e-bombs....Re: Chertoff and mushroom e-weapons

e-bombs....Re: Chertoff and mushroom e-weapons

To: Kathleen <janmusinski@earthlink,net >, zerhoune@od.nih.gov,
SpinLyme@yahoogroups,com , kshepard@calea.org, fitzmas@gmail,com ,
patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, modelt1918@sbcglobal,net ,
jdrazen@nejm.org, letters@courant,com , Jgerberding@cdc.gov,
lender@courant,com , michael.cole@po.state.ct.us,
conndcj@po.state.ct.us, executive-editor@nytimes,com , managing-
editor@nytimes,com , news-tips@nytimes,com , the-arts@nytimes,com ,
bizday@nytimes,com , foreign@nytimes,com , metro@nytimes,com ,
national@nytimes,com , dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline,net ,
trvl@hotmail,com , ubinas@courant,com , mas1@concentric,net ,
campbell@courant,com , jhornberger@fff.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, kurtzh@washpost,com ,
georgewill@washpost,com , horgan@courant,com ,
commissioner.dcf@po.state.ct.us, cohencolumn@aol,com ,
FalNields@aol,com , bransfield@comcast,net , vtsherr@comcast,net ,
oca@po.state.ct.us, dand@davila-dilzer,com ,
scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us, governor.rell@po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn@usdoj.gov
Cc: francam@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir,
eugenerobinson@washpost,com , horgan@courant,com ,
bmiller@newstimes,com , trvl@hotmail,com , rastro18@aol,com ,
billcurryct@gmail,com , thomas.carson@usdoj.gov, amcguigan@rms-law,com ,
rjmurzyn@aol,com , paulcraigroberts@yahoo,com ,
sidney blumenthal@yahoo,com , criminal.division@usdoj.gov,
karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov, christopher.christie@usdoj.gov

Subject: e-bombs....Re: Chertoff and mushroom e-weapons

Date: Apr 10, 2008 5:02 PM

I don't actually know if this is a real explainer, but it, you know,
could be
like Chertoff's cousin's bogus 9/11 Popular Mechanics explainer.
And contrary to Popular Belief, I know next to nothing about weapons,
and am not
"a dangerously intelligent Unibomber Chemist," especially since I much
prefer to see Allen Steere and his ilk *literally* "pilloried," as he
seems to so much fear.

I don't actually know what is the best way to defend against them.

And I don't know how much control the lasers have over them.

I'm thinking the cabal in the White House will use lasers to control
the e-weapons,
but they're not quite ready yet.

Kathleen M. Dickson

=======================================================
http :// www .popularmechanics,com /technology/military law/1281421.html
E-Bombs And Terrorists: September 2001 Cover Story
In the blink of an eye, electromagnetic bombs could throw civilization
back 200
years. And terrorists can build them for $400.
BY JIM WILSON
Lead illustration by Edwin Herder
Published in the September 2001 issue.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge

The next Pearl Harbor will not announce itself with a searing flash of
nuclear light
or with the plaintive wails of those dying of Ebola or its genetically
engineered
twin. You will hear a sharp crack in the distance. By the time you
mistakenly identify
this sound as an innocent clap of thunder, the civilized world will
have become
unhinged. Fluorescent lights and television sets will glow eerily
bright, despite
being turned off. The aroma of ozone mixed with smoldering plastic
will seep from
outlet covers as electric wires arc and telephone lines melt. Your
Palm Pilot and
MP3 player will feel warm to the touch, their batteries overloaded.
Your computer,
and every bit of data on it, will be toast. And then you will notice
that the world
sounds different too. The background music of civilization, the whirl
of internal-combustion
engines, will have stopped. Save a few diesels, engines will never
start again.
You, however, will remain unharmed, as you find yourself thrust
backward 200 years,
to a time when electricity meant a lightning bolt fracturing the night
sky. This
is not a hypothetical, son-of-Y2K scenario. It is a realistic
assessment of the
damage the Pentagon believes could be inflicted by a new generation of
weapons--E-bombs.

The first major test of an American electromagnetic bomb is scheduled
for next year.
Ultimately, the Army hopes to use E-bomb technology to explode
artillery shells
in midflight. The Navy wants to use the E-bomb's high-power microwave
pulses
to neutralize antiship missiles. And, the Air Force plans to equip its
bombers,
strike fighters, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles with E-
bomb capabilities.
When fielded, these will be among the most technologically
sophisticated weapons
the U.S. military establishment has ever built.

There is, however, another part to the E-bomb story, one that military
planners
are reluctant to discuss. While American versions of these weapons are
based on
advanced technologies, terrorists could use a less expensive, low-tech
approach
to create the same destructive power. "Any nation with even a 1940s
technology
base could make them," says Carlo Kopp, an Australian-based expert on
high-tech
warfare. "The threat of E-bomb proliferation is very real." POPULAR
MECHANICS
estimates a basic weapon could be built for $400.

An Old Idea Made New
The theory behind the E-bomb was proposed in 1925 by physicist Arthur
H. Compton--not
to build weapons, but to study atoms. Compton demonstrated that firing
a stream
of highly energetic photons into atoms that have a low atomic number
causes them
to eject a stream of electrons. Physics students know this phenomenon
as the Compton
Effect. It became a key tool in unlocking the secrets of the atom.

Ironically, this nuclear research led to an unexpected demonstration
of the power
of the Compton Effect, and spawned a new type of weapon. In 1958,
nuclear weapons
designers ignited hydrogen bombs high over the Pacific Ocean. The
detonations created
bursts of gamma rays that, upon striking the oxygen and nitrogen in
the atmosphere,
released a tsunami of electrons that spread for hundreds of miles.
Street lights
were blown out in Hawaii and radio navigation was disrupted for 18
hours, as far
away as Australia. The United States set out to learn how to "harden"
electronics against this electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and develop EMP
weapons.

America has remained at the forefront of EMP weapons development.
Although much
of this work is classified, it's believed that current efforts are
based on
using high-temperature superconductors to create intense magnetic
fields. What worries
terrorism experts is an idea the United States studied but discarded--
the Flux Compression
Generator (FCG).

A Poor Man's E-Bomb
An FCG is an astoundingly simple weapon. It consists of an explosives-
packed tube
placed inside a slightly larger copper coil, as shown below. The
instant before
the chemical explosive is detonated, the coil is energized by a bank
of capacitors,
creating a magnetic field. The explosive charge detonates from the
rear forward.
As the tube flares outward it touches the edge of the coil, thereby
creating a moving
short circuit. "The propagating short has the effect of compressing
the magnetic
field while reducing the inductance of the stator [coil]," says Kopp.
"The
result is that FCGs will produce a ramping current pulse, which breaks
before the
final disintegration of the device. Published results suggest ramp
times of tens
of hundreds of microseconds and peak currents of tens of millions of
amps."
The pulse that emerges makes a lightning bolt seem like a flashbulb by
comparison.

An Air Force spokesman, who describes this effect as similar to a
lightning strike,
points out that electronics systems can be protected by placing them
in metal enclosures
called Faraday Cages that divert any impinging electromagnetic energy
directly to
the ground. Foreign military analysts say this reassuring explanation
is incomplete.

The India Connection
The Indian military has studied FCG devices in detail because it fears
that Pakistan,
with which it has ongoing conflicts, might use E-bombs against the
city of Bangalore,
a sort of Indian Silicon Valley. An Indian Institute for Defense
Studies and Analysis
study of E-bombs points to two problems that have been largely
overlooked by the
West. The first is that very-high-frequency pulses, in the microwave
range, can
worm their way around vents in Faraday Cages. The second concern is
known as the
"late-time EMP effect," and may be the most worrisome aspect of FCG
devices.
It occurs in the 15 minutes after detonation. During this period, the
EMP that surged
through electrical systems creates localized magnetic fields. When
these magnetic
fields collapse, they cause electric surges to travel through the
power and telecommunication
infrastructure. This string-of-firecrackers effect means that
terrorists would not
have to drop their homemade E-bombs directly on the targets they wish
to destroy.
Heavily guarded sites, such as telephone switching centers and
electronic funds-transfer
exchanges, could be attacked through their electric and
telecommunication connections.

Knock out electric power, computers and telecommunication and you've
destroyed
the foundation of modern society. In the age of Third World-sponsored
terrorism,
the E-bomb is the great equalizer.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
In the 1980s, the Air Force tested E-bombs that used cruise-missile
delivery systems.
PHOTO BY AVIATION WEEK & AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY


To ignite an E-bomb, a starter current energizes the stator coil,
creating a magnetic
field. The explosion (A) expands the tube, short-circuiting the coil
and compressing
the magnetic field forward (B). The pulse is emitted (C) at high
frequencies that
defeat protective devices like Faraday Cages.
ILLUSTRATIONS BY JOHN BATCHELOR


-----Original Message-----
>From: Kathleen <janmusinski@earthlink,net >
>Sent: Apr 10, 2008 4:47 PM
>Subject: Chertoff and mushroom e-weapons
>
>Um, no. What he's really talking about is e-weapons, and *every* *country*
should consider such a false-flag operation as the Bushie-Mossad's
next stunt
and protect their military electronics from e-bombs, HAARP, etc.
>
>No country should fall into the trap of allowing the US military, in any way,
know about how they're protecting their military electronics against
e-weapons.
>
>Chertoff is not talking about a programming attack. An e-weapons attack would
wreck the electronics of weapons and on ships, and on airplanes, at
the Pentagon,
Capital Hill, the White House, and the like, unless they are
protected, which is
hard to do, since if you are protecting electronic signals, it's also
difficult
to use them, if you know what I mean. There has to be, like, layers,
reflectors,
in a dual-shutter system to relay; shuttered in layers of thick lead
or something.
>
>Not easy to do.
>
>Kathleen M. Dickson
> http :// www .actionlyme.org
>
>============
>InformationWeek
>
>RSA: Chertoff Likens U.S. Cyber Security To 'Manhattan Project'
>
>The Homeland Security secretary calls for beefing up the cyberdefenses of federal
agencies and making sure all of them can respond to threats around the
clock.
>
>By Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek
>April 8, 2008
>URL: http :// www .informationweek,com /story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100489
>
>In a keynote address at the RSA Conference in San Francisco, Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff warned that the damage caused by a large-
scale cyberattack
might result in consequences comparable to the Sept. 11, 2001, attack
on the World
Trade Center buildings in New York.
>
>"We have to look not only at threats that have materialized in the past,"
said Chertoff. "We have to consider the threats that may materialize
in the
future. ... We know that a successful large-scale cyberattack against
our country
would have very wide-reaching consequences."
>
>Through the Internet, terrorists and criminals can do the kind of damage they
could never do on their own, Chertoff said. As an example, he cited
the massive
denial-of-service attack launched against Estonian government
computers last year.
>
>"This attack went beyond simple mischief, it represented an actual threat
to the ability of the Estonian government to govern the country," said
Chertoff.
>
>"Imagine what would happen if it were possible for hackers to enter the
air travel system," he said.
>
>Chertoff characterized cybersecurity as a very serious challenge, one that is
likely to grow more serious over time. A network response, he said, is
necessary
to deal with network attacks.
>
>"It takes a network to beat a network," said Chertoff.
>
>Though US-CERT, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, which provides information
necessary to defend the nation's networks, Chertoff hopes to bring
additional
resources to bear to defend the country's computers.
>
>Chertoff likened the government's attempt to improve its cybersecurity to
the intensive effort of the Manhattan Project that brought the atomic
bomb to fruition.
In January, President Bush signed an order that gave DHS and the
National Security
Agency greater power to oversee government computer security. Details
about what
the agencies are doing remain classified.
>
>Presently, Chertoff said it's not possible to monitor access to federal
networks in real time, not all federal agencies have 24/7 network
monitoring capabilities,
and US-CERT's Einstein system is too backward looking in that it
identifies
threats that have already had an impact.
>
>Chertoff said the government simply doesn't respond fast enough across the
board. "The time delay is time that we cannot afford to lose in a
world where
attacks come literally in microseconds and from all corners of the
globe,"
he said.
>
>In keeping with the President's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,
Chertoff aims to reduce the number of network access points into
federal agencies
from about 1,000 presently to about 50. He called for beefing up the
cyberdefenses
of federal agencies and making sure that all of them can respond to
threats around
the clock.
>
>"The best way to deal with an attack is to prevent it before it happens
rather than after it has occurred," Chertoff said.
>
>Chertoff also emphasized the need for the federal government to engage with
the private sector, given that so much of the nation's critical
infrastructure
is secured by private organizations.
>
>And at some point when the government's network security systems are more
responsive, Chertoff said he expected that the government would share
some network
security data to help the private sector keep its systems secure.
>
>Copyright © 2007 CMP Media LLC