ball of Plutonium to get working
and make reliable. Again it would require an extensive testing program
which is definitely going to get someones attention.
They are playing the worst kind of catch up ball here.

but why are they testing missles exploding in mid flight?

Look at the development history of the A4/V2 and the early days of the
US ballistic missile and space programs. Probably for the same reasons.
Juggling highly explosive fuels on the far end of a fragile structure
with a high temp blowtorch at the other that is subject to serious G and
Q forces in boost phase is not trivial to get right, sometimes things
break and it all goes boom. Evem solid fuelled launchers can be an
issue, look at Challenger....

You missed the point, they are intentionally detonating the missles
in flight.

And what, pray tell, is the advertized range of this particular engine of
destruction? Last I heard, it was a little short of transatlantic. It's a
looong way from Iran to the US, when they get something with a range of
about 10,000 miles, then I'll worry.

Charly



itwill@happen.com wrote:

Iran plans to knock out U.S. with 1 nuclear bomb
Tests missiles for electro-magnetic pulse weapon that could destroy
America's technical infrastructure

Posted: April 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON -- Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it
is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy
America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the
world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists
and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine
if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear
warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in
high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William
R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than
preparation for the deployment of Electromagnetic Pulse weapons – even
one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and
technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S.
back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.

Iran will have that capability – at least theoretically – as soon as
it has one nuclear bomb ready to arm such a missile. North Korea, a
strategic ally of Iran, already boasts such capability.

The stunning report was first published over the weekend in Joseph
Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter
published by WND's founder.

Just last month, Congress heard testimony about the use of such
weapons and the threat they pose from rogue regimes.

Iran has surprised intelligence analysts by describing the mid-flight
detonations of missiles fired from ships on the Caspian Sea as
"successful" tests. Even primitive Scud missiles could be used for
this purpose. And top U.S. intelligence officials reminded members of
Congress that there is a glut of these missiles on the world market.
They are currently being bought and sold for about $100,000 apiece.

"A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead
'on target' with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch
and detonate in the atmosphere," wrote Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., in the
Washington Post a week ago. "No need for the risk and difficulty of
trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular
city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international
waters – al-Qaida is believed to own about 80 such vessels – and make
sure to get it a few miles in the air."

The Iranian missile tests were more sophisticated and capable of
detonation at higher elevations – making them more dangerous.

Detonated at a height of 60 to 500 kilometers above the continental
U.S., one nuclear warhead could cripple the country – knocking out
electrical power and circuit boards and rendering the U.S. domestic
communications impotent.

While Iran still insists officially in talks currently underway with
the European Union that it is only developing nuclear power for
peaceful civilian purposes, the mid-flight detonation missile tests
persuade U.S. military planners and intelligence agencies that Tehran
can only be planning such an attack, which depends on the availability
of at least one nuclear warhead.

Some analysts believe the stage of Iranian missile developments
suggests Iranian scientists will move toward the production of
weapons-grade nuclear material shortly as soon as its nuclear reactor
in Busher is operative.

Jerome Corsi, author of "Atomic Iran," told WorldNetDaily the new
findings about Iran's Electromagnetic Pulse experiments significantly
raise the stakes of the mullah regime's bid to become a nuclear power.

"Up until now, I believed the nuclear threat to the U.S. from Iran was
limited to the ability of terrorists to penetrate the borders or port
security to deliver a device to a major city," he said. "While that
threat should continue to be a grave concern for every American, these
tests by Iran demonstrate just how devious the fanatical mullahs in
Tehran are. We are facing a clever and unscrupulous adversary in Iran
that could bring America to its knees."

Earlier this week, Iran's top nuclear official said Europe must heed
an Iranian proposal on uranium enrichment or risk a collapse of the
talks.

The warning by Hassan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security
Council, came as diplomats from Britain, France and Germany began
talks with their Iranian counterparts in Geneva, ahead of a more
senior-level meeting in London set for April 29. Enrichment produces
fuel for nuclear reactors, which can also be used in the explosive
core of nuclear bombs.

"The Europeans should tell us whether these ideas can work as the
basis for continued negotiations or not," Rowhani said, referring to
the Iranian proposal put forward last month that would allow some
uranium enrichment. "If yes, fine. If not, then the negotiations
cannot continue," he said.

Some analysts believe Iran is using the negotiations merely to buy
time for further development of the nuclear program.

The U.S. plans, according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to
allow the EU talks to continue before deciding this summer to push for
United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology
and Homeland Security chaired by Kyl, held a hearing on the
Electromagnetic Pulse, or EMP, threat.

"An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said
one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is
one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its
enemies – terrorist or otherwise," wrote Kyl "And it is probably the
easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon,
detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's
atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the
surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of
the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power
grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the
continental United States, for months if not years."

The purpose of an EMP attack, unlike a nuclear attack on land, is not
to kill people, but "to kill electrons," as Graham explained. He
serves as chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the
United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack and was director of
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and science
adviser to the president during the Reagan administration.

Graham told WorldNetDaily he could think of no other reason for Iran
to be experimenting with mid-air detonation of missiles than for the
planning of an EMP-style attack.

"EMP offers a bigger bang for the buck," he said. He also suggested
such an attack makes a U.S. nuclear response against a suspected enemy
less likely than the detonation of a nuclear bomb in a major U.S.
city.

A 2004 report by the commission found "several potential adversaries
have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a
high-altitude nuclear weapons-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A
determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without
having a high level of sophistication."

"EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at
risk of catastrophic consequences," the report said. "EMP will cover
the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon.
It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical
infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well
as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project
influence and military power."

The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, "so pervasive in
all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical
infrastructures," explained the report.

"Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity
and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as
catastrophic to the nation," Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the
commission, told members of Congress.

The commission report went so far as to suggest, in its opening
sentence, that an EMP attack "might result in the defeat of our
military forces."

"Briefly, a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the
United States will interact with the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere
and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation
down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the
Earth," said the report. "EMP effects are both direct and indirect.
The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from
the damage that 'shocked' – upset, damaged and destroyed – electronics
controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The
indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects."

The EMP threat is not a new one considered by U.S. defense planners.
The Soviet Union had experimented with the idea as a kind of
super-weapon against the U.S.

"What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP threats
are difficult to deter – they can be terrorist groups that have no
state identity, have only one or a few weapons and are motivated to
attack the U.S. without regard for their own safety," explains the
commission report. "Rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, may
also be developing the capability to pose an EMP threat to the United
States and may also be unpredictable and difficult to deter."

Graham describes the potential "cascading effect" of an EMP attack. If
electrical power is knocked out and circuit boards fried,
telecommunications are disrupted, energy deliveries are impeded, the
financial system breaks down, food, water and gasoline become scarce.

As Kyl put it: "Few if any people would die right away. But the loss
of power would have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society.
Communication would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would
leave food rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of
transportation as those vehicles still working simply ran out of gas
(which is pumped with electricity). The inability to sanitize and
distribute water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention
the safety of anyone in the path of the inevitable fires, which would
rage unchecked. And as we have seen in areas of natural and other
disasters, such circumstances often result in a fairly rapid breakdown
of social order."

"American society has grown so dependent on computer and other
electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of
vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less
developed nations," the senator wrote. "When deprived of power, we are
in many ways helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In
that case, power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could
provide help. But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack
would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be
nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed
equipment."

The commission said hardening key infrastructure systems and procuring
vital backup equipment such as transformers is both feasible and –
compared with the threat – relatively inexpensive.

"But it will take leadership by the Department of Homeland Security,
the Defense Department, and other federal agencies, along with support
from Congress, all of which have yet to materialize," wrote Kyl, so
far the only elected official blowing the whistle this alarming
development.

Kyl concluded in his report: "The Sept. 11 commission report stated
that our biggest failure was one of 'imagination.' No one imagined
that terrorists would do what they did on Sept. 11. Today few
Americans can conceive of the possibility that terrorists could bring
our society to its knees by destroying everything we rely on that runs
on electricity. But this time we've been warned, and we'd better be
prepared to respond."