The article quoted is a total fantasy and whoever wrote (R. JAMES WOOLSEY AND VINCENT PRY, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS) it apparently are idiots. Fear mongering propaganda at its worse.
This is worrying because these two people are apparently,
Ambassador R. James Woolsey was the Director of Central Intelligence from 1993-95. Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, served in the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA.
Presumably what they're doing is using the DPRK as a vehicle for advertising the conclusions from their EMP study
) cited in the article, which tries to raise awareness about the dangers of EMP attack to the US energy grid- and basically recommends widespread modernization of US infrastructure (ie, cold war "Civil Defence") in response. I cannot imagine why they believe the US energy sector is so vulnerable (it's not as if EMP hardening was not understood by defence planners concerned about massive Soviet nuclear retaliation) and the notion that the DPRK poses this kind of existential threat to the United States is just ridiculous. EMP impact from space thermonuclear detonation was appreciated by the early 1960s following megaton range weapon detonations at 240 miles altitude. Studies revealed that while hardening was difficult, the real limitation of this kind of first-strike attack was that it invariably destroyed the attackers own systems
therefore making it useless for first-strike purposes. It is doubtful the US global nuclear triad would be severely diminished by this, and thus likely that the DPRK government would be totally destroyed by US retaliation.
Stephen50right wrote:An EMP attack would fry the electrical grid and shut down electricity in the entire 48 states. Likely for many months, and possibly years. It would also fry every modern automobile's computer system. It would fry every computer, and an assortment of other things. So...no electricity, no automobiles, no communications, no house water, no grocery store food. Should I go on and on?
Well you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Were you also a contributor on this EMP commission report? The kind of cataclysmic electromagnetic event you describe would most likely be the result of a massive solar flare event, not a purposeful thermonuclear attack. Again, you completely ignore the impact against the attacker
which limits the utility of the system for first-strike purposes. Furthermore, the scale of the impact you describe would require detonating a great number of thermonuclear weapons which it seems unlikely a state like DPRK could achieve.
I should add that the report itself was produced in 2008
before DPRK possessed atomic weapons and it is astonishingly dishonest to claim, almost a decade later, that this report is therefore an accurate prediction of DPRK related strategy.https://apnews.com/4d0f8d7a66ce4d64ae639c295f4c83b8
North Korea accuses US of using its nukes as excuse
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — North Korea accused the United States on Thursday of using the North's nuclear program as an excuse to mask its own opposition to banning nuclear weapons.
Ri Song Chol, a counsellor at North Korea's U.N. mission, told The Associated Press that the United States drove his country to make and possess nuclear weapons to defend itself against any American aggression.
He said the United States was the first country to use nuclear weapons — against Japan during World War II — and it continues to use them "to threaten and blackmail other countries" including North Korea.
Ri said he was responding to U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley who said Monday that the United States wouldn't participate in U.N. talks aimed at banning nuclear weapons because "bad actors" wouldn't sign or comply with a potential treaty.
"North Korea would be the one cheering, and all of us and the people we represent would be the ones at risk," Haley said.
Haley was speaking before the start of U.N. talks aimed at eventually producing a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
The five nuclear powers — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — refused to attend the meeting saying a ban won't work and the world should instead stick with a more gradual approach.
Ri said his country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, supports the global effort to eliminate nuclear weapons, but won't give up its weapons "until the denuclearization of the world is implemented."
He said the DPRK is also not taking part in the talks because of joint military exercises by the United States and South Korea using special forces and "all kinds of nuclear strategic assets" which he said are aimed at secretly invading the North to eliminate its leadership.
It is therefore an "immediate and vital requirement" for the DPRK to further strengthen its military and nuclear capabilities so it can carry out "a pre-emptive strike ... to protect the country from U.S. aggression," Ri said.
He said "it is clearly an unreasonable argument that the U.S. cannot eliminate nuclear weapons because the DPRK will not abandon its nuclear weapons."
"The deceptive talk of the U.S. representative is to hide U.S. identity as a principal offender blocking the global effort for denuclearization of the world," Ri said.
There is a very interesting "threat dynamic" taking place here, where the United States invariably requires some terrible threat to maintain its military-industrial complex (ie, it's economy). If the world ever needed proof that the threat is basically fictitious- and probably always was
, from the Cold War until the present- it is the laughable attempts to equate DPRK nuclear arsenal with USSR level cold war crisis nuclear threat. This not only demonstrates that unreality of US appreciation of the "threat" but also retroactively raises concerns about the legitimacy of the historical threat itself.