Archive for the ‘military’ Category

A piece in today’s Washington Post says that The US intends to beef up our west coast defenses by adding 14 interceptors to Alaskan installations. This is surprising for a couple of reasons. For one, Hussein Obama has been against increasing the military standing of this nation, and in fact had wanted to reduce our military to a strength that would make us vulnerable to outside forces.

Secondly, most of the rhetoric still suggests that while North Korea might be a pesky little bother, they really haven’t the wherewithal to launch an attack that could really damage us here in the US. Sure, they have demonstrated their ability to launch an ICBM level warhead to a distance that may affect our western seaboard, but do they really have what it takes to find success? I think not.

However, the article, (read it here) suggests an underlying reason for this seeming change in our stance against Pyongyang’s rising nuclear threat. I suspect there may be a probability that what we may really be increasing our stockpile of west coast weaponry for is a combined Iranian/Korean offense that quite likely may include the detonation of a high altitude electromagnetic pulse weapon (HEMP), launched from the North Pacific, possibly from inside Korea, but more likely from an ocean-going vessel.

The reason for my feeling this way is due to the fact that, according to the article, the Pentagon plans revamp its Aegis missile program to pay for this expansion. The interceptor program has a rather questionable history, and some analysts seem to be saying that the first real deployable interceptors won’t be available until 2022. Strategically speaking, that really is not that far away, time-wise, but the Aegis missiles are already in action.

Nevertheless, the main point is that the Aegis has a limited range. They cannot travel to North Korean territory to intercept an ICBM launched from there. We would have to wait and see where this ICBM is headed for before deploying our defenses, and in real terms, that may be too late.

Therefore, my reading between the lines tells me that it is more likely that we may see multiple shorter range missiles launched against us from the North Pacific. These are the types of missiles the Aegis system was developed to fight against. I might be mistaken here, but…

These shorter range missiles would still have the ability to carry and detonate a HEMP weapon over the western US, but it would leave the Eastern seaboard unscathed, which really is not acceptable to the North Korean and Iranian regimes. However, if they were to simultaneously detonate multiple HEMP warheads from bit the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, they would seemingly attain success, and devastate our electrical infrastructure, thereby crippling our ability as a nation.

But the shorter range defense system apparently being suggested for Alaska could hardly protect out eastern seaboard, could it? But wait, the light clicks on…Senator Susan Collins’ last newsletter says that she encourages the establishment of a missile defense facility in Aroostook County, which would be capable of defending against these missiles I am writing of today. Further, a Bangor Daily news article from last year, (read it here) says that the National Research Council claims there are serious holes in our missile defense system, and that a base in the vicinity of Caribou, Maine would be an ideal location to establish a missile defense installation.

Again, I could be wrong here, but…

I believe it would be in the best interests of preppers everywhere to start learning about HEMP potentials and what the real damages would be to our nation should an enemy of ours succeed in detonating one or more over our nation. I have written about this in past blog entries, and there are a lot of websites that address this issue. However, be careful out there. There is a lot of so-called expert advice whereby the so-called experts do not seem to really grasp the science and reality behind the threat. I intend to address this issue again in a month or so with some in depth reporting on the subject, so please return to visit again.

Until then, happy prepping!

Advertisements

It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s bound to in the near future. Earthquakes are part of life along our southwest coastline here in the US and hardly a day goes by without several reports are posted from the region on what they consider minor events. In looking at the USGS’s California-Nevada Fault Map this morning, I see 95 reports from the last week. While this doesn’t signify a major tremblor for the area, or an indication that an 8.0 or greater will occur, there also is no way to tell that there won’t be one, either.

Will there, or won’t there be a severe earthquake in the LA area soon? I can’t tell for sure, nobody can. But I can speculate on what will occur to the area if it does happen. And by LA, I mean the area stretching from Indio on up through San Bernardino and then to Santa Monica. It’s a big area, and while there seems to be more minor tremblors in the Indio area, there isn’t much recorded around the heavier populated LA to Riverside stretch. Could it just be a long nap along the fault lines, or are the plates getting ready to crack?

We’re all still fixated on the Haitian tragedy of a year ago when Port au Prince was devastated by an earthquake, and we still see today the effects of poverty and government corruption have had on the population. It’s a year later and people are still living on handouts and living in tent villages. Will that be the outcome of a major event here in the US?

It’s unlikely we will see the magnitude of poverty that Haiti has suffered from after their quake, but I believe there will be some similarities in the aftermath of such an event. For one thing, the LA area has a greater population spread out over a larger land area, but the infrastructure is significantly greater, and in a far better state than what Haiti had at the time of their event. Simply put, LA is better built after having learned from their experiences. Whereas Haiti had little resources to commit to rebuilding, we have significantly greater resources, and less corruption to channel those resources away from rebuilding the area.

But there will be some things happen that we have never seen before in an earthquake of any sizeable magnitude in the US. I believe that FEMA will attempt to build upon the mistakes made in the Katrina aftermath and impose some of the controls on the area that many in the conspiracy theater seem to feel the government can’t wait to try.

For one, I think we will see federal agencies flock to the disaster in record time, no matter the severity of destruction. We will see federally imposed Martial Law placed upon the affected area almost from the get go. I also believe we will see forced evacuations and quickly erected tent cities used to house those evacuees. The area will in effect become a ghost town, populated by lone holdouts, looters and gangs. Evacuated persons will not be allowed to return to the area, and the military will be used to patrol the area. I see little being done to actually control the resulting looting, however. The reason for that is the Posse Comitatus act of 1878. Originally intended to prevent out federal troops from being used in local law enforcement duties, we have seen that act become basically useless over the last couple of decades or so.

As disasters have seemingly increased as federal government power and autonomy has increased, we’ve seen an increase in the militaries use in providing disaster relief. Where we once would see local volunteers and the Red Cross handing out food and blankets, we now see uniformed soldiers performing the task. In Katrina, we saw a limited engagement of military patrols in the flood ravaged community. Next time around we will see a greater presence of troops involved in that duty. However, we are still a ways off from being able to stomach the idea of an armed soldier gunning down a gang-banger looting a 52″ television. The press would have a field day with that one, both liberal and conservative.

But still, the troops will be utilized to force innocent people from their homes and evacuated to what will be considered by FEMA to be a safe haven, namely the tent cities. It will be a grand exercise to test the will of the people of this nation, as well as to further de=sensitize us to the presence of what should not be in this nation. Government intrusion at its worst.

A page from DHS’s collection of pages has a piece by Major Craig T. Trebilcock called The Myth of Posse Comitatus, written in 2000. I’ve shared his conclusions here, and this conclusion seems to be the policy of the DHS when confronted with the possibility of using the military on our own soil.

Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.

But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.

The government has weaseled in the usage of the military of some aspects of our security; will they go all the way and turn the military into a nationalized federal police force of sorts? Hard to tell for sure, but I do know there are those in power today that would love to see this come about. But if we do soon see an 8.0 in Commiefornia, we’ll be paying close attention to the results.

 Be sure to turn to Survival 101 to hear my broadcasts on preparedness planning!

Dan Vergano had an interesting piece in USA TODAY called One EMP burst and the world goes dark regarding the threat of electromagnetic disaster that hangs over us, like a pendulum over a condemned man in the past.

The sky erupts. Cities darken, food spoils and homes fall silent. Civilization collapses.

End-of-the-world novel? A video game? Or could such a scenario loom in America’s future?

There is talk of catastrophe ahead, depending on whom you believe, because of the threat of an electromagnetic pulse triggered by either a supersized solar storm or terrorist A-bomb, both capable of disabling the electric grid that powers modern life…

In large part Vergano is correct in his assumptions, but there are a few points many, myself included, differ with. As to the probability of one type of event over the other, odds suggest it far more likely that we will face a definite electromagnetic pulse from the sun before we suffer a strike from some terrorist attack via an ICBM with a nuclear warhead. There are several reasons for this feeling, many of which are not being discussed in most of the conversations I’ve been involved in.

For one, there are few countries in the world with the actual wherewithal to accomplish such an attack in the scope needed to sufficiently silence our infrastructure. Secondly, the US military has known of this problem for decades, and because of this builds their equipment to be hardened against such an attack. That being the case, an attack of this stature may cause the civilian world distress, but it will not prevent the military powers from returning an attack, decimating the initiating country. That’s not something anybody wants to see, especially those countries that do have the capabilities to launch such an attack.

China could hurl a couple of warheads at us, destroy our power grid and infrastructure, and place us into a third world status, but they won’t. Why won’t they? The simple answer is because if they destroy our economy, who will buy their goods? We are their economy, and we both know it. If we were to stop buying from China’s manufacturing sector, they also would suffer a catastrophic blow to their economy. North Korea has yet to develop an ICBM capable of delivering a warhead over the US to the altitude, as well as latitude and longitude necessary to create such an event as Vergano talks about. Who else is there that may want to destroy us through a high altitude EMP (HEMP) burst? Certainly the Muslim extremists may wish to attack us in such a manner, but they haven’t the infrastructure to accomplish the feat.

They could attack us by subterfuge, but they cannot create an event that would cripple the entire nation. As I’ve written before, they could utilize a fishing vessel with a South American registry, conceal a containerized missile system and launch a small nuclear warhead, but to be successful they would require at least five separate teams at a minimum to cause minimal damage. That’s five large fishing vessels, fully equipped, five crews of sailors, five containerized missile systems, plus missiles, and five launch crews. That’s a lot of money, and a lot of equipment. But they still would only be able to affect a small area of this nation, relatively speaking.

No, the real threat is more likely from natural causes. And from what I have been able to glean from sources, there is a definite probability of a coronal mass ejection (CME) causing more damage around the entire planet than we realize. Only by taking precautions and preparing now can we be ready to survive the times we are to face when this eventually happens.

But a bigger danger that I see happening, based on past experiences is the adjunct effects that will be created as we draw closer to 2012 and the beginning of the next solar cycle. While there is no way to predict a CMEs occurrence ahead of time, we can detect its occurrence as it erupts, giving us a couple of heartbeats worth of warning. But that doesn’t help much. We need to have our homesteads hardened against such an occurrence now, not when we hear from NOAA or NASA that it’s on its way. Install a grounding grid around your home, and build some Faraday Cages to store your electronics in when not in use to be safe from harm. We can protect ourselves, and we can survive, and in fact thrive when everyone else is floating in the middle of the lake with no gas for the boat.

More importantly, as we get closer to 2012 we will likely see an increase in panic buying of survival and preparedness supplies, driving the costs up beyond reason. People will become incensed with the need to prepare for this event, and in so doing will likely destroy their hope for survival because they will not take the time to learn about the threat. They will not ADD to survive. You can learn more about ADDing to survive in my book “Surviving the Times” available at the top left of this blog.

After the elections are over and I have some time to devote to the issue I’ll lay out an EMP survival plan that you can follow to safeguard your property and equipment from most destructive events, whether natural or manmade. I’ll also devote an entire episode of my radio show to the same topic. Stay tuned for the solutions you need to survive the coming times.

Gauging the Threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”

Gauging the Threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

September 9, 2010 | 0856 GMT

By Scott Stewart and Nate Hughes

Over the past decade there has been an ongoing debate over the threat posed by electromagnetic pulse (EMP) to modern civilization. This debate has been the most heated perhaps in the United States, where the commission appointed by Congress to assess the threat to the United States warned of the dangers posed by EMP in reports released in 2004 and 2008. The commission also called for a national commitment to address the EMP threat by hardening the national infrastructure.

There is little doubt that efforts by the United States to harden infrastructure against EMP — and its ability to manage critical infrastructure manually in the event of an EMP attack — have been eroded in recent decades as the Cold War ended and the threat of nuclear conflict with Russia lessened. This is also true of the U.S. military, which has spent little time contemplating such scenarios in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union. The cost of remedying the situation, especially retrofitting older systems rather than simply regulating that new systems be better hardened, is immense. And as with any issue involving massive amounts of money, the debate over guarding against EMP has become quite politicized in recent years.

We have long avoided writing on this topic for precisely that reason. However, as the debate over the EMP threat has continued, a great deal of discussion about the threat has appeared in the media. Many STRATFOR readers have asked for our take on the threat, and we thought it might be helpful to dispassionately discuss the tactical elements involved in such an attack and the various actors that could conduct one. The following is our assessment of the likelihood of an EMP attack against the United States.

Defining Electromagnetic Pulse

EMP can be generated from natural sources such as lightning or solar storms interacting with the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field. It can also be artificially created using a nuclear weapon or a variety of non-nuclear devices. It has long been proven that EMP can disable electronics. Its ability to do so has been demonstrated by solar storms, lightning strikes and atmospheric nuclear explosions before the ban on such tests. The effect has also been recreated by EMP simulators designed to reproduce the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear device and study how the phenomenon impacts various kinds of electrical and electronic devices such as power grids, telecommunications and computer systems, both civilian and military.

The effects of an EMP — both tactical and strategic — have the potential to be quite significant, but they are also quite uncertain. Such widespread effects can be created during a high-altitude nuclear detonation (generally above 30 kilometers, or about 18 miles). This widespread EMP effect is referred to as high-altitude EMP or HEMP. Test data from actual high-altitude nuclear explosions is extremely limited. Only the United States and the Soviet Union conducted atmospheric nuclear tests above 20 kilometers and, combined, they carried out fewer than 20 actual tests.

As late as 1962 — a year before the Partial Test Ban Treaty went into effect, prohibiting its signatories from conducting aboveground test detonations and ending atmospheric tests — scientists were surprised by the HEMP effect. During a July 1962 atmospheric nuclear test called “Starfish Prime,” which took place 400 kilometers above Johnston Island in the Pacific, electrical and electronic systems were damaged in Hawaii, some 1,400 kilometers away. The Starfish Prime test was not designed to study HEMP, and the effect on Hawaii, which was so far from ground zero, startled U.S. scientists.

High-altitude nuclear testing effectively ended before the parameters and effects of HEMP were well understood. The limited body of knowledge that was gained from these tests remains a highly classified matter in both the United States and Russia. Consequently, it is difficult to speak intelligently about EMP or publicly debate the precise nature of its effects in the open-source arena.

The importance of the EMP threat should not be understated. There is no doubt that the impact of a HEMP attack would be significant. But any actor plotting such an attack would be dealing with immense uncertainties — not only about the ideal altitude at which to detonate the device based on its design and yield in order to maximize its effect but also about the nature of those effects and just how devastating they could be.

Non-nuclear devices that create an EMP-like effect, such as high-power microwave (HPM) devices, have been developed by several countries, including the United States. The most capable of these devices are thought to have significant tactical utility and more powerful variants may be able to achieve effects more than a kilometer away. But at the present time, such weapons do not appear to be able to create an EMP effect large enough to affect a city, much less an entire country. Because of this, we will confine our discussion of the EMP threat to HEMP caused by a nuclear detonation, which also happens to be the most prevalent scenario appearing in the media.

Attack Scenarios

In order to have the best chance of causing the type of immediate and certain EMP damage to the United States on a continent-wide scale, as discussed in many media reports, a nuclear weapon (probably in the megaton range) would need to be detonated well above 30 kilometers somewhere over the American Midwest. Modern commercial aircraft cruise at a third of this altitude. Only the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China possess both the mature warhead design and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability to conduct such an attack from their own territory, and these same countries have possessed that capability for decades. (Shorter range missiles can achieve this altitude, but the center of the United States is still 1,000 kilometers from the Eastern Seaboard and more than 3,000 kilometers from the Western Seaboard — so just any old Scud missile won’t do.)

The HEMP threat is nothing new. It has existed since the early 1960s, when nuclear weapons were first mated with ballistic missiles, and grew to be an important component of nuclear strategy. Despite the necessarily limited understanding of its effects, both the United States and Soviet Union almost certainly included the use of weapons to create HEMPs in both defensive and especially offensive scenarios, and both post-Soviet Russia and China are still thought to include HEMP in some attack scenarios against the United States.

However, there are significant deterrents to the use of nuclear weapons in a HEMP attack against the United States, and nuclear weapons have not been used in an attack anywhere since 1945. Despite some theorizing that a HEMP attack might be somehow less destructive and therefore less likely to provoke a devastating retaliatory response, such an attack against the United States would inherently and necessarily represent a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland and the idea that the United States would not respond in kind is absurd. The United States continues to maintain the most credible and survivable nuclear deterrent in the world, and any actor contemplating a HEMP attack would have to assume not that they might experience some limited reprisal but that the U.S. reprisal would be full, swift and devastating.

Countries that build nuclear weapons do so at great expense. This is not a minor point. Even today, a successful nuclear weapons program is the product of years — if not a decade or more — and the focused investment of a broad spectrum of national resources. Nuclear weapons also are developed as a deterrent to attack, not with the intention of immediately using them offensively. Once a design has achieved an initial capability, the focus shifts to establishing a survivable deterrent that can withstand first a conventional and then a nuclear first strike so that the nuclear arsenal can serve its primary purpose as a deterrent to attack. The coherency, skill and focus this requires are difficult to overstate and come at immense cost — including opportunity cost — to the developing country. The idea that Washington will interpret the use of a nuclear weapon to create a HEMP as somehow less hostile than the use of a nuclear weapon to physically destroy an American city is not something a country is likely to gamble on.

In other words, for the countries capable of carrying out a HEMP attack, the principles of nuclear deterrence and the threat of a full-scale retaliatory strike continue to hold and govern, just as they did during the most tension-filled days of the Cold War.

Rogue Actors

One scenario that has been widely put forth is that the EMP threat emanates not from a global or regional power like Russia or China but from a rogue state or a transnational terrorist group that does not possess ICBMs but will use subterfuge to accomplish its mission without leaving any fingerprints. In this scenario, the rogue state or terrorist group loads a nuclear warhead and missile launcher aboard a cargo ship or tanker and then launches the missile from just off the coast in order to get the warhead into position over the target for a HEMP strike. This scenario would involve either a short-range ballistic missile to achieve a localized metropolitan strike or a longer-range (but not intercontinental) ballistic missile to reach the necessary position over the Eastern or Western seaboard or the Midwest to achieve a key coastline or continental strike.

When we consider this scenario, we must first acknowledge that it faces the same obstacles as any other nuclear weapon employed in a terrorist attack. It is unlikely that a terrorist group like al Qaeda or Hezbollah can develop its own nuclear weapons program. It is also highly unlikely that a nation that has devoted significant effort and treasure to develop a nuclear weapon would entrust such a weapon to an outside organization. Any use of a nuclear weapon would be vigorously investigated and the nation that produced the weapon would be identified and would pay a heavy price for such an attack (there has been a large investment in the last decade in nuclear forensics). Lastly, as noted above, a nuclear weapon is seen as a deterrent by countries such as North Korea or Iran, which seek such weapons to protect themselves from invasion, not to use them offensively. While a group like al Qaeda would likely use a nuclear device if it could obtain one, we doubt that other groups such as Hezbollah would. Hezbollah has a known base of operations in Lebanon that could be hit in a counterstrike and would therefore be less willing to risk an attack that could be traced back to it.

Also, such a scenario would require not a crude nuclear device but a sophisticated nuclear warhead capable of being mated with a ballistic missile. There are considerable technical barriers that separate a crude nuclear device from a sophisticated nuclear warhead. The engineering expertise required to construct such a warhead is far greater than that required to construct a crude device. A warhead must be far more compact than a primitive device. It must also have a trigger mechanism and electronics and physics packages capable of withstanding the force of an ICBM launch, the journey into the cold vacuum of space and the heat and force of re-entering the atmosphere — and still function as designed. Designing a functional warhead takes considerable advances in several fields of science, including physics, electronics, engineering, metallurgy and explosives technology, and overseeing it all must be a high-end quality assurance capability. Because of this, it is our estimation that it would be far simpler for a terrorist group looking to conduct a nuclear attack to do so using a crude device than it would be using a sophisticated warhead — although we assess the risk of any non-state actor obtaining a nuclear capability of any kind, crude or sophisticated, as extraordinarily unlikely.

But even if a terrorist organization were somehow able to obtain a functional warhead and compatible fissile core, the challenges of mating the warhead to a missile it was not designed for and then getting it to launch and detonate properly would be far more daunting than it would appear at first glance. Additionally, the process of fueling a liquid-fueled ballistic missile at sea and then launching it from a ship using an improvised launcher would also be very challenging. (North Korea, Iran and Pakistan all rely heavily on Scud technology, which uses volatile, corrosive and toxic fuels.)

Such a scenario is challenging enough, even before the uncertainty of achieving the desired HEMP effect is taken into account. This is just the kind of complexity and uncertainty that well-trained terrorist operatives seek to avoid in an operation. Besides, a ground-level nuclear detonation in a city such as New York or Washington would be more likely to cause the type of terror, death and physical destruction that is sought in a terrorist attack than could be achieved by generally non-lethal EMP.

Make no mistake: EMP is real. Modern civilization depends heavily on electronics and the electrical grid for a wide range of vital functions, and this is truer in the United States than in most other countries. Because of this, a HEMP attack or a substantial geomagnetic storm could have a dramatic impact on modern life in the affected area. However, as we’ve discussed, the EMP threat has been around for more than half a century and there are a number of technical and practical variables that make a HEMP attack using a nuclear warhead highly unlikely.

When considering the EMP threat, it is important to recognize that it exists amid a myriad other threats, including related threats such as nuclear warfare and targeted, small-scale HPM attacks. They also include threats posed by conventional warfare and conventional weapons such as man-portable air-defense systems, terrorism, cyberwarfare attacks against critical infrastructure, chemical and biological attacks — even natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and tsunamis.

The world is a dangerous place, full of potential threats. Some things are more likely to occur than others, and there is only a limited amount of funding to monitor, harden against, and try to prevent, prepare for and manage them all. When one attempts to defend against everything, the practical result is that one defends against nothing. Clear-sighted, well-grounded and rational prioritization of threats is essential to the effective defense of the homeland.

Hardening national infrastructure against EMP and HPM is undoubtedly important, and there are very real weaknesses and critical vulnerabilities in America’s critical infrastructure — not to mention civil society. But each dollar spent on these efforts must be balanced against a dollar not spent on, for example, port security, which we believe is a far more likely and far more consequential vector for nuclear attack by a rogue state or non-state actor.

Read more: Gauging the Threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack | STRATFOR

I’ve decided to run a little survival scenario on my internet show, Surviving The Times, just to experiment with emergency and disaster planning, and to make it interesting will make it play out as a survival war gaming exercise.

So here’s where we start our little survival war game; at a mall with a few hundred confused people, and a lack of civil authority to control the situation. A high altitude nuclear burst has caused an EMP to affect who knows how much of the country’s infrastructure, but no one knows that this is what has occurred.

Let’s say it’s a Saturday night down at the old local mall, maybe around 4:00 PM or so. Not really night but close enough for our purposes. Unbeknownst to the shoppers, a short time earlier, a rogue government launched a scud ballistic rocket from a Club K missile launch system housed in the hold of an old fishing boat off the coast of Commiefornia. The warhead detonated at an altitude of approximately 400 kilometers in altitude.

Giving a blast potential of about hundreds of Kilotons, it affected everything within a radius that included most of the contiguous 48 states, excepting southern Florida and northern Maine, all of the southern third of the Canadian provinces from the Alaska border to Quebec, inclusive. It also affected the northern half of Mexico. The detonation occurred over Oklahoma instead of Nebraska, nor did the missile reach the desired altitude, so the damage was not quite as great as it could have been.

We’ll get into more details as to why these threats exist and exactly what they are as time goes on, but what we are trying to do here is create a real life situation that we can use to establish a way to analyze our preparedness planning to determine its efficacy over a wide range of potential threats and disasters.

So here we are at the mall with the wife and kids. Mom and daughter are looking at clothing while dad and the boys are over in the tool department in Sears. Where else would they be? For this story, the main characters compose a family of a dad, mom, two boys and one girl.

The lights go dark without warning, and surprise, surprise! There are no emergency lights. The boys are afraid of the sudden darkness, but you say, no prob’ boys, all under control. Being a Prepper junkie with a survivalist streak a mile long you pull out your cell phone and push the button to activate the walkie-talkie feature and talk to the wife. Dead silence reigns in the world of communications.

Right about then you start to get concerned. People are milling towards the doorway towards what light there is outside, and the managers are trying to make sure nobody leaves with any product. Fortunately, you have a small LED flashlight in your pocket, and you turn it on. Grabbing the younger boy by the hand and telling the older son to follow close, you make your way over to the wife and daughter, and since your wife has an identical flashlight, you soon make contact.

After discussing the situation you both agree that this isn’t a normal power outage and you trail along behind the exiting crowds to avoid being jostled too greatly by the panicked mini horde.

Arriving in the parking lot, you suddenly realize that no one is going anywhere. Nobody’s car seems to be operating, and people are beginning to seriously panic. You realize that this is some kind of an EMP attack, though you have no idea how widespread and serious the attack has been.

Subconsciously you begin to get excited at the prospect of being able to use all of the survival skills you and your family have been learning and planning for. Yee-haw you think let the games begin. The wife and kids have a different idea though. They want to know how you plan on getting them home. And they are hungry, and want to eat at the chain restaurant like you promised they could. After all, the house is thirty miles away, and nobody seems to be going anywhere with their cars.

So, what do you do at this point?

So far, you are in a crowded public area, you have no light, no communication, and apparently no leadership coming from the authorities. Where do you go from there?

I’ll be running this game for a while and the scenario will twist and turn depending upon response from the listeners. Listen to the show to get an idea of what’s going on. The main concept behind this exercise is to learn to develop your emergency and disaster planning following the ADD system of planning. Analyze your situation and resources, Develop a plan of action and Deploy that plan for a successful result.

Email your responses to me over the next week at gamenotes@survivingtimes.com and I will go over them for the next show. The best responses will be shared as we continue on war gaming with Surviving a HEMP Attack.

Listen to the show here:   Listen to D.l.soucy on Blog Talk Radio    and join in on the fun and excitement!