How North Korea Could Make Good On Its Promise To Erase The United States

It wouldn't require a nuclear weapon. And it may be more imminent and real a threat than most Americans are willing to realize.

By James H. Hyde
September 28, 2016

Many people complacently ignore the threats posed by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK)—as if it’s a fourth-world country run by a chubby, raging lunatic who needn’t be taken seriously. But those of us who keep our binoculars on North Korea (albeit from Google Earth or declassified maps) know that ignoring Kim Jong Un is an error we may not live to regret.

What kind of an attack could Kim hurl at us? One that could kill between 75 percent and 90 percent of our population, relegating Americans to endangered society status and transporting those surviving back in time to the mid-1800s—if we’re lucky.

Most people, especially those who don’t know who Kim Jong Un is, are unaware that he has a nuclear arsenal, albeit a minuscule one (38North.org, a site that closely monitors North Korea, estimates that “…a stockpile of sufficient fissile material for approximately 20 bombs by the end of this year and a capacity of adding approximately 7 per year makes the DPRK claim sound plausible”). This arsenal poses no serious threat to the U.S.

But it’s not the threat of a nuclear missile attack that concerns Dr. Peter Pry (who heads the Taskforce for National and Homeland Security, and for which I volunteer some of my time), ex-CIA director James Woolsey, Center for Security Policy Founder and President Dr. Frank Gaffney, and others who closely monitor nuclear developments in the DPRK. We are all deeply concerned about the horrendous potential for Kim Jong Un to use just one device—one which poses a threat far more devastating than a full-on Russian nuclear attack.

North Korea Wants to Wipe Out the U.S. ‘All At Once’

On September 9, the North Koreans conducted their fifth nuclear test, this one the biggest of five, registering a 5.3 on the Richter scale and estimated at 20 to 30 kilotons. In this case (as with an earlier test conducted in January), it may be difficult for our radiation sniffing-planes to pick up much fallout. The January test produced seven to 10 kilotons, yet we didn’t pick up any alarming release of radiation. Why?

Many believe it was not a conventional nuclear test for two reasons: first, both of the latest detonations were likely hydrogen-based devices, making them thermonuclear. Second, the kinetic yield (radioactivity) was sacrificed to increase gamma ray emissions.

Why is that important? Because the DPRK isn’t interested in making several of our cities glow. They want to take us out “all at once.” After the January test came this from North Korea’s news service, KCNA: “The scientists and technicians of the DPRK are in high spirit to detonate H-bombs of hundreds of Kt (kiloton) and Mt (megaton) level capable of wiping out the whole territory of the U.S. all at once…” [Emphasis added]

While that may seem like the typical bellicose, hyperbolic venom Kim Jong Un tosses our way, it’s not. This time, his saber rattling may have him tossing the sheath away. What would send us to oblivion “all at once?”

An EMP, or a Super-EMP. If you understand what an EMP is, you’re ahead of the game. Unfortunately, few in this country have the faintest idea what it is, and probably don’t care.

What’s An EMP, And What Can It Do?

EMP stands for “electromagnetic pulse,” and it is truly devastating to anything and everything that has a microchip in it or is part of the crumbling, antiquated, and hopelessly snarled convergence of wires we call our electric grid.

The grid comprises three major sections: the Eastern Interconnection, which provides the nation with 75 percent of its power; the Western Interconnection; and the Texas Interconnection, all of which hopelessly lack the kind of hardening we need to protect them.

An EMP-based weapon would do a good deal of damage. But if the last two DPRK tests involved thermonuclear devices, they could become Super-EMPs. When those are put aboard a satellite and detonated 300 miles above the center of the U.S., just one of them would impale technology addicts on a painful and sharp withdrawal spike, while tossing our urban and suburban populaces into abject panic and chaos.

As I write this, the DPRK has two satellites flying above us on a south to north trajectory. It’s the same satellite route the Soviets used during the Cold War. Back then, the prevailing wisdom was that if the Soviets to launch their nukes at us, the missiles would come over the North Pole. In response, we stationed our missile defense systems in the north. Since the Soviet Union shattered, that defensive posture has not changed, leaving no defense in the south or along the Eastern Seaboard.

While no data stream has been detected coming from either “earth-based satellite” (according to the DPRK), it is not known whether nuclear devices are aboard those satellites or whether they are “test vehicles.”

In response to those devices and one recent rocket engine test, the U.S. and U.N. have showered Kim Jong Un with sanctions that hurt members of the ruling class, including him. The North Korean people are beyond impoverished, and live with the government’s hand around their throats.

According to FoxNews.com, “Kim [Jong Un] was quoted as ordering officials and scientists to complete preparations for a satellite launch as soon as possible, amid the enemies’ [the U.S.] harsh sanctions and moves to stifle the North.”

And Joel Wit, founder of the 38 North website, notes that “This test is another important development pointing to the first launch of a bigger, better space vehicle to place satellites in higher orbits, which could happen in the not too distant future.”

Kim’s request for a satellite in higher orbit is particularly troubling: it means he could pack an EMP or Super-EMP device on it and put it into orbit over the U.S. Unless we take swift measures to “harden” our electric grid and military assets—and soon—America could become an endangered society. An EMP or Super-EMP detonated at an altitude of between 25 and 300 miles (the higher the better) would be cataclysmic.
The Apocalyptic Power of the Super-EMP

The detonation itself would not harm us physically. The kinetic energy (radiation) would dissipate harmlessly in space. The increased gamma rays, however, would race toward earth in three waves, milliseconds apart. Electrons in air molecules in our atmosphere would be knocked out by gamma rays in massive numbers that then rush earthward. Once they came in contact with the ground, they would take out transformers in substations. Hyper-electrical pulses would snake along our electric lines, destroying transmission and distribution technologies as they go.

The immediate effects would be withering: planes in flight would start falling from the skies. Chemical plants that control hazardous materials would no longer be controlled, imperiling all who live nearby as their computerized technology fails. Most cars built after 1974 would lose power. Trains, especially those operating on electrified tracks, would come to a halt. Tens of thousands would be stuck in elevators nationwide.
Planes in flight would start falling from the skies.

But the biggest long-term threat manifests as the “Rule of Threes.” We can hold our breaths for three minutes. We can go without water for three days, and without food for three weeks. City populations living in skyscraper apartment buildings would no longer get water pumped to them. Bottled water would disappear from supermarket shelves on the first day. Most supermarkets are stocked for only three days worth of consumable inventory, especially meats and fresh vegetables.

Perhaps most vulnerable in the transmission and distribution system are huge transformers that are extremely hard to replace, and (as with so many other industries) no longer manufactured here. They now come from Germany and South Korea. Each is unique and designed to fit in a specific place within substations, of which nine are critical.

These transformers are complex power regulators that take a year to build and cost $10 million. They must be shipped here and off-loaded to special trucks that can accommodate them. Each one can weigh over 400 tons. A standard 18-wheeler won’t do the job. Their tires would burst. Plus, gasoline would become extremely scarce. Oil refineries would cease to function, so finding enough gas to power these huge trucks would be nigh impossible. We have some backup transformers here, but nowhere near enough to replace all of the damaged ones hit by an EMP. Estimates are that it would be at least a decade before we could replace enough transformers to get at least some electricity flowing.
Only the Preppers Will Survive

But failure of the grid presents a secondary and even more devastating effect, one that would threaten even those in the hinterlands.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 30 states in the United States. Of these plants, 36 have two or more reactors.” Nuclear power plants are as dependent on power from the grid as any other energy-consuming entities. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency mandates that a one-week supply of diesel fuel be sustained at each nuclear plant to fuel the backup generators. But it’s useless if there are any computer chips running those generators. The only other possibility is to use battery backups for as long as possible. When those fail, even reactors taken offline need to be bathed constantly in cold water. Without generators or batteries to pump that water, there’s no way to cool the reactors or the spent-fuel-rod pools. Once the water boils off, it’s Fukushima times 100.

Regardless of how it’s done, few would survive an EMP attack.

All of those reactors will melt down with the spent-fuel rods. Hydrogen will build up in the tops of the reactors, as it did in Fukushima, and if ignited would cause the same explosions we saw in Japan. With the Jet Stream flowing from west to east, radioactivity would cover the nation.

Regardless of how it’s done, few would survive an EMP attack. If we were to be hit by a Super-EMP, only those who have amply prepared by having renewable water supplies and food stores will have a chance.

As a measure of how seriously this threat is taken by the military, consider that NORAD has scurried back under the protection of Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. They are currently spending a $70 million allocation to further harden the facility.

With Kim as unpredictable as he is, we’d be wise to do all we can to convince our federal and state governments to protect our electric grid. If we fail to do so, the consequences could be cataclysmic.

James H. Hyde has been a journalist since 1983. He covers politics, national security (threats to the U.S. electric grid), and terrorism. He won a Jesse H. Neal Award in 1986, has served as managing editor of three magazines, written two syndicated columns, authored one book and is working on a series of others. Follow James on Twitter @jameshhyde and Facebook james.h.hyde1.

By Ed Feulner - - Monday, December 26, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Imagine being stuck in a grocery checkout line for 33 minutes. Or in a traffic jam. Time would slow to a crawl, each minute feeling longer than the one before it.

But consider the fact that 33 minutes is also how long it would take for a long-range missile fired from North Korea or Iran to reach the United States. Then you realize how short that span of time actually is.

“We need to take action to respond to threats, and the ballistic missile threat is clear, and present, and growing,” says Robert Joseph, who served as Undersecretary of State from 2005 to 2007.

We’re very good at responding when we’re attacked. Look at how America rallied when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, or when al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center and crippled the Pentagon. No one can doubt our resolve when provoked. With good reason did Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto warn that Japan’s actions at Pearl Harbor had awakened “a sleeping giant.”

But part of the job of providing for the common defense is anticipating threats, not merely reacting to attacks. And the fact is, rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

Yet it’s easy to shrug off such warnings. Americans were more concerned years ago, when the prospect of a nuclear holocaust was new. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was a time of extraordinary fear. The 1980s saw popular culture saturated with warnings about the dangers of a nuclear arms race.

Fast forward to 2016, and people will admit to a bit of concern — if that. Have we become inured to the warnings just as technology has made the threat more real than ever before?

We ended the Cold War virtually without a shot. That’s a good thing, obviously, but wouldn’t it be ironic if we became victims of our own success? If that feeling of victory led us to become complacent?

In a way, we need missile defense more than ever. President Reagan knew that the ability to wipe out entire cities was the greatest danger we faced. So he wanted to make nuclear weapons obsolete. Hence the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI — a shield that would protect us.

As Mr. Reagan put it, “What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?”

Thirty years later, we have missile defense, but it’s not nearly as robust as it should be. We need components not only on the ground, but at sea and in space. A comprehensive system offers us the best chance of intercepting and downing a missile before it can launch its deadly payload.

“If an enemy of America had a ballistic missile, they could basically just hold America hostage,” says James Carafano, a defense expert who has taught at West Point. “If America wanted to go out and do something in the world, they could say ‘If you do that, we’ll shoot this missile at New York, or Los Angeles, or San Francisco’.”

We’ve seen the destruction caused by two planes in New York City on 9/11. Imagine a nuclear missile. And not just one hitting a city, as devastatingly effective as that would be, but one exploded at a higher altitude, which would create an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.

An EMP is the giant flush of electrons and ionized particles that’s pushed out by a nuclear explosion. If exploded high over the center of the U.S., a missile could create an EMP that would incapacitate every electrical system in the United States.

Goodbye, cell phones, emergency medical assistance, and banking services. Just about everything that makes modern life possible would be gone in a flash. That’s what’s at stake, and why we need to step up our missile defenses sooner rather than later.

“The first duty of any national government is to defend the country and its people,” as former Attorney General Edwin Meese III puts it. If we don’t get that right, nothing else will matter.

• Ed Feulner is founder of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

The Pentagon Says That North Korea Is Capable of a Nuclear Strike on the U.S.

Nash Jenkins
Oct 08, 2015

Officials in Washington are of the opinion that North Korea's nuclear arsenal holds missiles that could reach the mainland U.S.A. — but stress that it is a threat that the Pentagon is adequately prepared to face, according to one senior military official quoted by Reuters.

"I'm pretty confident that we're going to knock down the numbers that are going to be shot," Admiral Bill Gortney, who heads the U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, said of a potential strike. He spoke at an event hosted by the international affairs think tank Atlantic Council on the matter of "protecting the homeland."

North Korea has long taunted the West with allusions to the country's nuclear means. Every few years, it announces that it has conducted successful nuclear tests, boasts that are interspersed with erratic pledges to end them in return for economic aid or diplomatic concessions. Authorities in Pyongyang say that recent rocket launches are part of a legitimate space program.

Gortney said that the Pentagon is seeking to update its missile defense system despite the impending threat of congressional budget cuts.

"We’re ready for[Kim], and we’re ready 24 hours a day if he should be dumb enough to shoot something at us," Gortney said.

To have those effects, it takes a nuke in the 1 Megaton range, and that isn't so easy.

North Korea's 'game changing' new missile is more stable, more efficient -and harder to detect

Julian Ryall, Tokyo

13 February 2017

The new type of intermediate-range ballistic missile launched by North Korea on Sunday is a "game changer", according to analysts, because it uses a solid fuel engine that makes the weapon more stable and reduces the time required to fuel a missile before launch.

The Pukguksong-2 is also road-mobile on tractor-erector-launcher units, analysts point out, all of which means that the weapon is more difficult to detect and neutralise before it is launched.

"The liquid fuel engines that North Korea uses in all its medium- and long-range missiles are dangerous because the fuel is so corrosive and volatile", said Lance Gatling, a defence analyst and president of Tokyo-based Nexial Research Inc.

"It is questionable if they have the capacity to store liquid rocket fuel for long periods and typically they tend to fuel their rockets just before launch", he told The Telegraph.

In October, a launch unit for a Musudan ballistic missile was badly damaged when the weapon exploded. Five Musudan tests earlier in the year were also judged by South Korean intelligence to have been failures after they blew up in flight.

North Korean state media has claimed that the missiles were deliberately destroyed.

The benefit of a solid-fuel engine - probably using ammonium perchlorate - is that the fuel is extremely stable, can be easily stored and the weapon is ready to be fired virtually immediately, Mr Gatling said.

"If they have made a solid-fuel engine that works, then that is a great advance", he said.

"It's a game-changer in the sense that a solid fuel rocket can be kept in ambient temperatures before being launched with a very short preparation time".

South Korean intelligence on Monday said that the new missile - fired at 7:55 am local time from Banghyon air base in North Pyongan Province - appears to be employing engine technology used in North Korea's successful submarine-launched missile programme.

The weapon was initially identified as a Rodong missile and then a Musudan, until North Korea released video and still images of the launch on Monday - with state media declaring the weapon to be a "Korean-style, new-type strategic weapon system".

The state-run Korean Central News Agency quoted Kim Jong-un, the country's leader, as expressing "great satisfaction over the possession of another powerful nuclear attacks means, which adds to the tremendous might of the country".

Intelligence estimates suggest that the Pukguksong-2 has an operational range of 3,000 km (1,860 miles), which is less than the 3,500 km (2,175 miles) of a Musudan. It is considered likely that now North Korean scientists have perfected solid fuel engine technology, they will seek to apply it to a new generation of missiles with longer ranges.

Yonhap news quoted South Korea intelligence officials as saying that they are unsure whether a nuclear warhead can be fitted to the Pukguksong-2.

Mr Gatling said it is "extremely unlikely" that North Korea has not factored a nuclear capability into the weapon.

US and Japan demand UN action after North Korea reveals pictures of new nuclear-capable missile that will be impossible for Western satellites to spot before it's fired


New type of rockets can be launched at short notice without much preparation
In addition, solid fuel engines also boost the power and range of ballistic rockets
They are also more difficult to track by satellite because they have fewer support vehicles in their entourage, expert warns
UN strongly condemned its launch describing it as a 'further troubling violation'
Missile flew about 310 miles before falling into the sea Sunday
Launch was seen as a test of response from President Trump

See entire article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cil-meet-North-Korea-missile-launch.html

Should U.S. be preparing for a North Korean nuclear strike on the West Coast?

By Stuart Leavenworth

WASHINGTON

After listening to experts describe the threat posed by North Korea and its nuclear arsenal, U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, paused amid a Capitol Hill hearing earlier this week and made a suggestion.

“We ought to have civil defense in this country,” said Sherman during a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Some of us are old enough to remember when we had civil defense and we were under our desks.”

The congressman wasn’t calling for an immediate return to the “duck and cover” days of the Cold War. But his statement reflects heightened alarm among members of Congress – especially those from the West Coast – over North Korea’s continuing nuclear tests and advances in missile technology.

In the last year alone, North Korea has conducted 20 missile tests and two nuclear tests. That’s a marked annual increase from the 42 missile tests and two nuclear tests of the previous seven years, according to Victor Cha, a Korea specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Cha and other experts say it is highly likely that North Korea’s Kim Jong Un will launch another intercontinental ballistic missile this year, in part to gauge the response from President Donald Trump. While some of North Korea’s missile tests have ended in failure, the regime seems to be learning from each launch to improve its capability.

Many arms control specialists believe that, by 2020, North Korea could have the capacity to launch a miniaturized nuclear device on an ICBM, with the range to strike at least the West Coast. It might even have that capability sooner.

“The difficulty here is the lack of visibility into North Korea’s nuclear program. It’s a black hole,” said Anthony Ruggiero, a Korea researcher who previously worked in the Treasury Department, the U.S. agency tasked with enforcing sanctions on Pyongyang.

North Korea remains one of the world’s most closeted countries, and international inspectors haven’t had even partial access to its nuclear facilities since 2009.

To slow North Korea’s nuclear advances, the United Nations has imposed increasingly harsh sanctions. Those sanctions have deprived Pyongyang of hard cash but have received spotty enforcement, especially by China, which is wary of squeezing North Korea too hard. Within Congress, there is increasing recognition that North Korea has gotten short shrift amid the intense foreign policy attention on the Islamic State, Iran and the Middle East.

“Are we as focused on this threat as we should be? If you look over the last 10 years, the answer is clearly no,” Ruggiero, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, said in an interview. “We have not focused on that threat, and it has continued to grow.”

Are we as focused on this threat as we should be? If you look over the last 10 years, the answer is clearly no. Anthony Ruggiero, Foundation for Defense of Democracy

Several members of Congress from the West Coast are aiming a spotlight at North Korea, particularly Rep. Ed Royce, a Republican from Southern California who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On Tuesday, Royce led a hearing examining how the United States and its allies could further squeeze North Korea financially and possibly slow its nuclear weapons program.

Royce said he was particularly concerned about North Korea’s bomb miniaturization efforts, along with one of its missile tests last year from a submarine. “That is what has got our attention,” Royce said. “At this point it is clear that very, very soon, North Korea is going to be able to target all 50 states in the United States, as well as target our allies.”

Some analysts doubt that North Korea, as it advances its weapons systems, would launch a first strike on the United States or its allies. Kim is pursuing the weapons program, they say, as a deterrent to a U.S. attack and also to enhance his stature at home.

Yet U.S. officials feel compelled to remind Pyongyang what would happen if it were to strike first. “Any attack on the United States, or our allies, will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week during a visit to South Korea’s Defense Ministry.

Given the failure to slow North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, some Asia specialists say the United States should consider a new strategy, attempting to negotiate with Pyongyang on a freeze, or “cap,” in missile and weapons development. Others say such a move would be a disaster, even if Kim abided by a freeze.

“Agreeing to a cap means the U.S. accepts North Korea as a nuclear weapons state for the indefinite future, which would destroy our credibility not only with our allies but with other rogue regimes,” said Sue Mi Terry, a Korea analyst with the consulting firm Bower Group Asia, who testified at Tuesday’s hearing. She added that the U.S. must keep highlighting North Korea’s human rights abuses while trying to reach out to elites in Pyongyang susceptible to defection.

Last year, Royce and Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York who’s the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, led passage of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, an attempt to stanch the outside cash that flows into North Korea, bolstering the regime.

Such laws, however, depend on the capacity and commitment of the U.S. Treasury Department to pursue alleged violators. Last year, federal prosecutors charged four Chinese businesspeople and a Chinese company with conspiring to create a web of shell companies to evade U.S. economic sanctions and funnel money to North Korea. But critics have questioned why the Treasury Department didn’t also hold Chinese banks accountable for their role in creating the shell companies.

“The fact that a Chinese bank has not been punished for that is quite appalling,” said Ruggiero.

He and other analysts have criticized the Obama administration, saying it was inconsistent in the region. While Obama once counseled a policy of “strategic patience” with Pyongyang, he left office reportedly advising Trump that nuclear North Korea should be the new president’s top foreign priority.

How Trump will handle Korean affairs remains a mystery. When Kim hinted in a New Year’s speech that North Korea might test another missile, Trump responded with one of his trademark Twitter blasts: “It won’t happen!”

North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2017

Trump sent mixed messages during the presidential campaign on his support for Asian allies, such as South Korea and Japan, who face an immediate threat from North Korea missiles. Mattis’ trip to Asia last week – the first foreign trip by a Trump Cabinet member – was widely seen as an attempt to ease allies’ concerns about the new president.

Sherman, a Democrat from Northridge, raised the possibility of restarting “civil defense” in the context of raising awareness about North Korea’s actions, including its reported sharing of nuclear technologies with Iran and other regimes.

“We have a foreign policy establishment that will not admit to the American people that it (deterrence) may fail to prevent us from being hit,” he said. “We could prepare to minimize casualties. We won’t, because that means we’d have to admit that there’s the possibility we will face casualties.”

North Korea, the real threat

The regime’s irrationality makes a catastrophic missile strike plausible

By Peter Vincent Pry - - Tuesday, February 14, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

When might North Korean develop missiles capable of striking the United States? Today.

Four years ago in December 2012, when North Korea orbited its KMS-3 satellite over the U.S., I warned they could conduct an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by satellite.

An EMP that blacks out the national electric grid would be a far greater catastrophe than blasting a city. A North Korean 10-kiloton warhead blasting a city might cause about 200,000 casualties.

However, the same warhead making a high-altitude EMP attack — though there would be no blast, thermal or fallout effects on the ground — could knock out the electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for more than a year, killing 90 percent of the population through starvation.

Why blast a city when EMP attack can destroy the whole nation? North Korea wants to be able to do both. They can launch an EMP attack already.

Another advantage of EMP attack by satellite is anonymity, to escape retaliation, whereas an intercontinental ballistic missile destroying a city would have North Korea’s fingerprints all over it.

North Korea’s KMS-3 satellite is in low-Earth orbit, along with hundreds of other satellites. KMS-3’s south polar trajectory approaches the United States from the south, where there are no ballistic missile early warning radars or national missile defenses. The U.S. is blind and defenseless from that direction.

An EMP attack would damage radars, satellites, ground stations and other national technical means necessary to ascertain who attacked. A super-EMP weapon could paralyze even hardened command, control, communications and intelligence assets and strategic forces, rendering them unable to retaliate, even if the aggressor could be identified.

In 2004, Moscow’s top EMP experts warned the Congressional EMP Commission that the design for their super-EMP warhead “accidentally” leaked to North Korea; that Russian, Chinese and Pakistani scientists had been recruited by Pyongyang and were helping its nuclear and missile programs; and that North Korea could develop a super-EMP warhead “in a few years.”

In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. It was dismissed by the press as failed because of the very low-yield — only one to three kilotons. But it looked to the EMP Commission like a super-EMP weapon because such a weapon would have very low yield, being designed to produce gamma rays (which create the EMP shock wave), not a big explosion. Most of North Korea’s nuclear tests have been low-yield devices.

One simple design for a super-EMP warhead would resemble an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW), or neutron weapon, which produces a lot of gamma rays in addition to neutrons, like the ERW artillery shell for the 155 mm howitzer, designed during the 1950s and deployed by the U.S. during the 1980s. Such a weapon would have very low-yield, one to five kilotons, and weigh less than 100 pounds — small enough to fit on North Korea’s KMS-3 satellite.

North Korea launched another suspicious satellite, the KMS-4, on the same south polar trajectory as the KMS-3, on Feb. 7, 2016. So now there are two North Korean satellites orbiting over the United States on trajectories consistent with a surprise EMP attack — perhaps another idea borrowed from the Russians. Moscow during the Cold War had a secret weapon, the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, to deliver a surprise EMP attack by satellite.

Senior national security experts from the Reagan and Clinton administrations have warned about the potential EMP threat from North Korea’s satellites — including a former director of central intelligence, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, White House science adviser and director of the Strategic Defense Initiative. South Korean military intelligence reportedly warned that Russians are in North Korea helping develop super-EMP weapons. In 2013 a military commentator for the People’s Republic of China stated North Korea has super-EMP warheads.

EMP threats from satellites are ignored by the liberal media, which prefer to insist North Korea cannot yet blast a U.S. city with an ICBM.

James Oberg, a distinguished rocket scientist who visited North Korea’s satellite launch facility, warns in a recent Space Review article:

“There have been fears expressed that North Korea might use a satellite to carry a small nuclear warhead into orbit and then detonate it over the United States for an EMP strike. These concerns seem extreme and require an astronomical scale of irrationality on the part of the regime. The most frightening aspect, I’ve come to realize, is that exactly such a scale of insanity is now evident in the rest of their ‘space program.’ That doomsday scenario, it now seems, has become plausible enough to compel the United States to take active measures to insure that no North Korean satellite, unless thoroughly inspected before launch, be allowed to reach orbit and ever overfly the United States.”

Is anyone listening?

• Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, served in the House Armed Services Committee, the CIA, and is author of “Blackout Wars” (CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2015).

Or Israel's Fingerprints. No one ever wants to talk about the big elephant in the socialist room, but Israel has many Nukes aimed at us and Europe and has sold many of our secrets to adversary's.

North Korea says missiles were drill for strike on US bases

Hwang Sunghee
AFPMarch 7, 2017

Nuclear-armed North Korea said Tuesday its missile launches were training for a strike on US bases in Japan, as global condemnation of the regime swelled.

Three of the four missiles fired Monday came down provocatively close to US ally Japan, in waters that are part of its exclusive economic zone, representing a challenge to US President Donald Trump.

In separate phone calls, Trump -- whose rhetoric on the campaign trail had raised doubts about the issue -- reaffirmed Washington's "ironclad commitment" to Japan and South Korea.

The US will demonstrate to Pyongyang that there were "very dire consequences" for its actions, the White House said in a statement.

The United Nations Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting for Wednesday after a request by Washington and Tokyo to discuss additional measures following the launch.

Under UN resolutions, Pyongyang is barred from any use of ballistic missile technology, and the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said on Twitter that the world "won't allow" North Korea to continue on its "destructive path".

But six sets of UN sanctions since its first nuclear test in 2006 have failed to halt its drive for what it insists are defensive weapons.

- 'Feasting his eyes' -

Kim Jong-Un gave the order for the drill to start, the North's official Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) reported.

"Feasting his eyes on the trails of ballistic rockets", he praised the Hwasong artillery unit that carried it out, it said.

"The four ballistic rockets launched simultaneously are so accurate that they look like acrobatic flying corps in formation, he said," the agency added, referring to Kim.

The military units involved are "tasked to strike the bases of the US imperialist aggressor forces in Japan in contingency", KCNA said.

The Korean version of the KCNA report said the North's missile launch demonstrated its readiness to "wipe out" enemy forces with a "merciless nuclear strike".

A series of photographs published by the North's Rodong Sinmun newspaper showed Kim watching the missiles rise into the air and another of him smiling gleefully, clapping with other officials.

Seoul and Washington last week began annual joint military exercises that always infuriate Pyongyang.

It regularly issues threats against its enemies, and carried out two atomic tests and a series of missile launches last year, but Monday was only the second time its devices have come down in Japan's EEZ.

The launches came ahead of a trip by new US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to the region.

Choi Kang, an analyst at the Seoul-based Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said the launch was a warning to Tokyo.

"North Korea is demonstrating that its target is not just limited to the Korean peninsula anymore but can extend to Japan at anytime and even the US," he said.

Trump has described North Korea as a "big, big problem" and vowed to deal with the issue "very strongly".

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday the administration was taking steps to "enhance our ability to defend against North Korea's ballistic missiles".

The New York Times reported at the weekend that under former president Barack Obama the US stepped up cyber attacks against North Korea to try to sabotage its missiles before launch or just as they lift off.

- Beijing frustrated -

The US military has begun deploying the THAAD anti-ballistic missile defense system to South Korea to protect against threats from the North, US Pacific Command said, with its first elements arriving on Monday.

Pyongyang wants to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the US mainland -- something Trump has vowed would not happen.

It has undoubtedly made progress in its efforts in recent years, although questions remain over its ability to master re-entry technology and miniaturise a nuclear weapon sufficiently to fit it onto a missile warhead.

The THAAD deployment has infuriated China, the North's key diplomatic ally and crucial to efforts to persuade it to change its ways, and it has imposed several steps seen as economic retaliation against South Korea.

Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Tuesday that Beijing remained "firmly opposed" to THAAD and will "resolutely take necessary measures to defend our own security interests".

Beijing has become increasingly frustrated with Pyongyang's nuclear and missile activities, and last month announced a suspension of all coal imports from the North until the end of the year -- a crucial source of foreign currency.

The North's missile launch could have been an attempt to distract attention from the murder of Kim Jong-Nam at Kuala Lumpur International Airport last month, South Korea's acting president Hwang Kyo-Ahn said Tuesday.

Seoul has blamed Pyongyang for the killing of the half-brother of the North's leader by two women using VX nerve agent.

With diplomatic tensions soaring, Pyongyang announced Tuesday it was banning Malaysians in North Korea from leaving the country, prompting a similar response from Kuala Lumpur. Both had already expelled the other's ambassador.

North Korea, the real threat

The regime’s irrationality makes a catastrophic missile strike plausible.

By Peter Vincent Pry - - Tuesday, February 14, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

When might North Korean develop missiles capable of striking the United States? Today.

Four years ago in December 2012, when North Korea orbited its KMS-3 satellite over the U.S., I warned they could conduct an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by satellite.

An EMP that blacks out the national electric grid would be a far greater catastrophe than blasting a city. A North Korean 10-kiloton warhead blasting a city might cause about 200,000 casualties.

However, the same warhead making a high-altitude EMP attack — though there would be no blast, thermal or fallout effects on the ground — could knock out the electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for more than a year, killing 90 percent of the population through starvation.

Why blast a city when EMP attack can destroy the whole nation? North Korea wants to be able to do both. They can launch an EMP attack already.

Another advantage of EMP attack by satellite is anonymity, to escape retaliation, whereas an intercontinental ballistic missile destroying a city would have North Korea’s fingerprints all over it.

North Korea’s KMS-3 satellite is in low-Earth orbit, along with hundreds of other satellites. KMS-3’s south polar trajectory approaches the United States from the south, where there are no ballistic missile early warning radars or national missile defenses. The U.S. is blind and defenseless from that direction.

An EMP attack would damage radars, satellites, ground stations and other national technical means necessary to ascertain who attacked. A super-EMP weapon could paralyze even hardened command, control, communications and intelligence assets and strategic forces, rendering them unable to retaliate, even if the aggressor could be identified.

In 2004, Moscow’s top EMP experts warned the Congressional EMP Commission that the design for their super-EMP warhead “accidentally” leaked to North Korea; that Russian, Chinese and Pakistani scientists had been recruited by Pyongyang and were helping its nuclear and missile programs; and that North Korea could develop a super-EMP warhead “in a few years.”

In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. It was dismissed by the press as failed because of the very low-yield — only one to three kilotons. But it looked to the EMP Commission like a super-EMP weapon because such a weapon would have very low yield, being designed to produce gamma rays (which create the EMP shock wave), not a big explosion. Most of North Korea’s nuclear tests have been low-yield devices.

One simple design for a super-EMP warhead would resemble an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW), or neutron weapon, which produces a lot of gamma rays in addition to neutrons, like the ERW artillery shell for the 155 mm howitzer, designed during the 1950s and deployed by the U.S. during the 1980s. Such a weapon would have very low-yield, one to five kilotons, and weigh less than 100 pounds — small enough to fit on North Korea’s KMS-3 satellite.

North Korea launched another suspicious satellite, the KMS-4, on the same south polar trajectory as the KMS-3, on Feb. 7, 2016. So now there are two North Korean satellites orbiting over the United States on trajectories consistent with a surprise EMP attack — perhaps another idea borrowed from the Russians. Moscow during the Cold War had a secret weapon, the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, to deliver a surprise EMP attack by satellite.

Senior national security experts from the Reagan and Clinton administrations have warned about the potential EMP threat from North Korea’s satellites — including a former director of central intelligence, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, White House science adviser and director of the Strategic Defense Initiative. South Korean military intelligence reportedly warned that Russians are in North Korea helping develop super-EMP weapons. In 2013 a military commentator for the People’s Republic of China stated North Korea has super-EMP warheads.

EMP threats from satellites are ignored by the liberal media, which prefer to insist North Korea cannot yet blast a U.S. city with an ICBM.

James Oberg, a distinguished rocket scientist who visited North Korea’s satellite launch facility, warns in a recent Space Review article:

“There have been fears expressed that North Korea might use a satellite to carry a small nuclear warhead into orbit and then detonate it over the United States for an EMP strike. These concerns seem extreme and require an astronomical scale of irrationality on the part of the regime. The most frightening aspect, I’ve come to realize, is that exactly such a scale of insanity is now evident in the rest of their ‘space program.’ That doomsday scenario, it now seems, has become plausible enough to compel the United States to take active measures to insure that no North Korean satellite, unless thoroughly inspected before launch, be allowed to reach orbit and ever overfly the United States.”

Is anyone listening?

• Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, served in the House Armed Services Committee, the CIA, and is author of “Blackout Wars” (CreateSpace Independent

China Warns of Nuclear First Strike in Response to THAAD Deployment

"US must pay the price"

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - March 10, 2017

China warns that it is reconsidering its policy not to use nuclear weapons against South Korea in response to the U.S. deploying the THAAD missile system and sending B-52 bombers to protect its ally.

THAAD is being deployed to shield South Korea from North Korean ballistic missiles after several tests by the Stalinist state in recent months. Beijing is furious because the system will also be capable of detecting and tracking missiles launched from China.

It was also reported yesterday that the U.S. will send B-1 and B-52 nuclear bombers to South Korea in order to display a stern show of strength.

300,000 South Korean troops and 15,000 US personnel have also started their annual Foal Eagle military exercise. The USS Carl Vinson nuke-powered aircraft carrier will join the drill – carrying dozens of fighter jets.

An article in the Global Times, which is widely regarded as the voice of the Chinese government, says that Beijing will respond to America’s “strategic provocations” by actioning a “rapid increase in the number and quality of China’s strategic nuclear weapons” and that China isn’t worried about starting a limited “arms race”.

Asserting that “the US must pay the price for the THAAD deployment,” the piece goes on to warn that, “If the US further intensifies its anti-missile attempts and strategic containment, China may reconsider its pledge of not being the first to use nuclear weapons.”

In other words, Beijing is signaling that it would be prepared to use nuclear weapons against South Korea in the event of a conflict.

In a related development, China’s second aircraft carrier is moving closer to completion while China vows to use its “first class navy” to intercept any “intruding aircraft” within its region of control.

Last month, Beijing warned the Trump administration that the People’s Liberation Army is “making preparations” for war after the deployment of the nuclear-powered USS Carl Vinson to patrol the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, columnist Pat Buchanan warns that a new “Korean missile crisis” could be on the horizon.

“New tests by North Korea of missiles or atom bombs for an ICBM could bring U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities and missile sites, igniting an attack on the South,” he writes, adding that China would then be forced to defend its ally.

As North Korea’s arsenal grows, experts see heightened risk of ‘miscalculation’

By Joby Warrick March 11

On the day of North Korea’s first atomic test in 2006, aides to President George W. Bush began phoning foreign capitals to reassure allies startled by Pyongyang’s surprising feat. The test, aides said, had been mostly a failure: a botched, 1-kiloton cry for attention from a regime that had no warheads or reliable delivery systems and would never be allowed to obtain them.

“The current course that they are on is unacceptable,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said publicly at the time, “and the international community is going to act.”

A decade later, that confidence has all but evaporated. After a week in which Pyongyang successfully lobbed four intermediate-range missiles into the Sea of Japan, U.S. officials are no longer seeing North Korea’s weapons tests as amateurish, attention-grabbing provocations. Instead, they are viewed as evidence of a rapidly growing threat — and one that increasingly defies solution.

Over the past year, technological advances in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs have dramatically raised the stakes in the years-long standoff between the United States and the reclusive communist regime, according to current and former U.S. officials and ­Korea experts. Pyongyang’s growing arsenal has rattled key U.S. allies and spurred efforts by all sides to develop new first-strike capabilities, increasing the risk that a simple mistake could trigger a devastating regional war, the analysts said.

The military developments are coming at a time of unusual political ferment, with a new and largely untested administration in Washington and with South Korea’s government coping with an impeachment crisis. Longtime observers say the risk of conflict is higher than it has been in years, and it is likely to rise further as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un seeks to fulfill his pledge to field long-range missiles capable of striking U.S. cities.

“This is no longer about a lonely dictator crying for attention or demanding negotiations,” said Victor Cha, a former adviser on North Korea to the Bush administration and the Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “This is now a military testing program to acquire a proven capability.”

Pyongyang’s ambition to become an advanced nuclear-armed state is not new. North Korea began building its first reactor for making plutonium more than three decades ago. Over the years, it has shown ingenuity in increasing the range and power of a stockpile of homemade short- and medium-range missiles, all based on Soviet-era designs.

Often, in the past, the new innovations have been accompanied by demands: a clamoring for security guarantees and international respect by a paranoid and nearly friendless government that perceives its democratic neighbors as plotting its destruction. After the first atomic test in 2006, then-leader Kim Jong Il threatened to launch nuclear missiles unless Washington agreed to face-to-face talks.

North Korea has been slammed instead with ever-tighter United Nations sanctions meant to cut off access to technology and foreign cash flows. Yet, despite the trade restrictions, diplomatic isolation, threats and occasional sabotage, the country’s weapons programs have continued their upward march, goaded forward by dictators willing to sacrifice their citizens’ well-being to grow the country’s military might.

And now, in the fifth year of Kim Jong Un’s rule, progress is coming in leaps.
‘A living, breathing thing’

Pyongyang’s fifth and latest nuclear weapons test occurred on Sept. 9 on the 68th anniversary of North Korea’s founding. Seismic monitoring stations picked up vibrations from the underground blast and quickly determined that this one was exceptional.

Scientific analyses of the test determined that the new bomb’s explosive yield approached 30 kilotons, two times the force of the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. The device was twice as powerful as the bomb North Korea tested just nine months earlier, and it was 30 times stronger than one detonated in 2006 in a remote mountain tunnel. More ominously, North Korea last March displayed a new compact bomb, one that appears small enough to fit inside the nose cone of one of its indigenously produced missiles.

Regardless of whether the miniature bomb is real or a clever prop, North Korea does finally appear to be “on the verge of a nuclear breakout,” said Robert Litwak, an expert on nuclear proliferation and director of International Security Studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He said Pyongyang’s arsenal is believed to now contain as many as 20 nuclear bombs, along with enough plutonium and highly enriched uranium to make dozens more.

“When I got into this field,” Litwak said at a symposium on North Korea this month, “I couldn’t have conceived of North Korea acquiring a nuclear arsenal approaching half the size of Great Britain’s.”

The country’s missiles also have grown more sophisticated. Last year, North Korea’s military conducted the first test of a two-stage ballistic missile that uses solid fuel — a significant advance over the country’s existing liquid-fueled rockets because they can be moved easily and launched quickly. Also in 2016, North Korea broadcast images of engineers testing engines for a new class of advanced missiles with true intercontinental range, potentially putting cities on the U.S. mainland within reach.

The provocations have continued in the weeks since the inauguration of President Trump, who, just before taking office, appeared to taunt Pyongyang in a Twitter post, saying that North Korea’s plan for building intercontinental ballistic missiles “won’t happen.”

A month later, Kim launched one of the country’s new solid-
fuel missiles, interrupting Trump’s Mar-a-Lago dinner with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Last week’s coordinated launch of four intermediate-range missiles appeared intended to showcase the country’s ability to fire multiple rockets simultaneously at U.S. military bases in Japan, increasing the likelihood that some will penetrate antimissile shields.

North Korea’s state-run media has occasionally shown propaganda footage of Kim huddling with his generals over what some analysts have jokingly called the “map of death”: a chart that portrays Japanese and U.S. mainland cities as potential targets.

The laughter has now stopped, said Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on North Korean weapons systems. “This idea that these things were just bargaining chips — something that was true years ago — is superseded by the fact that there is now a rocket force . . . with a commander and a headquarters and subordinate bases, all with missiles,” said Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “This is now a living, breathing thing.”

There have been notable failures as well. Numerous test rockets have drifted far off course, and others never made it off the launchpad. Many analysts say it could still be several years before Kim can construct a true ICBM that could reliably reach the U.S. mainland, and perhaps longer before he can demonstrate an ability to incorporate a nuclear payload into his rocket design. Yet, already, the basic components for a future arsenal of long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles are in place, Lewis said.

“The ICBM program is real,” Lewis said. “They’ve showed us their static engine test. They showed us the mock-up of the nuclear warhead. They have done everything short of actually testing the ICBM. When they do test it, the first time it will probably fail. But eventually it will work. And when it works, people are going to freak out.”
Danger of miscalculation

For decades, the United States and its East Asian allies have tried an array of strategies to blunt North Korea’s progress, ranging from diplomacy to covert operations to defensive antimissile shields. Lately, the search for solutions has taken on an intensity not seen in years.

As diplomatic initiatives have stalled, U.S., Japanese and South Korean officials have broadened the search for measures to ensure that Pyongyang’s missiles remain grounded, or — in the event of a launch — can be brought down before they reach their target. The efforts have proved to be partly successful at best.

Three years ago, alarmed by North Korea’s advances on missile systems, the Obama administration ordered the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to deploy highly classified cyber and electronic measures against North Korea, largely aimed at undermining the country’s nuclear and missile programs, two former senior administration officials said. Aspects of the initiatives were described in a recent report by the New York Times. The effort was further intensified last year, the officials said, in response to new intelligence assessments showing North Korea inching closer to its goal of fielding long-range ballistic missiles.

The clandestine effort begun under President Barack Obama appears to have borne fruit, judging from a rash of missile failures in the past year, said one former official familiar with the program. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secret operations.

“We’re stopping shipments. We’re making sure things don’t work the way they’re supposed to,” one former official said. “We’ve been able to delay things, in some cases probably by a lot. It’s a cat-and-mouse game.”

But the second official, familiar with the Pentagon’s cyberwarfare efforts, acknowledged that North Korea remains an exceptionally difficult target because of its isolation and limited digital infrastructure. The official suggested that at least some of the recent missile failures were probably caused by North Korean errors. “I would be wary of claiming too much,” he said.

“We were trying to use all the tools that were available to us in order to degrade as much of their capabilities as possible,” a second former official said. “But we just did not have nearly as much game as we should have.”

In handoff meetings with Trump, Obama described the gathering threat in stark terms, calling it the most serious proliferation challenge facing the new administration, according to aides familiar with the discussions. The Trump White House has since convened three deputies’ committee meetings on North Korea and ordered a new, top-to-bottom threat assessment. White House officials say that Trump is weighing all options, from a new diplomatic initiative to enhanced military capabilities, possibly including a highly controversial return of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea for the first time since the early 1990s.

The administration is dispatching Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to East Asia this week to confer with counterparts in Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul. And the White House is defending its decision last week to send antimissile batteries to South Korea despite vehement opposition from China.

The initiatives have failed to calm tensions in the region. As more missiles streak across North Korea’s eastern coast, Japanese and South Korean officials are pledging increased investments in defensive shields and highly accurate, conventionally armed missiles designed to preemptively destroy North Korean launch sites and command centers if an attack seems imminent. North Korea has responded with similar threats, describing its recent missile launches as a dry run for a preemptive attack on U.S. bases in Japan, the presumed staging ground for forces preparing to come to South Korea’s aid if war breaks out.

In the past, such a strike would be seen as suicidal, as it would certainly result in a devastating counterattack against North ­Korea that would probably destroy the regime itself. But Kim is betting that an arsenal of long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles would serve as an effective deterrent, said Cha, the former Bush administration adviser.

“That’s why they want to be able to reach the continental United States, so they can effectively hold us hostage,” Cha said. “Do we really want to trade Los Angeles for whatever city in North Korea?”

Such an attack on the U.S. mainland is not yet within North Korea’s grasp, and U.S. officials hope they can eventually neutralize the threat with improvements in antimissile systems. But in the meantime, each new advance increases the chance that a small mishap could rapidly escalate into all-out war, Cha said. In a crisis, “everyone is put in a use-it-or-lose-it situation, in which everyone feels he has to go first,” he said.

“The growing danger now,” he said, “is miscalculation.”