Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America
Posted on 03/30/2009 10:21:04 AM PDT by Pellegrino
click here to read article
An old fear is that some country would cause a USA-debilitating EMP by detonating a nuke about 300 miles over the country.
This has long been discounted as preposterously unworkable. No tinpot-dictator third-world terrorist nation could possibly pull it off.
‘cept now one is about ready to press the launch button.
Funny how when Newt points all this out, the dominant response is “shut up Newt!” What, exactly, is wrong with his expressed concern?
Remember during the campaign when Biden said (I paraphrase) "0bama will be tested early; his response may not seem the right thing to do - be patient with us"?
The problem I have with Newt Gingrich is that I can't trust him -- it's always a choice between Newt's narcissism; and the ideas he has, which aren't necessarily bad, but are often Newt-centric.
As this article suggeests, he's also become something of a bomb-thrower -- a sure indicator of that sorry descent into niche politics (see, e.g., Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo for other notable examples). The CRISIS is ALWAYS IN CAPITAL LETTERS (figuratively speaking, of course).
We’ve been had more times than a vietnamese whore.
Every time I see them jump for joy over some new face, then get thrown down to Earth AGAIN.
We could pull up some threads where many thought Steele was the 2nd coming.
SO desperate for leadership. I worry that Palin is just another one.
N Koreans..."they get bitter, they cling to guns or manifesto or quar'an or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."I did not know he was talking about them!!! ;)
He claims that a “small nuke” could cause all that damage.
He does not know much about EMP or what type of weapon causes it, or how that weapon is deployed.
If what he says is true, then Starfish Prime or Argus would have seriously impacted Hawai’i or the American East coast, respectively. Starfish was about 170 kt. There is still some controversy about the hundred or so streetlights that went out on the Big Island, but aside from pretty lights in the sky, there was no effect that the civilians were aware of.
Without getting into too much detail, it takes a pretty big thermonuclear device, popping off with the right characteristics, to get an ideal EMP effect. Not every old nuke will do. Placement is important, too, both X-Y and altitude.
Considering that he believes in AGW, I think he’s just repeating some inflammatory stuff he heard.
If you think about it, if the EMP device is coming in from orbit, there’s not a lot you can do about it. You’d need to know what it was in advance, and get it as it descends from 500 miles down to 60 miles at orbital speeds.
Sputnik was scary because we had nothing to counter. Eisenhower went on the air a year later with a nose cone for a ballistic missile, and baldly said we caould drop one anywhere, anytime, so the puny orbital Sputnik was not a threat considering our ability to retaliate.
Military systems are hardened, and submarines are protected from most EMP by being immersed in a conductive liquid. Our ability to retaliate with nukes will not depend on commercial telephone systems or car ignition systems. Just like in Ike’s day, we can drop lots of big nukes pretty much where and when we want.
Unbelievable isn't it.
Newt is correct. McCain’s campaign bombed and look what happened to the country!!!
Wow, the attacks here on Newt Gingrich clearly validate Breitbart’s point. What the halfwit liberals don't realize is that their comments will only galvanize opinion against them. We are not concerned with personalities but with what is true and right. They never address the issues. Rather, they attempt to support their position by appealing to emotion, and by seduction to either hate or worship someone. Their “arguments” seem to fall within one of two categories: either they worship personalities they agree with, or hate personalities they disagree with. They are either deceived or in love with death or both. We are in love with Truth. Probably there are also some conservatives here who have been fooled by this way of “thinking.”
Thanks for a simple, appropriate and common sense response to this article.
Don't worry dude, there's nothing to see here. Obama will keep you safe.
People who call Newt or Hannity RINO is out of their mind. Or better - they show dictatorial state of mind, more often displayed by Dems, but not reserved exclusively to them. What about difference of opinion? Should we all march lockstep? I don’t want to be in a crowd shouting one word in unison.
So Newt made some mistakes and expressed opinions not 100% that I support. So far I did not see Mark Steyn called some names and Thomas Sowell. That’s it. I agree they are great. But if you require a perfection that only few people can withstand, you will stand by yourself, alone. Its one thing to want clarity that an accidental co-traveler like Powell is not really a conservative. Another thing all-together to cast out people like Newt or Hannity - its counterproductive to say the least.
Newt hasn’t gone RINO.
Paying lip service to “being green” doesn’t classify one as a RINO. An opportunistic politician, yes. But not a RINO.
Newt is dead set against carbon taxes and cap and trade.
“So if hes been wrong on certain things we should ignore him on everything else, and advance Obamas national death wish. Good idea.
I agree. Why dont we just crucify everyone who has done one thing we dont like. Then we will have NOBODY to speak out except for bloggers on the internet. Eventually they will go away and then we can live under the rule of the evil Kenyan POS dictator for the rest of our lives.”
*sigh* Went through this during the whole nominating process. If we don’t get the PERECT, ABSOLUTELY 100% PURE CANDIDATE, we’ll be nominating the infamous RINO, and hence, cannot win.
Beyond his little dabble with Global Warming, Newt’s plenty conservative enough for me.
As I said....
...don't worry dude, there's nothing to see here. Obama will keep you safe.
There are more than a few ideologue on this site who would and have done just that. It allows them to continue to live in their own little political fantasy world where everybody votes as a perfect, in their eyes, conservative.
They have never understood Voltaire’s simple admonition, “The perfect is the enemy of the good”
some of these wasteful anti-Gingrich comments warrant the “Ah, Geez, not this s*it again” reaction.
Gingrich is one of the most articulate and knowledgeable people of the American constitution and government we have.
Some folks just can’t quit beating a dead horse.
Like I said, KMA obot
Physics for Future Presidents, by Richard A. Muller
Also, the full report referenced at the above link is quite educational, for those with the time and technical background to understand it. I suspect that Newt is not among those...
As do I.
However, he is beyond his depth in technical areas beyond politics.
Newt: Hillary shows courage, integrity
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Jan 12, 2008 12:22 PM EST
Gingrichs fawning over Clinton stands out more than McCain, given their history.
Newt Gingrichs on-again, off-again adulation of Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be back on.
The leader of the 1994 Republican revolution who as House speaker in the mid 1990s clashed fiercely with then-first lady Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton attributed her surprise victory in New Hampshire to the Democratic presidential candidates courage, integrity and openness.
After Clintons third-place finish in the Jan. 3 Iowa Democratic caucuses, it would have been very easy for her to have broken, accepted defeat, Gingrich said in a weekly podcast e-mailed to supporters.
Instead, starting on Saturday night, she fought back with greater and greater intensity, and she opened herself up,” Gingrich went on. She talked as a person, without all the protection, without all the discipline, and she became more and more appealing.
Gingrich said that shift demonstrated the courage to learn and enabled the New York senator to grow in the space of three or four days to a much more attractive, much more aggressive and much more appealing candidate.
As a result, he posited, New Hampshire voters who made up their minds at the last minute were going to Sen. Clinton, were affected by her campaign, by her integrity, by her openness.
Gingrichs podcast, one of many products cranked out by his political groups, also had similarly high praise for Arizona Sen. John McCain, who won New Hampshires Republican presidential primary.
But Gingrichs fawning over Clinton stands out more, given their history.
After Bill Clinton became president in 1993, Gingrich, then a Republican congressman from Georgia, orchestrated the defeat of one the new Democratic administrations signature initiatives: a universal health care plan led by Hillary Clinton.
Headed into the 1994 elections, Gingrich seized on the failed plan to highlight the excesses of a Democratic-led government. And his message, manifested as the Contract With America, was credited with driving the Republican takeover of Congress that year.
Gingrich then became speaker and the public face of the GOPs often bitter opposition to the Clinton administration, culminating in the 1998 impeachment of the president.
Gingrichs relationship with Hillary Clinton warmed, though, after he resigned from the House and she was elected to the Senate. They worked together on a health care plan and a military readiness panel, and each had kind words for the other.
Since she became a presidential candidate, his public comments have vacillated between admiration and contempt.
Gingrich, an analyst for Fox News, has repeatedly voiced his respect for Clintons political acumen and organization. But he has also called her a nasty woman, asserted she looked foolish in calling for repealing congressional authority for the Iraq war and branded one of her campaign ads dishonest, destructive, fundamentally false and the height of hypocrisy.
When he briefly flirted this fall with running for president himself, he justified it by warning of dire consequences of a second Clinton presidency.
I love the stuff I do, in terms of writing books, and giving speeches. ... It’s a wonderful life, he told Foxs Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. But I am very worried about the future of the country, and I do think we have to offer a change-oriented conservative alternative to Sen. Clinton if we’re going to be able to keep this country from going very far to the left.
At one point last year, he handicapped Clintons chances of becoming president at 80 percent. But in November, he predicted a big win for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Iowa Democratic caucus. And last month, in an interview on ABCs This Week, Gingrich downgraded that to 50 percent, because she has really underperformed in a way that surprised me.
He went on to advise her not to attack Obama but instead to counter his message of change by launching the strongest possible appeal to women on the grounds that electing a woman president is in and of itself is the real change.
Clinton did almost precisely that after her disappointing Iowa finish.
And in his podcast this week, Gingrich said Clinton was able to defeat Obama in New Hampshire by arguing that her 35-year record of fighting for change was better than his immediate promise of future change.
The Iowa and New Hampshire results, Gingrich said prove the American people are certainly committed to real change. Which got him to his next point: a book he wrote titled ... Real Change, which he told listeners is scheduled for release next week and will outline exactly what we need to be doing.
Newt’s one of the few in Warshington who actually discuss SOLUTIONS to problems. For that, he merits my respect. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s right far more than he’s wrong.
You're spamming the thread.
“I dont agree with him on everything, but hes right far more than hes wrong.”
Newt is a bright man, I will agree to that. That’s what makes his selling out that much worse. Newt had to know what he was doing when he did that GW commercial with Pelosi.
I find it almost impossible to believe that Newt ever bought into the GW crap. So, the only explaination is selling out for a few bucks, and exposure.
Coming to that conclusion, it makes it impossible for me to give Newt crediblity. When is he selling, and when is he standing for what he believes? Can you tell? I can’t. I just know he’s capable of both.
OK lets take it to the absurd.
if Hitler were alive and wrote a thread about Obama and missile defense would you post it as a positive article?
I am trying to say that Gingrich is a failed conservative and no longer deserves the fealty you seem to want to laud upon him.
Newt isn't Hitler and I've made no post with lord-like faith for Newt. Your response is absurd.
As I said, If you don't think what Newt is saying about Obama and missle defense is correct then why don't you deal with those specifics head on. If you do think what Newt is saying about Obama and missle defense is correct, then why do you change the subject of the thread to be about Newt?
Your post #77 is spam.
Your picking the wrong FReeper and the wrong day to start a fight, now FO
Please don’t zot me for being a noob (I’ve lurked here for over 5 years). It seems the difficulty in “cleaning the site” of left wing trolls is the disagreement among Freepers regarding the current conservative “leadership”. In this thread alone, support for Newt seems to be split 50/50. So how can trolls identified?
If you support Newt, half of the posters will agree citing the importance of unity to overcome the leftist juggernaut.
If you oppose Newt, the other half will accuse you of supporting a RINO thereby weakening the movement.
I don’t have the answer but it appears the left-wing trolls can achieve their goal by simply creating chaos.
“It would appear that those countries could just put a satellite bomb in orbit, then position and explode it later. “
Bingo. It is that simple. A lot of tech required to get to that point but they must be stopped at all cost.
"FO" doesn't work around here. If you don't like it, then I would suggest you leave.
I am not a lawyer, this is not a court of law (thank God), and I can and will influence the jury of public opinion if I see a ‘pundit’ whose past ‘crimes’ need to be made public so as not to legitimize his writings....
you sound like a lawyer....
....I hate lawyers.
Works for me, obot
Newt doesn’t believe in cap and trade...even Palin is for that. next!
This sounds a bit hyperbolic. Two nukes didn’t “destroy’ Japan.
“The problem I have with Newt Gingrich is that I can’t trust him — it’s always a choice between Newt’s narcissism; and the ideas he has, which aren’t necessarily bad, but are often Newt-centric.”
I’d rather have newt’s narcissism than lose, which is what republicans did after he wasn’t in charge.
Mommie teach you a new word today?
You know, it's too early in the year to start squashing cockroaches so shew, go away, go back to your mommies basement.
a ‘failed’ conservative who led the GOP to house majority for the first time in 40 years, came up with the contract with america and actually got much of it passed despite Clinton in the WH. The budget was actually balanced when he was in charge.
if that’s a failed conservative then everyone is a failed conservative.
***So if hes been wrong on certain things we should ignore him on everything else, and advance Obamas national death wish. Good idea.
I agree. Why dont we just crucify everyone who has done one thing we dont like. Then we will have NOBODY to speak out except for bloggers on the internet. Eventually they will go away and then we can live under the rule of the evil Kenyan POS dictator for the rest of our lives.***
There are some conservatives who appear to operate more from an emotional base rather than a logical one at times. I must admit I have been guilty of this once or twice myself. We need to remember that NO one is perfect. We all make mistakes occasionally. Overall, Newt is very good on the issues, well-organized, has learned from history, and is a darn creative problem-solver.
I was going to send this out to my whole email list until I read the thread.
I am totally amazed at the mindset around here. Almost like Obama propaganda.
Anything or anybody against Obama is destroyed and deemed worthless.
So Newt is judged and found worthless while we leave Obama free to dismantle our country.
Guess I won’t bother advising the unknowing of the danger we face since FR deemed Newt unworthy.
Check FREEPMAIL shortly, please.
If they hit Hawaii that takes care of a big ol' problem that Obambi has.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.