Category: zerohedge

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The US, Swedish, and Finnish defense ministers signed a trilateral Statement of Intent (SOI) to expand defense cooperation on all fronts. The signing ceremony took place in Washington on May 8. In 2016, the two Scandinavian nations finalized separate defense SOIs with America. Now they have signed a joint document to unify those previous agreements and enhance their interoperability.

The Scandinavian visitors claimed this was just a starting point for a more mature relationship. The agreement emphasizes the countries’ combined joint exercises and streamlines the procedures that have been established to manage them.

Other issues covered by the SOI include regular trilateral meetings at all levels, the exchange of information (including about weapons systems), increased practical interaction, cooperation in multinational operations, improved communications, and the promotion of the EU-NATO strategic partnership. The latter issue will transform the Scandinavians into a connecting link that will eliminate the chance of any European deterrent that could operate with any real independence from its North American “big brother.”  Washington wants to make sure that the PESCO agreement will not protect Europe’s defense industry from US companies.

Sweden hosted the Aurora military exercise in September 2017, the largest such event on its soil. The US supplied most of the visiting troops. The American military has also taken part in a number of drills in Finland recently. That country will host a large-scale NATO exercise as early as 2020 or 2021. The US has already been invited. The militarization of the Scandinavian Peninsula is moving full speed ahead.

The recently signed SOI actually transforms the bilateral agreements into enhanced trilateral cooperation.  For Stockholm and Helsinki, joining NATO is not an option for domestic political reasons. At least not for now. Instead, a new US-led defense alliance has emerged. 

The increased tempo of exercises anticipates a larger US presence. It has far-reaching implications. With American military personnel rotating in and out of Sweden and Finland, any offensive action against one of those states would officially be an attack on a NATO member.  It would trigger a response as envisaged by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Russia considers any American military presence there as provocative. The US is not a Scandinavian country. If an incident took place that resulted in a clash between Russian and US forces, the two Scandinavian nations would be pulled against their will into a conflict they may have nothing to do with. The American soldiers on their soil will never be under the control of their national commands. More US presence means less sovereignty and more risk.

Actually, since they are EU members they don’t even need Article 5, because Article 42.7 of the EU treaty also contains a binding mutual-assistance clause. France invoked it after the 2015 Paris terror attacks.

Last year Sweden and Finland joined the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).  All other participants in the nine-nation formation are NATO members. It means that in an emergency their armed forces will operate under NATO command, becoming parties to a conflict they could avoid if they were really neutral.   The two also cooperate with Washington through the Northern Group (NG), which consists of 12 countries, although Sweden and Finland are the only non-NATO participants. That organization holds its own dialog with the US. Another venue is the five-nation Nordic Countries group, that includes these two non-aligned members.

In reality, Sweden and Finland have already joined NATO through other groups and agreements.   They did so informally, avoiding referendums and the relevant parliamentary procedures at home. This should be viewed as part of a broader picture. In early April, the first-ever US-Baltic States summit took place in Washington. It was an unprecedented event that somehow was kept out of the media spotlight. 

The leaders of NATO’s “frontline states” called for a permanent US military presence in the region. They want that to be much larger than just American participation in multinational battalions. They are asking for a permanent presence on a much wider scale.  Washington, which already has forces deployed in Norway and Poland, is considering rotating American troops through the Baltic nations as well. Poland and the Baltic states are a focus of NATO’S bellicose preparations. One might as well forget about the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997), which states that no substantial forces should be deployed in the proximity of the borders. That document has already been breached by NATO.

The US guests have provided advice on how to promote American influence (they call it “democracy”) in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, the members of a newly formed anti-Russian alliance. and it’s not just the defense sector. Last year, Lithuania began importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America. Poland has also built an LNG terminal to expand the shipments of American gas to Europe, which compete with Russia’s energy supplies.

The withdrawal from the Iran deal is not the only time a US position on an issue has been opposed by the leading European nations. There are many more points of disagreement. Old Europe is gradually creating an independent deterrent.  A rift between the EU and the US is deepening. But as one can see, Washington is building another pro-American alliance on the continent. It does not mean it will replace the North Atlantic alliance. Certainly not. On the contrary, it will strengthen the US position in the bloc.

But aside from NATO, Washington also leads an informal alliance of “frontline states” that are intimidated by a nonexistent threat. The idea of the Russia bogeyman is being exploited by the US in order to reach its foreign-policy goals. Northern Europe is being turned into a hornet’s nest, with its good-neighbor policy gradually being replaced with confrontation that benefits the US but makes the region less secure. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2L2WHoj Tyler Durden

While there has been no official government explanation to the MH370 flight mystery that dominated the news for months after it occurred, experts on Australia’s 60 Minutes have put together what seems to be the most sensible re-creation of events that could explain the mystery of the missing plane.

Stunningly, experts agree that flight MH370 may have come down as an intentional act of mass suicide. The report was picked up by the Washington Post on Monday, who explained that “the plane’s 2014 disappearance and apparent crash were a suicide by the 53-year-old [pilot] Zaharie — and a premeditated act of mass murder.”

“The thing that gets discussed the most is that at the point where the pilot turned the transponder off, that he depressurized the airplane, which would disable the passengers,” said Larry Vance, a veteran aircraft investigator from Canada. “He was killing himself. Unfortunately, he was killing everyone else onboard. And he did it deliberately.”

Two of the most prominent mysteries of the flight were the lack of communication from the plane and a mysterious left turn that had yet to be explained. As the Washington Post describes, the plane’s communication was likely turned off on purpose…

But the “60 Minutes” experts tried to answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the flight: How could a modern aircraft tracked by radar and satellites simply disappear?

Because, they say, Zaharie wanted it to. And the veteran pilot, who had nearly 20,000 hours of flight experience and had built a flight simulator in his home, knew exactly how to do it.

For example, at one point, he flew near the border of Malaysia and Thailand, crisscrossing into the airspace of both, Hardy said. But neither country was likely to see the plane as a threat because it was on the edge of their airspace.

…and the “unexplained” left turn could have been the pilot looking to take one last glance of his hometown:

Zaharie’s suspected suicide might explain an oddity about the plane’s final flight path: that unexpected turn to the left.

“Captain Zaharie dipped his wing to see Penang, his home town,” Simon Hardy, a Boeing 777 senior pilot and instructor, said on “60 Minutes.”

“If you look very carefully, you can see it’s actually a turn to the left, and then start a long turn to the right. And then [he does] another left turn. So I spent a long time thinking about what this could be, what technical reason is there for this, and, after two months, three months thinking about this, I finally got the answer: Someone was looking out the window.”

“It might be a long, emotional goodbye,” Hardy added. “Or a short, emotional goodbye to his home town.”

As for the silence on board, experts believe that the pilot depressurized the cabin on purpose, knocking everybody on board unconscious (who was not wearing an oxygen mask, which it is assumed the pilot would have been wearing). As the report put it, “that would explain the silence from the plane as it veered wildly off course: no mayday from the craft’s radio, no final goodbye texts, no attempted emergency calls that failed to connect.”

The entire 60 Minutes piece can be viewed here.

If this re-creation of events is accurate, the explanation for MH370 bears a striking resemblance to Germanwings Flight 9525, which crashed in 2015 as a result of the co-pilot deliberately bringing the plane down. French prosecutors noted that the co-pilot had locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane just days after the incident took place in March 2015. The incident spawned outcries for better mental health screening and requirements for pilots:

Aviation agencies around the world should draw up new rules requiring medical workers to warn authorities when a pilot’s mental health could threaten public safety, French investigators recommended Sunday after a yearlong probe into the Germanwings plane crash.

The French investigation found that Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who had been treated for depression in the past, had consulted with dozens of doctors in the weeks before he deliberately crashed a jet into the French Alps on March 24, 2015, killing all 150 people on board.

Again, this re-creation of MH370’s events were put together by aviation experts and not by any governmental agency, but the postulations seem to be one of the only plausible stories that, frankly, makes any sense. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2k0DyXP Tyler Durden

Authored by Peter Koenig vie The Saker Blog,

It’s called “Vollgeld Initiative” – in German, meaning more or less “Referendum for Sovereign Money”. What is “Sovereign Money”? – Its money produced only by the Central Bank, by the “Sovereign”, the government, represented by its central bank. Money created in accordance with the needs of the economy, as contrasted to the profit and greed motives of the banking oligarchy – what it is today; money creation at will, by private banking.

The people of Switzerland are called to vote on 10 June 2018 whether they want to stop the unlimited, unrestrained money-making by the Swiss private banking system, and to return to the “olden days”, when money was made and controlled only by the Central Bank; and this not just in Switzerland, but in most countries around the globe. Switzerland is one of the few sovereign countries within the OECD, and possibly worldwide, that has the Right of Referendum written into her Constitution.

With 100,000 valid signatures anybody can raise a referendum to amend or abolish a law, or to create a new one. – This is a huge privilege to Right a Wrong.

Most Swiss and probably most westerners in general don’t even know that the loan or mortgage they get from their bank is no longer backed by the bank’s capital and deposits. How could they? Instead of being told the truth, they are being lied to, even by their own party and politicians. And that in the case of Switzerland, by nobody less than the CEO of the UBS, the largest Swiss bank. Just watch this short video (in German and Italian – 2 min)

Lying is a felony, hence Mr. Sergio Ermotti, CEO of UBS, should be prosecuted. Unlikely to happen, though. What Mr. Ermotti in essence says in this interview is that loans are backed by deposits. This is directly contradicted by the Swiss National Bank and the German Bundesbank (Central Bank). They say that “today about 90% of all the money is accounting money, created by loans the banks make to enterprises and private citizens. Pretending that banks use deposits to make loans, is not true.” The latter part was specifically expressed by the German Bundesbank. – So, how come Mr. Ermotti, CEO of UBS, wouldn’t know that?

Switzerland, fully embedded in the globalized western banking system, absorbed by it, has a chance to tell the world that the only way to control and get on top of the cycle of financial and economic crises is to reign-in the bottom-less money production – the debt-interest-profit driven banking system, a Ponzi scheme that cannot survive (financing debt with more debt); the abhorrent uncontrollable debt-profit cycle that has brought misery to humanity – just look at Greece. With money production controlled by the respective central banks, for example, in France and in Germany, the senseless indebting of Greece by German and French banks would not have been possible, in which case the troika’s (ECB, European Commission and IMF) so-called bail-outs, or ‘rescue packages’, would not have been possible either. Hence no doubling of Greece’s debt – and Greece would be well on her way to recovery.

The point is that these too-big-to-fail banks have become also too big to control, and of course they do not want to be controlled. They have the (political) power to shed off any control. They want to continue creating debt, lending money not for economic development, but for profit of their shareholders. Banking for development has stopped a long time ago. The only banking for development is public banking, and that is almost non-existent – so far – in the west; except for North Dakota and soon New Jersey – and a number of other US States are considering public banking as a means of bringing back the true sense of banking – i.e. for economic development. But with the current FED-Wall Street bulldozer’s onslaught on the world, they are fighting against windmills – but even windmills are fallible.

By and large, in the west it’s corporate banking for profit. And thanks to the public’s ignorance and disinterest, deregulation took place behind our backs.

Did you know for example, that to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a nation has to deregulate its banks – to put them on a platter at disposal of the globalized banking sharks? – Probably you didn’t. Such decisions are never publicized.

Again, the Swiss with a Yes vote on 10 June could change this for themselves and send a signal to the rest of the world – suggesting to take back their financial, economic and monetary sovereignty – cutting the link to globalized usury banking that enslaves the poor in favor of the rich. Literally.

Will Switzerland seize this unique opportunity to broadcast this powerful message to the (western) world? Saying in the clearest voice possible – enough is enough, we are going back to regulating our banking system, through ‘new-old’ legislation and through the only institution that really has the Constitutional power to create money – the Swiss National Bank?

The Swiss, an enormous influence in international banking – good or bad – could become a trail blazer for a new economic model, to demonstrate how ell well an economy can run without following the global trend of unlimited money supply – which serves only the banks by indebting the nations and the people. They could put a halt to the seemingly out-of-control economic rollercoaster that brings only misery to people, unemployment, broken homes and businesses, decimated social safety nets, pensions health plans — they, the Swiss could put an end to it and become an economically and financially independent nation with a healthy economy for the wellbeing of the people – not of the banks.

Will they? Will they grasp this once in a lifetime opportunity to break loose from the banking stranglehold?

The Swiss people are the most indebted of the G20, with 127.5% of private debt as compared to GDP in September 2017. The trend is on the rise. The United States, where deregulation started in the 1990s under President Clinton before it became ‘globalized’, was number seven with 78.5% in September 2017. – According to an OECD 2015 report, mortgages account for 120% of GDP, by far the largest proportion of all OECD countries. – Do the Swiss know that? – Some probably do, but the majority most likely does not. Ever-so-often the Swiss National Bank (Central Bank) issues a routine warning about private and particular mortgage debt – as it is an ever-raising risk for highly indebted families. An economic crisis, loss of a job – and a family fails to meet mortgage payments – bingo, foreclosure. The same as in 2008, 2009 and going on.

Well, do you know that in Switzerland first mortgages do not have to be amortized? In fact, banks encourage you not to repay your mortgage, but just keep paying interest. Many mortgages are passed on with the related real estate from generation to generation. So, you never really own your house. The bank does. And the bank earns the money on your house, as well as calls the final shots on what is to happen with your real property, in case it is being sold.

“Free money” – as it could also be called, is money made indiscriminately without backing. It has many negative effects – the risk factor, as mentioned before – and the bubble effect on the housing market which in turn increases the risk for houseowners, because sooner or later bubbles burst. The only winners are the banks.

Why can the banks just make mortgage loans without requesting amortization? – Because they are afloat with money. Because, of course, they just make money with loans – the 90% which are not central bank made money. And the more loans they have outstanding, the more interest they earn. They earn money for doing absolutely nothing. For a mouse-click. Interest accumulates on its own. And debt is today’s foremost tool to enslave people, nations, entire continents.

This is what the Swiss could change by accepting this referendum, by Voting YES to Vollgeld. It would refrain banks from creating money and return the responsibility to the central bank, where it is to be located according to the Swiss Constitution. It would force banks to be more prudent in issuing mortgages and personal debt – it would provide for a more stable economy and for a financially less vulnerable personal life. It would gradually take some air out of the real estate bubble – a healthy feature for any society.

Again, are the Swiss going to vote for what is best for them? – Probably not. – But why not? – Because they are subjected to an enormous anti “Sovereign Money” campaign by the banking and finance sector, by the ‘built-in’ lobby. Yes, built-in, because in Switzerland Parliamentarians have the right to represent as many corporations, banking and otherwise, in their Boards of Directors, as they please. Yes – this is another special feature of Switzerland, also unique among OECD countries. – How many Swiss are aware of this?

Is it therefore a surprise that the Swiss are being utterly brainwashed to vote against their own interest? – As they have done so often in the past – and frequently to the utter surprise of neighboring countries.

In addition – and this is where another feature of the Swiss Un-Democracy enters: The Swiss Federal Council, the Swiss Executive, takes for itself the privilege and right – I have no clue from where, it is nowhere written in the Constitution – to issue sort of an edict before every national vote or referendum – “advising” the people how they should vote. With a public that oozes of comfort, where consistently less than 50% go to the polls, largely because of disinterest, such a proclamation has a huge impact.

In this case, the Swiss Government, its Executive, has already and already for a while repeatedly “advised” its populace to vote ‘no’ to the Vollgeld Initiative. And surprisingly every major party goes along with it, including the socialists and other left-leaning parties. Either they are brainwashed to the core by propaganda repeated at nauseam, indoctrinating the people how bad accepting the “Vollgeld Initiative” would be. How bad can be owning your “Sovereign Money”? – Can you imagine? – How much lie must go into such fake marketing?

Or could it be that the Swiss are no longer ruled by Bern, nor has the Swiss Central Bank much to say about Swiss monetary policy, but they may be ruled by an international and globalized banking cartel that puts so much pressure on the Swiss government, that it could almost be interpreted as blackmail? – Why otherwise, would intelligent people advise and vote against their own and proper interests?

*  *  *

My dear Swiss compatriots, this is the chance of your lifetime. Do yourself a favor by voting YES to the “Vollgeld Initiative”. Not only will you do yourself and the Swiss economy a favor, by bringing the latter back to sovereign control, you would most certainly make world-headlines and, who knows, inspire the peoples of other countries, who are sick and tired of their enslavement by banks, to request that their Central Banks alone can make money – in the amount that corresponds to the needs of their economies – no longer according to the profit-and-greed requirements of the globalized banking oligarchy.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Kq45ZX Tyler Durden

San Francisco residents are complaining about a record number of used and discarded syringes littering the streets, as a growing heroin epidemic grips Northern California. 

The city distributes nearly 5 million needles each year through various programs aimed at reducing HIV and other health risks for drug users who might otherwise share needles. 

The city distributes an estimated 400,000 syringes each month through various programs aimed at reducing HIV and other health risks for drug users. About 246,000 syringes are discarded through the city’s 13 syringe access and disposal sites. But thousands of the others end up on streets, in parks and other public areas… –AP

While syringes discarded in public areas have become a nationwide problem amid a growing opium crisis, the problem in population-dense San Francisco (about 50 square miles) is much more noticeable given the city’s growing homeless population. Last year there were 9,500 requests by residents for needle pick-ups by the city. So far this year, there have been 3,700 requests. 

Despite the needles strewn around the city, San Francisco officials have no plans to change their needle program.

“Research shows that reducing access to clean syringes increases disease and does not improve the problem of needle litter,” said Barbara Garcia, director of the Department of Public Health.

In response to the problem, Mayor Mark Farrell has hired 10 workers to go around the city picking up needles. 

Meanwhile to the north, the coastal town of Eureka has been hit hard by the heroin epidemic which has spread throughout California’s rural north. 

While the state as a whole has one of the lowest overall opioid-related death rates in the country, a sharp rise in heroin use across the rural north in recent years has raised alarms. In Humboldt County, the opioid death rate is five times higher than the state average, rivaling the rates of states like Maine and Vermont that have received far more national attention. –NY Times

Eureka, with its sizeable homeless population, lack of affordable housing and a “changing, weakened economy that relies heavily on tourism” has been hit particularly hard. 

Intravenous drug use has been a persistent menace across rural California for decades, but longtime drug users who once sought methamphetamine — which is also often injected — are increasingly looking to score heroin or opioid pills instead. An astonishingly high rate of opioid prescription in Humboldt County has bred addiction, officials said, and the craving is increasingly sated by a growing market for heroin. –NYT

“I’ve lost so many people to this,” said 46-year-old Stacy Cobine, a chronically homeless woman who has struggled with drug abuse.

While Meth is still the drug of choice in Humboldt, Chief Deputy Coroner at the County Sheriff’s Department, Ernie Stewart, says he is certain that the county’s heroin-related overdoses are “way underreported,” and that meth and heroin abuse is affecting every type of person locally – not just the homeless. 

And with such heavy use of opioids comes the trash…

With the sharp increases in use and overdoses, syringe litter has become a significant flash point for the town’s middle-class residents, particularly because tourism is so important for Eureka and the surrounding region. The town’s homeless have borne the brunt of the blame and frustration. Many Eurekans described various shocking experiences, including witnessing injections on public streets. They worry that discarded syringes could threaten children and tourists playing in the area’s parks. –NYT

Like San Francisco, Humboldt distributes clean needles to drug users through the Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction. Many residents blame the organization, founded in 2014 to combat the spread of hepatitis C, for the proliferation of needle litter. The exchange has given out close to one million clean syringes since 2017, while founder Brandie Wilson says her group gets around 94% of the used needles back. 

“Our Hep C and mental health and drug use and homeless and opioid use issues, all of those are so intertwined with being rural, and with a culture of silence,” she said. “No matter where I looked, there was no help. There was no help.”

Another factor which many point to is the break-up of a major homeless encampment by Humboldt officials. 

The needle litter problem intensified two years ago when the town removed a homeless encampment along the Palco Marsh where somewhere between 250 and 400 homeless people had been sleeping.

City officials and health service workers had encouraged the town’s large homeless population for years to go there. The tent city, which was colloquially called Devil’s Playground, provided a place to sleep and to linger during the day, but it also saw severely unsanitary health conditions and, at times, violence. In 2016, the town decided to clear the camp to install a bike path along the water, and did not allow a new camp anywhere else. –NYT

And while Humboldt County does what it can, many are pointing a finger at the state of California for not taking enough action.

“The state is failing miserably, and you can quote me on that,” said Mr. Stewart, the deputy coroner. “The state is failing miserably across the board. They are not putting enough funding and resources toward rehabilitation.”

Mike McGuire, who represents several Northern California counties including Humboldt in the State Senate, said that government leaders needed to be more proactive about expanding resources in rural parts of the state. He said rural Californians are “desperate” for more assistance.

“Humboldt County is just a few hours up Highway 101,” he said, “but as an individual travels further north on the highway, it’s like you take a step back in time. We need to step up to the plate and provide rural counties with the tools they need to combat this crisis.”

“We’re just trying to figure out how to keep people alive while we wait for more treatment up here,” said Wilson.
 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ImpB16 Tyler Durden

Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

Only CNN was surprised by Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he was pulling the United States out of the Iran Deal negotiated by his predecessor. Following the same failed approach of the last Republican administration, the President opted for confrontation with the Iranian regime rather than uplifting more moderate factions within the country through trade. The decision has already increased tensions in the volatile region, with Iran and Israel exchanging fire in Syria.

Meanwhile European leaders are meeting Iranian officials to try to design a way to bypass new American sanctions. Others have vocally attacked Trump’s actions and attacked the US playing the role of “economic policeman.”

As French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said after the decision:

Do we want to be vassals who obey decisions taken by the United States while clinging to the hem of their trousers? Or do we want to say we have our economic interests, we consider we will continue to do trade with Iran?

According to reports, European officials are looking at a few different options to help salvage their economic relationship with Iran.

One is by reviving “blocking statues” such as the ones the EU threatened in response to sanctions on Cuba, Libya, and Iran in the 1990s. The mechanism works similar to the anti-commandeering doctrine, ordering European officials to refuse to comply with US sanctions. As Reuters notes, blocking statues have “never been used and is seen by European governments more as a political weapon.” They were successful in the past because the Clinton Administration simply backed down, something that seems unlikely with President Trump.

The other is to establish new financial institutions with no connection to the US financial system. Iran has already made the euro the official reporting currency for foreign exchange, so on the surface this seems like a viable alternative.

The problem European decision makers face, however, is that the US has gone to great lengths to militarize the banking industry in recent years.

As Richard Goldberg noted at Foreign Policy:

[In 2010] Congress passed a new law leveraging America’s greatest strength against the fulcrum of global commerce with Iran: financial transactions.

After years of blacklisting most financial institutions in Iran for their involvement in various illicit activities, Congress recognized that it also needed to punish third parties for doing business with these criminal enterprises. Thus, it declared that any foreign bank that maintained a correspondent banking relationship with a designated Iranian bank would forfeit its banking relationships in the United States.

In 2011, the United States extended this prohibition to transactions conducted with the Central Bank of Iran and, in 2012, to transactions conducted in connection with a wide range of Iranian economic sectors and activities.

No financial institution is going to want to risk being blackballed from the US banking system, no matter how firmly worded a blocking statute is. As such, the first proposed policy tool has little chance of success.

Meanwhile, US lawmakers are already devising ways to go after European Central Banks should they seek to establish special financial institutions for Iranian trade. As the Weekly Standard reported, a memo is being passed around Capitol Hill stating that US policy makers should:

Remind European governments that U.S. financial sanctions apply to all “foreign financial institutions,” which the Treasury Department has previously interpreted to include “central banks or foreign state-owned or -controlled banks,” not just private banks. Countries that consider shifting their payment processing from private institutions to central banks will put their financial systems at serious risk.

Ironically the lack of real options in checking Trump actually vindicates the worldview Trump espoused as a presidential candidate. Just as Trump articulated an “America First” approach to foreign relations that prioritized “national interest” ahead of the schemes of “globalists,” Europe must identify ways to limit their dependence on the US financial system – or else indeed be reduced to de facto-vassal status to Washington. Just as political decentralization is the best way to achieve true self-determination, financial decentralization is the best way for nations to protect their own sovereign interests.

Of course to really do so requires resetting the global monetary order.

So long as the dollar enjoys its privileged position established by Bretton-Woods, the rest of the world is vulnerable to the US leveraging that against them.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rG3onq Tyler Durden

China’s economic momentum appeared to slow from March’s data as while Industrial Production handsomely beat expectations, Retail Sales were below the lowest estimate and Fixed Asset Investment was the weakest since Dec 1999…

• Industrial output rose 7.0 percent in April from a year earlier, versus a projected 6.4 percent in a Bloomberg survey and 6 percent in March – highest since June 2017

• Retail sales expanded 9.4 percent from a year earlier, versus a forecast 10 percent – equal lowest since Feb 06

• Fixed-asset investment rose 7.0 percent year-on-year in the first four months, compared with an estimated 7.4 percent – lowest since Dec 1999.

While the reports are supposedly among the first official readings unaffected by the Lunar New Year holiday – which skewed year-on-year comparisons for the first three months – we note that the economic surprise index for China shows the same seasonal pattern play out every year…

 

While offshore yuan was unaffected, US equity futures took a leg lower as the China data hit, though the moves are modest for now…

“Policy makers will likely become less concerned about slowing activity and monetary growth,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists wrote in a recent note.

“We expect the government to maintain its recent policy stance because inflation is likely to remain subdued and, more importantly, uncertainties related to trade remain high.”

And as a reminder, Morgan Stanley economists recently write that the link between China’s credit impulse and the global economy “has now been broken” and justifies his answer as follows: 

China’s tightening has not had a material impact on the growth cycle either in China or globally, even though its credit impulse began to weaken about 24 months ago. As deleveraging and adjustment headwinds recede, the recoveries in domestic demand in both DMs and EMs have emerged as additional global growth engines.

Ahya uses the following chart to prove his thesis…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2L0Ps0n Tyler Durden

Around a dozen Google employees have quit and close to 4,000 have signed a petition over the company’s involvement in a controversial military pilot program known as “Project Maven,” which will use artificial intelligence to speed up analysis of drone footage.

Project Maven, a fast-moving Pentagon project also known as the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (AWCFT), was established in April 2017. Maven’s stated mission is to “accelerate DoD’s integration of big data and machine learning.” In total, the Defense Department spent $7.4 billion on artificial intelligence-related areas in 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The project’s first assignment was to help the Pentagon efficiently process the deluge of video footage collected daily by its aerial drones—an amount of footage so vast that human analysts can’t keep up. –Gizmodo

Project Maven will use machine learning to identify vehicles and other objects from drone footage – with the ultimate goal of enabling the automated detection and identification of objects in up to 38 categories – including the ability to track individuals as they come and go from different locations.

Project Maven’s objective, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. John N.T. “Jack” Shanahan, director for Defense Intelligence for Warfighter Support in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, “is to turn the enormous volume of data available to DoD into actionable intelligence and insights.” –DoD

The internal revolt began shortly after Google revealed its involvement in the project nearly three months ago. 

Some Google employees were outraged that the company would offer resources to the military for surveillance technology involved in drone operations, sources said, while others argued that the project raised important ethical questions about the development and use of machine learning. –Gizmodo

The resigned employees cited a range of frustrations, from ethical concerns over the use of AI in a battlefield setting, to larger concerns over Google’s overall political decisions. 

The disgruntled ex-employees, apparently unaware that Google was seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, have compiled a master document of personal accounts detailing their decisions to leave, which multiple sources have described to Gizmodo.

The employees who are resigning in protest, several of whom discussed their decision to leave with Gizmodo, say that executives have become less transparent with their workforce about controversial business decisions and seem less interested in listening to workers’ objections than they once did. In the case of Maven, Google is helping the Defense Department implement machine learning to classify images gathered by drones. But some employees believe humans, not algorithms, should be responsible for this sensitive and potentially lethal work—and that Google shouldn’t be involved in military work at all.

Historically, Google has promoted an open culture that encourages employees to challenge and debate product decisions. But some employees feel that their leadership no longer as attentive to their concerns, leaving them to face the fallout. “Over the last couple of months, I’ve been less and less impressed with the response and the way people’s concerns are being treated and listened to,” one employee who resigned said. –Gizmodo

Ironically, the development of Google’s original algorithm at Stanford was partly funded by a joint CIA-NSA program in which founder Sergei Brin created a method to quickly mine large amounts of data stored in databases. 

“Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.” –Nafeez Ahmed

In their defense of Project Maven, Google notes that their AI won’t actually be used to kill anyone (just help the military ID targets to “service”). That isn’t good enough for workers and academics opposed to the use of machine learning in a military application. 

In addition to the petition circulating inside Google, the Tech Workers Coalition launched a petition in April demanding that Google abandon its work on Maven and that other major tech companies, including IBM and Amazon, refuse to work with the U.S. Defense Department. -Gizmodo

“We can no longer ignore our industry’s and our technologies’ harmful biases, large-scale breaches of trust, and lack of ethical safeguards,” the petition reads. “These are life and death stakes.”

Over 90 academics in AI, ethics and computer science released an open letter on Monday, calling on Google to end its involvement with Project Maven and support an international treaty which would prohibit the use of autonomous weapons systems. 

Peter Asaro and Lucy Suchman, two of the authors of the letter, have testified before the United Nations about autonomous weapons; a third author, Lilly Irani, is a professor of science and a former Google employee.

Google’s contributions to Project Maven could accelerate the development of fully autonomous weapons, Suchman told Gizmodo. Although Google is based in the U.S., it has an obligation to protect its global user base that outweighs its alignment with any single nation’s military, she said. –Gizmodo

“If ethical action on the part of tech companies requires consideration of who might benefit from a technology and who might be harmed, then we can say with certainty that no topic deserves more sober reflection—no technology has higher stakes—than algorithms meant to target and kill at a distance and without public accountability,” the letter states. “Google has moved into military work without subjecting itself to public debate or deliberation, either domestically or internationally. While Google regularly decides the future of technology without democratic public engagement, its entry into military technologies casts the problems of private control of information infrastructure into high relief.”

We’re sure employees have nothing to worry about and their concerns are overblown – as Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto prevents them from ever participating in some scary program that could kill more innocent people than a Tesla autopilot.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Il1dRt Tyler Durden

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

And we recently discovered, if it was not known before, that no amount of power can withstand the hatred of the many. 

–  Marcus Tullius Cicero

Although European leaders are talking a big game about keeping the Iran deal (JCPOA) alive following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal, there’s a good chance nations across the pond, especially the UK and France, will ultimately fold to U.S. demands. This is despite the fact these countries stand to lose far more economically than America. Acquiescing to U.S. imperial demands as submissive client states is simply what Europe does. On the other hand, China and Russia sense opportunity for major geopolitical gains and will not back down.

Political leaders in China and Russia must be licking their chops at the short-sighted stupidity of Donald Trump’s decision to ditch the Iran deal. As mentioned in previous pieces, the Trump administration isn’t just saying the U.S. will sanction Iran from its end, but that it could leverage the global financial system and its dependency on the USD, to punish those who dare defy U.S. policy.

As discussed in the recent post, The Road to 2025 (Part 3) – USD Dominated Financial System Will Fall Apart, this unilateral move against Iran is likely to be a key catalyst in the planet transitioning away from a financial system completely and totally dominated by the USD into a more multi-polar currency world. Trump’s essentially willing to trade away U.S. global geopolitical and financial dominance because he’s obsessed with taking out the Iranian regime.

While Europe may not be willing to make a huge fuss about all this right now, its leaders, and more importantly its citizenry, know exactly what this means. As long as the global financial system is totally dominated and controlled from the U.S. via the USD, no country on earth can be truly sovereign, in terms of economic or foreign policy.

In case you still aren’t getting how serious this is, let me point you to a few comments recently made by Russian leader Vladimir Putin:

In comments to lawmakers on Tuesday after his inauguration for a record fourth term as president, Putin said a “break” from the U.S. currency is necessary to bolster Russia’s “economic sovereignty,” especially in light of recent penalties and what he called politically motivated restrictions on trade.

“The whole world can see that the dollar’s monopoly is precarious and dangerous for many,” he said. “Our gold and currency reserves are being diversified, and we’ll continue to do that further…”

Putin acknowledged this week that since oil trades in dollars, “we are thinking of what needs to be done to free ourselves from that burden.”

Every world leader understands this, Putin’s just unique since he’s willing to come out and say it. It’s not just Russia though. People across the world have had just about enough of U.S. bullying and recognize USD dominance in the global financial system represents the key obstacle to overcome if they wish to avoid being pushed around forever.

Chinese leaders tend to speak less bluntly, but actions speak louder than words and China clearly has no intention of leaving Iran. It understands that becoming more involved in the Iranian economy, not less, is where the huge geopolitical gains are to be found. As we learned from a recent fascinating Bloomberg article, Iran’s Door to the West Is Slamming Shut, and That Leaves China:

To develop its $430 billion economy, Iran is being forced to rely on political allies in the east.

Trade with China has more than doubled since 2006, to $28 billion. The biggest chunk of Iran’s oil exports go to China, about $11 billion a year at current prices…

China is “already the winner,’’ said Dina Esfandiary, a fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College in London, and co-author of the forthcoming ‘Triple Axis: Iran’s Relations With Russia and China’.

“Iran has slowly abandoned the idea of being open to the West,’’ she said. “The Chinese have been in Iran for the past 30 years. They have the contacts, the guys on the ground, the links to the local banks.’’

And they’re more willing to defy U.S. pressure as Trump slaps sanctions back on…

Airbus Group SE’s contract for 100 jetliners, worth about $19 billion at list prices, was already held up amid financing problems, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday that the export licensewill be revoked (Russian manufacturers could be the beneficiaries). Total SA has a contract to develop the South Pars gas field together with China National Petroleum Corp., but has signaledthat it would pull out if the U.S. re-imposes sanctions and it can’t win an exemption. In that event, Iran says, the Chinese partner would take over Total’s share…

The Chinese have some workarounds that Europeans lack. There are many more Chinese companies with zero exposure to the U.S. And, since many of the Chinese businesses working in Iran are state-run, it’s relatively easy to set up special-purpose vehicles for bypassing U.S. regulations. “All they have to do is create a subsidiary that’s separate from the original entity, and they’re good to go,” said Esfandiary.

Chinese businesses are also likely to be more flexible about how they’re paid, says Batmanghelidj, citing a transaction he’s aware of where the European company declined to be paid in bonds…

China — along with Russia — is America’s main strategic rival, with big geopolitical ambitions. Central to them is a plan to crisscross Eurasia with a web of transportation and infrastructure links. Persia was on the old Silk Road, and Iran is at the heart of President Xi Jinping’s plans for a new one.

Chinese companies are building or funding railway lines to the eastern city of Mashhad and the Gulf port of Bushehr, under deals signed in the past year worth more than $2.2 billion. India was supposed to be developing the strategic port of Chabahar on the Arabian Sea., but repeated delays have prompted Iranian officials to turn to China in the hope of speeding up construction.

Much of Trump’s base supported him because they wanted the U.S. to focus on domestic issues as opposed to foreign adventurism. Ironically, he’s doing the exact opposite. Rather than tackling the country’s dilapidated infrastructure, continued theft by finance criminals and a completely rancid healthcare system, the national dialogue is now dominated by an embassy move to Jerusalem and heightened confrontation with Iran. I’m not sure what this is, but it’s certainly not “America First.”

Many Trump supporters like to say he’s playing “3D chess,” but in the case of Iran he isn’t playing chess at all — he’s playing checkers. His infatuation with Israel and Saudi Arabia, coupled with a deep-seated disdain for Iran is blinding him, and opening up a historic opportunity for China and Russia to make major geopolitical gains. Europe’s trying to hang out on the fence and see who comes out on top, but the outcome of such a game should not be in doubt. The results will be crystal clear by 2025.

Like all Presidents before him, the main campaign promises Trump’s delivering on are the ones he made to oligarchs.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) May 14, 2018

I’ve written several detailed posts on this topic in recent weeks. Here are a few:

Trump Pulls Out of Iran Deal – U.S. Determined to Become a Rogue State

Part 1: The Road to 2025 – Prepare for a Multi-Polar World
Part 2: The Road to 2025 – Russia and China Have Had Enough
Part 3: The Road to 2025 –USD Dominated Financial System Will Fall Apart
Part 4: The Road to 2025 – A Very Bright Future If We Demand It

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KmYinU Tyler Durden

What is the “fight club” best known for oligarchs, billionaires and the mega rich to hash out their problems? It is, of course, the commercial courts at the Royal Courts of London. The London courts are a popular destination for the mega rich to battle things out because they offer strict privacy that ensures that litigants don’t have to share their business with the world when they don’t want to.

As Bloomberg pointed out on Monday, journalists routinely make a day of heading to commercial court in London and trying to distinguish between the John Does and the Jane Does – listed as simply “A” and “B” on London court documents – to find out where the high profile cases are being heard. 

On a sunny Friday morning in central London, journalists were looking for A v B, a case scheduled for London’s commercial court.

Finding the lawsuit could lead to illuminating details about a fascinating case of sanctions, alleged corruption and mines producing a metal used in Tesla Inc. batteries.

London’s commercial court has been at the center of numerous high profile recent cases.

For instance, there was this $1.5 billion judgement that was upheld just days ago against billionaire Vijay Mallya in the high court:

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya, undergoing an extradition trial in a UK court over fraud and money laundering charges by Indian authorities, on Tuesday lost a lawsuit filed by 13 Indian banks in the UK High Court seeking to collect from him more than USD 1.55 billion.

Judge Andrew Henshaw refused to overturn a worldwide order freezing 62-year-old Mallya’s assets and upheld an Indian court’s ruling that a consortium of 13 Indian banks were entitled to recover funds amounting to nearly USD 1.55 billion (1.145 billion pounds).

And FT found in 2014 that 75% of litigants in commercial cases in London were foreigners. 

More than three-quarters of those who use London’s commercial court to settle disputes are from outside the UK, according to new figures. Research shows that European litigants from outside the UK accounted for 24 per cent of all parties in commercial court rulings during the past 12 months. There has also been a growth in litigants from the Middle East and north Africa who now account for 11 per cent of the total. Litigants from Eurasia – which includes Russia and Kazakhstan – make up 11.5 per cent of litigants. The data from Portland Legal Disputes analysed 141 High Court rulings between April 2013 and March 2014 to identify the nationality of the parties. The figures were then compared with previous years.

But the case of last week, when reporters flooded the courthouse looking for information on a high profile suit between Glencore Plc and its former partner, they were tasked with finding out which courtrooms held “A” vs “B” cases. From there, they use a little social engineering and instincts to basically try and guess whether or not they’re in the courtroom for the case they are seeking. 

This guessing system can backfire for both the litigants and the reporters. Litigants often find nosy reporters checking in on their courtrooms out of simple curiosity and reporters sometimes stumble into courtrooms that don’t house what they’re looking for, as was the case last Friday in London:

What reporters didn’t find is what they’d been looking for: the legal show-down between commodity trader Glencore Plc and its former partner, Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler.

…

So the London reporters scrambled to Court 25 on the third floor. After some inquiries led to no clear answers, the room seemed the best bet — more than a dozen suited lawyers crammed into a small chamber with onlookers in the back.

But it was the wrong hearing. Instead, it turned out to be a case brought by oil-rich Angola, which is trying to recover funds from Jose Filomeno dos Santos, the debonair son of the former president and the manager of the nation’s sovereign wealth fund until January. Angola accuses him of a $500 million fraud, which he denies.

So it goes: the reputation for London’s commercial court is now starting to disrupt the privacy it was once heralded for in the first place.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KYuLSG Tyler Durden

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

As a prepper and avid reader of post-apocalyptic fiction like One Second After, Alas Babylon, and Going Home, an EMP has long been on my mind as one of the most catastrophic threats we could face.

After reading numerous reports from the Congressional EMP Commission, I figured that the reality of such a threat was a given. So when I recently wrote about making Faraday cages, imagine my surprise when I saw this comment:

I appreciate the attempt to help people prepare for all kinds of disasters, but I’m going to have to throw a conversational bomb into this room, so to speak.

EMP is a total scam. See here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/david-hathaway/emp-hoax/

Not only is EMP a scam, nuclear weapons are probably a scam. Certainly they were at the time of abhorrent and immoral destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both cities victimized by fire bombing like all the other Japanese cities.

I suppose protection against lightning might be useful, a system of lightning rods being an alternative. I wouldn’t lose sleep at night over this EMP nonsense, especially when there are real dangers we face every day.

What?????

I was really surprised to see this. I went to read the article at the link and discovered the author of it had written an entire book on the topic called EMP Hoax. The book had a forward written by Lew Rockwell, for whom I have the deepest respect. Mr. Rockwell wrote of a nuclear detonation over the Pacific Ocean in 1962:

One purpose of the blast was to study the impact, if any, of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) effects. One incident is alleged to show such effects. Based on this incident, the government concluded that hostile powers could use EMPs to disable the electronic infrastructure of our country. Even after the Cold War ended, the government has continued to tout the threat posed by EMPs.

Hathaway comments: “The alleged incident happened on the island of Oahu which is made up of the City and County of Honolulu. This incident has developed a cult following within the EMP science community. The incident allegedly involved blown fuses in a small number (less than 1%) of street light strings. It has been trotted out for decades as the single definitive proof of EMP effects on power grid and long-wire infrastructure.”

Hathaway isn’t convinced. He presents a painstaking discussion of the incident, subsequent investigations, and the science behind EMP effects. He writes clearly about complicated science, and his conclusion is backed by abundant evidence: “EMP is a ridiculous notion; one that we are supposed to give up our money, our common sense, and our freedom to validate. From the state’s perspective, there is always some area of life where people haven’t yet developed the proper level of panic to make them tolerate the forced filling of state coffers in relation to that area. There is always something new to fear that the public can’t quite grasp without the government to ratchet up its fears.”

David Hathaway deserves our gratitude for his excellent and timely account of a little-known propaganda campaign by the State.” (source)

So with this in mind, I spent the weekend doing some research on the topic.

Some mainstream outlets concur that EMP is not a legitimate threat.

Vice interviewed an analyst from Stratfor about how concerned we should be about an EMP. The analyst was pretty thorough, and concluded that he believed it was “not impossible” but “unlikely.”

It’s not that EMPs are not a threat. It’s just that—although the effect would be massive—currently they’re not really a risk apart from nuclear strikes, so highlighting them as the greatest threat there is might not be entirely realistic…

…When we’re talking about realistic versus unrealistic threats, currently generating an EMP with a nuclear weapon is the most feasible way to do it. Homebuilt EMP weapons aren’t very feasible. The cost you would put into building such a system versus the benefit that you would actually gain is very, very impaired…

…Besides the weight, and the cost of whatever you use to generate that kind of electricity—a capacitor, a large amount of batteries, or whatever power generation method—the cost would be so high, but the damage you can do with it would be so limited, that other much cheaper methods might be more efficient when it comes to damaging the area that you’re targeting. (source)

Larry Kummer of FabiusMaximus.com believes the threat of EMP is pure propaganda and points out that the naysayers don’t get press but there are plenty of them out there. He wrote:

The threat of EMP’s has been debunked many times. But only in the back pages. Experts know that speaking against the fear narratives gets one blackballed from the defense gravy train and blacklisted by journalists. Only the threat mongers, the warmongers, get attention.

The Wall Street Journal shows how the propaganda narrative works. There is a large body of analysis showing that the EMP threat is grossly exaggerated, especially versus the serious ones we face. For details see these posts about EMPs: Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons, generating waves of fear in America for 20 years and Renowned Physicists Cast Doubt on Gingrich’s Far-Fetched Scenario about EMP weapons. None of this appears in the WSJ, who give only the warnings. Some examples…

• “The EMP Threat“, editorial, 9 August 2008.

• “What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do“, Brian T. Kennedy, op-ed, 24 November 2008 — “Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.” Kennedy is president of the right-wing Claremont Institute.

• “How North Korea Could Cripple the U.S.“, R. James Woolsey & Peter Vincent Pry, op-ed, 21 May 2013 — “A single nuke exploded above America could cause a national blackout for months.” This op-ed accompanied Woolsey’s congressional testimony and new blitz. The WSJ ran a story about this the same day: “Former CIA Director Warns About Cyber Threats From North Korea“.

• “The Growing Threat From an EMP Attack“, R. James Woolsey & Peter Vincent Pry, op-ed, August 2014 — “A nuclear device detonated above the U.S. could kill millions, and we’ve done almost nothing to prepare.” (source)

Then, Mr. Kummer rightly points out the threat of solar flares and other space weather events, which would wreak similar havoc to our electronics. He concludes, “Since natural threats don’t have anything like the military-industrial complex to shill for them, we remain vulnerable to events certain to occur eventually.”

Matthew Gault from War is Boring calls EMP an “overrated threat.” He interviewed cybersecurity expert Peter Singer, who had a LOT to say about his feeling that an EMP strike was unlikely. Here are some of the highlights from that interview.

“There’s this irony of the people who think it’s serious not realizing that they’re the joke,” he explained. “When you walk through the actual scenarios of use, it doesn’t pass the logic test.”

…Setting aside the geopolitical gymnastics that must occur to lead to that kind of exchange, if a foreign power detonated a 100 or more kiloton in an electromagnetic attack on America, then the world is at war and there’s little strategic benefit for the aggressor to not just go ahead and nuke a city.

“It doesn’t mean it can’t happen,” Singer told me. “But if the other side is using EMPs we’re moving into thermonuclear war.”

“A weapon of mass destruction is preferable to a weapon of mass disruption,” Butt explained. “A state would be highly unlikely to launch an EMP strike from their own territory because the rocket could be traced to the country of origin and would probably result in nuclear or massive conventional retaliation by the U.S.”

…However, we don’t know what the effects of an EMP might be. Studies conducted by both the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War produced dramatically different results every time.

An electromagnetic pulse is a highly unpredictable side effect of a predictably horrifying weapon. “It’s not a weapon we’ve seen past use of. Ever. Literally ever. Nor tests of,” Singer said. (source)

Patrick Disney of The Atlantic calls the hullabaloo a “campaign to terrify” us about the threat of an EMP and says it all goes back to the money trail of increased ballistic missile defenses. He believes the threat is unlikely to occur because of its unpredictable nature.

It may be that a terrorist, after going through the trouble of acquiring a nuclear warhead and a missile capable of delivering it to America’s shores, would be a fool to employ the ultimate weapon in such a cockamamie fashion. The effects of an EMP are far from universal; according to one commissioned study, a best-case scenario would impact 70 percent of electronics, while a worst-case estimate could be as low as 5 percent. Far better from the terrorist’s perspective to deliver the bomb as it was intended, rather than hang his hopes on a series of unpredictable events and second- or third-order consequences. After all, a nuclear bomb need not be made any more devastating to serve a terrorist’s purposes.

A slightly more plausible scenario could involve a state actor who, facing a vastly superior U.S. military massed on its border, might consider launching an EMP attack against U.S. troops as a way of evening the playing field. Because the U.S. military is much more highly dependent on technology than others, a rogue state facing the threat of invasion could conceivably attempt such a tactic against invading forces in the hopes that it could damage their capabilities without incurring the totally devastating retaliation that a “regular” nuclear strike would surely provoke. Of course, a wide-ranging EMP would knock out his own electronics as much as it would anyone else’s, so even this scenario is a bit far-fetched. (source)

These are all valid arguments. If a country or a group of terrorists acquired the nuclear capability to set off an EMP above America, would they do that even if they weren’t positive it would work? The retaliation if it didn’t work – heck, even if it DID work – would be formidable and thorough.

But all this doesn’t mean an EMP strike is impossible.

While it is possible we may be getting played by the fearmongers, it still doesn’t mean that a disaster that would take out our grid is impossible. It doesn’t mean that people who are preparing with Faraday cages and long-term supplies are being silly.

First of all, these preps will help us through a wide variety of disasters. The protected electronics would see us through a space weather event, and the other preps would help us through anything from World War 3 to a raging pandemic. I’ve mentioned my own plan to prep low-tech because it’s budget-friendly and it will get us through many different emergencies. There are all sorts of reasons the grid could be down for an extended period of time. Look no further than Puerto Rico to see that is a fact.

And furthermore, regarding an EMP, we simply don’t know what it would do because it has never happened.

I reached out to Dr. Arthur T. Bradley and asked him about his thoughts on whether an EMP was a legitimate threat or a gigantic hoax. Dr. Bradley is an electrical engineer at NASA and has done a lot of scholarly research on the possibilities of EMP and space weather events. He’s a prolific author and his book Disaster Preparedness for EMP Attacks and Solar Storms is a classic that belongs on every prepper’s bookshelf. (Find all of his books here.) Needless to say, Dr. Bradley is a pro and knows that of which he speaks.

Here’s his very thorough answer:

To address whether or not an EMP is a scam, we should first ask what it is we’re wanting to deny. An EMP is simply a broadband electromagnetic pulse. Such a pulse can be created by the sudden release of energy, such as a spark gap or on a larger scale, a bolt of lightning. Likewise, a very large explosion can release an EMP due to gamma rays ionizing nearby air molecules. EMPs from these events are well understood, and there are countless technical papers addressing the phenomenon. Even without expert confirmation, most people have experienced the phenomenon when their radio, phone, or TV suddenly “pops” when a bolt of lightning strikes nearby. Simply put, to say that “EMP is a scam” is to deny science.

The real question at hand is are the effects of a nuclear-generated EMP really as significant as people claim. The short answer to that is no one knows for sure. The US government observed EMPs during nuclear testing in the 60’s, such as during the Starfish experiments, and it was identified as a possible weapon to disrupt an enemy’s infrastructures. The Russians also did extensive EMP testing during the same period, including the Soviet Test 184 in 1962 that caused extensive damage on the ground, including destroying the Karaganda power plant.

The US Air Force later built a very large $60 million wooden structure, known as ATLAS-I (aka Trestle), to study how best to harden systems against an EMP. More recently, the government commissioned a group of technical experts to assess the nation’s vulnerabilities to such an attack.

This council was known as the EMP Commission and issued a Critical National Infrastructures Report in April of 2008. In it, the commission discussed in detail how the nation’s critical infrastructures and citizens could be disrupted by a high-altitude nuclear-generated EMP, and the feasibility of hardening military and civilian systems. The EMP Commission was later reestablished in 2006 to make specific recommendations on reducing our susceptibilities.

Their conclusion was that an EMP “has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures that support the fabric of U.S. society and the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power,” and “damage to or loss of these components could leave significant parts of the electric power grid out of service for months to a year or more.” The loss of electricity would lead to the subsequent disruption of every other infrastructure, including food and water distribution, telecommunications, banking, transportation, emergency services, government, and energy production.

Whether or not the commission’s assessments would prove accurate is impossible to say, since no country has ever suffered a wide-scale EMP attack. What can be said is that a group of highly-trained experts commissioned by the government came to some very dire conclusions about the effects of an EMP attack. 

So can it happen? We have a very decisive agreement on “maybe.”

My own conclusion? Keep prepping.

After reading all of this, it’s pretty clear that nobody knows for sure whether an EMP attack is likely or would work as an enemy might hope. There is compelling evidence from both sides of the argument that leave us up in the air.

As a prepper who wants to be ready for everything, here’s my advice.

An EMP that takes the grid down indefinitely is only one possibility among many others that could cause a long-term power outage.

• A horrible storm that damages the infrastructure as in Puerto Rico

• A solar flare or other space weather event (scroll down to question 14)

• A physical terrorist attack on the grid such as the one in California in 2013

• A software bug caused a weeklong widespread power outage in the Northeast in 2003

• The Derecho storm outage that took power out during the heat of summer in the Mid-Atlantic for 10 days

• Almost 2000 people in the New York City metro area had no power for months after Hurricane Sandy

• Selco has shared his story of living in a city that was blockaded and left without any utilities for an entire year.

So obviously, this isn’t an “it can never happen” scenario. Being ready for a long-term power outage and shutdown of the supply line is just common sense.

The twist of an EMP is that it would be longer-term and you can protect some of your devices from such an event. Faraday cages would also protect your electronics from a solar event. A Faraday cage is simple and inexpensive to make (learn how here) and the devices you would protect would be things that you would use anyway in certain types of emergencies, like communications devices, a backup laptop, and solar chargers. So, really, it isn’t costing you very much extra money to additionally make some preparations for the possibility that an EMP could occur.

As far as low-tech, off-grid systems, I think they’re a good idea for all sorts of reasons. Here are a few examples:

• When I lived in the boondocks, I had no washing machine at my house. Having a backup way to do laundry helped me lengthen the time between my one-hour drive each way to the laundromat.

• Having solar chargers and lights have been nothing but helpful in power-outage situations.

• I yearn for solar panels on my roof to reduce my electric bill and decrease my dependence on public utilities.

• California has had rolling power outages for years to manage the extra demand for power in the heat of summer – wouldn’t off-grid supplies make that more comfortable?

None of these preps are outrageous and most are very multipurpose. I think it’s very important to diversify your basic preps to see you through a wide variety of emergencies, and the potential (or lack thereof) of an EMP is no different.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IkSKOb Tyler Durden