Doc's Talk: Terror Warning: Grid Down

Friday, July 27, 2012

Terror Warning: Grid Down

by CYNTHIA E AYERS July 27, 2012

Could the reluctance to secure our nation's critical electric infrastructure be considered an act of terrorism? Or might it possibly be an act of providing material support for terrorism? If so, who would the terrorists be?

Which is the greater threat to America's national security-coordinated terrorist acts on major cities, such as the 9/11 attacks, or the deliberate inaction of corporate executives to secure our nation's electric grid? Consider the consequences: nearly three thousand people died in the 9/11 attacks; but a widespread and prolonged electric grid collapse, caused by a naturally-occurring coronal mass ejections (CMEs) or nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, could result in the deaths of over two-thirds of the population-200 million Americans. Given these dire statistics should those in positions of authority over the security and reliability of the bulk power system be held accountable for lack of action before a "grid-down" scenario becomes a reality?

We live in a terrifying world-and it's getting more so by the day.   If you listen carefully to the news, you'll hear about localized natural disasters, failing global economy, the specter of creeping socialism, and potential violence from "domestic extremists," as well as from a vague assortment of international terrorists. If you go beyond the mainstream news, you'll find that natural disasters can, indeed be continental-wide (and possibly global). You'll find that our economic woes-beginning with the 2008 "crash"-have been manipulated by foreign interests and "financial terrorists." You'll realize that "creeping Shari'a" is on par with, if not more dangerous than creeping socialism. And you may discover that the real threats to national and homeland security are not from American "liberty loving" patriots who are prudently preparing for emergencies, but from an Iranian theocratic regime driven by an apocalyptic agenda (plus its allies) and a "global jihad movement" intent on establishing global Islam. You may also learn that our adversaries know exactly what our vulnerabilities are. They know precisely how to take us down, instantaneously and long-term. They know how to take down the nervous system of our country-the electric grid.

Many find revelations such as these too disturbing to contemplate. Public reactions that I have been confronted with include "this is too complicated;" "I can't do anything about these things, so I don't want to know;" "I have too many things to worry about now," "this is overblown rhetoric," and "you must be crazy." For my attempts to warn the public, I have been called names that can't be printed in this venue (mostly within politically-biased forums). Other noteworthy professionals-friends and associates in this endeavor-have become targets for character assassination (and worse). It has become neither politically correct, nor politically efficacious to discuss the real nature of threat under current socially-enforced restrictions. Thus, complexities are often ignored and linkages are not exposed to audiences beyond the few who dare to think along broader, more strategic lines. As a result, few are warned and the general public remains largely unaware, allowing for the continuity of complacency while solutions and/or alternatives may indeed exist-including "fixes" for vulnerabilities within our highly fragile power grid.

Representatives of the power industry have reluctantly conceded that the power grid may possibly be vulnerable to attacks (high-altitude nuclear, cyber, etc.) and the effects of severe space weather; yet they fail to grasp the necessity for speed in applying cost-effective fixes. Instead,        industry leaders have managed to interject long-term delays based on the excuse that "more study is needed." Reports from congressional staffers indicate that messaging from power industry lobbyists consists mainly of one theme-that if a catastrophic event (solar or attack scenario) were to occur, there would be nothing left to "plug in" to the grid anyway, so why bother to spend the money to protect it, let alone risk a public outcry by creating additional regulations? This kind of thinking is not only wrong, it is defeatist and dangerous.

Nearly all small-scale electrical/electronic equipment can survive severe space weather events. Even under devastating conditions of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) cause by a high-altitude nuclear explosion, some vital electronics will be protected, either intentionally (e.g. those preplaced in Faraday cages) or unintentionally (e.g. cars in sufficiently protected underground garages).   Some items can be fixed with spares. Some equipment won't be affected (such as older, pre-computer ignition automobiles and most diesel-electric locomotives).

Unfortunately, however, the huge transformers that make up the core of the electric grid are unique, costly, and are subject to damage from both EMP events and major solar storms (large-scale CMEs), as well as from the cumulative effects of multiple smaller geomagnetic disturbances that have occurred over time. Many transformers are quite old, have been affected by harmful harmonics with past CMEs, and are operating at the end of their life-cycle; thus they remain highly vulnerable. At this point in time, a large, geographically widespread grid-down scenario lasting longer than 7 days virtually guarantees multiple Chernobyl/Fukushima-like disasters. With nuclear power plants and their associated spent fuel rod pools concentrated mainly in the eastern half of the United States (100 out of 104), many people will become radiation victims if the grid isn't protected. What will be left to "plug in" to the grid? Hopefully something that can be used to cool the spent fuel rods on a very long-term basis.

Bottom line--the more components (electric grid, public service, and personal electronics) that are protected and/or saved, the faster the country can recover, and the more lives will be spared in the aftermath of a catastrophic collapse of the critical electric infrastructure.   Considering the possibility of four to ten years without electric power, the loss of over two-thirds of our country's population within the first year, and the probable loss of our sovereignty as a nation, I would think that the people of the United States deserve more than lame excuses (e.g. the citing of a need for "more data") and defeatist attitudes-especially coming from the private organization tasked with protecting the bulk power system-the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The data is already overwhelming. Many government-sponsored scientific studies have reported the risks of doing nothing-the time to prepare and protect the grid is now.

So, what is the greater threat to our nation? Is the security of our country being held hostage to an agenda set by corporate executives who are reticent to consider "worst case" events? Or is there something more sinister going on? Regardless of the reasons or motives, once the grid has collapsed, we are all "sitting ducks" for social unrest, starvation, and pre-positioned terror cells known to exist across the nation. At that point, one could be forgiven for wondering what "terrorist" organization compromised our safety-whether the intention was profit, political efficacy, or our ultimate destruction.

Equating the threat from recalcitrant electric utility executives to the threat of international terrorism may seem harsh. The EMP threat, after all, is more appropriately associated with North Korea, Russia, China, Iran and terrorist proxies. And the effects of severe space weather can hardly be attributed to terrorism. But the NERC is currently certified as the nation's Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). The need for electric grid defense becomes more critical by the day; and if the NERC has done all they are going to do, near term, to protect the grid, perhaps it's time to consider alternative organizations for industry representation and leadership. Perhaps it's time to call for decertification of the NERC.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Cynthia E. Ayers is currently Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. Prior to accepting the Task Force position, she served as Vice President of EMPact Amercia, having retired from the National Security Agency after over 38 years of federal service-a period that included 8 years at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk