top of page

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist and author. He formerly held a sub-cabinet office in the United States federal government, as, well as teaching positions at several U.S. universities. He is a promoter of supply-side economics and an opponent of recent U.S. foreign policy.

" The United States Has Zero National Security "

Door dr. Paul Craig Roberts / Global News Aruba Associate

02/07/2024

© DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

In his newly published book, Nuclear High-Attitude Electromagnetic Pulse, Steven Starr shows that all it takes is one nuclear explosion to shut down  the United States and throw the population back into the Dark Ages.  The electric power grid would be destroyed along with the communications system, the cooling systems at nuclear power plants and all electronic devices.  The reason is that civilian infrastructure is not protected from ElectroMagneticPulse (EMP). The military has taken steps to shield its weapon and communication systems, but nothing has been done to protect civilian infrastructure.  Bills mandating EMP protection have been defeated in Congress.  

Starr reports that only 4% of the US military budget is required to shield the power grid and civilian infrastructure.  Instead, the Washington idiots waste trillions of dollars in pointless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, and Ukraine.  

American cities would suffer no effects from blast and fire, such as would be produced by ground level detonation, but the consequences would be just as dire.  Starr describes them in a summary on his website:  https://nuclearfamine.org/connect/ 

Effects of a single high-altitude nuclear detonation over the Eastern U.S.

“105 miles above Ohio, a single nuclear warhead explodes. Because it is far above the atmosphere, there will be no blast or fire effects felt on Earth, however, this high-altitude nuclear detonation will create a gigantic electromagnetic pulse or EMP.

“In one billionth of a second, the initial EMP E1 wave will cause massive voltages and currents to form within power lines, telecommunication lines, cables, wires, antennas, and any other electrically conductive material found beneath the nuclear detonation in a circular area covering hundreds of thousands of square miles.

“Within this region, under ideal conditions, the E1 wave will produce 2 million volts and a current of 5,000 to 10,000 amps within medium distribution power lines. Any unshielded modern electronic devices that contain solid-state circuitry, which are plugged into the grid, will be disabled, damaged, or destroyed. This includes the electronic devices required to operate all critical national infrastructure.

“Unshielded electronic devices within ground, air, and sea transportation systems, water and sanitation systems, fuel and food distribution systems, water and sanitation systems, telecommunication systems, and banking systems would all be simultaneously knocked out of service – and all these systems would be disabled until the solid-state electronics required to operate them could be repaired or replaced.

“The E1 wave will also instantly destroy millions of glass insulators found on 15 kilovolt-class electric power distribution lines. 78% of all electricity in the US is delivered to end users (residential, agricultural, commercial) through these 15 kV power lines. The loss of a single insulator on a line can knock out power distribution on the entire line.

“At the same instant, the massive voltage and current induced by the E1 wave will damage and destroy the relays, sensors, and control panels at 1783 High Voltage Substations, knocking out the entire electric power grid in the eastern half of the United States.

“One to ten seconds after the nuclear detonation, the following EMP E3 wave would induce powerful current flows in power lines including lines that are both above and below ground. E3 would damage or destroy many – if not most – of the Large Power Transformers and Extra High Voltage Circuit Breakers required for the long-distance transmission of about 90% of electrical power in the United States.

“The loss of Large Power Transformers and Extra High Voltage Circuit Breakers would mean that entire regions within the United States would be left without electric power for up to a year or longer. This is because Large Power Transformers are not stockpiled and the current wait time for their manufacture is 18 to 24 months; they must be custom designed and manufactured and about 80% are made overseas. They each weigh between 200 and 400 tons and must be shipped by sea and moving them to their final destination is quite difficult even under normal circumstances.

“Because nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand the effects of EMP, the solid-state electronics within their backup electrical and cooling systems would also be damaged and disabled. The failure of their Emergency Power Systems and active Emergency Core Cooling Systems will make it impossible to cool their reactor cores after emergency shutdown; this will quickly lead to reactor core meltdowns at dozens of nuclear power plants.

“To summarize, a single nuclear high-altitude electromagnetic pulse can instantly take out most or all of the US power grid while simultaneously destroying the solid-state electronic devices required to operate US critical national infrastructure – including the safety systems at nuclear power plants. Following a nuclear EMP, the people of the US would suddenly find themselves living in the conditions of the Middle Ages for a period possibly as long as a year – most Americans would not be able to survive such circumstances.

“For less than 4% of the US national defense budget, the US power grid and critical infrastructure can be shielded from EMP. However, the political will to implement this protection has not yet been found, so Americans remain very much at risk.”

The book is available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Kindle. If you read it, you will be amazed and disgusted at the negligence and stupidity of the US government.  Thanks to the fools who govern us, we have zero national security despite the massive expenditures year after year, decade after decade.

People do not realize that the convenience and entertainment provided by their cell phones comes at great cost when measured by risk.  Nothing is secure in the digital age, not your identity, your privacy, your bank account, or your independence. The expansion of the digital revolution into money will mean that you can be denied access to your money for any reason including the exercise of free speech.  All accumulated knowledge in digital form can be erased by one EMP. Try to imagine the consequences of such a loss.  These are new risks never before experienced on Earth.

© DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Opnieuw geplaatst met toestemming

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts is een Amerikaanse econoom en auteur. Voorheen bekleedde hij een subkabinetskantoor in de federale overheid van de Verenigde Staten, en gaf hij les aan verschillende Amerikaanse universiteiten. Hij is een voorstander van de aanbodeconomie en een tegenstander van het recente Amerikaanse buitenlandse beleid.

" The Dangers of Complicity: The U.S. Courts, Gaza, and Genocide "

Door Dr. Binoy Kampmark / Global News Aruba Associate

02/09/2024

© DR BINOY KAMPMARK

Holding the foreign policy of a country accountable in court, notably when it comes to matters criminal, can be insuperably challenging. Judges traditionally shun making decisions on policy, even though they unofficially do so all the time. The Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based civil liberties group, was not to be discouraged, most notably regarding the Biden administration’s unflagging support for Israel and its war in Gaza.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last November, the CCR, representing a number of Palestinian human rights organisations including Palestinians in Gaza and the United States, sought an order “requiring that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense adhere to their duty to prevent, and not further, the unfolding genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza.” Such a duty, arising in the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, “is judicially enforceable as a peremptory norm of customary international law.”

The complaint alleged that the genocidal conditions in Gaza had “so far been made possible because of unconditional support given [to Israel] by the named official-capacity defendants in this case,” namely, President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

At the time proceedings were initiated, the Israeli campaign in Gaza, launched in response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas, had already claimed the lives of 11,000 Palestinian civilians, “more than 4,500 of them children, as well as entire families, numerous journalists and UN workers.” The bombardment had crippled critical infrastructure, led to the displacement of 1.6 million persons, and had been “accompanied by a total siege of Gaza, depriving Palestinians in Gaza the conditions of life necessary for human survival: food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity.” (Currently, the displaced number exceeds 2 million; the number of dead towers at 26,000.)

In reaching his decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, Jeffrey S. White admitted it was the “most difficult” of his career. He acknowledged South Africa’s action in the International Court of Justice against Israel, which argues that Israel’s conduct against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip satisfies the elements of genocide.

The January 26 interim order of provisional measures granted by the ICJ explicitly put Israel on notice to comply with the Genocide Convention, punish those responsible for directly and publicly inciting genocide, permit basic humanitarian assistance and essential services to the Gaza Strip, preserve relevant evidence pertaining to potential genocidal acts and submit a report to the ICJ on its compliance within a month. In international law, these interim measures are accepted as binding.

The ICJ also showed some scepticism to arguments that Israel had taken adequate measures to minimise harm to Palestinian civilians and respond to instances where an incitement to genocide could be imputed. None of the measures taken till that point had removed the risk of irreparable harm; to merely assert compliance was not sufficient evidence of it.

In White’s words, “the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law.” Lawyers representing the government also chose not to cross-examine witnesses, bar one Holocaust scholar who testified that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip could be classed as genocidal. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the claims advanced in this case, involving disputes over foreign policy, raised “fundamentally non-justiciable political questions.” To compel the U.S. government to cease military and financial assistance to Israel were matters “intimately related to foreign policy and national security.”

The plaintiffs had encountered that great limitation articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803: that “[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” To do so would violate the separation of powers. The judiciary was, according to White, “not equipped with the intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the government.”

Despite being bound by weighty precedent and rulings in previous cases, White concludes with a plea. The ICJ had found it “plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide.” The judge implored the “Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.” Not bad for one lacking intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions.

While disappointed in White’s ruling, Brad Parker, a senior advisor to one of the organisational plaintiffs, Defense for Children International Palestine, saw the thickest of silver linings. Along with the ICJ decision, “and the increasing recognition that what Israel is carrying out is a genocide and the U.S. is complicit in those genocidal acts, I think the strong language from a U.S. federal court judge increasingly works to isolate Israel’s actions and also bring pressure on the Biden administration to change course.”

To date, the slaughter in Gaza continues. Israeli politicians and military officials persist in claiming that murderously innovative approaches to killing Palestinian civilians are not, by definition, genocidal. But the walls of justifiable impunity, so proudly claimed by Israel in its righteous mission of self-defence, are proving increasingly porous.

 

"De gevaren van medeplichtigheid: de Amerikaanse rechtbanken, Gaza en genocide"

Door Dr. Binoy Kampmark / Global News Aruba Associate

02/09/2024

© DR BINOY KAMPMARK

Holding the foreign policy of a country accountable in court, notably when it comes to matters criminal, can be insuperably challenging. Judges traditionally shun making decisions on policy, even though they unofficially do so all the time. The Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based civil liberties group, was not to be discouraged, most notably regarding the Biden administration’s unflagging support for Israel and its war in Gaza.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last November, the CCR, representing a number of Palestinian human rights organisations including Palestinians in Gaza and the United States, sought an order “requiring that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense adhere to their duty to prevent, and not further, the unfolding genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza.” Such a duty, arising in the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, “is judicially enforceable as a peremptory norm of customary international law.”

The complaint alleged that the genocidal conditions in Gaza had “so far been made possible because of unconditional support given [to Israel] by the named official-capacity defendants in this case,” namely, President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

At the time proceedings were initiated, the Israeli campaign in Gaza, launched in response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas, had already claimed the lives of 11,000 Palestinian civilians, “more than 4,500 of them children, as well as entire families, numerous journalists and UN workers.” The bombardment had crippled critical infrastructure, led to the displacement of 1.6 million persons, and had been “accompanied by a total siege of Gaza, depriving Palestinians in Gaza the conditions of life necessary for human survival: food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity.” (Currently, the displaced number exceeds 2 million; the number of dead towers at 26,000.)

In reaching his decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, Jeffrey S. White admitted it was the “most difficult” of his career. He acknowledged South Africa’s action in the International Court of Justice against Israel, which argues that Israel’s conduct against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip satisfies the elements of genocide.

The January 26 interim order of provisional measures granted by the ICJ explicitly put Israel on notice to comply with the Genocide Convention, punish those responsible for directly and publicly inciting genocide, permit basic humanitarian assistance and essential services to the Gaza Strip, preserve relevant evidence pertaining to potential genocidal acts and submit a report to the ICJ on its compliance within a month. In international law, these interim measures are accepted as binding.

The ICJ also showed some scepticism to arguments that Israel had taken adequate measures to minimise harm to Palestinian civilians and respond to instances where an incitement to genocide could be imputed. None of the measures taken till that point had removed the risk of irreparable harm; to merely assert compliance was not sufficient evidence of it.

In White’s words, “the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law.” Lawyers representing the government also chose not to cross-examine witnesses, bar one Holocaust scholar who testified that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip could be classed as genocidal. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the claims advanced in this case, involving disputes over foreign policy, raised “fundamentally non-justiciable political questions.” To compel the U.S. government to cease military and financial assistance to Israel were matters “intimately related to foreign policy and national security.”

The plaintiffs had encountered that great limitation articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803: that “[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” To do so would violate the separation of powers. The judiciary was, according to White, “not equipped with the intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the government.”

Despite being bound by weighty precedent and rulings in previous cases, White concludes with a plea. The ICJ had found it “plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide.” The judge implored the “Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.” Not bad for one lacking intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions.

While disappointed in White’s ruling, Brad Parker, a senior advisor to one of the organisational plaintiffs, Defense for Children International Palestine, saw the thickest of silver linings. Along with the ICJ decision, “and the increasing recognition that what Israel is carrying out is a genocide and the U.S. is complicit in those genocidal acts, I think the strong language from a U.S. federal court judge increasingly works to isolate Israel’s actions and also bring pressure on the Biden administration to change course.”

To date, the slaughter in Gaza continues. Israeli politicians and military officials persist in claiming that murderously innovative approaches to killing Palestinian civilians are not, by definition, genocidal. But the walls of justifiable impunity, so proudly claimed by Israel in its righteous mission of self-defence, are proving increasingly porous.

 

Binoy-Kampmark.webp

Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was een Commonwealth Scholar aan Selwyn College, Cambridge. Hij doceert aan de RMIT Universiteit, Melbourne.

Mondiaal nieuws Aruba

LEES MEER OM MEER TE WETEN

© De Tjon Ajong Groep

Thanks for submitting!

Word lid van Global News Aruba

© 2024 Norberto en Emily Tjon Ajong De Tjon Ajong Groep

Web ontworpen door Norberto SB Tjon Ajong Mogelijk gemaakt door de Tjon Ajong Group

VRIJWARING

Copyright Disclaimer Op grond van sectie 107 van de Copyright Act 1976 wordt rekening gehouden met “redelijk gebruik” voor doeleinden zoals kritiek, commentaar, nieuwsverslaggeving, onderwijs, wetenschap, onderwijs en onderzoek. De informatie op deze website is uitsluitend bedoeld voor algemene informatiedoeleinden. De informatie wordt verstrekt door Global News Aruba en The Tjon Ajong Group en hoewel we ernaar streven de informatie actueel en correct te houden, geven we geen verklaringen of garanties van welke aard dan ook, expliciet of impliciet, over de volledigheid, nauwkeurigheid, betrouwbaarheid, geschiktheid of beschikbaarheid met betrekking tot de website of de informatie, producten, diensten of gerelateerde afbeeldingen op de website, voor welk doel dan ook. Elk vertrouwen dat u in dergelijke informatie stelt, is daarom strikt op eigen risico. In geen geval zijn wij aansprakelijk voor verlies of schade, met inbegrip van maar niet beperkt tot indirect verlies of gevolgschade, of welk verlies of schade dan ook voortkomend uit verlies van gegevens of winst voortvloeiend uit of in verband met het gebruik van deze website. . Via deze website kunt u doorlinken naar andere websites die niet onder controle staan van Global News Aruba en The Tjon Ajong Group. Wij hebben geen controle over de aard, inhoud en beschikbaarheid van die sites. Het opnemen van links impliceert niet noodzakelijkerwijs een aanbeveling of onderschrijft de standpunten die daarin worden geuit. Er wordt alles aan gedaan om de website soepel te laten werken. Global News Aruba neemt echter geen verantwoordelijkheid voor en is niet aansprakelijk voor het tijdelijk niet beschikbaar zijn van de website vanwege technische problemen buiten onze controle. Wij bieden gratis marketing van modellen, muziekvideo's en andere video's of afbeeldingen. Alle eer gaat naar de producent en eigenaren van muziekvideo's, modellen, fotografen, grafisch artiesten en/of andere personen die op deze website zijn geplaatst. Wij zijn een non-profit organisatie en ontvangen nog steeds geen enkele financiële steun sinds de oprichting van Global News Aruba & The Tjon Ajong Group. De standpunten die op de website van Global News Aruba worden geuit, vallen uitsluitend onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de auteur(s) en komen niet noodzakelijkerwijs overeen met die van The Tjon Ajong Group of Global News Aruba. Global News Aruba of The Tjon Ajong Group kunnen niet verantwoordelijk of aansprakelijk worden gehouden voor eventuele onnauwkeurige of onjuiste verklaringen in artikelen, afbeeldingen of video's van welke aard dan ook op onze Global News Aruba-website.

Opmerking van Norberto Tjon Ajong, oprichter, redacteur en hoofd
bottom of page