by Ambassador Henry F. Cooper


I'm updating my last year's related message to keep everyone informed about an emerging existential threat—particularly to those who live near the Gulf of Mexico. But this is actually an existential threat to all Americans. It is well known, and should be addressed urgently—but alas the powers that be continue collectively to ignore it, although there are signs of a slow awakening.

It is a fact that the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) created by a single nuclear weapon exploded a hundred miles above the United States could lead to the death of several hundred million Americans.

And this kind of attack could be delivered by Iran or terrorists.

The congressionally-mandated nonpartisan EMP Commission reported these findings[1] almost a decade ago. Yet neither Republican nor Democrat administrations, nor congress, have seriously addressed this all too real threat, which could and now should be addressed, especially in view of the events of the past year. So, we have decided to focus our efforts on informing grass roots America and local and state authorities about this urgent threat and what can be done about it.

Why? Let me connect a few dots—hopefully in layman's terms.

First, we know EMP effects are real—and potentially catastrophic.

The U.S. first observed them on atmospheric nuclear tests in the early 1960s. For example, a U.S. high altitude nuclear test (Starfish Prime) in the South Pacific turned out lights in Hawaii, almost a thousand miles away.

Today, the effects would be much more damaging because modern electronics are much more vulnerable to EMP than were the electronics of the early 1960s. Indeed, a burst over the continental U.S. could bring our entire "just in time" economy to an indefinite standstill—we could lose for many months the electric power grid and our communications, transportation, banking and other critical infrastructure systems upon which we depend for survival.

emp threat well understood

The effects of even a single high altitude nuclear burst today would impose an indefinitely long return to the 19th century, but without the agrarian society that supported everyone during those days. Now, without those essentials, most Americans would perish for lack of food and other necessities. For example, diabetics without Insulin would die, as would others without critically needed prescriptions filled. How long would it be before civil order would break down if those in our cities were without the benefits of our globally dependent, just-in-time economy? And then what?

Dr. William R. Graham, President Reagan's science advisor, an expert on EMP effects and as Chairman of the nonpartisan EMP Commission, testified to congress that up to two thirds of all Americans could die within the next 12 months. Others think the percentage could be higher.

Second, these EMP effects are well known, including to rogue states and terrorists who wish to kill us.

Of course, the Russians understand EMP effects, perhaps better than we, from the Soviets more extensive high altitude testing in the 1960s. We hardened our strategic forces to counter their attack plans during the Cold War so that we could retaliate if the Soviets attacked us or our allies. We depended on that threat to deter them from attacking in the first place. And so we relied upon deterrence rather than hardening our critical civil infrastructure against EMP.

Others who may not be deterred by threats of retaliation, also understand the EMP threat—and at least some appear to have learned from the Russians how to build advanced nuclear weapons of lower yield to maximize the EMP effects. And technology for ballistic missile delivery systems has proliferated widely. For example, the EMP Commission concluded that Iran well understood EMP and over a decade ago actually tested some of its ballistic missiles in ways that are consistent with carrying out such a high-altitude EMP attack with ballistic missiles launched from vessels off our coasts. This past year, Iranian officials explicitly stated in conjunction with impressive operational exercises that they could attack us from off our coasts, including from the Gulf of Mexico..

To reinforce that this point has been well understood for a long time, see [2] to watch a very informative roundtable discussion of the EMP threat, which was conducted at the Heritage Foundation on August 15, 2011.

Additional information can be found on our webpage:, including more recent examples of the growing instability in the Middle East, in particular as Iran continues its steady pace toward gaining nuclear weapons—now perhaps only months away as ill-advised diplomatic efforts seem destined to fail.

Third, our current missile defenses, if appropriately deployed, could defend against such attack—but our deployment strategy needs improvement.

Most notably the Navy's Standard Missile now at sea on about 30 (growing to about 35 by 2015) of our Aegis ships have demonstrated this inherent capability. Some of these ships are usually operating near our east and west coasts, and could shoot down such attacking missiles from vessels off our coasts if launched within their striking radius. On a random day during 2012, there were 4-6 Aegis ships along our eastern seaboard or in east coast ports—from which they could defend against off-coast attacks if they were prepared to do so. Thus, improved readiness of our missile defense capable Aegis ships operating near our coasts could improve the defense against ballistic missiles launched from nearby vessels. Actually, if inter-netted with a TYP-2 radar deployed in Maine, they could also defend against Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) launched over the North Pole to attack the U.S.

But of greater importance for those of you near the Gulf of Mexico is the fact that our Aegis ships don't operate in the Gulf. So we are completely vulnerable to attacks from the south—from ships off our southern coasts, or from Venezuela which Iran is helping to develop ballistic missiles. Last year, Panama stopped a North Korean ship in the canal carrying from Cuba two hidden (happily unarmed) nuclear capable SA-2 ballistic missiles. This illustrates a major concern.

Some good news is that the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act for 2014 directs the Secretary of Defense to recommend how our Homeland Defenses can be improved. Specifically, it directs that ballistic missile threats from vessels off our coasts, including from the Gulf of Mexico, be included—as well as other threats from the South.

High Frontier helped inform the powers that be of the key vulnerabilities and possible defense options to aid their deliberations about homeland defense issues—our next objeccive is to be sure that they consider our views of how best to follow through.

Fourth, we can easily afford an effective defense against this threat—indeed, in my opinion and for reasons summarized below, we cannot afford not to defend against it.

We can adapt an on-going program that is now developing defenses to protect our European allies against exactly the same kind of threat from Iran. This program, called "Aegis Ashore," is composed of the Standard Missile carried on our Aegis ships, and its associated radar and command and control systems, deployed as a modular unit on land—initially in Romania (by 2015) and then in Poland (by 2018). Work has begun on the site in Romania and preliminary steps have been agreed in Poland.

The first U.S. Aegis Ashore site became operational for testing purposes in Hawaii in December, reportedly built for $400 million. We could easily afford build effective Aegis Ashore sites at several military bases in states around the Gulf of Mexico, on the same time frame as is formally planned for the sites in Romania and Poland.

All development costs are funded by the existing program—with the exception of Environmental Impact Statements required before such U.S. sites are formally selected. Deployment and operations costs may be more than in Hawaii but should be less than in Europe.

Fifth, time is running out for us to provide these needed defenses against Iran and its agents.

In 2012, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated" . . . echoing his previous claims that Israel is a "tumor" to be "wiped off the map." In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on one of Judaism's holiest days— Yom Kippur, he referred to Israelis as "uncivilized Zionists" and railed against the U.S. and European Union as having "entrusted themselves to the devil."

Iran's threats to "Little Satan" Israel cannot be separated from its threat to "Great Satan" America, as Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards missile section, clarified just before those same U.N. sessions. On Iran's Arab-language network, he said, that if Israel and Iran engage militarily, "nothing is predictable... and it will turn into World War III." And further, "In circumstances in which they [the Israelis] have prepared everything for an attack, it is possible that we will make a pre-emptive attack. Any Israeli strike would be presumed to be authorized by the U.S. Therefore, we will definitely attack U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan."

Iran has expanded its defensive and offensive capabilities with help from China, Russia, North Korea and other nations amid demands—to little or no avail—by the U.N. and Western nations that it cease its program for making a bomb in violation of its international agreements. Iranian leaders have flouted the fact that sanctions had not worked—though they apparently did well enough to bring Iran to the negotiating table—after Hassan Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad as Iran's President last August, and the world applauded his U.N. charm offensive in September.

Ali Khamenei is still Iran's Supreme Leader dedicated to the same goals as when Ahmadinejad was President—so nothing really changed. However, Rouhani's softer diplomatic approach apparently gained relief from sanctions that had squeezed Iran's economy. U.S. diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, last November foolishly agreed to relieve the sanctions, while in effect only hoping that Iran would slow down (but not stop) their obvious efforts to process uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons.

At best, Iran's development program to reach a "breakout capability" was delayed a few months—if it doesn't already exist. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the agreement was a "historic mistake," and even at least 13 U.S. Democratic Senators apparently agreed, parted company with the President and are joining a number of Republicans to sponsor legislation to restore even more sanctions if there is no progress in the next several months. Stay tuned.

If (many would say "when") Iran gets nuclear weapons and mates them to their extensive supply of ballistic missiles of all ranges, they will have a major capability to launch these missiles against Israel and the United States. As we have previously discussed, Iran can use ballistic missiles to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons, using: 1) short or medium range ballistic missiles launched from vessels off our coasts, 2) ICBMs launched over the North Pole, and/or 3) nuclear armed satellites that approach the U.S. from over the South Pole. If we take measures immediately, we can quickly counter the first two threats, but will have only limited near-term capability to respond to the third. All three could deliver an EMP attack on the U.S.

If any or all of these options were used to attack us, Iran would no doubt precede any such attack with operations intended to distract and confuse us. For example, Iran could employ the impressive ballistic missile capability they demonstrated in 2012 comprehensive exercises. Iran's high-flying ballistic missiles could overwhelm U.S. missile defenses in the Persian Gulf, where much of the world's oil passes. Its fast-attack boats could swarm a battleship and possibly sink it—remember the USS Cole destroyer that was almost sunk in the Yemen port of Aden by al-Qaeda using a single high speed boat on October 12, 2000 (killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39 others)? And Iran's submarine fleet carries torpedoes that can threaten our ships.

The Iranian navy could hit us at least one time at sea or on shore, after which we would probably destroy their navy and most of their land-based missile capability. But they may not act alone—and not only in the Persian Gulf. And meanwhile they could be preparing for the main attraction, perhaps phased, to attack Israel and then the U.S. in one or more of the above scenarios.

In the midst of this confusion, sympathetic Islamic riots also could and probably would go global. Why should we believe that, if Iran goes to war in the Middle East, such on-demand demonstrations and riots will not also happen in the U.S.—as well as direct attacks on the international commerce upon which our "just in time" markets depend? In my view we must prepare for that eventuality. And time may be running out,

Sixth, Washington's counters to this growing threat seem too little, too late.

President Obama and his administration seem to be trying to separate the U.S. plight from that of Israel. In spite of his claims to support Israel, his policies seem more consistent with preparing to live with an Iran armed with nuclear weapons rather than Israel's insistence on stopping Iran from getting them. This may well turn out to be a "fool's errand" that leads to Iranian nuclear attacks on both the "Little Satan" Israel and the "Great Satan" America.

While Israel is doing all it can to deal with this threat, U.S. lethargic policies continue to leave us vulnerable to any number of threat scenarios that could involve an existential EMP attack on the U.S. before we can build operational defenses against such an attack. Among the most worrisome scenarios are attacks from vessels off our coasts, particularly from the Gulf of Mexico, and attacks from nuclear-armed satellites that approach the U.S. from over the South Pole. Even terrorist surrogates can perform the former in ways Iran practiced over a decade ago and Iran last year tested satellites launched over the South Polar region in ways that could execute the latter.

We can counter the EMP threat by shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles, if we prepare to do so—our problem is persuading the powers that be to make the needed preparations—both to provide effective defenses and to harden U.S. critical infrastructure to EMP effects.

For the third congress in a row, proposed legislation to empower the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with authority and resources to harden key elements of our electric power grid remains bottled up in congressional inaction. Yet it is obviously important to assure the survival/rapid revival of the power that underpins our critical infrastructure without which many millions of Americans would perish, as discussed above. The currently proposed Shield Act has overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate, but currently is being blocked in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Seventh, I believe that our best hope for ending the above discussed apathy is to educate the grass roots about the threat and help them with a bottoms-up effort to demand that Washington powers that be live up to their oath to provide for the common defense.

My bottom line conclusions in last year's message have been reinforced and expanded by our studies over the past year (See[3]:

Finally, last year's activities give me confidence that we can achieve grass roots support.

In 2012, I lectured at the University of Mississippi on the threat and how a key Aegis Ashore site in Pascagoula (where our Aegis ships are built) could help defend against ballistic missiles launched from vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. After our positive exchanges with faculty and students of Ole Miss' College of Engineering, we met with the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, who must support such a deployment if it is to be politically viable—and they responded very positively. Then we met with Mississippi's Secretary of State and Governor, who also were very receptive. My subsequent discussions with Mississippi's senior Senator, Thad Cochran, were also very positive. However, Congress passed only a Continuing Resolution that did not permit any new activity to deal with this critically important issue.

As noted above, Congress recently passed and the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 that includes clear guidance to the Department of Defense to report on how our homeland missile defenses can be improved—with clear instructions to consider threats from vessels off our coasts, including from the Gulf of Mexico, and other threats from the South that should include nuclear-armed satellites such as those previously tested by Iran.

Furthermore, I lectured at University of West Florida in the Florida panhandle last year, about the fact that we could be facing a crisis reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis of a half century ago. See [4] for my briefing charts which included the following chart emphasizing that just last year we had a wakeup call of a possible repeat in today's world, for which we are currently unprepared.

threat from the South

Following our discussions with the faculty and students in Pensacola, Dr. Daniel Fine (An Independent Working Group colleague) and I met with key state authorities and others in the Panama City area—and concluded that Tyndall AFB should be the Florida panhandle site for basing Aegis Ashore. We also concluded that Homestead AFB could be a second Aegis Ashore site near the tip of the Florida Peninsula. Thus, the stars are aligned from the bottom up in Mississippi and Florida—and I hope we can turn this positive support into a serious acquisition program in 2014, when we anticipate additional follow-up meetings. Next year, I also hope to explore possibilities in Texas for another site—at this time with a focus on Corpus Christi Naval Air Station.

As a complement to these activities focused on deploying missile defenses to counter an EMP attack, I always seek to emphasize the EMP threat, of which most people are unaware. And as we have emphasized in our email messages, such a threat can be manmade, such as with a ballistic missile attack, or natural, in particular produced by infrequent but certain to occur solar storms that launch electric particles that interact with the earth's geomagnetic field and produce at least one of the most damaging EMP effects that alone can bring down the currently unhardened electric power grid.

As I wrote last week, I have joined a number of grass roots initiatives to address the natural and manmade EMP threat. Many of these developments were reviewed at the December 6, 2013 DuPont Summit in Washington, DC (cosponsored by the Policy Studies Organization and the InfraGard National EMP Special Interest Group). Videos of the proceedings should be on the web in the next week or so, and I will provide links to them in my future email messages. To whet your appetite, consider this YouTube of a panel[5] on which I served, which discussed key aspects of dealing with this existential threat.

I often applaud Maine State Representative Andrea Boland (D-Sanford) for her advocacy which, in only six months, led to landmark legislation to begin dealing with the vulnerability of Maine's electric power grid. The Maine House and Senate passed almost unanimously this model legislation. Hopefully, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) will take effective remedial actions. If so, Maine could lead the nation in hardening the national grid. And I am working with others to engage other states and their key officials, hoping that they will indeed follow suit.

So there are reasons to be encouraged and no doubt more positive things I could write—but it also should be clear that we will continue to confront major problems before we can rest easy about the existential EMP threat.

As you consider your year-end giving, I hope you will make a tax deductible gift to High Frontier, as indicated below. We urgently need your support to help defray our expenses for a full court press to defend the states around the Gulf of Mexico—and the rest of America, before it may be needed to secure the survival of all we hold dear.

God bless you and yours—and may you have a happy and prosperous new year ... Let freedom ring!

For America,

Henry F. Cooper
Chairman, High Frontier




[3] http://www.highfrontier.xn--orgare-5g0c/



Henry F. Cooper has a doctorate in mechanical engineering. He is Chairman of the High Frontier Organization. He is also Chairman of Applied Research Associates, Senior Associate of the National Institute for Public Policy, and Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Previously in the private sector, he was Senior Vice President of Jaycor, Deputy Director of the Nuclear Weapons Effects Division at R&D Associates, member of the technical staff at Bell Laboratories, and an instructor at Clemson University. He has had a long and distinguished career in service to his country. He was Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) during the Bush administration. Prior to becoming SDIO's first civilian director, he conducted a major independent review of the SDI program and related policy issues for Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the results of which were instrumental in reversing the SDI funding cuts Congress had mandated in the preceding several years. Previously, he was President Reagan's Chief Negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, successfully defending SDI in these negotiations with the now defunct Soviet Union.
This article appeared December 30, 2013 on the High Frontier website and is archived at High Frontier is a 501c(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to building truly effective missile defenses.

Return _________________________End of Story___________________________ Return