Justplainbill's Weblog

February 16, 2019

Shall we protect our history? by Roger Kimball, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:57 pm

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion


Roger KimballRoger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator USA, American Greatness, and PJ Media. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.


 

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on board the Crystal Symphony on July 19, 2018, during a Hillsdale College educational cruise to Hawaii.

The recent news that the University of Notre Dame, responding to complaints by some students, would “shroud” its twelve 134-year-old murals depicting Christopher Columbus was disappointing. It was not surprising, however, to anyone who has been paying attention to the widespread attack on America’s past wherever social justice warriors congregate.

Notre Dame may not be particularly friendly to its Catholic heritage, but its president, the Rev. John Jenkins, demonstrated that it remains true to its jesuitical (if not, quite, its Jesuit) inheritance. Queried about the censorship, he said, apparently without irony, that his decision to cover the murals was not intended to conceal anything, but rather to tell “the full story” of Columbus’s activities.

Welcome to the new Orwellian world where censorship is free speech and we respect the past by attempting to elide it.

Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.

In the background is the conviction that we, blessed members of the most enlightened cohort ever to grace the earth with its presence, occupy a moral plane superior to all who came before us. Consequently, the defacement of murals of Christopher Columbus—and statues of later historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt—is perfectly virtuous and above criticism since human beings in the past were by definition so much less enlightened than we.

The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer. “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.

The psychopathology behind these occurrences is a subject unto itself. What has happened in our culture and educational institutions that so many students jump from their feelings of being offended—and how delicate they are, how quick to take offense!—to self-righteous demands to repudiate the thing that offends them? The more expensive education becomes the more it seems to lead, not to broader understanding, but to narrower horizons.

***Although there is something thuggish and intolerant about the monument controversy, it is not quite the same as the thuggishness of the Roman emperor Caracalla, who murdered his brother and co-emperor Geta and had statues of Geta toppled and his image chiseled off coins. Nor is it quite the same as what happened when Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin exiled Leon Trotsky, had him airbrushed out of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and sent assassins to Mexico to finish the job.

Iconoclasm takes different forms. The disgusting attacks on the past and other religious cultures carried out by the Taliban, for example, are quite different from the toppling of statues of Saddam Hussein by liberated Iraqis after the Iraq War. Different again was the action of America’s own Sons of Liberty in 1776, who toppled a statue of the hated George III and melted down its lead to make 40,000 musket balls. It is easy to sympathize with that pragmatic response to what the Declaration of Independence called “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” It is worth noting, however, that George Washington censured even this action for “having much the appearance of a riot and a want of discipline.”

While the monument controversy does depend upon a reservoir of iconoclastic feeling, it represents not the blunt expression of power or destructiveness but rather the rancorous, self-despising triumph of political correctness. The exhibition of wounded virtue, of what we now call “virtue-signaling,” is key.

Consider some recent events at Yale University, an institution where preening self-infatuation is always on parade. Yale recently formed a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming and a Committee on Art in Public Spaces. Members of the former prowl the campus looking for buildings, colleges, faculty chairs, lecture programs, and awards that have politically incorrect names. The latter police works of art and other images on campus, making sure that anything offensive to favored groups is covered or removed.

At the residential college formerly known as Calhoun College, for example—it’s now called Grace Hopper College—the Committee ordered the removal of stained glass windows depicting slaves and other historical scenes of Southern life. Statues and other representations of John C. Calhoun have likewise been slotted for removal. Calhoun, an 1804 Yale graduate, was a leading statesman and political thinker of his day. But he was also an apologist for slavery, so he has to be erased from the record.

Of course, impermissible attitudes and images are never in short supply once the itch to stamp out history gets going. Two years ago it was Calhoun and representations of the Antebellum South. More recently it was a carving at an entrance to Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library depicting an Indian and a Puritan. The Puritan, if you can believe it, was holding a musket—a gun! Who knows, perhaps he was a member of the NRA or at least could give inspiration to other members of that very un-Yale-like organization. According to Susan Gibbons, one of Yale’s librarian-censors, the presence of an armed Puritan “at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate.” Solution? Cover over the musket with a cowpat of stone—but leave the Indian’s bow and arrow alone!

Actually, it turns out that the removable cowpat of stone was only a stopgap. The outcry against the decision struck a chord with Peter Salovey, Yale’s president. “Such alteration,” he noted, “represents an erasure of history, which is entirely inappropriate at a university.” He’s right about that. But if anyone has mastered the art of saying one thing while doing the opposite it is President Salovey. He spoke against “the erasure of history.” But then, instead of merely altering the image, he announced that Yale would go full Taliban, removing the offending stonework altogether.

In the bad old days, librarians and college presidents were people who sought to protect the past, that vast storehouse of offensive attitudes and behavior that also just so happens to define our common inheritance. In our own more enlightened times, many librarians and college presidents collude in its effacement.

Someone might ask, “Who cares what violence a super-rich bastion of privilege and unaccountability like Yale perpetrates on its patrimony?” Well, we should all care. Institutions like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford are among the chief drivers of the “progressive” hostility to free expression and other politically correct attitudes that have insinuated themselves like a fever-causing virus into the bloodstream of public life. Instead of helping to preserve our common inheritance, they work to subvert it.

Spiriting away stonework in the Ivy League may seem mostly comical. But there is a straight line from those acts of morally righteous intolerance to far less comical examples of puritanical censure.

Consider the case of James Damore, the now former Google engineer who wrote an internal memo describing the company’s cult-like “echo chamber” of political correctness and ham-handed efforts to nurture “diversity” in hiring and promotion. When the memo was publicized, it first precipitated controversy—then it provided Google CEO Sundar Pichai a high horse upon which to perch, declare Damore’s memo “offensive and not OK,” and then fire him. For what? For expressing his opinion in a company discussion forum designed to encourage free expression!

In one way, there was nothing new about Google’s actions. Large companies have always tended to be bastions of conformity. Decades ago, everyone at IBM had to wear a white shirt and was strongly encouraged to espouse conservative social values. Today, everyone in Silicon Valley has to subscribe to the ninety-five theses of the social justice warrior’s creed, beginning with certain dogmas about race, fossil fuels, sexuality, and the essential lovableness of jihadist Muslims. If you are at Google and dissent from this orthodoxy, you will soon find yourself not at Google.

***The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was a godsend to the self-appointed hate police. In its immediate aftermath, companies around the country took pains to declare their rejection of “hate,” and ProPublica, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other leftish thugs expanded their witch hunts beyond such targets as the “Daily Stormer”—a vile anti-Semitic website. After Charlottesville, for example, “Jihad Watch”—hardly a hate group website—was dropped by PayPal until a public outcry induced PayPal to reverse its decision. There have been other such casualties, and there will be many more.

Let’s step back and ask ourselves what motivates the left-wing virtuecrats attempting to enforce their new regime of political correctness. Christian theologians tell us that the visio beatifica—the beatific vision of God—is the highest pleasure known to man. Alas, that communion is granted to very few in this life. For the common run of mankind, I suspect, the highest earthly pleasure is self-righteous moral infatuation.

Like a heartbeat, moral infatuation has a systolic and diastolic phase. In the systolic phase, there is an abrupt contraction of sputtering indignation: fury, outrage, high horses everywhere. Then there is the gratifying period of recovery: the warm bath of self-satisfaction, set like a jelly in a communal ecstasy of unanchored virtue signaling.

The communal element is key. While individuals may experience and enjoy moral infatuation, the overall effect is greatly magnified when shared. Consider the mass ecstasy that at first accompanied Maximilien Robespierre’s effort to establish a Republic of Virtue during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror in 1793.

The response to Donald Trump’s comments about the murderous violence that erupted in Charlottesville provides another vivid example. Trump’s chief crime was to have suggested that there was “blame on both sides” as well as “good people” on both sides of the protest. I am not sure there was an abundance of “good people” on either side of the divide that day, although Trump’s main point was to distinguish between lawful protest and hate-fueled violence. But forget about distinctions. The paroxysms of rage that greeted Trump were a marvel to behold, as infectious as they were unbounded. One prominent commentator spoke for the multitude when he described Trump’s response as a “moral disgrace.”

I didn’t think so, but then I thought that the President was correct when he suggested that the alt-Left is just as much a problem as the alt-Right. Indeed, if we needed to compare the degree of iniquity of the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners, on the one hand, and Antifa and its fellow travelers on the other, I am not at all sure which would come out the worse. Real Nazis—the kind that popped up like mushrooms in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s—are scary. But American neo-Nazis? They are a tiny bunch of pathetic losers. The Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group with millions of members in its earlier incarnations. Now it too is a tiny bunch—5,000 or 6,000 by most estimates—of impotent malcontents.

Antifa, on the other hand, has brought its racialist brand of violent protest to campuses and demonstrations around the country: smashing heads as well as property. I suspect that paid-up, full-time members of the group are few, but the ideology of identity politics that they feed upon is a gruesome specialty of the higher education establishment today.

I also thought that the President was right to ask where the erasure of history would end. At Charlottesville it was a statue of Robert E. Lee. But why stop there? Why not erase the entire history of the Confederacy? There are apparently some 1,500 monuments and memorials to the Confederacy in public spaces across the United States. According to one study, most of them were commissioned by Southern women, “in the hope of preserving a positive vision of antebellum life.” A noble aspiration, inasmuch as the country had recently fought a civil war that devastated the South and left more than 700,000 Americans dead. These memorials were part of an effort to knit the broken country back together. Obliterating them would also be an attack on the effort of reconciliation.

And what about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? They both owned slaves, as did 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. What about them? To listen to many race peddlers these days, you would think they regarded George Orwell’s warning in 1984 as a how-to manual: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified,” Orwell wrote,

every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.

Plato was right when he said that politicians are essentially rhetoricians. Rhetoric succeeds or fails not because of its logic or intellectual substance, but on the question of its emotional appeal. By that standard, I’d say that Donald Trump, though often rhetorically effective, missed an important rhetorical opportunity at Charlottesville. He didn’t understand that the politically correct dispensation that rules academia, the media, the Democratic Party, and large swathes of the corporate world requires a certain ritual homage to be paid to its reigning pieties about “racism” in America.

Doubtless there are things to criticize about Donald Trump. But being racist isn’t among them. What infuriates his critics—but at the same time affords them so many opportunities to bathe in the gratifying fluid of their putative moral superiority—is that Trump refuses to collude in the destructive, politically correct charade according to which “racism” is the nearly ubiquitous cardinal sin of white America. He is having none of that, and his refusal to go along with the attempted moral blackmail is driving his critics to a fever pitch. They scream “racism” but, unlike other politicians, Trump refuses to cower in the corner whimpering. That he goes against their script infuriates them.

Back in 1965, the Frankfurt School Marxist Herbert Marcuse wrote an essay called “Repressive Tolerance.” It is a totalitarian classic. Marcuse distinguished between two kinds of tolerance. First, there is what he called “bad” or “false” tolerance. This is the sort of tolerance that most of us would call “true” tolerance, the sort of thing your parents taught you and that undergirds liberal democracy. Second, there is what Marcuse calls “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

So here we are. The old idea of tolerance was summed up in such chestnuts as, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The new dispensation is: “I disapprove of what you say, therefore you may not say it.”

The Marxist-tinged ideology of the 1960s has had a few decades to marinate the beneficiaries of our free-market society, steeping them in the toxic nostrums that masquerade as moral imperatives in our colleges and universities. Today we find the graduates of those institutions manipulating the fundamental levers of political and corporate power.

The monument controversy shows the susceptibility of “liberating tolerance” to fanaticism. And it reminds us that in the great battle between the partisans of freedom and the inebriates of virtue, freedom is ultimately negotiable—until it rouses itself to fight back. At stake is nothing less than the survival of our common history.

Advertisements

February 13, 2019

The Return of Ancient Prejudices, Victor Davis Hanson, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:38 pm

The Return of Ancient Prejudices

Sen. Kamala Harris speaks during Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, September 4, 2018. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

This time, the bias is more subtle, and it can be harder to address than traditional racism against non-white populations.In the latter half of the 19th century and early in the 20th century, as Catholic immigrants poured in from Ireland and eastern Europe, an anti-Catholic wave spread over a mostly Protestant United States. The majority slur then was that Catholic newcomers’ first loyalty would be to “Rome,” not the U.S.

Anti-Semitism grew even more deeply rooted, marked by Ivy League quotas on Jewish applicants and exclusionary clauses against Jews in clubs and neighborhoods. It was no accident that the Ku Klux Klan often targeted Catholics and Jews as well as African Americans.

In the late 19th century, with the influx of Japanese and Chinese immigrants, there arose the “yellow peril” scare, a racist distrust of supposedly workaholic automatons and unassimilable immigrants whose first loyalty was to their close-knit Asian communities and homelands, not the U.S.

Most of these injustices grew from both original prejudices (as evidenced by slavery) and fears of demographic change. An original population that was mostly British, Protestant, and white gradually was augmented by people who were not northern European, often Catholic, and increasingly non-white.

The stereotyped hatreds were battled by the melting-pot forces of assimilation, integration, and intermarriage. Civil-rights legislation and broad education programs gradually convinced the country to judge all Americans on the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins or their religious beliefs. And over the last half century, the effort to end institutional bias against African Americans largely succeeded.

But recently, other ancient prejudices have been insidiously returning. And this time, the bias is more subtle, and it can be harder to address than traditional racism against non-white populations. The new venom, for example, is often spread by left-wing groups that claim victim status themselves and thus, by their logic, should not be seen as victimizers.

NOW WATCH: ‘Sen. Amy Klobuchar Reportedly Set to Announce Presidential Run’

Volume 0%
Rewind 10 Seconds
Next Up
Live
00:25
00:00
00:25
Closed Captions
Settings
Fullscreen
Watch: 0:25
Sen. Amy Klobuchar Reportedly Set to Announce Presidential Run

Progressive senators such as Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), and Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) have attacked judicial nominees on grounds that they are Catholic, apparently because the Catholic Church and its affiliates officially disprove of abortion and gay marriage.

Feinstein complained that one appeals-court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, was a dubious choice because “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Hirono claimed that judicial nominee Brian Buescher was suspect because the Knights of Columbus held “extreme positions.” Harris whined that the public-service Catholic organization was an “all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.”

Recently, a number of newly elected congressional representatives — Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib — have voiced virulent anti-Israel bias that came off as anti-Semitic. Representative Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) compared Jewish settlers on the West Bank to “termites.” CNN pundit Marc Lamont Hill (who has since been fired) parroted the Hamas eliminationist slogan “Palestine from the river to the sea,” which is code for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Universities feel free to discriminate against Asian Americans because their hard work and excellent preparation often leads to superb grades, test scores, and application credentials. In other words, Asian Americans supposedly distort progressive agendas of proportional representation, disparate impact, and diversity by overachieving and being overqualified — purportedly robbing spots from other minority applicants.

Asian-American achievement also disproves the old canard that prejudice makes it impossible to find parity in the United States.

What is behind the rebirth of these old prejudices? In short, new, evolving prejudices.

First, America seemingly no longer believes in striving to achieve a gender-blind, racially and religiously mixed society, but instead is becoming a nation in which tribal identity trumps all other considerations.

Second, such tribal identities are not considered to be equal. Doctrinaire identity politics is predicated on distancing itself from white males, Christians, and other groups who traditionally have achieved professional success and therefore enjoyed inordinate “privilege.”

Third, purported victims insist that they themselves cannot be victimizers. So, they are freer to discriminate and stereotype to advance their careers or political interests on the basis of anything they find antithetical to their own ideologies.

The Democratic senators who questioned the morality of judicial nominees’ religion likely would not treat a Muslim nominee in the same manner — although one could make the argument that contemporary Islam has had as many or more problems with gender equity than Western Catholicism has.

Calling any other ethnic group other than Jews “termites” might have earned Representative Johnson congressional censure. And if professional football and basketball franchises turned away talented but “over-represented” African-American athletes to ensure greater diversity in the same manner that universities now systematically discriminate against Asian Americans, there would be a national outcry.

What once helped to diminish ancient prejudices was the American creed that no one had a right to discriminate against fellow citizens on the basis of race, gender, class, or religion.

And what fuels the return of American bias is the new idea that citizens can disparage or discriminate against other groups if they claim victim status and do so for purportedly noble purposes.

The more attitudes and agendas may change, the more they stay the same.

February 12, 2019

Progressives Bearing Gifts, by Victor Davis Hanson, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:34 pm

Progressives Bearing Gifts

By | February 10th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Donald Trump in 2016 did not only run against the planted rumors of the fake Steele dossier, 90 percent negative media coverage, his own boisterous past, and the “Access Hollywood” tape. He also was campaigning against Hillary Clinton—and the nation’s quarter-century weariness with the Clinton scandals, crimes, money-grubbing, and hypocrisies.

For a quarter of the country, independents especially, a vote for Trump was not a referendum on a Democrat or Republican, or even love or hate for Donald Trump, but rather reflected a “Never Hillary” desire to be done with the very name Clinton.

So, too, in 2020 Trump will not be running only on his own record, or even his person but also against a living and breathing alternative candidate, one that both offers a precise antithetical agenda and displays a concrete personage.

Considering all of that, during the last week, Trump has been given great gifts in a way no one might have imaged just a month ago.

True Lies
Trump in 2020 might have controversially slurred his future Democratic rival as a socialist, radical late-term abortion advocate, open borders chauvinist, a Medicare destroyer who wished to make it free for everyone, or wacko environmentalist intent on banning gas and diesel engines.

Now he won’t have to smear anyone: the Democrats have largely done that to themselves. Policy-wise the 2020 choice will be between Trump’s mostly doctrinaire conservatism, spiced with populist trade and immigration agendas, and what is a now a new Democrat orthodoxy of Bernie Sanders’ adolescent socialism and incoherent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Neverland something or other.

Trump legitimately will be able to say of a 2020 opponent, “Candidate X wants over the next 10 years to junk your present car, to scrap your combine, to stop your jet travel, to ban your cruise ship, to take away your lawn mower and snow blower, to outlaw your snowmobiles and jet skis, to shut down the fracking industry, the heavy equipment manufacturing sector (I doubt there will be a replacement battery-powered Cat D-11), the pipeline and rail business, and to make every homeowner an indebted remodeler, refitting his house while for all his green trouble and expense he still will be paying more for solar and wind-generated electricity.

Trump can legitimately also say to an independent or swing voter, “You may not like my tweets, but you will really won’t like infanticide, a 70 percent income tax, a diluted Medicare for everyone including those who have never paid a dime into the system, open borders, and guaranteed incomes for all.”

In other words, for the all the NeverTrump hysteria over Trump’s “nationalist-populist agenda,” his record so far is so far arguably more Reaganesque than either of the Bush presidencies or what was likely to come from a McCain or Romney Administration.

The Wild Bunch
In contrast, some of the Green New Deal Democrats are self-described socialists and embrace all sorts of positions antithetical to the Democratic traditional base:  anti-Israel, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-firearms, even anti-infant. Or put another way, an independent voter is likely to have more in common policy-wise with a MAGA hat-wearing Trumper at a Midwest rally than with hooded Antifa street protestors or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s latest racialist rant about “Latinos” having some sort of ethnic entitlement to cross the U.S. border illegally.

Trump will also run against real people with established records. For all practical purposes, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has revealed that she was a knave, not just a dunce. For years she has insisted that while she may have been informally self-identified (albeit falsely) as a Native American, she never actively did so for official purposes. Any preference she received was supposedly due to the inferences of institutions and agencies, but not through her own solicitation. Last week we discovered that was all an abject lie—given that her Texas state bar registration card reemerged, with her own handwritten description of her race as “American Indian” (not even the politically correct “Native American”).

“Good ole Joe” Biden is often seen as the Democratic frontrunner, given his five decades in state government, the U.S. Senate and as Barack Obama’s vice president. But about the time of Warren’s meltdown, an old tape resurfaced in which Biden, in defining his opposition to federally mandated school busing, argued for the desirability of racial segregation and why it had enhanced blacks especially—a goofy statement that only emphasized his existing large corpus of past racialist stupidities, from “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” to “They’re going to put y’all back in chains” (The outraged are supposed to want the governor of Virginia to resign over youthful costuming in blackface, but are OK with a likely Democratic nominee for president who flat out once stated that pre-Obama African-American politicos were all but tongue-tied, dense, unkempt and homely?)

Early Biden reminds us why vintage Biden was always a motormouth who, as Obama feared in 2008, at any moment could “say something stupid.” Recall sober and judicious Joe advised George W. Bush in 2008 to go on television in the manner that he thought FDR had done during the Great Depression (FDR was not president in 1929 and there were no commercially available TVs). Lately, Biden on at least two occasions has boasted of wanting to take the sitting president of the United States behind the gym to beat him up.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) perpetually grimaced on television in the congressional gallery as Trump said supposedly controversial things like wishing to close open borders that allow drugs and traffickers into the United States or noting that minority unemployment is at an all-time low. Harris recently went on an anti-Catholic rant while berating a nominee to the federal bench, and already has signed on to the Green New Deal without a clue what such a program would entail. She, too, had a terrible few weeks.

A group of female House members appeared at the Trump State of the Union in suffrage white, to suggest that they were on the veritable barricades as their sisters a century ago. At almost every Trump homily about racial healing, every piety about declining minority unemployment, every vignette about a heroic American, they grimaced, they frowned, they pouted—until Trump mentioned their own achievements in a positive context, at which for the first and only time they cheered. . . for themselves. One reason three-quarters of TV viewers may have approved of Trump’s address is that they no doubt concluded that, compared to such bitterness, Trump was genuinely inspirational.

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) again last week reminded us of his “Spartacus moment” during the Kavanagh hearings, when incoherently cross-examining a judicial nominee and inferring she was biased or worse in not previously hiring gay clerks—while having no idea she had never been a judge in a position to hire any legal clerks at all. On cue, each time Spartacus had offered a platitude about “can’t we all just get along,” it was followed by a partisan slur or polarizing virtue signal.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) likewise seemed bewildered last week. He was flabbergasted at his diminishing novelty that once accrued from being Congress’s only true edgy “socialist.” That label has been considerably diluted lately by all sorts of younger, hipper “Democratic Socialists” recently elected to Congress. And when a picture just emerged of a younger, shirtless Bernie Sanders singing intoxicated Woodie Guthrie songs along with his Soviet buddies during his honeymoon in the USSR in 1988—at a time when Ronald Reagan was still trying to ensure the collapse of that “evil empire” and the liberations of hundreds of millions behind the Iron Curtain—we did not know whether to laugh or cry. Was he a proto-Beto O’Rourke, or even stupider and more dangerous?

As far as Beto O’Rourke, it is one thing to run as a pseudo-Latino against right-wing Ted Cruz, and quite another to do so in an upcoming Democratic primary with a legion of identity politics activists. In a series of bizarre statements, the former Texas congressman seems to be having a proverbial quarter-life crisis, manifested with texting out selfies at the dentist, growing a beard, driving solo across the country, and in Hamlet fashion sort of, sort of not announcing his presidential aspirations by scheduling a protest rally at the border. Like Stacey Abrams of Georgia and Andrew Gillum of Florida, Beto seems famous mainly for receiving hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of free adulatory publicity—and then losing his 2018 race.

The Souls of Celebrities
A lot of rabid Trump haters had bad weeks too. When the Virginia blackface hysteria peaked, it almost seemed that blackface had always been a common Democratic rite of youthful passage. Late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who has made a comeback career out of slamming Trump and Fox News, saw one of his earlier skits resurface. In racist fashion, he had dressed up in blackface and donned a basketball uniform in the manner of African-American NBA star Karl Malone, and then went on supposedly to emulate black patois by speaking mostly gibberish in a caricatured and cruel ungrammatical slang.

Joy Behar, infamous for admitting that fake news epidemics are to be explained by an admirable and universal desire to abort the Trump presidency, also confessed that she too dressed up in blackface in her distant past, but purportedly only as a “beautiful African-American woman”—note the arrogant and condescending subtext of suggesting that her innate beauty can make any costume proud.

Apparently wearing blackface inadvertently had become the new Freudian projectionist key that unlocks the mystery of why so many wealthy white people so loudly accuse innocent others of racism.

Robert de Nirolong ago exhausted the vocabulary in which he would punch, beat up, smash, and box in Trump’s face. But after emerging irate from a divorce court hearing onto the streets of Manhattan, in front of the paparazzi he loudly on his phone screamed at his own limousine driver for not double parking for the actor’s convenience—proof again that progressive lovers of humanity in the concrete can be not so humane.

But Trump’s strangest gift came from Virginia, where its top three Democrat state officials circled off and almost blew each other up in “The Good, Bad, and the Ugly”three-way gunfire.

The Virginia Circus
Governor Ralph Norman started off justifying infanticide in clinical vocabulary, an assurance with which his radical and generous Planned Parenthood donors would be pleased. But then he was caught with college yearbook photos of a Klansman posing by a white buffoonish character in blackface. Northam at once denied, then admitted, next hedged, and finally confirmed the entire story—only to bookend it by admitting that he once upon a long time ago also dressed up in black shoe polish to emulate Michael Jackson (who usually did his best to wear white makeup).

The lying-in-wait Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax, an ascendant African-American Democrat, seemed ready to take over from the sure to be Twitter-lynched Northam. But then his own sudden fame prompted latent accusers to emerge. One, in particular, charged that 15 years ago Fairfax had coerced her, a fellow 2004 Democratic convention goer, to service him with oral intercourse.

Fairfax apparently somehow assumed in the post #MeToo, Brett-Kavanaugh age that he said/she said assault charges of years past required some sort of additional proof, or rather perhaps he thought his own minority and progressive status might trump gender victimization. In any case, he purportedly blurted out to aides on hearing the ancient sexual assault charge voiced, “F—k that bitch”—a most regressive slur.

Third-in-line attorney General Mark Herringhad already raced to virtue signal his disgust with the supposedly racist governor Northam (but was apparently OK with the governor’s calm discussions of infanticide) by calling for his resignation. And then almost immediately Nemesis struck yet again, as Herring confessed that he, too, at 19-years-old had dressed up in a black caricature fashion, emulating the skin color and dress of a black rapper.

Oddly there was some indication that the press and the Democratic Party might have had or should have had, some inkling that their top three Virginia state officials respectively had trafficked either in racist caricatures, could not tell the truth, or were sexual assaulters, but in the past had passed on such rumors in hopes of flipping Virginia blue.

The larger point, however, was simple: a party that non-stop smears Trump as a sexual assaulter and racist seems incapable of dealing with alleged racists and sexual assaulters among its top state officials. Or put more cynically, is there one single liberal Democrat state official in soon to be liberal Virginia who had either not worn youthful blackface or been accused of sexual assault, or could at least tell us what were the post-Kavanaugh rules of due process?

Republicans were wise enough to let progressives play out the entire psychodrama. They allowed social justice warriors to sort out the hierarchies of progressive identity politics, whether #MeToo trumped identity politics, or whether “she must be believed” was now “he must be believed,” or whether due process and statutes of limitations had returned, or whether those who shout loudest “racist!” do so in self-doubt that they themselves suffer from what they accuse.

Donald Trump was lucky in having such a motley crew of enemies. Or were these liberal embarrassments in part due to Trump’s own political cunning in helping to rip off the thin veneerto reveal something quite ugly beneath?

And now? Donald Trump might be in the unique position of being a bit more quiet in order to let his opponents speak for, and thereby reveal even more of, themselves.

February 11, 2019

All Hands: DHS EMP & Cybersecurity Protection and Resilience Guidelines (unclas – general dis.)

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:02 pm

[All Hands Notice: this is an unclassified DHS document and available for unlimited distribution. Because it is posted as a pdf I was unable to download the charts and diagrams that are imbedded in it. For a complete read, please access the folder noted herein and execute the recommended programs to protect yourselves. WSK]

 

SHARES Community,

 

Please see the latest EMP Protection and Resilience Guidelines.  These guidelines are also up on the HSIN website in the Document Library under the folder labeled “EMP”

 

Thank you.

 

SHARES Program Office

National Communications & Coordination Branch (NCC)

The National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC)

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency  (CISA)   

Department of Homeland Security                          

Office:  1-703-235-5329

Email:  nccshares@dhs.gov

AJH (CTR)

UNCLASSIFIED

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection and Resilience Guidelines for Critical Infrastructure and Equipment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 5th, 2019 Version 2.2

 

 

 

Developed by the National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC)   National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center Arlington, Virginia

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 Executive Overview This document provides guidelines to assist federal, state, and local officials and critical infrastructure owners and operators to protect mission essential equipment against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) threats. It was created to help fulfill the Secretary of Homeland Security’s responsibilities to:

• “… provide strategic guidance, promote a national unity of effort, and coordinate the overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure.” [Presidential Policy Directive 21 – Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience] • “… ensure … the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, … to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP {national security/emergency preparedness} communications …” [Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions] • “… be the focal point within the Federal Government for all EMP technical data and studies concerning telecommunications.” [Title 47 Part 215 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)]

These guidelines also respond to the U.S. Congressional EMP Commission’s recommendation that the “Department of Homeland Security should play a leading role in spreading knowledge of the nature of prudent mitigation preparations for EMP attack to mitigate its consequences.” [Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Critical National Infrastructures, page 181, 2008]. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes seriously the findings of this Commission, such as: 

“The critical national infrastructure in the United States faces a present and continuing existential threat from combined-arms warfare, including cyber and manmade electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as well as from natural EMP from a solar superstorm. During the Cold War, the U.S. was primarily concerned about an EMP attack generated by a high-altitude nuclear weapon as a tactic by which the Soviet Union could suppress the U.S. national command authority and the ability to respond to a nuclear attack—and thus negate the deterrence value of assured nuclear retaliation. Within the last decade, newlyarmed adversaries, including North Korea, have been developing the ability and threatening to carry out an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack would give countries that have only a small number of nuclear weapons the ability to cause widespread, long-lasting damage to critical national infrastructures, to the United States itself as a viable country, and to the survival of a majority of its population.” [Assessing the Threat from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), Executive Report, July 2017]

 

There are four EMP Protection Levels defined herein, as outlined in Table 1. These levels were initially developed at the request of the federal Continuity Communications Managers Group (CCMG), but are applicable to any organization that desires to protect its electronics and critical infrastructures. For additional background on EMP, a set of reports can be found at “www.firstempcommission.org“ that includes information about high-altitude EMP (HEMP), Source Region EMP (SREMP), and Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) EMP.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Table 1. Four EMP Protection Levels for Infrastructure and Equipment Level 1: Lowest cost; longer mission outages permitted Level 2:  Only hours of mission outages are permitted Level 3:  Only minutes of mission outages are permitted Level 4:  Only seconds of mission outages permitted • Unplug power, data, and antenna lines from spare equipment where feasible.  • Turn off equipment that cannot be unplugged and is not actively being used. • Use at least a lightning rated surge protection device (SPD) on power cords, antenna lines, and data cables; maintain spare SPDs. • Have either EMP protected backup power or a generation source that is not connected to the grid with one (1) week of on-site fuel or equivalent (e.g., renewable source). • Wrap spare electronics with aluminum foil or put in Faraday containers. • Use priority phone services like GETS, WPS (for cell phones), and TSP; join SHARES if applicable (see Appendix C). • Consider land mobile radios with standalone capabilities, HF radios, and FirstNet. • Store one week of food, water, and other supplies for personnel.  • Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to receive Emergency Alerts. In addition to Level 1 …  • Use EMP-rated SPDs on power cords, antenna lines, and data cables to protect critical equipment. • Use on-line/doubleconversion uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) or a high quality line interactive UPS.  • Use fiber optic cables (with no metal); otherwise use shielded cables, ferrites, and SPDs. Note: shielded racks, rooms or facilities may be more cost-effective than hardening numerous cables. • Use EMP protected backup power that is not vulnerable to EMP coupled through the power grid.   • Implement EMP protected, high frequency (HF) voice and email for longdistance communications. • Consider geosynchronous (GEO) orbit satellite services, like BGAN. Avoid lowearth orbit (LEO) satellite services. Use terminals that are EMP resilient. • Consider shortwave radio for situational awareness. In addition to Level 2 … • Use International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EMP and IEMI protection standards (IEC SC 77C series, see Appendix F).  • Shielding should be 30+ dB of protection through 10 GHz.  • Use EMP shielded racks, rooms, or facilities to protect critical computers, data centers, phone switches, industrial and substation controls and other electronics.  • Use “Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures” from EMP Commission for grid and undersea cable protection planning. Use 85 V/km for CONUS E3 threat. • Use EMP tested SPDs and equipment.  • Institute IEC level hardness maintenance & surveillance (HM/HS).  • Have 30 days of EMP protected power/fuel.  • Store 30 days of food, water, and critical supplies and spares. • Use time-urgent EMP resilient comms, like X, Ku and Ka satellite, and either HF groundwave or Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) HF. In addition to Level 3 … • Use Military EMP Standards (like MILSTD-188-125-1 and MIL-HDBK-423), and 80+ dB hardening through 10 GHz.  • Use EMP shielding in rooms, racks, and buildings as needed to protect critical equipment.  • Use EMP protected double-door entryways.  • Validate per Military guidelines, like Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 01-2-620 HEMP. • Have 30+ days of Military Standard protected power and fuel, plus alternate generation source (renewables preferred).   • Consider double surge protection on critical external lines entering EMP protected areas. • Consider using communications systems/networks that are designed to meet Military EMP standards, like: Advanced EHF (AEHF) satellite, EMP protected fiber optic networks, and EMP protected radios.   • Institute ongoing Military Standard HM/HS programs.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Level 1 begins with low-cost methods and best practices to help protect critical infrastructure from severe damage. An important aspect of Level 1 protection is ensuring that personnel have backup power and the food, water, and other essential supplies needed to operate and maintain their mission-critical systems, given that normal services and supply chains are likely to be disrupted in some reasonable scenarios for a week (or longer).  

 

Level 2 guidelines are based on using EMP-capable filters and surge arresters on power cords, antenna lines, and data cables, as well as installing fiber optics and ferrites, where possible, to protect critical equipment. These will mitigate the majority of EMP equipment vulnerabilities when EMP facility shielding is not feasible and are expected to be the most cost-effective approach for hardening limited equipment in facilities. Levels 1 and 2 are for organizations where days or hours of mission interruptions can be tolerated and for which “cost to harden” is a critical factor.  

 

Level 3 guidelines are appropriate for organizations, facilities, and systems that cannot tolerate more than a few minutes of mission outage due to EMP, in order to effectively protect life, health, and security. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EMP and IEMI protection standards (IEC SC 77C series, see Appendix F), serve as the foundation for planning and protecting critical infrastructures and equipment that are in this category. For EMP Protection Levels 3 (and 4), electromagnetically shielded racks and rooms are used to prevent electromagnetic (EM) fields and currents from reaching mission critical equipment. At Level 3, shielding against high frequency EMP should provide at least 30 dB of protection through 10 GHz (in other words, the EMP field strength should be attenuated by a factor of at least 97% by the shielding). 

 

Level 4 guidelines are for organizations/missions/systems that cannot tolerate more than a few seconds of outage and where immediate life and safety are at stake. U.S. Military EMP Standards supporting critical and time-urgent command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence (C4I) missions serve as the foundation for planning and protecting critical infrastructures and equipment in this category. Examples of missions where this apply are nuclear command and control and Presidential conferencing. However, this level of protection may also be appropriate for non-military related systems and missions, such as nuclear power plant controls, medical lifesupport systems, and time-critical air traffic control functions. At Level 4, shielding against high frequency EMP should provide at least 80 dB of protection through 10 GHz (in other words, the EMP field strength should be attenuated by a factor of at least 99.99% by the shielding).  

 

Levels 3 and 4 also use hardness maintenance and hardness surveillance (HM/HS) programs to verify that the EMP shields are effective and that the EMP barrier’s integrity is maintained over the life cycle of the system. A properly designed barrier with penetration protection for all power, data and antenna cables will make equipment behind it safe from wide variations of external EM fields, including HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI threats. Level 3 allows the use of commercial standards for designing protection and performing HM/HS in a more cost-effective manner compared to Level 4. 

 

Given the growing risks associated with EMP and IEMI related threats, it is hoped that organizations that support essential functions will quickly achieve at least a Level 1 or 2 capability. The costs of achieving Level 3 or 4 protection are small when compared to the life and mission risks averted. For example, Level 3 protection can be achieved for many sites for far less than 1% of the system cost. Even the most expensive Level 4 protections are only expected to cost 1% to 5% of overall new system costs, if planned from the onset versus retrofitted into existing systems.  

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 Acknowledgements and Authors The Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection Guidelines were initially developed by Dr. George H. Baker, based on his previous work where he led the Department of Defense program to develop EMP protection standards (such as MIL-STD-188-125, MIL-HDBK-423, and MIL-STD-2169B) while at the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). He is currently serving as a consultant to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is Professor Emeritus of Applied Science, James Madison University (JMU). He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Resilient Societies, the Board of Advisors for the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security, the JMU Research and Public Service Advisory Board, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation GMD Task Force. From 2002-2009 and again from 2016-2017, he also served as a Senior Scientist to the Congressional EMP Commission.   

 

A second principal author is Dr. William A. Radasky. Dr. Radasky started his career as a research engineer at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL) in 1968 working on the theory of the EMP.  In 1984 he founded Metatech Corporation (www.metatechcorp.com) in Goleta, California where he is currently President and Managing Engineer. He has published over 500 technical papers, reports and articles dealing with electromagnetic interference (EMI) and protection. In 1989, Dr. Radasky began his volunteer work with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) developing reports and standards to protect commercial equipment and systems against the threats of high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) and Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI). He led the development of 22 publications as Chairman of IEC SC 77C since 1991. In addition, he helped to coordinate all of the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) work of the IEC as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on EMC from 1996 to 2008. He also organized and presented many workshops for the IEC dealing with EMC in general and IEMI. In 2004 he received the Lord Kelvin Award from the IEC for exceptional contributions to international standardization. This award is presented annually to one individual out of 15,000 active participants within the IEC.   

 

Dr. Radasky and his team of EMP experts developed the Electromagnetic Assessment Tool (EMAT) for the Department of Homeland Security. The EMAT and the related Infrastructure Mapping Tool (IMT) were used to develop many of the graphics and assessments in this report.

 

Dr. James L. Gilbert, who serves as the Chief Scientist at Metatech, has helped to lead Metatech’s efforts in the development and use of analytic and numerical techniques to model electromagnetic and plasma effects produced by nuclear and natural radiation. Much of his work over the last 45+ years has dealt with the protection of electronic systems from the EMP effects produced by nuclear explosions. He is the principal developer of the Source Region EMP (SREMPTAPS) and EMAT codes and has served as a consultant to DHS in modeling solar and EMP effects for many years.   

 

Many others have worked to develop the assessments and information used in this document, most notably: Rob Benish and Mark Jones of Jacobs Technology Inc. (past and current editorial support), Dr. Edward Savage of Metatech, Dr. Don Morris-Jones, Mr. Seth Sobel and Mr. Matthew Jackson (who developed many of the EMAT outputs used herein), Mr. Steven Karty (technical contributor), Mr. Bronius Cikotas (a leader in the EMP community for decades and mentor to Dr. Baker prior to passing away in 2014), and Kevin Briggs (the DHS/NCC Project Officer and Principal Editor for this report). Questions on this report should be sent to: Kevin.Briggs@hq.dhs.gov. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 Table of Contents Executive Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii Acknowledgements and Authors ……………………………………………………………………………………………. v List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vii List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix Document Change History …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. x 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1. Document Purpose and Audience ………………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2. Scope ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 1.3. HEMP and GMD Characteristics …………………………………………………………………………… 5 1.4. HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks……………………………………………………………………………. 12 2. EMP PROTECTION AND RESILIENCE CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………… 25 2.1. Prioritizing EMP Mitigation Efforts ……………………………………………………………………… 25 2.2. IEC Technical Design Standards ………………………………………………………………………….. 26 2.3. Surge Protective Device (SPD) Selection ……………………………………………………………… 29 2.4. Use of Common Building Materials to Increase EMP Shielding ………………………………. 31 3. LEVEL 1 EMP GUIDELINES …………………………………………………………………………….. 34 4. LEVEL 2 EMP GUIDELINES …………………………………………………………………………….. 36 5. LEVEL 3 EMP GUIDELINES …………………………………………………………………………….. 41 Calculated Level 3 Mitigation Effects …………………………………………………………………………….. 42 6. LEVEL 4 EMP GUIDELINES …………………………………………………………………………….. 45 7. HEMP MODEL MITIGATION RESULTS ……………………………………………………………… 65 7.1. Model Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65 7.2. Model Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66 8. NEXT STEPS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70 Appendix A. EMP PROTECTION TEST AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ………………………. A-1 Appendix B. EMP PROTECTION VENDORS AND SERVICES ………………………………….. B-1 Appendix C. PRIORITY SERVICES (GETS, WPS, FIRSTNET, TSP, AND SHARES) …………. C-1 Appendix D. EXCERPTS FROM 2017 BRIEF TO INFRAGARD SUMMIT ……………………. D-1 Appendix E. ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATION OF DECIBELS …………………………………. E-1 Appendix F. IEC SC 77C BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………. F-1 Appendix G. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………… G-1 Appendix H. EXAMPLE EMP IMPLEMENTATION FOR HF COMMUNICATIONS SITE …. H-1 Appendix I. ENDNOTES ………………………………………………………………………………… I-1

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 List of Figures

 Figure 1. Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324) 4 Figure 2. IEC Standard E1 Waveform (ref. IEC 61000-2-9) 5 Figure 3. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 50 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-25) 7 Figure 4. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 45 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-26) 8 Figure 5. Normalized E3 Heave E field waveform from the 150 km burst height scenario 9 Figure 6. Normalized E peak contour pattern from the 150 km burst case 10 Figure 7. B-dot Magnetic Field Peak contour pattern from a 300 km burst case (from EMAT) 10 Figure 8. Frequency ranges of Lightning, HEMP, and IEMI  12 Figure 9. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 100 kT HEMP 13 Figure 10. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 30 kT HEMP 14 Figure 11. HEMP picture from the Fishbowl Starfish Prime at 0 to 15 seconds. 15 Figure 12. Generation of Source Region EMP (SREMP) from a ground burst 17 Figure 13. Potential 10 kT SREMP disruption of AC/DC adapters 18 Figure 14. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to FM Radio Transmission 19 Figure 15. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to Cellular Handsets 19 Figure 16. Typical IEMI interaction of radiated fields 22 Figure 17. DIEHL Munitions damped sine IEMI generator 23 Figure 18. Laboratory hyperband pulse generator used in Russia 23 Figure 19. RADAN 303B hyperband generator used in Sweden 23 Figure 20. High intensity JOLT hyperband generator used in the United States 24 Figure 21. Effect of Building Materials on EMP Attenuation 32 Figure 22. Organization of the current IEC SC 77C publications 41 Figure 23. Protective effects on cordless telephones with recommended 30 dB shielding 43 Figure 24. Protective effects on a 100’ Ethernet cable with recommended 30 dB shielding 44 Figure 25. Protective effects on a Plain Old Telephone Service Line with 30 dB shielding 44 Figure 26. Low-risk EMP barrier protection for facilities (per MIL-STD-188-125-1) 47 Figure 27. Typical cable POE protection design 49 Figure 28. Commercial electric power POE protection 50 Figure 29. Power line POE protection using a motor-generator set 51 Figure 30. Entryway  using two doors separated by a WBC  51

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Figure 31. Sample door with gaskets protecting against EMP threats 52 Figure 32. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) piping POE protective design for E1 HEMP 53 Figure 33. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff ventilation POE protective design for E1 HEMP  54 Figure 34. Shield barrier earth electrode system 55 Figure 35. Example receiver protector unit diagram. 58 Figure 36. Special protective volume for piping POE for E1 HEMP 60 Figure 37. Special protective volume for electrical equipment 60 Figure 38. Global barrier vs. box-level protection 62 Figure 39. Box-level hardening techniques 63 Figure 40. EMP protected conduit 64 Figure 41. Potential upset/damage of equipment connected to 100’ Ethernet cable with 0 dB protection 67 Figure 42. Reduced damage with 10 dB protection to 100’ Ethernet cable connected equipment 67 Figure 43. Localized damage only with 20 dB protection with 100’ Ethernet cable 67 Figure 44. No damage with 100’ Ethernet cable and 30 dB protection 67 Figure 45. Devastating POTS telephone damage with 0 dB protection 68 Figure 46. Significantly reduced damage with  10 dB protection 68 Figure 47. No POTS telephone damage with 20 dB protection 68 Figure 48. No POTS telephone damage with 30 dB protection 68 Figure 49. Devastating cordless telephone AC/DC adapter damage with 0 dB protection 69 Figure 50. Significantly reduced damage, but still huge with 10 dB protection 69 Figure 51. Only localized damage to cordless telephones with 20 dB protection 69 Figure 52. No cordless telephone damage with 30 dB protection 69

 Figure A-1. HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement A-4

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 List of Tables

 Table 1. Four EMP Protection Levels for Infrastructure and Equipment iii Table 2. E3 Heave Electric Field Strengths in V/km 9 Table 3. HEMP and GMD Comparison 11 Table 4. Some Effects of High Altitude Nuclear Detonations on Radio Systems 16 Table 5. Source Region EMP Damage and Upset Planning Factors 20 Table 6. Comparisons between IEMI threats and E1 HEMP 24 Table 7. Considerations for prioritizing infrastructures for EMP Protection 26 Table 8. EMP Induced Surges on Conductors  29 Table 9. Building shielding “rules of thumb” for E1 HEMP 33 Table 10. HEMP Specifications for Cable Runs Between Two Protected Areas 63 Table 11. Modeling Parameters Used to Calculate HEMP Damage 65 Table 12. Example HEMP Model Damage and Upset Mitigation Results 66

 Table A-1. Injected Pulse Characteristics A-1 Table A-2. Residual internal stress limits for classes of electrical POEs A-2 Table A-3. Injected pulse characteristics and residual internal stress limits for antenna POE A-3 Table E-1. Explanation of Decibel (dB) E-4 Table H-1. Level 1 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs H-2 Table H-2. Level 2 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs H-3 Table H-3. Level 3 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs H-5 Table H-4. General, Non-HF Specific EMP Requirements for Levels 1-3 H-7

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED    

 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 Document Change History This table identifies the major changes to the NCC’s EMP Protection Guidelines since 2016. While the descriptive “long title” of this document has changed several times since Version 1.0 of the original EMP Protection Guidelines (9 October 2014), this short title, EMP Protection Guidelines, has stayed consistent.

 

Date Version  # Change Description

12/22/2016 1.0

Initial release of the EMP Protection and Restoration Guidelines for Equipment and Facilities to the Federal Continuity Community Managers Group, FBI InfraGard EMP SIG Community, Appendix B companies, the reestablished Congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, and others. This document replaced and extensively revised the earlier EMP Protection Guidelines for Equipment, Facilities, and Data Centers, Version 6.0, 11 May 2015. 

11/14/2018 2.0

Changed title to Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection and Resilience Guidelines for Critical Infrastructure and Equipment. Additional sections were created including an Executive Overview, a Document Purpose, a Problem Background, a Scope, an EMP Protection and Resilience Considerations section, and information about FirstNet.

1/16/2019  2.1

Added or substantially changed several sections, such as: (i) Executive Overview (modifications primarily to Table 1), (ii) HEMP Characteristics (added), (iii) HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks (previously just covered the Problem Background), (iv) Prioritizing EMP Mitigation Efforts (added), (v) Use of Common Building Materials to Increase EMP Shielding (added), and (vi) HEMP Model Mitigation Results (overhauled). Made a number of editorial and consistency improvements. In the appendices, added Appendix D “Excerpts from 2017 brief to InfraGard Summit”, included additional vendor information, and updated the FirstNet subsection in Appendix C.

2/5/2019 2.2

Revised the Executive Overview and Acknowledgments and Authors section. Added information on IEMI risks and threats. Added Surge Protection Device guidelines for each level. Added Appendix H: Example EMP Implementation for HF Communication Site.       

 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Document Purpose and Audience This document was initially developed to respond to: (1) a request by the federal Continuity Communications Managers Group (CCMG) for guidelines to help protect critical communications infrastructures against an EMP attack and (2) as part of the responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the Executive Agent for the legacy National Communications System (NCS), as fulfilled by the National Coordinating Center for Communications, under Title 47 Part 215 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).1 

 

The purpose of these updated guidelines is to help federal, state, and local officials and critical infrastructure owners and operators to protect essential equipment against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) threats. It was created to help fulfill the Secretary of Homeland Security’s responsibilities to:

• “… provide strategic guidance, promote a national unity of effort, and coordinate the overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure.” [Presidential Policy Directive 21 – Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience] • “… ensure … the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, … to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP {national security/emergency preparedness} communications …” [Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions] • “… be the focal point within the Federal Government for all EMP technical data and studies concerning telecommunications.” [Title 47 Part 215 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)]

These guidelines also respond to the U.S. Congressional EMP Commission’s recommendation that the “Department of Homeland Security should play a leading role in spreading knowledge of the nature of prudent mitigation preparations for EMP attack to mitigate its consequences.” [Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Critical National Infrastructures, 2008]. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes seriously the findings of this Commission, such as the following information released by the Department of Defense on 8 May 2018, from the Commission’s “Assessing the Threat from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Executive Report”: 

“The critical national infrastructure in the United States faces a present and continuing existential threat from combined-arms warfare, including cyber and manmade electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as well as from natural EMP from a solar superstorm. During the Cold War, the U.S. was primarily concerned about an EMP attack generated by a high-altitude nuclear weapon as a tactic by which the Soviet Union could suppress the U.S. national command authority and the ability to respond to a nuclear attack—and thus negate the deterrence value of assured nuclear retaliation. Within the last decade, newlyarmed adversaries, including North Korea, have been developing the ability and threatening to carry out an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack would give countries that have only a small number of nuclear weapons the ability to cause

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

widespread, long-lasting damage to critical national infrastructures, to the United States itself as a viable country, and to the survival of a majority of its population.” [Assessing the Threat from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), Executive Report, July 2017]

 

Finally, this document comports with the DHS “Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland against Threats of Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances”, issued on October 9th of 2018, which states: 

 

Extreme electromagnetic incidents caused by an intentional electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack or a naturally occurring geomagnetic disturbance (GMD, also referred to as “space weather”) could damage significant portions of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, including the electrical grid, communications equipment, water and wastewater systems, and transportation modes. The impacts are likely to cascade, initially compromising one or more critical infrastructure sectors, spilling over into additional sectors, and expanding beyond the initial geographic regions.

 

EMPs are associated with intentional attacks using high-altitude nuclear detonations, specialized conventional munitions, or non-nuclear directed energy devices. Effects vary in scale from highly local to regional to continental, depending upon the specific characteristics of the weapon and the attack profile. High-altitude electromagnetic pulse attacks (HEMP) using nuclear weapons are of most concern because they may permanently damage or disable large sections of the national electric grid and other critical infrastructure control systems.

 

Similarly, extreme geomagnetic disturbances associated with solar coronal mass ejections (when plasma from the sun, with its embedded magnetic field, arrives at Earth) may cause widespread and long-lasting damage to electric power systems, satellites, electronic navigation systems, and undersea cables. …

 

For these reasons, the potential severity of both the direct and indirect impacts of an EMP or GMD incident compels our national attention. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been actively analyzing the risk of the EMP-GMD problem set since its inception. The Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland Against Threats of Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances (hereafter referred to as the “DHS  Strategy”) represents the Department’s first articulation of a holistic, long-term, partnership-based approach to confronting this challenge. 

 

These guidelines provide recommendations to help protect critical electronic infrastructure based upon their mission importance from the following three EMP types: 

 

(1) High-altitude EMP (HEMP), from a nuclear detonation typically occurring 15 or more miles above the Earth’s surface; (2) Source Region EMP (SREMP), created when a nuclear weapon detonates at lower altitudes, especially when the detonation is at or near the surface of the earth; (3) Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI), from nearby sources such as an Electromagnetic (EM) weapon (also known as a Radio Frequency (RF) weapon (RFW)). 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Collectively, these will be called by the general term “EMP” in this document, unless one of the specific EM environments is being discussed. 

 

In addition to making recommendations on how to physically protect electronic equipment from different types of EMP, this document provides guidance on how to help ensure communications and information systems (and their supported missions) can continue to function or be rapidly restored after one or more EMP events. Hence, Appendix C contains information on priority service programs (like GETS, WPS, and TSP) as well as on the SHARES alternate communications service that can be used to support critical missions and to facilitate and coordinate restoration activities. 

 

The document supports the concepts of resiliency and recovery. The intention is to provide different levels of protection that should allow less damage and/or loss of data as one moves to a higher level of protection.  This also should result in shorter outages of the system mission.

 

Lastly, it is worth noting that many of the EMP protection methods presented in these guidelines can also help shield against “tapping” or monitoring telecommunications and IT equipment from the weak EM signals that they emit.

Audience The audience for this document is all governmental and civilian officials and owners and operators of critical infrastructures, particularly those using sensitive electronics for their operations. This includes the 16 critical infrastructure sectors identified under “Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD21): Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience.” PPD-21 advances a national policy to strengthen and maintain secure, functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure in the following specific sectors (see http://www.dhs.gov/cisa/critical-infrastructure-sectors for more information):

 

1. Chemical (DHS is the Sector-Specific Agency (SSA) for the Chemical Sector) 2. Commercial Facilities (DHS is the SSA) 3. Communications (DHS is the SSA) 4. Critical Manufacturing (DHS is the SSA) 5. Dams (DHS is the SSA) 6. Defense Industrial Base (Department of Defense (DOD) is the SSA) 7. Emergency Services (DHS is the SSA) 8. Energy (Department of Energy (DOE) is the SSA) 9. Financial Services (Department of Treasury is the SSA) 10. Food and Agriculture (Department of Agriculture is the SSA) 11. Government Facilities (DHS is the SSA) 12. Healthcare and Public Health (Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the SSA) 13. Information Technology (DHS is the SSA) 14. Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste (DHS is the SSA) 15. Transportation Systems (DHS and the Department of Transportation are the Co-SSAs) 16. Water and Wastewater Systems (Environmental Protection Agency is the SSA)

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

1.2. Scope  This document is focused on EMP related protection and resilience of critical infrastructure and electronic assets, including communications, information technology (IT), and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) equipment. Per the 2017 National Security Strategy, resilience “includes the ability to withstand and recover rapidly from deliberate attacks, accidents, natural disasters, as well as unconventional stresses, shocks and threats to our economy and democratic system.” 2 

 

Following the above definition of resilience, this document covers the below topics for critical infrastructure providers and equipment operators based upon risk management principles:

 

• Protection from EMP damage  • Quick recovery from an EMP related attack • Ability to continue to communicate and operate during an EMP event based upon maximum downtime permitted • Test procedures to evaluate protective EMP measures • Potential vendor EMP protection equipment • Additional EMP related information

 

Route diversity and power resiliency recommendations beyond EMP protection are not covered herein except for a few very high level comments.

 

This report’s main focus is on protecting systems from E1 (early-time) HEMP (shown in Figure 1), the radiated SREMP, and the IEMI. All of these are fast transient EM fields and can induce voltages on cables that can damage and upset unprotected electronics connected to those cables. The E3 (latetime) HEMP, which is also shown in Figure 1, is covered briefly later in the next section. 

 

The E2 (intermediate-time) HEMP component, between 1 µs to 1 second in time or 1 Hz to 1 MHz in frequency, is minimally covered in this report. Taking precautions against E1 will help protect against E2 since the devices and techniques that protect against the quick rise E1 pulses typically protect against the longer E2 pulse as well. Further, the precautions that are used to prevent lightning damage are also useful to protect against E2 damage although the E2 pulse magnitude can be higher than lighting at higher frequencies. Therefore, E2 is not as significant a risk as E1 HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI and so will only be briefly discussed. Figure 1. Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324)

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 5 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

1.3. HEMP and GMD Characteristics  E1 HEMP has a pulse that is 1 nanosecond (ns) to 1 microsecond (µs) in time or 1 MHz to several hundred MHz in frequency as shown in the “Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324)” figure above. Additional technical information on the E1 waveform properties from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is shown in Figure 2 below. 

 

 

Figure 2. IEC Standard E1 Waveform (ref. IEC 61000-2-9)

 

E3 HEMP is similar to a larger version of solar geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) and consists of subHertz pulses lasting up to hundreds of seconds. However, a nuclear E3 pulse can be significantly more intense than a solar storm induced GMD pulse. It is a risk both to the grid and undersea cables. E3 HEMP is discussed in detail in Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) META-R-321 report, and GMD risks to the electric grid are explained in Meta-R-319. Some key quotes from these reports follow, prior to resuming the discussion on E-3 risks and mitigation planning guidelines. 

 

According to ORNL’s META-R-321 report, E3 HEMP has the following characteristics:  “E3 HEMP is also called Magneto-hydrodynamic or MHD EMP as it arises from the motion of the ionized bomb debris and atmosphere relative to the geomagnetic field. It was first noticed in 1958 in the Teak and Orange exoatmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and Operation Argus in the Atlantic the same year, and additional information was obtained in the later exoatmospheric tests of the Fishbowl series, especially the Starfish Prime test in 1962. Analysis of these tests has shown that the E3 electromagnetic environments are produced by two basically different physical mechanisms for bursts, both producing significant threats to electrical systems. 1. The 1-10 second time period is known as the “Blast Wave” 2. The 10-300 second time period is known as the “Heave”

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 6 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

The first of these, designated E3A or Blast Wave, is the expansion of the fireball, expelling the geomagnetic field and creating a magnetic bubble. At later times, the debris in the bubble flows along geomagnetic field lines and heats and ionizes the upper atmosphere, causing it to expand buoyantly and rise. The rising, conducting patch crosses the geomagnetic field lines, causing currents to flow in the patch and producing magnetic fields on the surface of the earth beneath the patch. This is designated E3B or Heave. The two processes occur in different time regimes and have different geographical distributions of the electrical field at the surface of the earth.”

 

According to ORNL’s META-R-319 report, geomagnetic storm induced currents have the following characteristics:  “Geomagnetic storms are created when the Earth’s magnetic field captures ionized particles carried by the solar wind due to coronal mass ejections or coronal holes at the Sun. Although there are different types of disturbances noted at the Earth surface, the disturbances can be characterized as a very slowly varying magnetic field, with rise times as fast as a few seconds, and pulse widths of up to an hour. The rate of change of the magnetic field is a major factor in creating electric fields in the Earth and thereby inducing quasi-dc current flow in the power transmission network. Unlike the HEMP threats, geomagnetic storms are a much more frequent occurrence, which also allows for extensive opportunities to fully benchmark each component of the simulation models and therefore provide greater confidence in the analysis of plausible severe threats, such as the threat posed by an extreme geomagnetic storm scenario. … these types of disturbances could instantly create a loss of over 70 percent of the nation’s electrical service. This could be a blackout several times larger than the previously largest, the North American blackout of 14 August 2003. The most troubling aspect of the analysis is the possibility of an extremely slow pace of restoration from such a large outage and the multiplying effects that could cripple other infrastructures such as water, transportation, and communications due to the prolonged loss of the electric power grid supply. This extended recovery would be due to permanent damage to key power grid components caused by the unique nature of the electromagnetic upset. The recovery could plausibly extend into months in many parts of the impacted regions. Also other space weather environment interactions can lead to loss of, or permanent damage to, satellites, communications, and other infrastructures, as has been widely reported in the space weather community. … Both HEMP and space weather disturbances, however, can have a sudden onset and cover large geographic regions. They therefore cause near-simultaneous, correlated, multipoint failures in power system infrastructures, allowing little or no time for meaningful human interventions that are intended within the framework of the N–1 criterion. This is the situation that triggered the collapse of the Hydro Quebec power grid on 13 March 1989, when their system went from normal conditions to a situation where they sustained seven contingencies (i.e., N–7) in an elapsed time of 57 seconds. The province-wide blackout rapidly followed, with a total elapsed time of 92 seconds from normal conditions to a complete collapse of the grid. For perspective, this occurred at a disturbance intensity of approximately ~480 nT/min over the region. As previously discussed, an examination by Metatech of historically large disturbance intensities indicated that disturbance levels greater than 2000 nT/min have been observed even in contemporary storms on at least three occasions over the past 30 years at geomagnetic latitudes of concern for the North American power grid infrastructure and most

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 7 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

other similar world locations; on August 1972, July 1982, and March 1989. Anecdotal information from older storms suggests that disturbance levels may have reached nearly 5000 nT/min. Both observations and simulations indicate that as the intensity of the disturbance increases, the relative levels of GICs and related power system impacts will also proportionately increase. Under these scenarios, the scale and speed of problems that could occur on exposed power grids will hit system operators unlike anything they have ever experienced or even imagined in their careers. Therefore, as storm environments reach higher intensity levels, it becomes more likely that these events will precipitate widespread blackouts to exposed power grid infrastructures. Continued quote from META-R-319:  For this scenario, the intensity of the disturbance is decreased as it progresses from the eastern to western U.S. The eastern U.S. is exposed to a 4800 nT/min disturbance intensity, while west of the Mississippi, the disturbance intensity decreases to 2400 nT/min. This simulation was also performed for the two highest impact and likeliest latitude locations at 45o and 50 o. … Figure 3-25 [Figure 3 below] provides the outage regions that would be expected for a disturbance occurring at a 50 o latitude, while the regions for a 45o disturbance latitude are shown in Figure 3-26” [Figure 4 that follows].

 

Figure 3. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 50 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-25)

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 8 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 4. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 45 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-26) Note that the areas outlined in black are at greatest risks of collapse; cascading outages are likely. Returning now to the topic of low-frequency nuclear EMP variants, only the E3B form of HEMP will be addressed in some detail in the following paragraphs, as there is a need for guidelines on characterizing the E3 HEAVE threat to the grid and other long-line based infrastructures. The most current guidance on the E3 HEAVE threat is from an EMP Commission report released in 2018.

 

The U.S. EMP Commission published a July 2017 report: “Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures”. In this report, the Commission states: 

 

“… there is a need to have bounding information for the late-time (E3) high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) threat waveform and a ground pattern to study the impact of these types of electromagnetic fields on long lines associated with the critical infrastructures. It is important that this waveform be readily available and useful for those working in the commercial sectors. While the military has developed worst-case HEMP waveforms (E1, E2, and E3) for its purposes, these are not available for commercial use. Therefore, in this report openly available E3 HEMP measurements are evaluated from two high-altitude nuclear tests performed by the Soviet Union in 1962. Using these data waveforms and an understanding of the scaling relationships for the E3 HEMP heave phenomenon, bounding waveforms for commercial applications were developed.  As the E3 HEMP heave field also increases for burst points closer to the geomagnetic equator, the measured results were also evaluated for this parameter. This scaling increases the maximum peak electric field up to 85 V/km for locations in the southern part of the continental U.S., and 102 V/km for locations nearer to the geomagnetic equator, as in Hawaii. The levels in Alaska would be lower at an estimated peak value of 38 V/km …”  [Page 1 of Volume II, Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures]

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 9 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

The following Table 2 is derived from the Conclusions of the above EMP Commission report for use as an unclassified reference for determining risks to critical long-line infrastructures to E3.

 

Table 2. E3 Heave Electric Field Strengths in V/km Scenarios Hawaii (Latitude 22° N) Southern Continental USA (Latitude 35° N)

Alaska (Latitude 65° N)

Altitude: 150 kilometers Yield: 300 kilotons

64 V/km 52 V/km 23 V/km

Altitude: 300 kilometers Yield: 300 kilotons

102 V/km 85 V/km 38 V/km

Note: Assumes uniform ground conductivity of 1 millisiemens per meter (mS/m); estimates the expected maximum E field strength.

 

Figure 5 below (derived from the Conclusions of the subject EMP Commission Report) provides a normalized waveform that can be used when computing the induced currents flowing in power lines (for example, to determine the amount of heating in transformer hot spots, as the time dependence of the currents are important in determining thermal effects).

 

 

Figure 5. Normalized E3 Heave E field waveform from the 150 km burst height scenario

 

Figure 6 that follows provides a normalized E field ground pattern resulting from a 300 kT weapon at 150 kilometers altitude, showing the spatial fall-off from the maximum value. Higher yield bursts could lead to even higher maximum fields, although the peak value tends to saturate as yields increase. Larger yields can increase the spatial extent of the high field, and a 300 km burst altitude with a 300 kT weapon also increases the special extent, as shown in Figure 7 (output from EMAT 3 code). 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 10 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

Figure 6. Normalized E peak contour pattern from the 150 km burst case

 

 

 

Figure 7. B-dot Magnetic Field Peak contour pattern from a 300 km burst case (from EMAT)  

Buffalo

London

Los Angeles

Mexico City

Miami New Orleans

New York Atlantic

Brazil

Canada

Pacific United StatesOahu

10S

0 10N

20N

30N

40N 50N

60N

70N

80N 90N

120W

90W

60W

30W

0

E3B HEMP, Heave Yield= 300.00 kT, HOB= 300.00 km at 40.0000N, 100.0000W

B-dot Peak nT/min pk=2.974E+03

1.000E+00 3.000E+00 1.000E+01 3.000E+01 1.000E+02 3.000E+02 5.000E+02 1.000E+03 1.500E+03 2.000E+03 2.500E+03 3.000E+03

1900 kilometers

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 11 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Geomagnetic Storm History and Comparison of HEMP and GMD As noted in the DHS “Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland against Threats of Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances”:

 

“The strongest geomagnetic storm on record is the Carrington Event of 1859 which electrified telegraph lines. The event caused major outages and disruptions in telegraph networks around the world; currents induced in the lines by the event were strong enough to cause sparks and allow some operators to disconnect their systems from batteries and send messages using only the current induced by the storm.

 

Impacts from the storm were limited given the state of technology at the time; modern society is far more vulnerable to the effects of a significant GMD event due to its reliance on electricity and technology. A more recent significant event occurred in 1989, when a geomagnetic storm collapsed the Hydro-Québec power grid in under two minutes, resulting in the loss of electric power to more than six million people for nine hours in Canada.

 

A Carrington-like event today, which exceeds the magnitude of the 1989 Hydro-Québec event, could even more significantly disrupt and damage electric power grids. A major GMD event could also disrupt radio communications and navigation signals from GPS satellites, and intense events could create significant radiation hazards for astronauts. Due to technological interdependencies, a severe GMD event could create a complex set of cascading effects, including requiring rerouting of air traffic to avoid areas where communication and navigation would be limited by space weather impacts.”

 

Table 3. HEMP and GMD Comparison Attribute HEMP GMD Cause Adversarial threat  Natural hazard  Warning Strategic: unknown  Tactical: none to several minutes  Strategic: 18 to 72 hours  Tactical: 20 to 45 minutes 

Effects

E1: High peak field – quick rise time  E2: Medium peak field  E3: low peak field, but quicker rise time and higher field than for GMD (possibly 3 times higher) 

No comparable E1 wave forms  No comparable E2 wave forms  E3: low peak field – fluctuating magnitude and direction 

Duration

E1: less than a 1 microsecond  E2: less than 10 millisecond  E3 Blast: ~10 seconds  E3 Heave: ~1 – 2 minutes 

No comparable E1 wave forms  No comparable E2 wave forms  E3: hours  

Equipment at Risk

E1: telecommunications, electronics and control systems, relays, lightning arrestors  E2: lightning: power lines and tower structures – “flashover”, telecommunications, electronics, controls systems, transformers.  E3: transformers and protective relays – long run transmission and communication – generator step-up transformers 

E3: transformers and protective relays – long-haul transmission and communications – generator step-up transformers 

Footprint Regional to continental depending on height of burst   Regional to worldwide, depending upon magnitude  Table above adapted from: U.S. Department of Energy, “Electromagnetic Pulse Resilience Action Plan,” p.4 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 12 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

1.4. HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks As mentioned within the Scope section, the protection mechanisms for HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI are very similar, so these are covered together within the document and are discussed further below. From an EMP perspective, the HEMP burst is the most serious due to the potential multi-state to continental extent of impacts. A low altitude SREMP burst could also produce significant EMP damage, but only in a city-wide or regional area, causing equipment upset and damage far beyond the range of blast, shock, and prompt radiation effects. An IEMI attack (for example, using a radio frequency weapon) on a single data center or other electronics dependent targets, such as a grid substation, could cause significant localized or regional infrastructure damage or disruption. The primary protection related difference between these three sources of EMP is that IEMI can occur over a wider range of frequencies, as shown below in Figure 8 (see Wideband and Narrowband).

 

 

Figure 8. Frequency ranges of Lightning, HEMP, and IEMI 3

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 13 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

High-altitude EMP (HEMP) Risks HEMP disruption and damage to critical infrastructures can occur across multiple time zones with one or more nuclear bombs exploded at high altitudes in the near-space region. These high altitude nuclear detonations create Compton currents in the upper atmosphere and radiate HEMP pulses downward. A single nuclear burst 250 miles (400 kilometers [km]) above Kansas could destabilize much, if not most, of the U.S. power grid. Likewise, one HEMP burst over North American could significantly disrupt regional or continental data infrastructures, such as the Internet and our television, radio, phone, and cellular networks. 

 

The HEMP pulses could damage or disrupt a significant portion of the equipment connected to power or data lines, if the connections between the cables and the equipment are unprotected. The primary issue is that cables act as antennas to conduct EMP energy to unprotected equipment. And while small electronics without cables, such as cell phones and land mobile radios, are relatively resilient to EMP, their supporting infrastructures are not. Even without long cables, small devices can be disrupted, particularly if they are turned on and/or charging when the EMP occurs. 

 

An example of the potential disruption areas from E1 HEMP (on equipment connected to 100’ Ethernet cables inside of buildings providing 10 dB of protection) is shown in the figure below. As the figure shows, with a 100 kT burst from a generic UNCLASSIFIED warhead at 400 km altitude over the USA, much of the country’s equipment attached to ~ 100’ long Ethernet cables (in this case, running north to south), if not protected against EMP, could be at risk of damage or upset. 

 

 

Figure 9. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 100 kT HEMP

 

Atlanta

BuffaloChicago

Churchill

Edmonton

Goosebay

Havana

Las Vegas

Mexico City

Miami

Monterrey New Orleans

New York

Omaha

Quebec

San Juan

Seattle

St. John’s

Washington DC

Winnipeg

Atlantic

United States

Bermuda

20N

25N

30N

35N

40N

45N

50N 55N 60N

120W

110W 100W 90W 80W 70W 60W 50W

40W

E1 HEMP, 100′ Ethernet Cable, Up: 5.000 A, Dmg: 10.000 A, 10.00 dB Yield= 100.00 kT, HOB= 400.00 km at 40.0000N, 80.0000W; Tan=2200.8 km N/S Line I Amps pk=3.656E+01 System04

Upset Damage

1000 kilometers

“A nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill millions, perhaps prove fatal to most Americans, by starvation, disease, and societal collapse.”  (William R. Graham, Chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack)

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 14 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

HEMP weapons can be carried by a ballistic missile, a satellite, or a relatively low-cost high-altitude balloon. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs), Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBM), and Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) can create significant HEMP, if armed with nuclear warheads that are designed to detonate above the atmosphere.4 However, even Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs), like SCUDs, and high altitude balloons can be used as weapons that carry a nuclear warhead to create significant regional HEMP. The figure below shows the possible HEMP disruption of north/south oriented Ethernet connected equipment inside of buildings providing 10 dB of shielding, from a lower altitude burst (100 km), with a much lower yield than the previous figure (in this case, a 30 kT generic UNCLASSIFIED warhead), as is possible using a shorter range ballistic missile.  

 

 

 

Figure 10. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 30 kT HEMP

 

The risk associated with a major EMP attack is significant since, as an EMP Commission representative stated, “… many foreign analysts perceive nuclear EMP attack as falling within the category of electronic warfare or information warfare, not nuclear warfare. Indeed, the military doctrines of at least China and Russia appear to define information warfare as embracing a spectrum ranging from computer viruses to nuclear EMP attack.” 5 

Atlanta

BuffaloChicago

Churchill

Edmonton

Goosebay

Havana

Las Vegas

Mexico City

Miami

Monterrey New Orleans

New York

Omaha

Quebec

San Juan

Seattle

St. John’s

Washington DC

Winnipeg

Atlantic

United States

Bermuda

20N

25N

30N

35N

40N

45N

50N 55N 60N

120W

110W 100W 90W 80W 70W 60W 50W

40W

E1 HEMP, 100′ Ethernet Cable, Up: 5.000 A, Dmg: 10.000 A, 10.00 dB Yield= 30.00 kT, HOB= 100.00 km at 40.0000N, 80.0000W; Tan=1121.5 km

N/S Line I Amps pk=8.792E+01 System04

Upset Damage

1000 kilometers

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 15 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Shown on the right is a night time photo from Maui Station of the 1962 Fishbowl Starfish Prime HEMP test, which was conducted about 900 miles from Hawaii.6 The slide below provides information about some infrastructure impacts from the Starfish Prime test and Appendix D has extracts from a DHS briefing (that was presented at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) sponsored InfraGard Summit in 2017) that provides additional background on EMP risks and mitigation.  

 

 

 

 

 

A final set of HEMP-related risks that will be briefly discussed here, that can cause disruptions to long-range radio and satellite communications and navigation, are due to High Altitude Nuclear Effects (HANE). In a similar fashion, large geomagnetic storms can also affect the ionosphere. These communication interruptions can be particularly harmful to longer range wireless communications, such as High Frequency (HF) or satellite. Although this communications interference does not directly harm the infrastructure or equipment, communications resiliency to these distortions of the atmosphere can be a significant problem. See the Table that follows for a summary of some potential HANE impacts on communications (as explained in National Communications System Technical Information Bulletin (NCS TIB) 85-10).

Figure 11. HEMP picture from the Fishbowl Starfish Prime at 0 to 15 seconds.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 16 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Table 4. Some Effects of High Altitude Nuclear Detonations on Radio Systems 

 

Frequency Band Degradation Mechanism

Spatial Extent and Duration of Effects Comments

Very Low Frequency (VLF)  (3 kHz – 30 kHz)

Phase and amplitude changes

• Hundreds to thousands of miles • Minutes to hours

• Ground wave not affected. • Reduces range and quality of signal. • Lowering of sky wave reflection height causes rapid phase changes with slow recovery.  • Significant amplitude degradation also possible.

Low Frequency (LF) (30 kHz – 300 kHz)

Absorption and scattering of sky waves

• Hundreds to thousands of miles • Minutes to hours

• Ground wave not affected. • Negative impact is sensitive to burst location and propagation path.

Medium Frequency (MF) (300 kHz – 3 MHz)

Absorption of sky waves

• Hundreds to thousands of miles • Minutes to hours

• Ground wave not affected. • Could also prevent AM radio reception where signal is weak or transmitter is hundreds of miles away

High Frequency (HF) (3 MHz – 30 MHz)

Absorption, multipath interference, loss of support for F-region reflection (region 150 km – 800 km above sea level)

• Hundreds to thousands of miles • Minutes to hours

• Reduces range and quality of signal. • Could impact HF sky wave, including SHARES and Amateur Radio Operators (AROs). • Daytime absorption is larger than nighttime.

Very High Frequency (VHF)  (30 MHz – 300 MHz)

Absorption, multipath interference

• Few miles to hundreds of miles • Minutes to tens of minutes

• Reduces range and quality of signal. • 99% of EMP energy is found below 100 MHz.

Ultra High Frequency (UHF) (300 MHz – 3 GHz)

Absorption • Few miles to hundreds of miles • Seconds to few minutes

• Could impact lower frequency satellite services. • Only harms line-of-sight (LOS) propagation through highly ionized regions.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 17 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Source Region EMP (SREMP) Significant SREMP is generated when a nuclear detonation occurs on or near the ground. The SREMP travels through the air and can damage or disrupt equipment connected to Ethernet cables, telephone lines, and power cords out to 70 miles or more. Electronic systems not connected to power cords or communications lines, such as cellular phones, are generally resistant to SREMP but become useless for communicating if the infrastructure that supports them is non-functional. 

 

While SREMP is only a secondary reason a terrorist or nation-state adversary would detonate a nuclear weapon, all ground based (at or near surface) nuclear detonations create SREMP of sufficient magnitude to cause infrastructure disruptions. Although the extent of the overall EMP damage is likely much less with SREMP than with HEMP, the solutions are generally applicable to both types of attacks and therefore SREMP is covered along with HEMP in this document.

 

For bursts near the Earth’s surface (burst heights less than 1,000 meters), the phenomenology of SREMP is well understood. The figure that follows illustrates the basic ground burst geometry and SREMP characteristics.  The peak fields occur near the time of the peak prompt gamma ray flux at the observer (retarded time of approximately 10 ns); they are strongest close to the burst and decrease with range. The air becomes highly conducting near the burst, reaching levels of 10 siemens per meter (S/m), which is more conducting than seawater. The Compton current can exceed 1 mega-ampere per square meter, which creates peak electric fields from 1 to 10 million volts per meter (larger fields are generated in the Earth). The prompt ionized source region extends out to a range of 2 – 5 km depending mainly on the device gamma ray yield.

 

 

Figure 12. Generation of Source Region EMP (SREMP) from a ground burst

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 18 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Although the peak early-time SREMP fields are much more intense than HEMP (by up to a factor of 1,000 for some blast-hardened silo systems), the late-time SREMP may be more important for many classes of systems. The neutrons that interact with the air and ground produce gamma rays at later times. The most important interaction is the ground-capture process that produces gamma rays, which leave the Earth’s surface, at retarded times from 0.1 to 100 milliseconds. These gamma rays produce Compton currents, air ionization and conductivity and SREMP fields of a few kV/m, which cover the same time frame. These low-frequency fields (in the kilohertz range) propagate with little attenuation into the Earth to depths of 1 km or more (depending on the electrical characteristics of the soil). These fields also couple readily to long buried cables and can induce currents of 200 kA with pulse widths (and therefore energy) 10 times larger than worst case lightning. In comparison, currents coupled due to early-time (E1) HEMP are no more than 5 kA and 1 kA at later times.

 

During the 1950s to 60s surface burst tests, equipment/cables were damaged by SREMP in over 100 cases at the Nevada Test Site. SREMP can cause long-term regional power outages and can damage electronics in deeply buried structures. SREMP can also cause fires due to wires melting. The figures that follow show the potential disruption zones for: AC/DC adapters, FM radio transmission towers, and cellular handsets due to a simulated 10 kT surface burst in the National Capital Region.  

 

 

 

Figure 13. Potential 10 kT SREMP disruption of AC/DC adapters  

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 19 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

  Figure 14. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to FM Radio Transmission

 

 

Figure 15. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to Cellular Handsets  

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 20 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

The table that follows provides some suggested upset/damage planning guidelines related to SREMP. 

 Table 5. Source Region EMP Damage and Upset Planning Factors  Yield (kT) 10 100 1,000  

 Range to effect in km Effect Threshold and Notes Buried Comms Cable Damage / Upset 21.00 / 26.00 34.91 / 39.98 44.16 / 49.19 100 A / 50 A Short circuit current, assumed to connect with fireball at early times and cable insulation breaks down, 0.001 S/m ground conductivity, effect of branching not included Overhead HV Power line Damage/Upset 65.00 / 85.00 110.05 / 143.00 134.16 / 174.00 1000 A / 500 A Short circuit current, assumed to connect with fireball at early times, 138 kV line used for line parameters, 0.001 S/m ground conductivity, effect of branching not included 0.5 km Offset Overhead HV Power line D./U. 23.00 / 43.00 33.00 / 66.00 44.00 / 84.00 1000 A / 500 A Short circuit current, assume connect with fireball at late time based on fireball growth, 138 kV line used, 0.001 S/m ground conductivity, effect of branching not included 100′ Ethernet Damage / Upset 21.04/ 77.42 23.76/ 86.88 26.40/ 95.84 10 A/ 5 A 0.1 m height, current into 100 ohms, aligned radially, max of calculations for 0.01 S/m or 0.001 S/m ground conductivity Wireline phone / Cordless phone adapter damage 69.19 / 118.50 77.16 / 131.80 87.90 / 149.64 8 kV / 4 kV Voltage calculation for 1 km radial line. Wireline assumes twisted pair. Cordless telephone base failure due to AC/DC power adapter damage.  1000′ T1 Line Damage / Upset 95.26 /161.8 105.84 /179.35 115.06 /194.6 10 A / 5 A 10 m height, current into 100 ohms, aligned radially, max of calculations for 0.01 or 0.001 S/m ground conductivity 200′ Cell Tower Shield D./Upset 2.30 / 14.36 2.67/ 15.33 2.99/ 16.25 1000 A /100 A Short circuit current at base of 200′ vertical monopole 100m FM Tower Shield D./Upset 4.74 / 38.95 5.20 / 42.38 5.49 / 44.60 1000 A /100 A Short circuit current at base of 100m vertical monopole 500m FM Tower Shield D./Upset 17.72/ 133.38 21.65/ 160.37 24.57/ 180.06 1000 A /100 A Short circuit current at base of  500m vertical monopole 600m DTV Tower Shield D/U 21.18/ 183.31 26.65/ 226.00 30.62/ 256.48 1000 A /100 A Short circuit current at base of  600m vertical monopole 200m AM Signal Antenna D./U.  8.43 / 78.97 9.68 / 90.18 10.69 /99.11 1000 A /100 A Current into 50 ohm at base of  vertical monopole HF Vertical Mono. Signal Dam/Upset 2.50 / 15.85 2.81 / 16.72 3.09 / 17.29 10 A / 1 A 7.5 m vertical monopole (1/4 wave antenna), current into 50 ohms, max. of calculations for 0.01 or 0.001 S/m conductivity HF Horizontal Dipole Signal D/U 1.50 / 2.15 1.77 / 2.42 2.02 / 2.67 10 A / 1 A 15 m horizontal dipole aligned radially (1/2 wave dipole), 15 m above ground, current into 50 ohms VHF-Hi Antenna Signal D./Upset 1.25 / 1.95 1.54 / 2.22 1.75 / 2.45 10 A / 1 A 1.4 m vertical monopole (modeling j-pole antenna), current into 50 ohms Cell Tower Ant. Signal Dam/Upset  0.37 / 0.65 0.50 / 0.83 0.57 / 0.95 10 A / 1 A 19 cm horizontal dipole at 200′ height (modeling 1/4 wavelength crossed dipoles), current into 25 ohms Cell or Land Mobile Radio Handset D./Upset 1.30 / 1.90 1.57 / 2.21 1.72 / 2.49 100mA /10mA 10 cm vertical monopole, short circuit current, coupling dominated by air conductivity

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 21 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) IEMI is defined as “intentional malicious generation of electromagnetic energy introducing noise or signals into electric and electronic systems, thus disrupting, confusing or damaging these systems for terrorist or criminal purposes.”7 In general, IEMI is generated by a high power generator that can be hidden in a truck, aircraft, ship, backpack, or suitcase. This weapon could be used to shut down the electronics associated with critical infrastructure, such as a communications site, data center, power substation, or headquarters location. 

 EMI has been known to cause problems with heart pacemakers, but perhaps the worst incident was in 1967 when an aircraft sitting on board the USS Forrestal was exposed to the ship’s radar and accidentally fired its munitions hitting a fully armed and fueled aircraft sitting on the deck. The explosions and resulting fire caused 134 deaths. “A later investigation discovered that a degraded cable shield termination on the first aircraft was the cause of the accident.”8

 IEMI has been around since the dawn of wireless communications, causing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to play critical roles to minimize interference. EMI is becoming even more critical as wireless continues to proliferate and becomes more and more important. Due to this wireless growth and as electronic components and circuits continue to become an increasingly integral part of society often with increased sensitivity to EMI, IEMI disturbances and damages have become much more common. Further, devices that can cause IEMI have also become more common and more powerful causing IEMI to gain more and more attention.

 The type and amount of IEMI disturbances and damages is dependent on multiple parameters of the IEMI source device:

 

• Proximity to the target, with the EM field decreasing with the square of the distance • Power • Frequency with higher frequencies typically used to damage equipment (in-band frequencies cause the most harm to communications) • Duration is usually a short pulse at high power such that it can destroy equipment (continuous power is used to block wireless communications).

 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s report “Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid”, Meta-R-323, by Dr. Radasky and Dr. Savage, January 2010, provides a detailed technical overview of IEMI risks. Some key excerpts follow: 

 

“In terms of system vulnerabilities, the narrowband threat is usually one of very high power and high energy, since the electrical energy is delivered in a narrow frequency band. It is fairly easy to deliver fields on the order of thousands of volts/meter at a single frequency. Of course each system under test may have a vulnerable frequency that is different from the next. Often the malfunctions observed in testing equipment with narrowband waveforms are those of permanent damage. …”

 

“The wideband threat is somewhat different in this respect. Since a time domain pulse produces energy over many frequencies at the same time, the energy density at any single frequency is much less. This means that damage is not as likely as in the narrowband case;

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 22 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

however, it is easier to find a system’s vulnerability since many frequencies are applied at the same time. Sources that have been built in the past typically produce repetitive pulses that can continue for many seconds or minutes, thereby increasing the probability of producing a system upset. …”

 

“For radiated fields, it seems clear that frequencies above 100 MHz are of primary concern in that they are able to penetrate unshielded or poorly protected buildings very well and yet couple efficiently to the equipment inside of the building. In addition, they have the advantage that antennas designed to radiate efficiently at these frequencies are small. [The Figure that follows] illustrates a qualitative view of how radiated fields may illuminate and couple to system electronics through apertures (e.g., windows) and through building wiring.” 

 

 

Figure 16. Typical IEMI interaction of radiated fields

 

“For conducted voltages and currents, there are some differences in terms of the frequency range of interest. It is well established that if common-mode conducted signals are injected into the power supply or telecom cables outside of a building, that frequencies below 10 MHz (and pulse widths wider than 50 ns) propagate more efficiently than higher frequencies. Experiments by Parfenov et al. have shown that these “lower” frequencies can disrupt the operation of equipment inside a building …” 

 

“With regard to actual threat “weapons”, the following four figures describes some published examples of devices that could be used as weapons. …”  

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 23 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

Figure 17. DIEHL Munitions damped sine IEMI generator

 

 

Figure 18. Laboratory hyperband pulse generator used in Russia

 

 

Figure 19. RADAN 303B hyperband generator used in Sweden

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 24 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 20. High intensity JOLT hyperband generator used in the United States

 

“… For wideband radiated threat waveforms, buildings can be exposed externally to hyperband waveforms with peak field levels on the order of 10 kV/m. For briefcase devices, the same level of peak field in the hyperband to the mesoband range can be delivered and should be considered. The frequency range of these devices is from 100 MHz to 10 GHz.

 For narrowband radiated threat waveforms, buildings can be exposed externally to radar type waveforms again in the range of 10 kV/m. Small internal narrowband generators have not been observed beyond the level of cellular phones or walkie-talkies at very close ranges (~100 V/m) or weapons made from microwave ovens (~1 kV/m).

 For conducted IEMI threats, the induced conducted voltage from a 10 kV/m peak field (narrowband or wideband) is on the order of 10 kV. The typical injected capability is also on the order of 10 kV, although there are newer pulsers that may exceed this level.”

 

Table 6. Comparisons between IEMI threats and E1 HEMP

.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 25 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

2. EMP PROTECTION AND RESILIENCE CONSIDERATIONS This EMP guidance document provides a range of protection and resilience levels that are based on the criticality of the EMP sensitive electronic infrastructure and equipment as well as the amount of down time that can be tolerated. This section discusses basic requirements and design principles that are applicable across all mission critical levels of importance and budgets.

2.1. Prioritizing EMP Mitigation Efforts

 

Each federal, state, and local critical infrastructure owner or operator can prioritize EMP protection efforts by determining their infrastructure’s overall importance by (1) assessing the risk to society if their infrastructure is disrupted and (2) by comparing their infrastructure’s role in supporting one or more of the eight National Essential Functions defined in Presidential Policy Directive 40, National Continuity Policy.9 The infrastructure’s importance, together with the amount of downtime that can be tolerated, can then be used to determine which level of EMP Protection should be achieved for that infrastructure. It is recommended that for any infrastructure supporting life or safety or the economic well-being of society, at least a Level 1 EMP Protection capability should be attained as a near-term goal. If the loss of a particular infrastructure will likely result in a significant loss of life or health or economic well-being, then an EMP Protection Level of 2 or 3 is recommended. Few infrastructure owners/operators will need to meet EMP Protection Level 4 guidelines, as these protections are more expensive and were developed mainly for Presidential support or strategic military missions. 

 

For non-federal entities, the four National Essential Functions that are most often supported are:

 

• Protect and stabilize the Nation’s economy. • Protect against threats to the homeland and bring perpetrators to justice. • Provide for critical national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States. • Respond to and recover from domestic consequences of an attack.

 

The federal government provides a leading role overall in the above functions, but typically has an even more important role in the following with support from non-federal entities:

 

• Ensure the continued functioning of the three separate branches of government • Maintain and foster effective relationships with foreign nations • Provide leadership visible to the Nation and the world • Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

 

Table 7 that follows provides some additional guidelines to consider when prioritizing critical infrastructures for EMP protection.   

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 26 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Table 7. Considerations for prioritizing infrastructures for EMP Protection Step Decision Explanation 1 Rank importance of critical infrastructure (CI) • How many people are likely to die if this infrastructure is disrupted? • How many people are likely to suffer significant health risks if this infrastructure is disrupted? • What is the economic impact, measure in dollars of loss, if this infrastructure is disrupted? • Is a National Essential Function put at risk if this infrastructure is disrupted?  2 For the most important critical infrastructures, prioritize endto-end substructures needed to meet essential needs and maximize benefits    • After prioritizing the high-level critical infrastructure’s importance, then assess the end-to-end substructures needed to effectively support the most important CI. Remember that a CI is only as resilient as its weakest link. Organizations may need to develop internal backup systems for supporting infrastructures outside of their normal mission. For example, both power and communications and personnel support systems are typically required for every CI.  • Do not rely on unprotected commercial power and communications networks. If your CI does not have resilient back-up power and communications, then consider what the most cost-effective alternatives for obtaining these are.   • After determining the key substructures, prioritize each supporting system and independent subsystem to provide the most value per dollar spent on EMP Protection. Different substructures and systems and subsystems are likely to require different EMP Protection Levels.  • Example: A wireless vendor’s IT team may have determined in Step 1 that their overall network is a Level 3 EMP priority. To meet this overall Level 3 goal, they classified the primary core control system and some sites in key locations as Level 3, but most sites were classified as Level 2 or Level 1, and some sites that overlap with others were considered not as critical. 3 Prioritize components and develop plans for protecting the end-to-end functions • Breakdown the above systems and subsystems from Step 2 into the major components. • Prioritize the various components within each prioritized system and subsystem and assign an EMP Protection Level goal. • Continue the above process until down to the individual component level that can be protected, such as a rack of equipment or a cable connecting two components, and what resilient supporting systems are needed.

 

The following section provides an overview of the Technical Design Standards that most organizations can use to help them achieve their EMP protection goals.  

2.2. IEC Technical Design Standards The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is the world’s leading organization that prepares and publishes International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies. It has been producing HEMP and IEMI protection standards for commercial

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 27 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

electronics since 1989. These standards provide protection guidelines both against radiated fields that can penetrate inside of a building and against transients induced on cables either entering a building from the outside or induced on cables inside a poorly shielded building (where the internal fields create the induced transients). Many countries have mandatory standards based upon these IEC standards.

 

IEC Subcommittee 77C developed their HEMP and IEMI protection standards by considering that normal commercial electronic equipment must survive everyday transient currents and voltages that are induced on cables that flow into equipment. The two most important IEC 61000-5-10 tests are the following:

 

• Electric Fast Transient (EFT) – This EMC conducted test protects against an EFT pulse with a rise time of 5 ns and a pulse width of 50 ns, which is nearly the same as the waveshape of E1 HEMP induced voltages (with a rise time of 10 ns and a pulse width of 100 ns).  • Lightning Induced Transient – This transient is caused by lightning surges that are characterized by a voltage pulse rise time as fast as 1 µs and a pulse width of ~ 50 ms. Typical commercial EMC peak test levels for these voltage pulses are 0.5 to 1 kV for EFT and 1-2 kV for surge (first number is for data lines and the second is for a power line).

 

The IEC has also developed standard waveforms and levels for the coupling of HEMP and IEMI fields both to long external cables such as commercial power lines and for short cables as found inside of a building. Worst case E1 HEMP external above ground power system cable voltage levels are ~300 kV and the worst-case internal induced cable voltages are ~20 kV when there is no building shielding from the penetrating fields (the reduction is because the wiring inside of a building is not perfectly straight for hundreds of meters). The levels for IEMI coupling are significantly less as those fields do not couple efficiently to wires and cables and have radiated losses. But IEMI is a significant threat to the internal electronics since its frequency content above 1 GHz can penetrate the cases of most equipment. Both of these threats are covered in this document, but the E1 HEMP cable tests are the most severe for equipment, so more emphasis is placed on the protection of power, data, and antennas cables. 

 

Since the E1 HEMP standards of the IEC (as well as most military standards) use a single worst-case electric field pulse waveform (the IEC identifies a peak field of 50 kV/m), these waveforms are considered a reasonable worst-case tool for the design of resilient infrastructures. (Note that while 50 kV/m peak field is used by the IEC and military standards, some Chinese and Russian authorities have said “super-EMP” weapons can generate E1 levels as high as 100 kV/m to 200 kV/m, respectively, as reported in the EMP Commission’s 2017 “Chairman’s Report” pages 21 and 31.) It is possible, as in the case of the Starfish test in 1962, that the HEMP peak fields can be smaller than the worst case, depending on the location of the burst and the location of the infrastructure relative to the burst. Therefore, even for a building with no shielding for E1 HEMP, the voltages coupled to the wiring leading to equipment may be lower by a factor of 5, for example. This means 4 kV could be induced for fields oriented perfectly for cable coupling (assuming no building attenuation). As the equipment can tolerate a peak EMC transient (EFT) of 500 V for a data line entering an electronic equipment and probably more (testing safety margin) Peak voltage on a cable from HEMP only needs to be reduced between a factor of 4 and 8. This enables inexpensive solutions to be deployed that can also be used for lightning protection.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 28 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

the amount of reduction required in the peak voltage on a cable is between a factor of 4 and 8, which is not usually a problem for a typical SPD. 

 

Also the IEC EMC test requirements are that no upsets occur during the certification testing, so the damage immunity level is likely higher by at least a factor of 2. (Note: An upset is when the system must be restarted, either by turning the equipment “off and on” and may sometimes even require disconnecting equipment from the battery circuit (as was the case for some vehicles during testing done by the EMP Commission)). Therefore, even standard lightning protection surge protection devices (SPDs) will provide some reduction in the E1 HEMP conducted transients inside of a building. If the building has some natural protection level (say 10-20 dB) then the induced voltages inside are not likely to cause problems for equipment. Based on details in IEC 61000-5-10, if building shielding is to be used, a level of 30 dB or higher is recommended, so this supports the suggested levels of protection for Level 3.

 

For the external lines coming into a building (both power and data lines), if these lines enter the building above ground (drop wires), much higher voltages can be induced by E1 HEMP than inside the building, and a building level lightning SPD should be used to avoid large voltages entering the building. A better solution for a commercial building is to ensure that the power and communications lines enter the building below ground as the earth will reduce the coupling to those external cables by more than a factor of 10. If this is done, then the main concern is for the coupling to the cables inside the building by fields penetrating the poorly shielded walls of typical building construction, but even this may be a minimal issue if the cable inside the building is short enough.

 

Given the above, the first two levels of protection recommended in this document rely heavily upon using inexpensive SPDs. Level 1 recommends using lightning protection SPDs. Level 2 suggests the use of EMP SPDs for all critical equipment including power cords, data lines and antenna connections. The EMP performance of an SPD has to do with the amount of peak voltage that can pass through the SPD based on the rise time of the conducted E1 HEMP pulse. The lightning voltage transient has a rise time of about 1 µs, while the E1 HEMP and the propagated SREMP will rise in approximately 10 ns, and the IEMI conducted transient will rise in about 1 ns. Our focus here is on the E1 HEMP, which rises 100 times faster than a typical lightning voltage pulse. So lightning SPDs will not be as effective in limiting the pass-through voltages as an EMP SPD, but the energy of the EMP pulses passing through the SPD will be much lower than the lightning-pass-through energy.

 

To summarize, IEC 61000-5-10 provides detailed information concerning the use of SPDs to limit the EMP voltages flowing to equipment in Levels 1 and 2 and how to set the shielding levels for a building (as recommended for Level 3 for at least 30 dB) based on the criticality of the function of the facility and the nature of the equipment inside the building. The standard also recommends simple test methods to establish the natural shielding effectiveness of an existing building, which can be used in the hardening process. The level 4 EMP protection recommendations are presented in this document for missions that cannot allow more than a few seconds of outage, and therefore require the approach provided in MIL-STD-188-125-1, which requires an 80 dB shield and the test procedures defined in the military standard. The basic details of that standard are included in this document.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 29 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

2.3. Surge Protective Device (SPD) Selection Many surge protective devices have been designed to withstand the peak-induced voltages (and currents) on cables connected to equipment from a nearby lightning stroke. Of course lightning fields from nearby groundstrokes vary substantially, so the level of induced cable voltages can vary a great deal. The IEC and other organizations have set requirements for typical equipment from 1 – 2 kV for a surge type pulse (1 µs rise time). A large direct strike to an above ground power line entering a building will be much higher than this. In fact, most of the electronics inside the building will be destroyed during a direct strike. But this is a low probability event. SPDs are designed to reduce peak lightning-induced voltages to levels that won’t harm most equipment.

 

The issue, as discussed above, is that E1 HEMP and the propagated SREMP electric fields have a rise time as fast as 1 ns (see Table 8 below). This means that nearly all SPDs designed for lightning will allow higher peak voltages to bypass the voltage “clamping” or “protection” level identified. While metal oxide varistors (MOVs) and transient voltage suppressors (TVSs) have the best performance for waveforms rising faster than a typical lightning pulse, often the peak voltages bypassing the SPD (including gas discharge tubes or GDTs) can be a factor of 3 higher than the voltage identified with the SPD. This is because for GDTs the voltage is a DC level, and for MOVs the voltage indicated is the “firing” level for an AC-type waveform. Therefore, a fast-rising voltage pulse that gets by the SPD will always have a higher peak value than the “rated” value.  

 

Table 8. EMP Induced Surges on Conductors 10  Type of Conductor ~ Rise Time Peak Voltage Peak Current Long unshielded wires (power lines, large antennas) 10 ns – 100 ns 100 kV – 5 MV 1 kA – 10 kA Unshielded telephone line at wall plug 10 ns – 1 µs 100 V – 10 kV 1 A – 100 A Unshielded AC power line at wall plug 100 ns – 10 µs 1 kV – 50 kV 10 A – 100 A HF antennas 10 ns – 100 ns 10 kV – 1 MV 500 A – 10 kA VHF antennas 1 ns – 10 ns 1 kV – 100 kV 100 A – 1 kA UHF antennas 1 ns – 10 ns 100 V – 10 kV 10 A – 100 A Shielded cable 1 µs – 100 µs 1 V – 100 V 0.1 A – 50 A

 

The best way to reduce this overshoot for EMP type pulses is to use an SPD followed by a low pass filter (for power lines). An alternative approach is to take the typical 120 V power supply voltage, multiply it times 2 for an operating safety margin (use a 240 V clamping voltage), and then accept another factor of 3 for the EMP overshoot. The good news is that the 720 V peak computed would still be lower than the normal EMC EFT immunity test level (1 kV) for commercial equipment for the power cable attached to the equipment. Experience indicates that MOVs are the best choice for power lines but care must be taken to ensure that the MOV does not overheat if the EMP pulse keeps it in a short-circuit firing mode, permitting the power line current to heat up the MOV. The newest UL standards identify characteristics of the MOV packaging to make them “fire-safe.”

 

The situation for data lines could be similar by taking the normal operating voltage level of a data line, apply a safety margin and then multiply by 3 for the EMP overshoot, which in most cases will

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 30 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

still be below 500 V (the normal EFT test level for commercial equipment data lines). While MOVs are a good choice for power, for data lines their capacitance may create problems for a high frequency data rate. In this case a TVS is likely a better choice. Note that the TVS will not provide protection from lightning surges.

 

EMP rated SPDs are available from several manufacturers. See the Level 2 EMP Guidelines section and Appendix B, EMP Protection Level 2 for more information. Where possible, it is recommended to use SPDs that have their HEMP or NEMP testing results available for review. 

 

For antenna lines, the SPD voltage level must be set well above the transmitter peak voltage level, including the modulation levels and the higher voltage levels created from standing waves due to impedance mismatches (voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR)). To decrease the risk from an EMP event or a lightning strike partially given this SPD peak voltage limitation, the following RF related EMP risk mitigation procedures should be implemented:

 

Level 1 • Grounding – Should comply with “R56 Standards and Guidelines for Communication Sites”11 or other recognized grounding standard. The book “Grounding and Bonding for the Radio Amateur” available through the National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) is also helpful12. • Antenna line – Use a shielded/braided, double shielded/braided cable, or equivalent. Ground the shield per R56. • RF SPD (or RF Transmission SPD, sometimes also called an antenna SPD) – Connect an RF SPD to the antenna line at the building egress (within 2 ft.). If electronics are at the antenna, also connect an SPD near the antenna prior to the electronics. o For HF antennas, it is recommended that an easily replaceable GDT be used (these are also inexpensive). o The RF SPD should be replaced per the manufacturer’s recommendations or when there is a known extreme surge (nearby lightning strike or EMP event). o The RF SPD should have a ground wire run to it, which will also ground the antenna shield. • Antenna mount – Ground the antenna mount. • Robust Transmitter – Select a transmitter that can tolerate high levels of voltage transients.

 Level 2 • Ferrites – A ferrite choke should be used prior to the RF SPDs to help dampen and slow the EMP. • Secondary RF SPD – If the antenna line is run straight for more than a few meters inside a facility with poor EMP shielding (e.g., it’s made out of wood), the line should be connected to a secondary RF SPD near its termination point.

 Level 3 • Metal Conduit – The external portion of the shielded antenna line should be run through a grounded metal conduit to the extent possible.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 31 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Level 4 • EMP Transceiver Testing – The transceiver should be tested to ensure that it can tolerate higher levels of EMP transients that bypass the selected voltage level of an SPD.  • SPD Redundancy – Double surge protect critical external lines entering EMP protected areas assuming that the failed surge protector is designed to continue to allow voltage to pass through upon failure. As an example of why this is necessary can be shown if there is a double EMP event. The first burst could take out the first SPD, which leaves the equipment vulnerable if there is a second EMP burst or a nearby lightning strike. SPD redundancy can occur by connecting a primary SPD to a cable at the building egress and then connecting a secondary SPD to that cable immediately prior to it entering the EMP area. 

 

As an SPD typically degrades over time, it should provide an audio or visual status warning when it is no longer able to effectively protect equipment. Otherwise, a subsequent lightning strike or EMP pulse could destroy the equipment. If the SPD does not alert the operator, then the SPD should be replaced as frequently as every year or two depending upon the location and the number of nearby lightning strikes, which will generally cost more money than using an SPD with alerts. Note that even if a cable is well shielded, an SPD is used both because the shielding won’t be perfect and an EMP or lightning pulse could arc over an air gap to cause damage.

2.4. Use of Common Building Materials to Increase EMP Shielding As discussed above, SPDs reduce EMP surges that travel via cables. These cables are most vulnerable when part of the cable is above ground and external to a building (i.e., it is not covered). Within buildings, the amount of protection required for cables is heavily dependent upon the building material between the cable and the EMP E1 burst as shown in the figure below. 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 32 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 21. Effect of Building Materials on EMP Attenuation13

 

The attenuation in the above figure is only at 900 MHz, but materials such as reinforced concrete also attenuate signals at lower E1 frequencies as well. In addition to the above, natural barriers such as dirt and rocks can significantly help reduce E1 pulses. Thus, burying a cable a few feet underground can substantially reduce the EMP pulse that hits the cable although the amount is very dependent upon the ground type (moist topsoil is much better than dry sand) and the length of the run. 

 

There are also manmade materials that can be used to significantly attenuate the RF signal, such as EMP paint and other conductive coatings that are inexpensive. These generally don’t work equally across all frequencies of concern, but they can still significantly attenuate EMP bursts. Simple tests can be run to determine how much they will help or the manufacturer can be contacted to provide these specifications.

 

Building Shielding

 

To get to the internal cabling, the HEMP must get through the building – the walls and roof. Generally some amount of “shielding” (attenuation of the EM transient) is provided by the building. The amount of attenuation varies with several factors, and building material type is an important one. (Windows do not provide much EM attenuation, and can ruin the shielding provided by the wall materials.) As a simplification, we might use categorized building types, such as listed in the table below. The factor “dB” translates to a reduction in the HEMP by the logarithmic value 10−dB/ 20

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 33 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

(every increase by 20 dB means a factor of 10 smaller in field amplitude; see Appendix E, page E-4 for more information).

 

The table below provides some additional general engineering “rules of thumb” that can be used when estimating how much inherent E1 EMP protection results from a facility’s design. 

 

Table 9. Building shielding “rules of thumb” for E1 HEMP Building Shielding dB Type Example 0 Transparent Wood 5 Poor Masonry 10 Moderate Concrete, no windows 20 Good Metal siding, no windows 30 Very Good All metal, no windows

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 34 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

3. LEVEL 1 EMP GUIDELINES 

 

 

Level 1: Lowest cost; longer mission outages permitted • Unplug power, data, and antenna lines from spare equipment, where feasible.  • Turn off equipment that cannot be unplugged and is not actively being used. • Use at least a lightning rated surge protection device (SPD) on power cords, antenna lines, and data cables; maintain spare SPDs. • Have either EMP protected backup power or a generation source that is not connected to the grid with one (1) week of on-site fuel or equivalent (e.g., renewable source). • Wrap spare electronics with aluminum foil or put in Faraday containers. • Use priority phone services like Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS), Wireless Priority Service (WPS) (for cell phones), and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) programs to improve your chances of phone call completions and rapid restorations during EMP crises; and join the SHAred RESources (SHARES) program if applicable (see Appendix C for more information on all of these programs). • Consider land mobile radios with standalone capabilities, High Frequency (HF) radios, and FirstNet. • Store one week of food, water, and other supplies for personnel.  • Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to receive alerts from the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and other networks like the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards networks. 

 

1. Turn off and unplug equipment.   The easiest and quickest way to reduce equipment vulnerabilities to EMP is to turn off nonessential equipment and then unplug this equipment from all metallic lines, such as power cords, telephone lines, Ethernet cables, and antennas/coaxial cables. Battery packs should be removed from small electronics as these batteries can work in conjunction with EMP to provide damaging energy into equipment circuits. Where possible, the cords themselves should also be disconnected from the equipment, not just unplugged at the wall or other distant connection point. The rationale here is that these power cords and data cables will still act as antennas for picking up EMP signals even if they are disconnected from a wall outlet or router or external radio or TV antenna. As an extra precaution, you should also disconnect your non-essential computer(s) from any wired external keyboard or mouse.  You should unplug all cords and cables at the point where they actually connect to the equipment, such as at the back of a computer or desktop phone or equipment rack. If you cannot unplug the equipment from a long metallic cable, then coil the cable near the equipment, if possible, so as to minimize its effective length and hence reduce its ability to pick up EMP energy. For wireless devices such as cell phones and other battery operated devices (like portable radios and walkie-talkies), you should turn them off and unplug them from any charging station or adapter. If items need to be charged, be sure to use power cord surge protectors that have a 10 ns or better response time (which can be found at popular retail stores).  

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 35 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

2. Use a power surge protector device (SPD) that provides fire protection. Use at least a “low fire risk” lightning SPD for all electronics with cables connected. Many surge protectors use metal oxide varistors (MOVs) that can be a fire risk when they fail. Some manufacturers provide fire-proof MOVs. If the power SPD is not fire-proof, it should be placed in an area free of combustibles.  A spare SPD should be kept on hand in case one needs to be replaced. A spare transceiver fuse should also be kept on hand in case the fuse is blown due to excessive power that might be caused by a nearby lightning strike or an EMP event.   3. Use heavy-duty aluminum foil or inexpensive Faraday bags/cases. For small electronics that are spares or backups, you can put these in a plastic or paper bag or other insulating material and then wrap the item with an outer layer of heavy-duty aluminum foil.  If power or data cables are permanently connected to the equipment, you should also place these inside the bag before wrapping the item with aluminum foil. You should ensure the aluminum foil completely covers the item and that all seams overlap. If possible, protect the equipment with two or more complete layers of aluminum foil. If you decide to use a Faraday bag, be sure that it is not just a standard Mylar food bag which provides little protection. Metal trash cans do not usually provide reliable EMP protection for items placed inside of them, unless they have been modified to block radio waves from entering through the gaps in the lid, handles, and sometimes at the base.  Microwave ovens can serve as expedient Faraday cages for small electronics, but should be tested with a cell phone and/or AM/FM radio to see if there is reception inside of the oven (obviously, these “ovens” should never be turned “on” with equipment inside). In general, small handheld electronics are relatively immune to EMP effects, unless they have long antennas or power cords attached, and so the need for Faraday cages is of secondary importance.

 

4. Ensure your backup generation system is not directly connected to commercial power (unless it has very good EMP surge protection on the connecting line).  While many companies will recommend connecting your backup diesel or other generator to commercial power in order to provide an automated transfer to backup power when commercial power is lost, you should avoid this unless excellent EMP surge protection is provided. The relatively long commercial power line leading to your facility or organization provide an excellent path for EMP energy and may destroy your backup generator’s electronics if they are wired into an automated transfer switch.   Using a natural gas power generator also reduces risk since the natural gas itself will not act as an antenna. Likewise, natural gas pipeline providers should use natural gas powered compressor stations instead of electrically powered compressor stations. Other potential energy sources are discussed in an upcoming DHS Power Resiliency Guidelines document.

 

5. Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to receive alerts  Battery operated radios are relatively resilient to EMP. The national level Emergency Alert System (EAS) has many radio stations across the USA with some protection against EMP. Hence, listening to handheld (or car) radios may be the principle means of receiving information from the government on what is happening in your area and on what actions are recommended. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 36 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

4. LEVEL 2 EMP GUIDELINES

 

Level 2:  Only hours of mission outages are permitted In addition to Level 1 …  • Use EMP-rated SPDs on power cords, antenna lines, and data cables to protect critical equipment. • Use on-line/double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) or a high quality line interactive UPS.  • Use fiber optic cables (with no metal); otherwise use shielded cables and ferrites and/or SPDs. Note: shielded racks, rooms or facilities may be more cost-effective than hardening numerous cables. • Use EMP protected backup power that is not vulnerable to EMP coupled through the power grid.   • Implement EMP protected, high frequency (HF) voice and email for long-distance communications (if required). • Consider geosynchronous equatorial orbit (GEO) satellite communications, like Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN). Avoid low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite supported services, unless EMP protected. Use terminals that are EMP resilient. • Consider shortwave radios for additional situational awareness.

 

 

1. Use of EMP-rated surge arresters on power cords and phone/data cables 

 

Many commercially available power strips have surge protection built in. These should be used to protect all essential equipment although the SPDs in the power strips also provide some protection against fast rising transients. Many commonly available power strips use fire-protected MOVs (UL 1449 3rd Edition) and if spaced and grounded at distances of every 20 feet or so, can help mitigate MOV and spark-induced fires from EMP as well as protect against lightning. See “Surge Protective Device (SPD) Selection” under Section 2 for more information concerning the characteristics of SPDs adequate for EMP protection.     2. Use of ferrites

 

Cable ferrites are often used to attenuate unwanted high-frequency cable signals. Ferrites use materials that interact with the magnetic field of the cable signal.  Type 61 material ferrites are recommended in that they can attenuate pulses with faster rise times than those made with older ferrite materials, such as Type 43 ferrites. These are simple and inexpensive – they simply snap around the cable (preferably near the vulnerable equipment end).

 

Ferrites effectively introduce a complex impedance onto the cable. There is signal attenuation because: • Impedance mismatch relative to the normal cable impedance means some signal is reflected back down the cable, • And the imaginary part of the impedance means that energy is absorbed.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 37 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

The impedance is frequency dependent, with a typical peak of hundreds of ohms. This impedance affects only common mode cable signals, such as HEMP. It does not impact differential mode, which are the normal cable signals. The protection is additive with each extra bead snapped on. There is approximately 1 to 2 dB protection per ferrite, so their use with multiple beads is usually good for obtaining ~10 dB of attenuation.

 

3. HF and other radio equipment protection

 

HF and other radios need three types of protective devices – (1) those for HF or other radio antenna connections, (2) those for power connections and (3) those for low voltage DC connections such as antenna rotators. Protective devices must be well grounded using low-inductance grounding cables that are as short as possible.  

 

4. Coaxial Cable RF (Antenna) Surge Protectors

 

Nothing can protect equipment from a direct lightning strike. Antenna surge protectors are designed to reduce antenna-induced voltages resulting from nearby lightning voltage discharges. A HEMP’s coupled current rise time is between 5 and 10 ns while IEMI currents will have a rise time on the order of 1 ns. An HF antenna and feedline will slow these rise times down to longer than 10 ns. Most antenna surge protectors contain gas discharge tube (GDT) devices.    

 

Antenna surge protectors should be installed at both ends of the antenna feedline with one near the radio equipment (within 2 meters) and one by the building egress unless the feed line is extremely short. Each surge protector should be grounded directly through a separate low inductance wire or cable (not just through the coaxial cable outer conductor) because an ungrounded protector provides only limited differential mode protection. The feedline should be run as close to metallic surfaces (if available) as possible.

 

Each protector is installed in series with the antenna feedline. The GDT inside the protector is connected from the center conductor to the shield so that the GDT element is in parallel with the feedline. A GDT is a voltage-sensing device that is typically open (does not conduct). When the voltage is sufficiently high, the gas inside the GDT ionizes and conducts which reduces the voltage on the center pin with respect to the outer shield. If the peak surge is large enough, an arc inside the GDT develops further reducing the voltage. The GDT returns to an open state after the power being shunted through it decreases to a low level.  

 

GDTs wear out with each surge event and usually fail by becoming either permanently open or shorted. It is easy to detect when a GDT shorts because the transmitter will shut down from high Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR), but not when it opens. What happens when a GDT opens is the gas inside will not ionize anymore, but there is no easy way to predict when that will occur:  RF signals will pass through the GDT just as usual but the GDT won’t conduct, so it no longer provides any protection. 

 

Antenna surge protectors that are easy to remove and replace without opening their housings are recommended because GDTs wear out and need to be replaced regularly to ensure continued protection. A replaceable GDT typically fits into or beneath a small cap that screws into the protector housing. Unscrewing an old GDT from its existing installed housing and replacing it with a

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 38 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

new GDT is easier and more convenient than replacing the entire housing. It is less expensive to replace a few dollar GDT instead of the complete protector.  

 

GDTs used in surge protectors wear out depending on how many times they have been triggered.  Worn out GDTs provide little or no protection. Since it is dangerous to test GDTs to determine their characteristics, and because GDTs cost so little, it is a good idea to replace GDTs every few years or after major thunderstorms when there have been close proximity lightning strikes. Another advantage of using protectors with replaceable GDTs is that different GDTs are available with different voltage ratings to customize the protection level depending on the VSWR and power level. GDTs are triggered not only by voltage induced from an EMP or a nearby lightning strike, but also by the VSWR resulting from reflected transmitter power.    

 

Surge protectors with replaceable GDTs can be easily converted for other power output levels by replacing their GDTs. But the VSWR should first be measured to determine where it is highest (worst) throughout your operating frequencies. The worst VSWR must be known to calculate the highest voltage level so that the voltage rating can be specified for the replacement GDT. Lower voltage rating GDTs provide better protection as long as their voltage ratings are high enough so that the GDTs will not fire under normal operating conditions. Much lower GDT voltage ratings could be used if only low transmit powers are used into a perfectly impedance matched antenna). 

 

GDTs respond to voltage levels, which are functions of both power and VSWR, and the VSWR changes as a function of frequency. Therefore, a much larger selection of GDT voltage ratings is required to match different power levels and VSWRs. Fortunately, there are several companies making GDTs at a variety of different voltages. Several brands of low-cost GDTs (less than $3) are available. Although many manufacturers list power levels for their surge protectors, the voltage ratings of their GDTs are much more meaningful.  

 

Antenna surge protectors are available from Alpha-Delta, PolyPhaser, Huber+Suhner, Fischer Custom Communications, Amphenol® EMI/EMP Protection Connectors, and ETS-Lindgren. Bourns manufactures GDT elements for other companies to repackage into protective devices. The following URLs provide more information about using protective devices.  

 

Gas Discharge Tubes (GDT) http://www.bourns.com/resources/training/circuit-protection/gas-discharge-tubes-(gdt)/gas-dischargetubes-(gdt)

 

Telecommunications Application Schematics http://www.bourns.com/applications/telecommunications

 

Network Communications PortNote® Solutions http://www.bourns.com/applications/network-communications

 

 

5. Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) considerations 

 

120 VAC protection from various power systems is best accomplished with a UPS since modern switched-mode power supplies (SMPS) contain microelectronics potentially sensitive to fluctuations. Note that the UPS itself will need protection from AC power feed transients, as the

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 39 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

UPS may be vulnerable to low frequency EMP (E3) or geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) caused power service transformer harmonics. UPSes made by APC, CyberPower and Tripp are available in suitable power ratings throughout the range from 200 W to 1200 W. It is not clear without testing whether protection is needed for the antenna rotator circuit, as the excitation will be common mode while the operation is differential mode, but if testing proves it necessary, the installation of MOVs appropriate for the operating level of the specific rotator should suffice.  

 

When selecting a UPS for protecting equipment from EMP, a true on-line, double-conversion type of UPS is recommended although a high quality line interactive UPS with good surge suppression and noise filtering can be used unless the equipment is extremely sensitive. Less expensive UPS units provide insufficient protection in that they allow voltage spikes to reach equipment before the battery is switched into the circuit, which can take as long as 25 milliseconds (ms). The more expensive on-line, double-conversion UPS ensures that the battery is always connected so that no power transfer switches are needed and voltage spikes will not damage the equipment. A high quality line interactive unit will take 2-4 ms to transfer power to the battery source, which easily meets the specifications for all common modern equipment. 

 

6. Cable layouts, entry, and the use of shielded cables

 

Cable layout techniques to reduce the coupling of EMP signals at the equipment include:

 

• Run location: Run the cable along metal structures, such as metal walls or I-beams. • Cable bundles: Put multiple cables into tight bundles – on average all the cables are helping to short out the E field seen by any individual cable. If one cannot run along metallic structures, periodically ground the bundle to the internal grounding system with low inductance grounding braids or plates. • Metal cable tray: If cable trays are used to hold the cables, be sure the tray is metal instead of plastic or fiberglass; and ground it often along the run. • Metal cable conduit: It is even better to have the cables in enclosed metal conduits, which are well grounded at least on the ends, and at other points if possible. The best end connection is a circumferential ground bond onto a metal building wall.

 

Cable entry into a facility best practices include:  

 

• Use underground cable runs, at least for the part nearest the building (underground cables have reduced HEMP, SREMP (radiated fields) and EM weapon field coupling, and higher attenuation of signals that are flowing toward the building). • Short out the external conductor at the entry point to the building – it is especially good to use shielded cables, with the shield circumferentially bonded to a metal external wall. • If the building has an ANSI/TIA/EIA-607 Telecommunications Bonding Backbone (TBB) installed, entry cable shielding should be bonded to the TBB. • Metal pipes also count as conductors – they should be shorted at the metal wall or the current on them will flow inside and radiate fields, which can be picked up by other wiring. • Terminal Protection Devices (TPD) may be needed on power and signal wires.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 40 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

• Antennas need special attention, and possibly special surge protectors as discussed above under “Coaxial Cable RF (Antenna) Surge Protectors.”

 

Considerations with shielded cables include: 

 

• Using shielded cables is very common in EMP protection, and it is easy to procure shielded network cables. • The protection provided depends on the quality of the shield, but also on the handling of the cable ends. While circumferentially bonded connectors are the best, for some levels of EMP protection, shield clamping to the external wall of a building can provide 20-40 dB of shield current attenuation. • Common shielded network cabling has simple foil shields. Better and generally more expensive cables use high-coverage braided shields. Although cable vendors often identify cables with shields, it is important to obtain shielding effectiveness data for the range of frequencies ranging from 1 MHz up to 1 GHz. • The cable plugs must have metal sheaves, firmly grounded to the cable shields. • The matching cable jack must also be configured to accept the shielded plug – typically with metal tabs.  These tabs are not equivalent to circumferential shields, but provide some protection. • Typical network equipment do not always have shield-ready jacks, so in these cases shielded network cables will not be of value. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 41 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

5. LEVEL 3 EMP GUIDELINES

 

Level 3:  Only minutes of mission outages are permitted In addition to Level 2… • Use International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EMP and IEMI protection standards (IEC SC 77C series, see Appendix F).  • Shielding should be 30+ dB of protection through 10 GHz.  • Use EMP shielded racks, rooms, or facilities to protect critical computers, data centers, phone switches, industrial and substation controls and other electronics.  • Use “Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures” from EMP Commission for grid and undersea cable protection planning. Use 85 V/km for Continental U.S. (CONUS) E3 threat. • Use EMP tested SPDs and equipment.  • Institute IEC level hardness maintenance & surveillance (HM/HS).  • Have 30 days of EMP protected power/fuel.  • Store 30 days of food, water, and critical supplies and spares. • Use time-urgent EMP resilient comms, like X, Ku and Ka satellite, and either HF groundwave or Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) HF.

 

The following IEC publications apply to Level 3 Protection and are shown in summary in the figure below and in detail in the Bibliography (Appendix F) at the end of this report: 

 

Note:  Black text indicates publications dealing with HEMP, while blue/grey text indicates HPEM/IEMI publications. Figure 22. Organization of the current IEC SC 77C publications

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 42 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

The Level 3 Facility EM barrier should be designed with the same features and provisions as with Level 4 with the exceptions of both Provision 1 noted below and only one entryway door is required instead of a double-door entry as in Level 4. With only a single door, an alarm or automatic closing feature should be installed to prevent the door from inadvertently remaining open for an extended period thus reducing the hardness of the facility. 

 

The evaluation of the shielding effectiveness as identified in Provision 5 for Level 4 (“EM Barrier Hardness Validation Testing”) is not required for Level 3. Commercial radio signal techniques may be used to evaluate the shielding effectiveness or IEEE 299 can be used [see Reference 13]. This shielding effectiveness testing is only required for the acceptance of the shielded enclosure, as verification testing is not required (as it is in Level 4). Also, non-linear filter PCI testing may be performed in the laboratory and is not required to be performed on site (as it is in Level 4). 

 

1. Six-sided EM shield barrier

 

The shield barrier can be constructed using 3-6 mm thick steel sheeting (or by using other shielding materials, such as aluminum or nickel composites) which provides the required level of shielding.  Shielding can be accomplished using a combination of bolt-together designs and welded designs. If a large number of facilities need to be EMP protected, bolt-together designs that are carefully tested in the factory to meet the required protection levels are more economical. 

 

Copper, aluminum, conductive plastics or other materials may be used if they can provide the required shielding effectiveness and are fully compatible with the POE protective treatments and grounding requirements. Steel is typically preferred because of its superior shielding effectiveness at lower HEMP/SREMP frequencies and its mechanical strength. Using metal screen or wire mesh for the barrier presents problems related to inadequate inherent shielding properties and problems posed in circumferentially bonding cable conduit, vent, and piping penetrations to mesh/screen materials.

 

2. Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) considerations 

 

When selecting a UPS for protecting equipment from EMP, it is recommended that a true on-line, double-conversion type of UPS always be used as recommended in the Level 2 EMP Protection Guidelines. As this UPS will be installed inside the shielded volume in protection level 4, there is no concern over high frequency transient performance as they must be dealt with before entering the building shield. However, the UPS selected shall be tested against high harmonic currents and voltages (especially the 2nd harmonic), which is generated during E3 HEMP and/or GMD events.

Calculated Level 3 Mitigation Effects 

 

Level 3 EMP Protection recommends a minimum of 30 dB of attenuation from a protective shield through 10 GHz.  How much additional shielding may be required beyond 30 dB is best determined through an EM Threat Site Assessment Survey.  Additional shielding may be required based on the facility’s specific operational requirements including factors such as building construction, physical site layout, the types and amount equipment to be protected, and how distributed or contained the power systems and wired infrastructure are extended beyond the building or campus.  

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 43 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

The figures that follow illustrate that just applying the minimum recommended level of 30 dB of attenuation can mitigate the EMP threat to typical cables and devices found inside almost every building.  The upper models in each example show the unshielded directionally oriented effects from a 1000 kT burst at 250 miles (400 km) above the center of the continental United States.  The bottom model in each example shows the survivable effect provided by 30 dB of shielding attenuation.  In addition all external currents coupled to cables outside the building must be reduced before entering a building in order to prevent damage to equipment inside the building connected to those cables (e.g. power).

 

 

 

Figure 23. Protective effects on cordless telephones with recommended 30 dB shielding

 

 

 UNCLASSIFIED

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 44 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 24. Protective effects on a 100’ Ethernet cable with recommended 30 dB shielding

 

 

 

Figure 25. Protective effects on a Plain Old Telephone Service Line with 30 dB shielding

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 45 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

6. LEVEL 4 EMP GUIDELINES 

 

Level 4:  Only seconds of mission outages permitted In addition to Level 3… • Use Military HEMP Standards (MIL-STD-188-125-1 and MIL-HDBK-423), and 80+ dB hardening through 10 GHz.  • Use EMP shielding in rooms, racks, and buildings as needed to protect critical equipment.  • Use EMP protected double-door entryways.  • Validate per Military guidelines, like Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 01-2-620 HEMP. • Have 30+ days of Military Standard protected power and fuel plus alternate generation source (renewables preferred).   • Consider double surge protection on critical external lines entering EMP protected areas. • Consider using communications systems/networks that are designed to meet Military EMP standards, like: Advanced EHF (AEHF) satellite, EMP protected fiber optic networks, and EMP protected radios. • Institute ongoing Military Standard HM/HS programs.

The military standard for the EM barrier design is MIL-STD-188-125-1 [see Reference 1], which specifies the following hardening program elements for the protection of HEMP:

 

1. The facility shield.

 

The facility EM shield is a continuous conductive enclosure that meets or exceeds specified shielding effectiveness requirements. In MIL-STD-188-125-1 this requirement is generally 80 dB up to 1 GHz.  For this document we recommend that this requirement of 80 dB be extended to 10 GHz, which will also protect against the IEMI threat. In addition, this level and frequency range is achievable for shielded rooms constructed by industry today. 

 

2. Shield points of entry (POEs) including wire penetrations, conduit/pipe penetrations, doors, and apertures.

 

The number of shield POEs shall be limited to the minimum required for operational, life-safety, and habitability purposes. Each metallic cable POE is protected with a current limiting device that satisfies the standard’s performance requirements.

 

3. Double surge protect critical external lines entering EMP protected areas.

 

Redundant RF surge protection is required on critical external lines entering EMP protected areas in case either (1) the first SPD fails and continues to pass voltage or (2) the SPD is faulty and cannot stop the EMP pulse. In the first case with a double EMP event, the first burst could take out the primary SPD (or something like lightning could take it out), and without a secondary SPD the second EMP burst could take out critical equipment. In the case where the SPD is faulty, the SPD

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 46 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

might simply pass an EMP pulse through the line into the equipment if there isn’t a secondary SPD to protect the equipment. Lastly, two SPDs will block EMP better than one.

 

In the above cases, if the cable enters the building via a non-EMP protected area, then the primary SPD should be placed at the building egress with a secondary SPD connected to the cable either within the EMP area or immediately prior to it entering the EMP area. These guidelines are applicable to RF, data, and power cables. 

 

4. HEMP Shield and POE testing. 

 

The standard requires protection performance certification by testing.  The protection program includes quality assurance during facility construction and equipment installation, acceptance testing for the EM barriers, and verification testing of the completed and operational facility.

 

5. Life Cycle Hardness Maintenance and Hardness Surveillance (HM/HS).

 

HM/HS is included in the facility planning, design, and construction phases to assure that hardness features stay intact over the life cycle of the protected facility and systems. The guidance provided for Level 4 Protection draws heavily on MIL-STD-188-125-1 and the accompanying implementation guidance provided in MIL-HDBK-423 [see References 1 and 2 in Appendix G].

 

Although the primary method used over the years for protecting equipment from the effects of a HEMP event is to enclose all critical equipment within a steel-shielded electromagnetic (EM) barrier, alternative methods exist including the use of shielded boxes interconnected by nonmetallic lines including optical fiber or fluidic control lines.  

 

Generally, an EM barrier for Level 4 Protection is constructed using metal plate (copper, aluminum, and/or steel walls, ceiling, and floor) with all seams continuously brazed or welded. To be complete, the barrier must include treatments on all penetrations to limit currents on the penetrating cables and the EM fields incident on doors, windows, vents, and pipes. Figure 26 provides a conceptual representation of a complete EM barrier. For the shield portion of the barrier, steel plate is preferred over copper for the bulk of the construction because of its superior shielding effectiveness at lower frequencies and its mechanical strength. MIL-STD-188-125-1 provides more detailed requirements for EM barrier construction.  Additional information on construction of EM protected facilities is also provided in the following military standards, as referenced in Appendix G:

 

• MIL-STD-785 addresses reliability • MIL-STD-470 addresses maintainability • MIL-STD-2165 addresses testability • MIL-STD-729 addresses corrosion control

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 47 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 26. Low-risk EMP barrier protection for facilities (per MIL-STD-188-125-1) The installation of an EM protection barrier provides a level of immunity to multiple EM environments for electronic equipment. Specifically, the EM barrier provides a shield against EMP and helps accomplish the following:

 

• Protects MC systems from harmful EM fields. • Diverts HEMP, SREMP radiating fields and lightning currents to ground. • Provides immunity to external EMI and IEMI environments,  • Contains classified emissions, which provides Transient EMP Emanation Standard (TEMPEST) protection.  • Provides a sharing path for GMD long-line currents. • Acts as an excellent ground for internal systems, and, if good contact is made with earth ground, an excellent grounding surface for nearby external systems. 

 

Note that the building surface that in contact with the earth or concrete provides a very low inductance to ground. This is desirable for HEMP and IEMI. Ground rods have high inductance, and while necessary for lightning, are of limited help against high frequency transient phenomena.

 

Emergency Door

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 48 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

The EM barrier provides an EM isolated environment that enables commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment and systems with no special EM protection to be incorporated within the shielded facility. If the shield is maintained over time, the EM barrier greatly simplifies interior system upgrades and configuration management as systems are moved or replaced. This shifts the focus of system configuration control to maintaining the integrity of the EM barrier.

 

6. Six-sided EM shield barrier

 

Shielding will be in accordance with MIL-STD-188-125-1 [see Reference 1], and related military standards. The shield barrier should be constructed using 3-6 mm thick welded steel sheeting, which provides at least 80 dB of shielding. Copper or other materials may be used if they can provide the required shielding effectiveness and are fully compatible with the POE protective treatments and grounding requirements. Steel is preferred because of its superior shielding effectiveness at low frequencies and its mechanical strength. Using metal screen or wire mesh for the barrier presents problems related to inadequate inherent shielding properties at lower and higher frequencies and presents problems relating to circumferentially bonding cable conduits, vents, and piping penetrations to mesh/screen materials.

 

7. Protection of barrier breaches and cable/piping points of entry (POEs)

 

Treatment of Protection Barrier Breaches and POEs will be in accordance with MIL-STD-188-125-1 [1], and related military standards.   The number of shield breaches and cable/piping POEs should be limited to the minimum required for mission operation, life-safety, and habitability purposes. As a design objective, there should be a single penetration entry area on the EM barrier for all piping and electrical POEs except those connected to external conductors less than 10 m (32.8 ft.) in length. To eliminate cross coupling, the penetration entry area should be located as far from normal and emergency personnel and equipment accesses and ventilation breaches in the shield, as is permitted by the facility floor plan. Each POE should be “treated” with a POE protective device.  Guidance for specific types of penetrations follows.

 

Electrical POEs. EM protection for electrical POEs, including all power, communications, and control penetrating conductors whether shielded or unshielded, should be provided with main barrier transient suppression/attenuation devices. The main barrier transient suppression devices should consist of filters (linear elements) and surge arresters (nonlinear elements), as required to satisfy the shielding effectiveness requirements and residual transient limiting requirements. Figure 27 illustrates a typical cable POE protection design including filters and surge arresters.  POE protection should be installed in a manner that does not degrade the shielding effectiveness of the facility EM shield. 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 49 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

Figure 27. Typical cable POE protection design

 

In the case of audio and data line penetrations through the shield, it is highly recommended that fiber-optic signal lines be used exclusively. Likewise, if possible, bring radio antenna signals into the barrier-protected space using fiber optic cables by employing copper-to-fiber converters outside of the barrier, preferably as close to the antenna as possible to minimize loss and reduce EMI. In all cases, fiber optic cables that penetrate the shield must use a metallic waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) entry.  In the case of copper-to-fiber converters outside the barrier, these converters must either be hardened to EMP or the communication system must not be a critical one, as the converter is likely to be damaged.      With regard to electrical power service and associated barrier penetrations, the facility should be provided with a backup EM-hardened electrical power generation and distribution capability sufficient to perform missions, without reliance upon commercial electrical power sources. In cases where external power sources are necessary or if internal power sources are used to power external equipment, individual power feeder lines must be protected by installing an electrical surge arrester (ESA) and MIL-STD-188-125 tested low pass filter within a shielded compartment or “ESA vault” (see Figure 28) at both ends of these power cables. To prevent the enterprise-side MOVs from shorting or blowing up, fuses or circuit breakers should be placed in series with each phase line between the Distribution Transformer and the Filter/ESA Enclosure (these are not shown). The facility should be designed to operate for more than 30 days for this protection level using backup power in case the external transformers are damaged.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 50 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 28. Commercial electric power POE protection

 

Metallic commercial power entering a critical facility or room that is closer than 50 miles from an urban center with 50,000 or more people (and hence, more likely to be subject to SREMP long line current threats) should be electrically isolated from the power grid. This can be accomplished through either physical separation (disconnection while operating on backup power during periods of heightened threats) or through the use of both an isolation transformer and the use of motor generators outside of the shielded facility or room, etc. As an alternative, fuel cell power technology has been considered in the past for this problem with the fuel passed through the shield.  

 

See Figure 29 to see an example of a power line POE protection approach using a motor-generator set. The input power connection drives a motor external to the EM barrier shield connected to a generator by a dielectric shaft penetrating the shield wall within a WBC. A typical installation would use a flywheel on the motor to electromechanically filter power line disturbances and provide a short, few second UPS function. The primary advantage of a motor-generator set is that there are no metallic power penetrations through the shield. As a result, the motor-generator set provides protection against SREMP, injection-type EM weapons, as well as HEMP (although the essential need for this type of protection is for SREMP). If properly maintained, a motor-generator set can last for more than two decades. The only requirement is to protect the motor against naturally occurring power line transients, such as lightning. This can be accomplished with a Transient Voltage Suppression System (TVSS) usually consisting of MOVs installed at the power input to the motor. In addition, the power line entry to the external motor and any external controls for its operation must be protected against the full set of EMP transients.  This is also true if a fuel cell system were used.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 51 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 29. Power line POE protection using a motor-generator set

 

Personnel and utility breach-type POEs.  For personnel entryways, two designs are permissible.  The first uses double doors separated by a shielded waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) vestibule as illustrated in Figure 30. This design provides additional protection for frequencies below ~50 MHz, although for higher frequencies the waveguide alone is not sufficient. 

 

 

 

Figure 30. Entryway  using two doors separated by a WBC 14

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 52 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

The second option uses two doors separated by a metal-enclosed vestibule preferably with an interlock to ensure that only one door is open at a time (including a door interlock). The interlock is needed to ensure that E1 HEMP fields above 50 MHz do not scatter through the waveguide and that the IEMI fields that extend up to 10 GHz do not enter the Facility HEMP Shield when both doors are open (a sample outer door is shown in Figure 31 on the left). This approach is the best in order to deal with all of the EMP threats.  In either case, inflatable gaskets or metal fingerstock should be used to ensure electromagnetically tight door.

 

In the case of barrier penetrations to accommodate utility pipes and conduits, one should circumferentially weld any metal pipe or conduit penetrations at the exterior surface of the metal shield. WaveguideBelow-Cutoff (WBC) designs for air vents and pipes are illustrated in Figure 32 and Figure 33. The cutoff frequency for air filled waveguides can be estimated as fc (Hz) = 1.5 x 108 / d, where d in meters is the largest dimension of a rectangular waveguide or the diameter of a circular waveguide. Given the cutoff frequency, the length of the waveguide needs to be greater than 5 times the largest transverse dimension of the waveguide.  

 

It should be noted that for ventilation pipes, while a 10 cm diameter is adequate for HEMP purposes, waveguide dimensions of 1 cm are needed to protect against IEMI threats. Industry typically makes ventilation waveguides that are effective up to 18 GHz, satisfying IEMI and TEMPEST requirements in addition to E1 HEMP. In most cases, even if TEMPEST is not a requirement, the use of 1 cm diameter waveguide meshes create less of a mechanical stress on the shield walls, but if hot exhaust is an issue, then the typical 18 GHz meshes cannot be used if they are made from Aluminum, which cannot withstand high temperatures. In addition, small diameter

Figure 31. Sample door with gaskets protecting against EMP threats

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 53 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

waveguide meshes will likely require some oversizing of the entire mesh to overcome the air resistance factor.

 

  Figure 32. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) piping POE protective design for E1 HEMP

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 54 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

Figure 33. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff ventilation POE protective design for E1 HEMP 15

 

8. Designation of Mission Critical (MC) Systems 

 

MC Systems include such items as communications electronics equipment, data processing equipment, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, local portions of hardened network interconnects, and critical support subsystems such as power generation, power distribution, transformers, and environmental control systems. All MC Systems, with the exception of equipment that must access the external environment (e.g. antennas, heat exchangers), should be installed within the EM barrier.  

 

EM special protective measures include additional shielding, additional transient suppression/attenuation devices, fiber optic cables, and equipment-level protection required to achieve EM hardness. To facilitate life cycle system hardness, maintenance, surveillance, and configuration management, it is important to minimize the number of subsystems requiring special protective measures. The three categories requiring special protective measures are as follows:   • MC Systems that must be located outside the EM barrier and, therefore, are not protected by the barrier (e.g., cables, radio antennas, evaporative heat exchangers). • MC Systems that are enclosed within the EM barrier and experience mission aborting damage or upset during verification testing, even though the barrier elements satisfy all performance requirements.  (It is noted that this is an exceptional situation that normally indicates that there is in fact a failure of a barrier element.) • Special protective volumes and barriers to provide supplementary isolation when POE protective devices cannot satisfy the barrier requirements without interfering with facility operation.  (This often occurs when it is not possible to prevent in-band HEMP, SREMP or IEMI penetration on antenna lines leading to a transmitter inside the barrier; in this case it is recommended to build a special shielded area for the transmitter equipment inside of the barrier.)

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 55 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

9. EM shield barrier grounding 

 

The barrier grounding practices described here apply to HEMP, SREMP, EM weapons, and lightning. The grounding required for these effects are part of the total facility-grounding network with the ultimate path to ground being the earth electrode subsystem. The lightning subsystem and its earth grounding electrode subsystem are the main interfaces with the EM protection system. It is important that the grounding system be properly designed and constructed to provide the most direct and lowest possible impedance to the earth ground at all frequencies of interest.

 

The barrier shield exterior should be multi-point grounded to a buried earth electrode system at the corners of the barrier and at 20 foot intervals around the perimeter of the barrier [7-8] (see Figure 34).  This approach is particularly important if the shield barrier is not in direct contact with the soil under the facility (when there is soil contact, the shield is grounded in a low inductance fashion providing an excellent path for high-frequency currents on the shield to flow to ground).  This buried earth electrode system should also be used as the common ground counterpoise for the EM protection systems of external equipment. Ground straps or cables used to connect the barrier shield to the earth electrode subsystem should be electrically bonded to the external surface of the barrier shield. At least one such low-inductance ground strap, cable or plate should be located at each penetration entry area.  Grounds for equipment and structures outside the barrier shield should be electrically bonded to the outside surface of the barrier shield or to the buried earth electrode subsystem.   

 

   Figure 34. Shield barrier earth electrode system

 

Grounds for equipment and structures enclosed within the protected volume should be electrically bonded to the inside surface of the shield. Internal equipment should be single-point grounded to the inside of the barrier shield to avoid inductive ground loops, although this aspect is not critical if the shield reduces the external fields correctly.  It is a concern for equipment not inside of a shielded volume.  All grounding connections to the facility EM shield should be made in a manner that does not create POEs by breaching the shield. 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 56 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

10. EM Barrier Hardness Validation Testing

 

EM barrier testing is important to ensure the integrity of the shield and the POE protection.  The testing should include quality assurance testing during facility construction and equipment installation, acceptance testing for the EM barrier and special protective measures, and verification testing of the completed and operational facility.

 

Initial EM protection acceptance testing. Initial certification of the EM barrier protection effectiveness should be based upon successful demonstrations of compliance with shielding effectiveness (SE) tests for the barrier and pulsed current injection (PCI) tests of all conducting penetrations. Initial acceptance tests of the EM barrier and special protective measures should be conducted after all related EM barrier shield and PoE construction work has been completed.  Initial acceptance test procedures and results should be documented and retained for use as hardness maintenance and hardness surveillance (HM/HS) baseline configuration and performance data.

 

Operational verification testing. After completion of the EM protection subsystem and installation, operational checks, and installation/acceptance of all system equipment, the EM hardness of the facility should be verified through a program of tests and supporting analysis. The verification program should result in a definitive statement that the critical time-urgent mission functions of the barrier and its contents are certified to withstand exposure to the EM environments of concern. Verification test procedures and results should also be documented and retained for use as hardness maintenance and surveillance (HM/HS) baseline configuration and performance data.

 

Validation testing types. Both initial acceptance testing and operational verification testing include (1) shielding effectiveness tests, (2) pulsed current injection testing of all electrical POEs and (3) grounding system tests.  

 

(1) Shielding effectiveness testing is used to certify that the facility EM shield, with all POE protective devices installed, provides at least the minimum shielding effectiveness shown in Appendix A, Figure A1 for HEMP (80 dB up to 1 GHz). This protection level is sufficient for the radiated fields associated with HEMP and SREMP. To extend the protection to encompass the threat of EM weapons producing IEMI, it is recommended that the shielding effectiveness requirement be extended at the 80 dB level up to 10 GHz. Shielding effectiveness testing should be conducted with barrier POEs and their protective devices in a normal operating configuration, using shielding effectiveness test procedures described in Appendix A of MIL-STD188-125-1 [1]. 

 

(2) HEMP pulsed current injection (PCI) testing is well prescribed and involves injecting the pulses prescribed in Appendix A, Table A1 of this document for each electrical POE. This baseline testing for HEMP gives confidence that POE protection will withstand HEMP, radiated SREMP and EM weapon threats up to 1 GHz.  To extend the PCI testing to higher frequencies, the IEC has developed test waveforms for EM threats above 1 GHz [9]. The EM barrier passes the test if the POE protective devices attenuate voltages and currents measured inside the shield to the upper bound levels prescribed for each class of electrical POE (as provided in Appendix A, Table A2).  Additionally, the main barrier protective device should be rated to withstand a sufficient number of test pulses at the prescribed peak injection current without damage or unacceptable performance degradation to accommodate life cycle testing.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 57 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

(3) Ground system testing. The resistance to earth of the earth electrode subsystem should be tested using the fall-of-potential method. The completed grounding system should be “Megger tested” at the service disconnect enclosure grounding terminal, and at earth electrode system ground test wells. Measure ground resistance not less than 2 full days after the last trace of precipitation, and without the soil being moistened by any means other than natural drainage or seepage and without chemical treatment or other artificial means of reducing natural ground resistance. It is recommended that the tests be performed using the two-point method according to IEEE 81, “Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity Grounding Impedance and Earth Surface Potentials of Ground Systems.” Unless otherwise specified by facility drawings, the earth ground resistance should be 10 ohms or less.  

 

11. Hardness Maintenance and Hardness Surveillance (HM/HS)

 

A built-in test capability should be installed to at least qualitatively monitor for EM shield leakage.  The built-in shield monitoring system should include:

 

• Radiating antenna(s) external to the barrier shield • Receiving antenna(s) internal to the shield • Test control, antenna source, and data analysis electronics inside the shield

 

To facilitate HM/HS, the barrier shield design should include a crawl space underneath the shield floor to enable inspection for floor plate defects due to maintenance or corrosion and shielding effectiveness testing. On the other hand, if the barrier shield floor can be constructed in direct contact with the soil, high frequency currents induced on the other 5 sides of the shield will be severely attenuated at the soil/barrier interface.

 

12. Treatment of Mission Critical (MC) Systems outside the EM barrier 

 

For MC Systems that must be located outside of the barrier shield, special protective measures should be implemented to ensure effective EM protection. Special protective measures for MC Systems outside the main barrier may include:

 

• Cable, conduit, and local volume shielding • Use of fiber optic cables for signaling • Linear and nonlinear transient suppression/attenuation devices • Equipment-level hardening (reduced coupling cross-section, dielectric means of power transport, use of inherently robust components) • Moving sensitive circuits associated with external MC Systems to locations within the protected volume • Automatic recycling features or operator intervention schemes, when the mission timeline permits • Other hardening measures appropriate for the particular equipment to be protected

 

Performance requirements for the special protective measures should ensure that the highest EMP-induced, peak time domain current stresses reaching the equipment are less than the vulnerability thresholds of the equipment.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 58 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

RF communications antennas outside the main EM barrier and any associated antenna-mounted electronics, tuning circuits, and antenna cables located outside the main electromagnetic barrier should be treated as MC Systems that are placed outside the EM barrier. Performance requirements for the EM protection should ensure that the highest EM threat-induced peak time domain current stresses at the antenna feed are less than the vulnerability thresholds of the MC Systems located outside the barrier.  

 

Front door in-band protection is one of the more challenging (but not insurmountable) EM protection problems. The high gains associated with most “front door” coupling paths make these potentially the most susceptible portion of radio communication systems. However, these wellcharacterized front door receive paths have been the subjects of much attention in terms of protection engineering.  Radar systems are often protected from their own or neighboring transmitters by a receiver protector or RP. Similar protection can be applied to communication receivers against in-band EM weapon environments. A typical RP uses plasma and diode limiter stages. At a given threshold the most sensitive diode turns on, forming a shunt across the waveguide.  At higher energies, the other stages activate in parallel.  The plasma “vial” stages turn on at the highest powers through a process similar to air breakdown and are capable of diverting large amounts of energy to ground without damage. Most vial limiters use halogen gas as the breakdown medium. If the system is transmitting, it will be necessary to unkey the transmitter to extinguish the ignited plasma devices.  As an example, the schematic of a Westinghouse RP design is provided in Figure 35.

 

Effective and robust waveguide filters are available for out-of-band front door EM weapon environments.  The challenge is to provide protection at the same time minimizing insertion loss effects on normal operation.

 

 

Figure 35. Example receiver protector unit diagram.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 59 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

13.  Special protective volumes

 

Special protective volumes for piping POEs. As discussed earlier in this section, when a pipe POE diameter must be larger than 1/5 of the pipe’s length and a WBC array insert cannot be used, a special protective volume should be established inside the EM barrier. The protective volume should include a special protective barrier that should completely enclose the non-compliant piping. The protective volume should be protected at the barrier shield outer wall using the WBC technique having a cutoff frequency of at least 1.0 GHz for HEMP and SREMP, but should extend to 10 GHz for IEMI and 18 GHz for TEMPEST. The special protective barrier may be a separate shield with protected penetrations, or it may be implemented by extending the metal walls of the piping system itself as shown in the figure below. Performance requirements for the special protective barrier should ensure that the total shielding effectiveness, measured through the main EM barrier and special protective barrier, satisfies at least the minimum requirements shown in Appendix A, Figure A1. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 60 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

  Figure 37. Special protective volume for electrical equipment

Figure 36. Special protective volume for piping POE for E1 HEMP

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 61 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Special protective volumes for electrical POEs. When a main barrier protective device cannot be designed to achieve the transient suppression/attenuation performance prescribed for the particular class of electrical POE without interfering with operational signals it is required to pass, a special protective volume should be established inside the main EM barrier as shown in Figure 37 above. A special protective volume should be enclosed by a special protective barrier with primary and secondary special electrical POE protective devices, as required to meet the performance requirements prescribed. The special protective barrier should completely enclose wiring and equipment directly connected to a primary special electrical POE protective device. The special protective barrier may be a separate shield, or it may be implemented using cable and conduit shields and equipment cabinets. Performance requirements for the special protective barrier should ensure that the total shielding effectiveness, measured through the main EM barrier and special protective barrier, satisfies at least the minimum requirements shown on Appendix A, Figure A1 (HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement).

 

Secondary special electrical POE protective device requirements. When the combination of the primary special electrical POE protective device and the directly connected equipment cannot be designed to achieve the transient suppression/attenuation performance prescribed for the class of electrical POE (per Appendix A, Table A2), a secondary special electrical POE protective device should be used. The secondary special electrical POE protective device should be designed so that the total transient suppression/attenuation, measured through the primary special protective device, the connected equipment, and the secondary special protective device, satisfies at least the minimum requirements prescribed for the class of POE without device damage or performance degradation. 

 

MC Systems in a special protective volume. Special protective measures should be implemented as necessary to harden MC Systems in a special protective volume to the EM-induced stresses that will occur in that volume. Special protective measures for MC Systems in a special protective volume may include the use of the following:

 

• Cable, conduit, and volume shielding • Fiber-optic cables • Transient suppression/attenuation devices • Equipment-level hardening • Remote locating of sensitive circuits • Automatic recycling or failover • Operator intervention features • Other hardening measures appropriate for the particular equipment to be protected. 

 

Performance requirements for the special protective measures should ensure that the highest EMinduced peak time-domain current stresses reaching the equipment are less than the vulnerability thresholds for the equipment.  Adequate WBC EM attenuation occurs if the length (L) is greater than 2 25 W H + where H is the height and W is the width of the conduit or passageway. 

 

 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 62 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

14. Special Protection at the box level 

 

While a facility-level barrier (“global” shielding and POE protection) is preferred, there are situations where box-level protection can be used.  A conceptual diagram of global vs. box-level protection appears below in Figure 38. 

 

 

Figure 38. Global barrier vs. box-level protection

 

A complete facility EM barrier provides the best protection. Its effectiveness is easy to verify using CW field illumination, which facilitates initial protection certification and HM/HS activities. It is the preferred method for critical systems where internal electronic boxes are being changed or upgraded often. It has been successfully implemented for the HEMP protection of the U.S. backbone communication and strategic missile systems. However, for many systems global shielding may impose unacceptable cost and weight increases.  

 

Alternatively, a combination could also be implemented where a 30 dB or more shielded facility is used for equipment and cables that are less important or less sensitive. An additional EM barrier of 50 dB or more in this example could then also be used for more important or more sensitive equipment.

 

Box level protection can be very effective, especially in the case where only a few pieces of equipment are critical. Well-designed electronic boxes using RF gaskets and cable treatment have been demonstrated to be very effective to the point that internally coupled RF levels are indistinguishable from noise levels. Non-fiber optic cables must be well shielded with high quality connectors circumferentially bonded to the cable shield. Box level hardening techniques are depicted below in Figure 39.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 63 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure 39. Box-level hardening techniques

 

15. Multiple shielded buildings or shielded volumes connected by conduits

 

EMP protection for cables running between two shielded facilities or rooms may be provided by using continuous conduit shielding or highly shielded and tested cables, when the lengths of the runs do not exceed the applicable maximums provided in Table 10 that follows. 

 

Table 10. HEMP Specifications for Cable Runs Between Two Protected Areas

 

 

Table Definitions:  (1) Signal Line: Contains one or more control or signal conductors. (2) Low Current Power Line: Contains one or more conductors with maximum operating currents less than 1.0 A. (3) Medium Current Power Line: The maximum operating current on the lowest rated conductor is between 1.0 A and 10 A. (4) High Current Power Line: Contains only power lines with operating currents greater than 10 A. (5) Buried Conduit: No more than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill. (6) Nonburied Conduit: More than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 64 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Main barrier ESAs and filters are not required on the penetrating conductors under conditions where cable runs are shorter than shown in the previous Table and the conduit or cable is bonded to the shields at both ends.  

 

Some design and certification test requirements are shown below. Additionally, “Figure 40. EMP protected conduit” on the right shows as a sample conduit running from an EMP filtered area to a 120 dB EMP protected container.

 

• Conduit design requirements. EMP protection conduits should be rigid metal conduits, with circumferentially welded, brazed, or threaded closures at all joints and couplings, pull boxes, and at both ends of penetrations through the facility EMP shields. 

 

• Conduit certification test requirements.  A pulsed current injection (PCI) source, producing an 800-A short-circuit current on a buried signal or low current power line conduit and a 5000-A short-circuit current on a non-buried signal or low current power line conduit, 20 ns risetime and 500-ns pulse width (full width at half maximum), and source impedance ≥ 60 Ω, should produce a residual internal transient stress no greater than 0.1 A on the wire bundle inside the conduit. 

 

The same PCI source connected on the outer surface of a medium or high current power line conduit should produce a residual internal transient stress no greater than 10 A, when the operating current on the lowest rated conductor in the wire bundle inside the conduit is greater than 10 A, and no greater than 1.0 A when the operating current is between 1.0 A and 10 A.

 

If a multi-conductor shielded cable can be tested in the laboratory to the pulses described in the second bullet above, and it can achieve the required peak residuals, then a shielded cable can be used instead of a conduit.

Figure 40. EMP protected conduit

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 65 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

7. HEMP MODEL MITIGATION RESULTS This section uses a HEMP protection effectiveness model based upon: IEC recommendations, known nuclear yields by nuclear-capable countries, and real-world testing of commonly used cables and equipment. This model was developed to better understand the ramifications of a HEMP attack and how much protection is needed to prevent damage or upsets (resetting the device). This protection would also be critical for SREMP and IEMI attacks. The model showed that even though minimal protection of 10 dB helps significantly, 20 dB is much more helpful, and 30 dB eliminates almost all damage. 

 

The above is excellent news since 10 dB can often be met simply by following good lightning protection practices, including ensuring low inductance ground connections. 20 dB can generally be met and sometimes 30 dB can also be met by making small, inexpensive modifications. These EMP improvements include using EMP rated SPDs, adding ferrites, burying external cables, and moving operations toward the middle of a building perhaps in the basement with more walls between the cable runs and the potential HEMP burst. 

 

These simple EMP related changes or additions could substantially reduce the risks associated with an EMP attack and prevent it from devastating the country. 

7.1. Model Assumptions This section discusses the results of an EMP model that was created to better understand the relationship between improved EMP protection and decreased equipment damage and upsets. The key parameters in the model are shown in Table 11 below.

 

Table 11. Modeling Parameters Used to Calculate HEMP Damage Parameter Assumption Nuclear Yield 100 kiloton (kT) or a peak field of 50 kV/m (peak field is per IEC recommendation) Height of Burst 400 km (about 250 miles) (per IEC recommendation) Latitude and longitude of burst 40.0 North, 100.0 West 100 ft. Ethernet • 0.1m height over ground; aligned radially • Current into 100 ohms • Maximum of calculations for 0.01 S/m or 0.001 S/m ground conductivity • Damage at 10 A; Upset at 5 A (per actual testing) POTS Telephone • Voltage calculation for 1 km radial line • Damage at 8 kV; no upsets (per actual testing) Cordless Telephone • Voltage calculation for 1 km radial line • Damage at 4 kV (AC/DC Power Adapter failed) (per actual testing)

 

The baseline of 0 dB shown in the results assumes that the item in question has a clear line of sight to the HEMP burst and that the cables are not shielded. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 66 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

7.2. Model Results Below are the modeling results using the assumptions discussed under Model Assumptions above. The first subsection below reviews the High Level HEMP Model Results. The next three subsections show the damage and upset areas for the following: (i) 100’ Ethernet Model Results, (ii) POTS Telephone Model Results, (iii) Cordless Telephone Model Results. These results include protections of 0 dB, 10 dB, 20 dB, and 30 dB.

High Level HEMP Model Results The high level HEMP modeling results shown in Table 12 demonstrate the potential devastating national impact of a 100 kT HEMP burst. Fortunately, the results also demonstrate the potential to substantially reduce the impact with 20 dB of protection and essentially eliminate it with 30 dB of protection. These results drive the government’s desire to ensure that at least the critical infrastructure has adequate EMP resiliency, particularly given the minimal cost that is often involved in obtaining improved resilience.

 

Table 12. Example HEMP Model Damage and Upset Mitigation Results

Scenario – with amount of Protection in dB

Damage Area US (sq mi)

Damage % US

Upset Area US (sq mi)

Upset % US

Total Damage + Upset Area US (sq mi)

Total Damage + Upset % US

100 ft Ethernet – 0 dB  1,600,214 54.2% 458,229 15.5% 2,058,443 69.7% 100 ft Ethernet – 10 dB  617,929 20.9% 588,277 19.9% 1,206,206 40.8% 100 ft Ethernet – 20 dB 49,642 1.7% 193,159 6.5% 242,801 8.2% 100 ft Ethernet – 30 dB 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% POTS Telephone – 0 dB 1,522,461 51.5% 0 0.0% 1,522,461 51.5% POTS Telephone – 10 dB 380,791 12.9% 0 0.0% 380,791 12.9% POTS Telephone – 20 dB 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% POTS Telephone – 30 dB 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Cordless Telephone – 0 dB 2,305,017 78.0% 0 0.0% 2,305,017 78.0% Cordless Telephone – 10dB  970,088 32.8% 0 0.0% 970,088 32.8% Cordless Telephone – 20dB  129,791 4.39% 0 0.00% 129,791 4.4% Cordless Telephone – 30dB  0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.0%

 

 

 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 67 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

100’ Ethernet Model Results As shown in the figures below, the amount of EMP upset/damage to equipment connected to 100’ Ethernet cables could be substantially reduced or eliminated with 20 dB or 30 dB of protection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 42. Reduced damage with 10 dB protection to 100’ Ethernet cable connected equipment

Figure 41. Potential upset/damage of equipment connected to 100’ Ethernet cable with 0 dB protection 

Figure 43. Localized damage only with 20 dB protection with 100’ Ethernet cable

Figure 44. No damage with 100’ Ethernet cable and 30 dB protection

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 68 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

POTS Telephone Model Results As shown in Figure 45 through Figure 48 below, the amount of damage to a POTS telephone could be substantially reduced or even eliminated with 20 dB or 30 dB protection. 

 

 

 

Figure 46. Significantly reduced damage with  10 dB protection

Figure 47. No POTS telephone damage with 20 dB protection

Figure 45. Devastating POTS telephone damage with 0 dB protection

 

Figure 48. No POTS telephone damage with 30 dB protection

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                  

 69 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Cordless Telephone Model Results As shown in Figure 49 through Figure 52 below, the amount of damage to a cordless phone base could be substantially reduced or even eliminated with 20 dB or 30 dB protection. In all cases, the damage was due to the AC/DC power adapter failing (not the handset).

 

     

 

 

Figure 52. No cordless telephone damage with 30 dB protection

Figure 49. Devastating cordless telephone AC/DC adapter damage with 0 dB protection

Figure 50. Significantly reduced damage, but still huge with 10 dB protection

Figure 51. Only localized damage to cordless telephones with 20 dB protection

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED                                                                                                                 

 70 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

8. NEXT STEPS There are several next steps planned for this document to better support the DHS released “Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland against Threats of Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances” document released on October 9, 2018. In particular, these next steps include the following with references to the DHS EMP Strategy in parentheses:

 

• Review additional “intra-Departmental, Federal interagency, and civilian scientific research on EMP and GMD and their effects on critical infrastructure.” (1.2) • Include both more real world test data and additional prior research on the effects of EMP on critical infrastructure systems. (1.2.1) • List EMP knowledge gaps and prioritize potential research opportunities that could reduce vulnerabilities in a cost-effective manner. (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 2.2.3) • Discuss additional EMP-GMD response and recovery mechanisms, particularly guidelines that can help make the critical infrastructure operational again or help technically mitigate the damage. (2.2.2) • Further prioritize the critical infrastructure operational resilience activities based on risk management principles. (2.3.1, 2.3.3 , 3.1.1, and p. 6 of 3rd Core Principle) • “Identify the technological advances likely to significantly enhance resilience or reduce vulnerability of critical infrastructure to electromagnetic incidents.” (2.3)

 

Some of the above next steps are iterative by nature and the timeframe to complete each of the above next steps will vary, which will likely lead to one or more incremental releases of this document.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix A             

 

 A-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix A. EMP PROTECTION TEST AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA From Reference 1.  See notes at end of Table A-3.

 

Table A-1. Injected Pulse Characteristics

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix A             

 

 A-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

From Reference 1.  See notes at end of Table A-3.

 

Table A-2. Residual internal stress limits for classes of electrical POEs

 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix A             

 

 A-3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Table A-3. Injected pulse characteristics and residual internal stress limits for antenna POE

 

 

Notes for Tables A-1, A-2 and A-3. 1  Pulse current injection requirements are in terms of Norton equivalent sources. Short-circuit currents are double exponential waveshapes. Source impedances are ≥ 60 Ω for the short pulse, ≥ 10 Ω for the intermediate pulse, and ≥ 5 Ω for the long pulse. 2  FWHM is pulse full-width at half-maximum amplitude. 3  The long pulse peak short-circuit current (1,000 A) and FWHM (20-25 s) are design objectives. Any double exponential waveform with peak short-circuit current ≥ 200 A, risetime ≤ 0.2 s, and peak current x FWHM product ≥ 2 x 104 A-s satisfies the minimum requirement. 4  Whichever is larger. N is the number of penetrating conductors in the cable. 5  Low-voltage control/signal lines are those with maximum operating voltage < 90 V. High-voltage control/signal lines are those with maximum operating voltage ≥ 90 V. 6  High-current power lines have maximum operating current > 10 A. Medium-current power lines have maximum operating current between 1 A and 10 A. Low-current power lines have maximum operating current < 1 A. 7  An antenna shield is considered buried when it terminates at a buried antenna and less than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill. A conduit is considered buried when it connects two protected volumes and less than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill. 8  Pulse current injection requirements are in terms of Norton equivalent sources. The short pulse generator, with a source impedance ≥ 60 Ω, is used for shield-to-ground injections and for wire-to-shield injections at dominant response frequencies ≤ 30 MHz. A charge line pulser, with a source impedance ≥ 50 Ω, is used for wire-to-shield injections at dominant response frequencies > 30 MHz. 9  The dominant response frequency (or frequencies) and threat-level peak short-circuit current are determined from extrapolated coupling measurements. The length Ɩ of the charge line of the charge line pulser is the quarter-wavelength of the dominant response frequency: Ɩ = 0.25 c/f, where c = 3 x 108 m/s and f is frequency in Hz.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix A             

 

 A-4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

Figure A-1. HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix B. EMP PROTECTION VENDORS AND SERVICES This appendix is intended to familiarize those considering EMP protection options with the types of solutions currently available in the U.S. marketplace. The companies listed offer specialized products or services that address the threats from HEMP, radiated SREMP, and IEMI. This list is not a comprehensive source listing of companies who offer EMP related products and services. If you are a business who offers related products or services and would like to be included in future releases of this document, please contact Kevin.Briggs@hq.dhs.gov and include, where possible, any independent testing data that verifies product claims and customer references from previous work, if applicable.    

 

Disclaimer:  Reference to any specific company’s product or service herein does not represent an endorsement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the NCC as to the effectiveness or adequacy of any product or service, nor should this Appendix be considered an approved or recommended vendor list. Use of any vendor product or service listed in this Appendix should be based entirely on the buyer’s own analysis of alternatives and research of vendor capabilities.

EMP Protection Levels Achieving cost effective protection from EM threats requires a “defense-in-depth” approach to progressively increase equipment immunity and resiliency and ultimately harden critical systems and infrastructures. It is not necessary or financially feasible to harden all systems and infrastructure to survive and operate through an EMP event. System prioritization and planning for an EMP event should be an integral part of each organization’s continuity and contingency planning efforts.  

 

DHS EMP Protection Level 1 generally uses manual procedures to isolate off-line equipment from EM threats and adding ferrite devices to cables to attenuate unwanted HF cable signals. These are intended to be added by existing site personnel for minimal cost. Level 2 measures focus on increasing resiliency by installing active and passive components to mitigate the conductive effects that threaten on-line systems. Level 2 measures can be performed by skilled in-house personnel or obtained through contracted services. 

 

Levels 3 and 4 measures address the radiated effects of EM threats by installing layers of EM shielding around prioritized systems to harden operations. Shielding a new or existing facility is typically performed by an experienced contractor who will design, engineer, install and test the solution to meet the unique site requirements and performance specifications.  

EMP Protection Level 1  Level 1 protection measures are the first line of defense in protecting essential equipment from the conductive and radiated effects of EM threats. These manual isolation procedures can protect offline and spare equipment from the initial EM effects for little to no cost. Simply unplugging the cables from equipment that is only required for continuity or backup purposes will create physical and electrical separation and provide protection from EMP induced currents.  

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Add ferrite clip-on beads to equipment cables that must remain connected and on-line. To best shield against the radiated effects of EMP, off-line equipment must be stored behind protective metal barriers. Placing larger equipment in a Faraday case and storing it in a steel constructed warehouse is preferable to on-the-shelf in an office or operations building. 

 Faraday Bags

 

Faraday bags are the most basic type of shielding available and are widely available online. They are primarily designed to protect small electronics such as cell phones, key fobs, tablets, laptops, and handheld radios from EMI. The frequency range covered is dependent upon the Faraday bag, but some work as low as 10 MHz and others shield as high as 18 GHz. Most Faraday bags at least cover the pre-5G cellular range as well as the frequency ranges for RFID (315 MHz in North America), the GPS bands, and many cover Wi-Fi bands (the higher Wi-Fi frequency is at 5.9 GHz).  

 

Bag size, construction and the level of protection can vary greatly although one bag should be sufficient for most Level 1 and Level 2 protection situations. Nesting within multiple bags or storing the bags in a metal container to create more layers will increase the level of protection. Be aware that many bags marketed as Faraday bags are designed for evidence collection and may only provide electrostatic protection. Prices range from a few dollars for small disposable bags to a couple or few hundred dollars for backpacks or heavy-duty duffel bags. Also, while the material in some bags can provide high levels of EM attenuation, often the closing method for the bags are the main leakage point.  Look for bags, which indicate that the entire bag has been tested.

 

Vendors selling Faraday bags can easily be found using a search engine or popular general online shopping sites (e.g., Amazon, Walmart). Specific vendors include (see Disclaimer on page B-1):

 

Defender Shield: http://www.defendershield.com  Faraday Defense: https://faradaydefense.com/ Mission Darkness: (MOS Equipment) https://mosequipment.com/

 Faraday Containers

 If portability is required, a Faraday container offers a more durable solution than a Faraday bag.  These rigid containers are suitable for transport and can be stacked to store equipment off-line until needed. Containers range in size from briefcase-sized for phones and laptops to suitcase size containers and transit cases for large components or multiple devices. Prices typically range from a few dollars to several hundred dollars although less expensive and more expensive containers are available. Custom engineered cases can cost between $10K-$40K with deployable system solutions offering onboard power, interfaces and thermal management ranging from $40K to over $100K.

 

Vendors selling Faraday containers include (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix):

 

Conductive Composites (www.conductivecomposites.com/SystemSolutions ) offers a line of injection molded and laminated electronics enclosures that provides shielding performance across a broad range of frequencies that meets MIL STD 461, 464 and 188125 requirements. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B              

 

  B-3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

EMP Engineering (http://empengineering.com/storage-faraday-boxes) makes a line of welded aluminum Faraday cases ranging from several hundred dollars to over a thousand ($787 – $1171 dollars in July 2018). 

 Ferrite Cores/Beads

 

Ferrite beads are widely available online and cost just a few dollars each. Normally more than one bead is required to achieve significant attenuation (~10 dB). They can be clamped on, snapped on or slipped over cables near the equipment end to attenuate unwanted high-frequency cable signals. Type 61 (HF) ferrites made of Nickel Zinc are recommended. These are designed for inductive applications to attenuate interfering pulses from 200 MHz to 2 GHz.  They can be added to existing cables or purchased with ferrites pre-built in common cable types.   A wholesale distributor such as Digi-Key Electronics (http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en/filters/ferritecores-cables-and-wiring/3408554?WT.srch=1) allows for filtering any combination of sizes and specifications to fit requirements (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix).  

 

Other suppliers include:

 

Amindon Corporation: http://www.amidoncorp.com/61-material-ferrite-toroids/ API Delevan: http://www.delevan.com/ Bourns: https://www.bourns.com/  Fair-Rite Products: https://www.fair-rite.com/  Kemet: http://www.kemet.com/Ferrite_Products  Laird: https://www.lairdtech.com/  Leadertech: https://leadertechinc.com/   muRata: https://www.murata.com/en-us/products/emc/ferrite Palomar Engineers: http://palomar-engineers.com/ferrite-products TDK: tdk.com or https://product.tdk.com/info/en/products/ferrite/index.html  Toshiba: Toshiba.com or https://toshiba.semiconstorage.com/us/product/amorphous/high-permeability-cores.html  Wurth: https://www.wuerth.com or https://www.weonline.com/web/en/wuerth_elektronik/start.php 

EMP Protection Level 2  Level 2 adds active and passive components designed to limit the conductive effects of EMP while essential systems remain operational and connected to external power and network connections.   The cost to add Level 2 measures to an existing facility is relatively low proportional to the quantity of power and communications connections that must be protected. 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Surge Suppressors and Filters 

 

Many commercially available power strips have surge protection built in. These should be used to protect all essential equipment and must have response characteristics as discussed in Section 2 “EMP PROTECTION AND RESILIENCE CONSIDERATIONS” (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix):

 

Alpha Delta https://www.alphadeltacom.com/ Transi-Trap ATT3G50 coaxial surge protectors have replaceable GDT elements for different power levels.  A Transi-Trap has an N female connector on both ends (no suffix) or SO-239 UHF female connectors (U suffix). They are available for either stud mounting (no suffix) or bulkhead mounting (B suffix). One of the UHF connectors is 1.5 inches long with a UBXL suffix. The standard version of the ATT3G50 is suitable for protecting a 125-watt transmitter, and the HP version is suitable for protecting a 1 kW transmitter. Transmitters operating at other power levels can be better protected by selecting GDTs with different voltages.  

 

Alpha-Delta uses standard 6×8-mm (height x diameter) GDTs which are available from GDT manufacturers/distributors in voltages of 90, 230, 350, 470, 600, 900, 1000 and higher for less than $3 each. Alpha-Delta uses GDTs from:  EPCOS (https://en.tdk.eu/arresters) and Littelfuse (http://www.littelfuse.com/~/media/electronics/product_catalogs/littelfuse_gdt_catalog.pdf.pdf). Littelfuse also has a variety of catalogs featuring their other surge protection devices (e.g., datacenter lines) at http://electronicscatalogs.littelfuse.com/app.php?RelId=6.7.0.18.4    Alpha-Delta stocks only the 350 and 1,000-volt rating GDTs, suitable for 125 and 1,000-watts, respectively, based on a VSWR of 3:1 or better (lower). VSWR is a function of the impedance mismatch between the radio (which is almost always 50-ohms) and the antenna impedance, which can vary widely as a function of frequency. If your worst (highest) VSWR is more or less than 3:1, different voltage GDTs should be used. The GDT voltage is a concern because the voltage across the GDT increases with transmitter power and antenna VSWR, which can cause the GDTs to trigger and wear out prematurely if the GDT voltage-rating is too low. Although lower voltage-rating GDTs provide better protection for the radio equipment, a GDT with a high enough voltage-rating needs to be used so it won’t be triggered from normal operating voltages.  

 

APC’s ProtectNet (http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=145&ISOCountryCode=us) line of surge protection devices provide protection against power transients traveling over telecommunications lines and meet rating requirements to be effective for EMP types of transients. These types of devices should be used to protect all essential equipment at each power, phone and network connection. Its SurgeArrest protectors will alert the user if they are damaged or compromised. Prices range from $15 to $40 dollars per device. http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=145&ISOCountryCode=us

 

Emprimus (www.emprimus.com ) is a research and development company partnered with ABB, a global leader in power and automation technologies, working with major utilities to produce effective products to protect the electric power grid (both AC and HVDC) against stray DC currents, Solar Storm/Geomagnetic Induced Currents (GIC), EMP including Nuclear EMP (E3 Pulse), and Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) caused by Radio Frequency Weapons. The SolidGround™ neutral blocker is a solution to help protect the electric power grid from stray DC, Solar Storms (GMD) and Nuclear EMP E3. 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-5 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

ETS Lindgren (www.ets-lindgren.com ) is an international manufacturer of components and systems that measure, shield and control electromagnetic and acoustic energy.  Their Red Edge Technology line of EMP rated power filters is designed to MIL-STD-188-125 for both TEMPEST and non-TEMPEST applications.

 

Huber+Suhner (http://empselector.hubersuhner.com/) makes a line of EMP coaxial, data and power components. Their EMP Protector Tool Box helps you select the correct EMP devices to meet your requirements. 

 

The H+S series of N-type connector inline GDT protector housings 3401.17.A and 3402.17.A, have replaceable GDT elements for different voltage levels.  

 

Huber+Suhner (H+S) has a very helpful on-line calculator for finding the recommended GDT for various VSWRs and power levels at http://empselector.hubersuhner.com/gdtcalculator/index.php. The H+S on-line calculator determines the voltage for specifying a GDT when the power and VSWR are known. The VSWR should be measured at the point where the RF surge protector will be located. The VSWR should also be measured at whatever operating frequency produces the highest (worst) VSWR. Using the H+S on-line calculator, insert the “RF CW Power in W” (Watts), the “DC Supply Voltage” (normally zero), the maximum antenna “VSWR” (normally at least 3), and the “Impedance Z” (normally 50), and then click on the “Calculate” button.  

 

Using the H+S online calculator for three typical powers of 100, 400, and 1000 watts (with a 3:1 VSWR) results in the following required GDT voltage ratings:  

 

• 100 watts has a peak voltage of 150 volts, which x1.5 = 225 volts – requires a 350-volt GDT. • 400 watts has a peak voltage of 300 volts, which x1.5 = 450 volts – requires a 600-volt GDT.  • 1,000 watts has a peak voltage of 474 volts, which x1.5 = 712 volts – requires a 900-volt GDT.

 

There are two reasons why the required GDT voltages in the above three examples are so much higher than the calculated peak voltages:  (1) The on-line calculator multiplies the calculated peak voltage by 1.5 to provide a safety factor against false triggering, and (2) GDTs have nominal voltages specified with a 15 or 20% tolerance.  Therefore, the calculated tolerance voltage must be subtracted from the nominal voltage to determine the GDT’s minimum striking voltage.  That is, the 350-volt GDT may strike at only 298 volts, the 600-volt GDT may strike at only 510 volts, and the 900-volt GDT may strike at only 765 volts.  

 

Going into more detail for the last example above, a 900-volt GDT is used despite a calculated striking voltage of 712 volts (to protect an amplifier with an output power of 1,000 watts) because it might strike at a voltage as low as 765 volts with its 15% tolerance. This means that the voltage induced in the antenna lead from a lightning strike or EMP will reach at least 765 volts before the GDT fires. But the induced voltage could go up into the thousands of volts without the surge protector. Also, a VSWR of 3 may only be nominal:  Many VSWRs will be higher, requiring GDTs with even higher voltage ratings. Disregarding the safety factor and the tolerance would result in selecting a GDT with a striking voltage that is too low, compounding false triggering problems.  

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-6 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

NexTek (http://nextek.com) was founded in 1986 to supply EMI/EMC solutions to the electronics industry. It designs and manufactures its products in the USA for the communications, aviation, computer, military, and medical electronic industries. The core product portfolio is based upon two basic product types; coaxial RF protector designs using gas discharge, quarter-wave, and filter technology, and the high-current feedthrough C-type EMI/RFI filters. The industry-leading coaxial arrestor product portfolio delivers both superior performance and value for wireless communications, telecom, WiMAX, Wi-Fi, aviation, military, and homeland security applications. The filter solutions provide similarly class-leading performance and compact form factors for mobile power system, industrial laser, medical device, and aerospace applications.  

 

PolyPhaser, an Infinite Company, has several lines of GDT type coaxial line filters that can provide EMP protection. The PolyPhaser IS-50NX-C0 (http://www.polyphaser.com/products/rf-surgeprotection/is-50nx-c0) limits at 600 Volts (+/- 20%) to protect transceivers with transmitter output powers of 400 watts (with a 3:1 VSWR as was assumed previously with the H+S GDTs).

 

The PolyPhaser IS-NEMP-C0 has a lower turn-on voltage limiting at 330 Volts to provide better protection against HEMP damage for a 100-watt transceiver.  

 

Both of the above PolyPhaser protectors have female N connectors on both ends, but they are also available with one female and one male N connector, or with UHF connectors instead (with different part numbers). Both of these protectors contain capacitors in series with their center pins, so they cannot pass a DC voltage (which some installations require for powering a remote antenna tuner or switch). Both protectors contain non-replaceable GDTs. 

 

See http://www.polyphaser.com for more information.  

 

Transtector, an Infinite Company, (https://www.transtector.com/) product offering includes AC, DC, high speed data and signal protection, EMP/EMI filters, power conditioners, UPS and power distribution units. Their products include a 6 outlet AC Surge Protection device SL-V Surge Cord P/N 1101-058, which uses a silicon avalanche suppression diode and has a published surge suppression response time of <5 ns. Some of its products have been tested to MIL-STD-188-125 E1 and E2 environments, such as the AC EMP product APEC IMAX HT, which is applicable to 120/208 VAC, 240 VAC, and 120 VAC applications. 

 

Other vendors supplying EMP rated filters and suppressors include: 

 

Captor Corporation – http://www.captorcorp.com/index.html EMP Shield – http://www.myempshield.com/compliance-tests/     http://www.myempshield.com    Fischer Custom Communications – http://www.fischercc.com/transient-protectiondevices/  Glenair EMI/EMP Filter Connectors and TVS Devices – http://www.glenair.com/filter/index.htm  LCR Electronics (under Astrodyne TDI) – http://www.lcr-inc.com/emi-rfi-filters/ Technical Sales Solutions, LLC – http://mytechnicalsalessolutions.com

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-7 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Double Conversion On-line and Line Interactive UPS

 

A true on-line, double-conversion type UPS or a high quality line interactive UPS is recommended for protecting equipment from EMP.  Double Conversion On-Line UPS provide continuous output power from the battery backup through an inverter and not directly from the AC power source.  This design provides isolation from transients on the AC power line and continual power without transfer. A high quality line interactive unit is often used for lower power applications (a few pieces of equipment or a rack) and it uses a combination of surge suppression, line noise filtering, and switchover to a battery to prevent damage to sensitive equipment. 

 

Double Conversion On-line UPS are available from (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix):

 

APC – http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=163

 

CyberPower – http://www.cyberpowersystems.com/products/tools/selector/ups

 

Dell – http://www.dell.com 

 

Emerson-Liebert (a business of Vertiv) – http://www.emersonnetworkpower.com/enUS/Products/ACPower/Pages/default.aspx or https://www.vertivco.com/en-us/productscatalog/critical-power/uninterruptible-power-supplies-ups/ 

 

Tripp-Lite – http://www.tripplite.com/products/ups-systems~11

 

EMP Protection Levels 3 and 4 The next two levels of protective measures involve adding protective metallic shielding to the operating environment. These solutions can range from a single equipment rack, to an operations room, to an entire building or facility. Level 3 is designed and installed to meet commercial IEC standards. Level 3 protection can be achieved with bolt-together shielded panels around all sixsides of a room or an equipment rack or by relocating essential equipment into a pre-built shipping container-size shielded enclosure. Nesting equipment behind multiple barriers has an additive effect. For example, placing essential equipment radios in a moderately shielded container or room in the middle of the basement of a building may be as good as placing the equipment near the window of a building in a shielded container.

 

Level 4 increases the degree of protection to the higher MIL-STD-188-125-1. Level 4 requires electrically bonded and tested joints. All penetrations into the shielded enclosure must be bonded and grounded.  Food, fuel and supplies should be provisioned to operate in an EMP environment for up to 30 days.

 

Shielded Enclosures, EMP/GIC Testing, Engineering and Consulting Services

 

Building a shielded enclosure into a new or existing facility is the traditional proven method of EM hardening. Many companies with EMP hardening experience support the Department of Defense

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-8 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

(DoD). They are very experienced in designing, engineering, installing and testing RF shielded enclosures to meet MIL-STD-188-125-1 and -2 applications (note: see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix). As more industries begin to address EMP threats, companies will offer more solutions for commercial and civil applications with different site requirements and performance specifications that the military specifications do not cover.  

 

Advanced Fusion Systems, LLC (AFS), (203-270-9700) is a division of Stratum (http://stratumtechnologies.com/). Its products include an EMI coating.

 ARMAG Corporation (www.armagcorp.com) Armag Corporation has a rich history of client partnership, particularly in U.S. Defense and Government, in developing and manufacturing secure facilities to provide uncompromised physical security. Armag designs and manufactures prefabricated steel, both large and small, to protect against HEMP, IEMI, GMD, and a broad spectrum of threats. Armag incorporates over forty years of experience in consultation with the client to provide solutions that meet their specific requirements. ARMAG has successfully produced and provided third party testing of facilities in order to certify RF Shielding protection in accordance with MIL-STD-188-125-2 and NSA 94-106.

 

ATEC Industries (http://www.atecindustries.com/) ATEC Industries is a full-service general contractor headquartered in Elkridge, Maryland specializing in the design/build delivery of RF shielded facilities. ATEC has the expertise to provide a turnkey solution for both new construction and renovations of varying size and scope. Since 1987 ATEC Industries has been continuously involved in the design, fabrication, construction and testing of RF shielded facilities. ATEC specializes in EM/RFI shielding for governmental, military and medical facilities, both as stand-alone projects and as part of larger integrated construction projects. RF attenuation requirements have varied in the magnetic and electric fields from 50 dB at 1 kHz to 100 dB at 100 KHz to 100 dB at 50 MHz and microwave performance of 115 dB at 18 GHz to 80 dB at 50 GHz.

 

Braden Shielding Systems, LLC (www.bradenshielding.com) designs, manufactures, integrates and tests EM shielding systems for medical, industrial and defense applications. A core competence of the company is hardening of critical infrastructure facilities for protection against the damaging effects of EMP, IEMI and GMD.

 

For more than 30 years, Braden Shielding has manufactured a comprehensive line of proven RF shielding products at its facility in Tulsa, OK. The company provides a number of high-performance shielding systems and a broad range of RF shielded facility penetrations designed specifically to address every Point of Entry (POE) to the EM shield, such as shielded doors, power/signal/data and fiber optic filters, waveguide penetrations for mechanical, fire protection and HVAC systems, as well as custom POE’s for hardness critical items outside the main shielded barrier, e.g., cooling towers, generators and telecommunications.

 

Braden’s staff of experienced design, engineering, fabrication, installation, testing and project management personnel deliver turn-key RF shielding solutions for any shielding project. The Company utilizes the latest 3-D design and Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology and offers comprehensive design support for: Hardened facility planning, architectural/structural/electrical and mechanical design integration, special protective measures and hardness maintenance/hardness surveillance.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-9 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

CenterPoint Energy (www.centerpointenergy.com ) CenterPoint Energy embarked on an initiative to identify an effective, cost efficient solution for High-Power Electromagnetic (EM) mitigation for new and retrofit installations. The focus of mitigation efforts was substation assets used for the protection and control of the power delivery network. The design basis required the identified electromagnetic protection not compromise the reliability of existing substation functions, result in minimal increases to maintenance costs, and avoid significant changes in normal operating procedures. The development of a solution was achieved in 2018 and is rapidly progressing to the field pilot phase. The practical application of EM mitigation design practices in an unobtrusive method will speed the time for implementation, lower initial installation costs, and minimize ongoing maintenance. Each of the aforementioned achievements are realized while meeting the shielding effectiveness requirements of MIL-188-125.

 The EM module will be installed as a backup protection and control system as well as online monitoring while the legacy protection and controls are still in service. If an EM event occurs, the mitigation system could be used in response. By having the system as a redundant parallel backup, the field technicians would not have to interface daily with the EM enclosure, which would help maintenance cost and ensure the integrity of the module. The field technicians also would not need to instantly change their skill sets learning the grounding, bonding and digital protection that would be required on a complete EM control house. Lastly, the EM module has enhanced data gathering and reporting capabilities for control center information which exceeds legacy systems.

 

From a financial perspective, the proposed solution is cost effective when compared to building a new EM control house. Based on initial estimates, a new EM control house will cost over one million dollars. The EM module enclosure would be less than 10% of a new EM control house. In conclusion, utilizing a module based approach would be a cost effective retrofit solution to harden substations for EM events. By being a redundant system, the module also provides a backup for non-EM emergencies such as control house fire or flooding and it does not intrude on present protection and control systems.

 

Contacts: Eric.Easton@CenterPointEnergy.com or Kevin.Bryant@CenterPointEnergy.com  

 

EMP Engineering (http://empengineering.com/) is dedicated to the analysis, design, fabrication and installation of specialized shielding, components and systems to mitigate the harmful effects of EMP and Geomagnetic Storms on buildings, vehicles and structures world-wide. Their team of highly skilled professional engineers, project managers and fabricators have worked on military, government and private projects world-wide.  Services include custom evaluations, installation and commissioning services, shielding, verification testing, hardness, hardness assurance, maintenance and surveillance and EMP solutions that integrate with Architectural, Structural, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering services to create a secured and safe shelter / bunker environment.  

 

They provide full service professional architectural, engineering solutions and products for hardened facilities including CBRE (chemical, biological, radiological, explosive) filters, structural engineering, blast engineering and electrical/mechanical engineering are keep designed environments effective against evolving threats now and in the future.  All designs and projects are HEMP hardened per MIL-STD-188-125-2.   EMP Engineering also provides portable, custom designed HEMP resistant electrical generators; communications centers and data centers

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B              

 

  B-10 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

fabricated in ISO shipping containers at 10, 20, 30 and 40 foot lengths. These can be ballistic/blast hardened with CRBN Air-Filtration systems. 

 

ETS-Lindgren, an Esco Technologies Company.   (http://www.ets-lindgren.com/).  ETS-Lindgren is an innovator of systems and components for the detection, measurement and management of EM, magnetic and acoustic energy.   ETS-Lindgren has the experience and expertise gained from over 70 years’ experience of designing and installing more than 10,000 shielded systems worldwide.  Their RedEdge Pulse Protection brand provides certified EMP Shielding to protect equipment and points of entry and a higher level of protection for continuous data operations with independent, uninterrupted power and utilities.   Their solutions include welded steel construction, modular panel systems, doors, filters, waveguide vents and penetrations and fiber optic penetrations.  

 

HV TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. (https://hvtechnologies.com/hv-equipment) sells (N)EMP test equipment and hardened video camera products. 8526 Virginia Meadows Drive, Manassas, VA 20109

 

Instant Access Networks, LLC (www.stop-emp.com) is a veteran-owned Maryland based company whose on-demand services center on the protection of mission critical facilities and infrastructure from EMP primarily through its commercial-off-the-shelf products and services.   IAN has produced and tested products that provide shielding from 30 dB to 140 dB and include EMP-safe inserts that fit into standard cargo containers or trailers and can come with biological/chemical/radiological air filter systems making an all-hazards safe system.  IAN also developed and tested EMP-protected solar arrays, wind turbines and diesel turbines.  IAN is working with over 40 companies in its DTRA SBIR contract to provide EMP protected microgrids and communications systems and welcomes additional collaborators.

 

Jaxon (https://www.jaxon-em.com/) Jaxon is one of the leading High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) specialty engineering firms in the country. Jaxon is a woman owned, small business located in Colorado Springs, CO. Jaxon’s staff represents one of the largest and most experienced full service EMP service teams in the world. It designs, builds, tests and maintains EMP hardened structures for government and commercial clients around the world. Jaxon has developed multiple sets of ‘Next Generation’ HEMP test equipment. This equipment exceeds Mil STD 188-125 requirements with leading performance characteristics. Jaxon’s state of the art test equipment and engineering staff accelerate the test process and minimize mission down time requirements. Jaxon management serves on the FBI’s InfraGard EMP Special Interest Group as one of their Subject Matter Experts.

 

Keystone Compliance (https://keystonecompliance.com/emp/ ) in New Castle, Pennsylvania is a full-service regulatory compliance laboratory offering solutions for nearly all EMC/EMI, environmental, ISTA-certified package and ingress protection testing requirements. Their EMC/EMI lab reportedly features five test chambers, including three anechoic/ferrite lined 3-meter chambers. Keystone Compliance has extensive experience with shielding effectiveness and EMP testing and works with manufacturers and citizens to determine if their equipment and shielding can handle natural or man-made EMPs. MIL-STD 461 contains test methods and levels to determine a device’s immunity to EMP from both a radiated and conducted immunity standpoint. Radiated immunity in RS105 assesses the impact of radiated exposure. Conducted immunity in CS116 assesses the impact of damped sinusoidal transients on the cables of equipment.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-11 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

L-3 Advanced Technology, Inc. (L-3 ATI), is a subsidiary of L-3 Communications. (https://www2.l3t.com/ati/solutions/redesign.htm) L-3 ATI is known worldwide for its contributions in pulsed high-voltage and high-current systems. Engineers and scientists on the EMS team have pioneered the use of most of the high-power techniques taken for granted today: oil and water dielectric pulse forming line and Blumleinpulse generators; Marx generators; intense bremsstrahlung, z-pinch, plasma radiation and X-ray sources; high-resolution x-radiography; lowjitter, multi-site switching systems, and more. The systems that it has delivered include EMP Generators and Large Area EMP Simulators.

 

Its ancestor Jaycor provided the first High-Altitude EMP (HEMP) shielding technologies to missioncritical U.S. assets. It was formed in 1975 to perform nuclear weapon effects survivability hardening and testing. The JAYCOR EME division formed by Mike Bell in Colorado Springs in 1977 became the pre-eminent underground nuclear test organization. JAYCOR – Colorado Springs worked on many major weapon system EMP hardening programs (Minuteman, Peacekeeper, B-52, B-1, B-2, Polaris, Trident, M-1 Abrams, AH-64). JAYCOR EME began hardening and testing to MIL-STD-188-125 requirements in 1999 for Air Force Space Command. They have performed over 500+ Appendix A SE, 150 Appendix B PCI and 100 Appendix C CWI test sequences since 2011. These tests have been performed on over 400 test objects ranging from facilities buried in mountains to small shielded rooms buried in large buildings to small telecommunications cabinets, from small mobile systems to 12 story fixed radar sites. They have MIL-STD-188-125 tested for AFSPC, NORTHCOM, STRATCOM, ACC, GMD, NMCC, DTRA, PM DCATS, DISA, Bechtel, Harris, and Boeing.

 

Shield Rite was formed in 1987 by Dr. Dave Merewether as a manufacturer of high quality RF doors and RF shielding. The Shield Rite door is a patented design installed in over 360 locations worldwide. Over the past 38 years, the main business has been the fabrication of extremely robust, HEMP Shielded doors, but has expanded to provide custom designed hardened shelters and facilities. Shield Rite was purchased by JAYCOR in mid – 2002 along with all manufacturing rights, patents for various Shield Rite technologies. 

 

LBA Group Inc. (https://www.lbagroup.com/about) is a North Carolina Top 50 Hispanic minorityowned small business and is CVMSDC-certified. It has over 50 years of experience in providing technology and risk management for industrial and telecommunications infrastructure assets in the radio frequency and electromagnetic spaces. The group includes LBA Technology, Inc., a leading source and integrator of radio frequency systems, lightning protection, and EMC equipment for broadcast, industrial, and government users worldwide.

 

Little Mountain Test Facility (LMTF) is a USAF nuclear hardness simulation facility hosted by the ICBM Systems Directorate (AFNWC/NI).  LMTF is a state-of-the art laboratory dedicated to simulation testing of radiation, shock and vibration, and electromagnetic effects for defense and commercial systems.  Since 1974 the Boeing Company has operated and maintain LMTF.  The Boeing Company operates, maintains, and upgrades all critical test capabilities at LMTF. LMTF has over 40 years of experience in EMP harness design and testing a complete and comprehensive approach to EMP test programs.  LMTF extensive experiences includes site surveys, system architecture and cost/schedule analysis to assist in a successful test program.  Developing a comprehensive test plan includes addressing system topology, operational scenarios, test mythologies, test levels and points, and pass/fail criteria provides success for the basis for a successful test execution.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B              

 

  B-12 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

LMTF has a long term working relationship with ICBM and MILSTAR in performing EMP test planning/integration and test execution both per adapted EMP requirements in the systems’ specifications and per MIL-STD-188-125.  LMTF developed complete MIL-STD-188-125 Hardness Maintenance Hardness Surveillance (HMHS) programs for several programs. Government customers may fund work efforts by MIPR or AF Form 616.  Commercial customers work with LMTF through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).

 

Metatech Corporation (http://www.metatechcorp.com/) is a small veteran-owned and operated business of highly-qualified scientists and engineers with broad experience in developing technically sound and innovative EM environmental solutions. Offerings include EM compatibility (EMC), protection designs and testing procedures, geomagnetic storm protection, nuclear EMP prediction for any burst situation, assessments, protection and standardization (e.g. HEMP and SREMP), and IEMI assessments, protection and standardization.  

 

Metatech is a key contributor to EMP research in the areas of HEMP and SREMP environments and coupling and in the development of hardening and testing technologies including military standards, specifications, handbooks, and software. Major programs include SREMP testing and analyses at flash x-ray simulators, SREMP and HEMP standards development, HEMP environment and long-line coupling calculations and direct support for the design of facilities to achieve HEMP hardening.  Their IEMI activities have involved performing assessments of critical infrastructure facilities, performing tests to determine the IEMI susceptibility of equipment and designing protection for the high-frequency portions of HEMP and IEMI together. 

 

Metatech has also been a leader in participating in the development of 22 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) high power transient (HEMP and IEMI) protection standards for commercial applications through IEC Subcommittee 77C. These standards were developed for commercial usage and fully consider the immunity of commercial electronics to EMI in the protection methods to be used for HEMP, SREMP, IEMI and GMD disturbances. 

 

Michael A. Caruso, (carusomi54@gmail.com, 847-226-8849) is an independent consultant based in Arizona offering consulting services for TEMPEST, SCIF, and EMP protected facility design. Mr. Caruso has been involved in the business working with both Government and private clients for over 30 years and offers an independent perspective of risk evaluations, various mitigation techniques and available vendor materials.  

 

Noovis (www.noovis.com) provides critical communication and IT-based infrastructures which have core advantages from those currently deployed including EMP resilience, reduced energy consumption, higher bandwidth, expedited post-event recovery, and reduced CapEx and OpEx requirements. It designs, installs and integrates core IT infrastructures using passive optical networking that drastically reduces copper connectivity and its associated power requirements within communication and Information systems.  

 

The Noovis passive, fiber-rich designs and infrastructures are intrinsically more resistant to EMP and high power microwave (HPM) attacks, thus complimenting existing risk mitigation strategies and disaster recovery plans. This is accomplished, in part, as the Noovis network topology effectively eliminates the need for access switches, within a Local Area Network (LAN) and provides an entirely passive and encrypted optical pathway for data to support communication networks,

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-13 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

typical end user devices as well as critical Industrial Control Systems (ICS), Supervisory Controls and Data Acquisition (SCADA) networks. Noovis designed networks can run miles without the insertion of electronics versus the requirement for electronics approximately every 300 feet for many current networks. In addition, this creates substantially reduced power consumption over traditional network connectivity, decreasing the draw on microgrid generated power, allowing the reallocated energy to be used for additional critical needs.  

 

NVIS Communications (www.nviscom.com) and its systems integration partner Pepro LLC (http://www.peprollc.com/) designs and manufactures shielded enclosures using a patented Faraday Cage technology to protect sensitive communications equipment against lightning strikes, EMP, EMI, Passive Intermodulation (PMI), and Radio Frequency Interference (RFI). Their equipment has endured many thousands of amps/joules in very rigorous industry standard testing criteria and always performed flawlessly.  

 

Each product has the ability to be customized in order to best address a variety of potential applications and needs. These needs range from remote, difficult to reach fixed sites to small/medium and very large deployable mobile platforms all the way to very compact rapid deployable (C130/C17 transportable) kits. It provides ongoing support for all of its products as well as a strong warranty.  

 

Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA), Incorporated (https://sara.com) was formed in 1989 to harness the creativity, innovation and entrepreneur spirit of engineers and scientists. SARA, Inc. is employee-owned and is managed by leaders that each has 20+ years of experience in Defense and Aerospace. SARA has nearly 100 innovative scientists and engineers doing research and development for government, military, and industrial clients. It has world-class expertise in understanding, modeling, fabricating, testing and adapting high power EM (EMP and HPM) transmission, propagation, detection, diagnosing and shielding/hardening and low signal level EM and RF sensing and signal processing, including passive EM detecting. Their “Cradle to Grave Hardening” offers architectural and engineering services for EMP subsystem/electrical subsystem integration, hardness maintenance and surveillance, EMI/EMP modeling, testing and analysis and power quality and reliability of EMP related components. 

 

Storm Analysis Consultants (http://solarstormconsultant.com/) provides consulting and information on severe solar storms, space weather, geomagnetic storms and the electrical power grid impacts.  Principal Consultant John Kappenman has been a one of the leading advisors for power companies both nationally and globally on the effect of solar storms to utilities.  Storm Analysis Consultants analysis services include (1) Assessing the Space Weather Threat Environment, (2) Assessing Impact on Critical Infrastructures & Systems with PowerCast™, (3) Geomagnetic Storm NowCasting and Forecasting Technology…Tailored to the Electrical Power Industry, (4) Simulate Historic and Probable Threat Scenarios, (5) Model Complex Geologies for Accurate GIC Calculation, (6) Scalability of PowerCast to Model Large Geographic Regions and Multiple Interconnected Power Grids, (7) Assessing Space Weather Threat Environment Over Broad Ocean Regions, and (8) Modeling Geo-potentials on cross undersea cables.  

 

TEMPEST Inc. (http://www.tempest-inc.com/  703-836-7378) provides TEMPEST security engineering services including EMSEC, HEMP, high power microwave (HPM), and EMC testing with cybersecurity, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, as well as design

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-14 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

services in accordance with current U.S. DoD, FCC, Australian and European community requirements. 

 

Triton Metals Inc. (http://www.tritonmetals.com/) is one of the largest metal manufacturers on the East Coast. Together with Electromagnetic Associates, LLC (www.emag-associates.com) they provide EM threat hardening, design and integration, as well as EM threat project management and construction administration/construction management services of critical infrastructure systems and life-safety systems that must work during and after a HEMP/EMP attack, such as power systems, controls, data centers, CBRN air-filtration systems, water systems, communications systems and sensor systems.  

 

Trusted Systems (http://www.trustedsys.com/) is the pioneer and industry leader in the development and deployment of the Information Processing System Security Container or SCIF in a Box® which combines the physical strength against near blast protection and magnetic shielding of a GSA Class 5 IPS Container with EMP shielding exceeding MIL-STD-188-125. Their product line offers sizes and configurations from COOP sites, to remote critical infrastructure facilities to office and large data centers. 

 

Page Southerland Page, Inc. (Page) (http://pagethink.com/v/iemi-hemp-protection/) A 400-plus person architecture and engineering firm working in the U.S. and abroad offering specialty design and engineering services for Critical Infrastructure facilities. Services include planning, programming, design, commissioning and construction administration for facilities protected from HEMP, IEMI, GMD and other high- and low-frequency EM radiation.  Page offers complete solutions, drawing upon experience protecting buildings and campuses owned by government, public utilities, universities, healthcare, research, petrochemical, and manufacturing companies from many types of threats: explosion, espionage, terrorism, floods and hurricanes.  Page has extensive experience with EM shielding for network operations centers, embassies, data centers, and medical and biotechnology research facilities.  Page can manage a critical design project from program concept to completion of construction, working with experienced partners to ensure that shielded facilities perform as designed.  Page’s recent portfolio includes two large (>70,000 SF), privately-owned HEMP and IEMI-shielded SCADA control and data centers, each serving markets of over 2 million customers.  

 Shielded Data Centers

 

If a hosted solution is an option for data storage, particularly for a disaster recovery environment, two companies are known to offer data center services within their EM hardened data centers (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix).   

 

Cyber Innovation Labs (CIL) (http://www.cyberinnovationlabs.com/) is a premier provider of enterprise-class managed Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) solutions and professional services. CIL’s Protected Platform as a Service (PPaaS) can provide EMP, HEMP, and IEMI shielded colocation and 100% private, single-tenant cloud solutions for delivery of mission critical applications and services to customers, at price points on par with less robust traditional offerings.  CIL offers custom designed steel wall, slab-to-roof facility shell, installed with 360 degree EMP shielded protective hardened enclosure.  Customer facilities include all shielding, housing, filtering and/ or

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-15 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

hardening for all electrical, mechanical and related MEP/FP infrastructure and related subsystems. All facilities are designed, installed and tested per MIL-STD-188-125-1/2 standards.  

 

EMP Grid Services LLC, (http://www.empgridservices.com/) is a consortium of industry-leading advanced engineering and data-center centric design/build specialists who have delivered over 10 million square feet of premier global enterprise data center facilities and represent over $1.4 B in annual revenues. Its team embody decades of experience in the data center build, commission and delivery of EMP, HEMP, IEMI and Geomagnetic Storm Protected facilities. The EMP GRID Services Team possesses core enterprise data center competencies that include:

• Master Technology Planning • Facility Design/Build/Delivery • Turn-key Program Management • Infrastructure Commissioning • Certification/Test-out • Technical/Operational Service Support

New Approaches to EMP Protection Hardening a new facility with welded steel can be cost prohibitive. Retrofitting an existing facility adds operational disruption to the complexity and cost of a major renovation project. Depending on your site specific mission and requirements, this may remain the best approach. However, two alternative solutions are now commercial and address EM threats for civil and commercial applications which may be more cost effective and less disruptive to current operations (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix). 

 

1. Conductive Composites (http://www.conductivecomposites.com/) has developed and commercialized a line of multifunctional electrically conductive and EM shielding materials. In essence, they make plastics and composites conduct and shield like metals, creating a whole new realm of possibilities and opportunities for plastic and composite products. They provide cost effective shielding across a broad spectrum of EM threats for numerous types of applications. They offer multifunctional structural materials that integrate directly into typical manufacturing architectures, in addition to installation, test, and certification services. 

 

Solutions include conductive wallpapers, paints, adhesives, stuccos, concretes, and window screens. Facilities shielded with these materials have been shown to effectively attenuate EMI/RFI as well as shield against EMP threats. A key differentiating feature is that the materials can be easily retrofitted into existing facilities as well as new construction. Conductive Composites is considered critical to the defense industrial base, with rated production contracts and classified programs, and has been awarded numerous funding phases from the Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III program.       

 

2. Omni-Threat Structures, LLC (OTS) (www.omnithreatstructures.com ) designs and builds multithreat structures protecting against HEMP, IEMI, Emanations, Ballistic/Blast, and extreme natural disasters.  OTS’s proprietary construction methods have been deployed successfully to build steel and concrete structures that are threat configurable, scalable, and cost effective.  The company completed the world’s first shielded concrete structure that exceeded the shielding requirements

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix B             

 

  B-16 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

of MIL-STD-188-125.  OTS has successfully completed multiple specialty and hardened and shielded structures throughout the country for utility, commercial, and government clients.  Notable projects include the successfully completed Vertical Electro-Magnetic Pulse Simulator (VEMPS) at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland as well as a 65,000 square foot utility control and data center in Texas that incorporates commercial, hurricane-resistant, and HEMP shielded structures all in one building.

 

Omni-Threat Structures’ team has three decades of success as a high integrity industrial GC, over a decade of success with specialized design-build hardened structures and experience in the nuclear power industry, building Fukushima Flex/Beyond Design Basis structures that meet NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76 standards. Building on a history of success, OTS now constructs EMP – IEMI shielded structures that also incorporate protection from ballistic/blast, natural threats, including Cat 5 hurricanes, EF-5 tornados, and seismic events.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix C             

 

  C-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix C. PRIORITY SERVICES (GETS, WPS, FIRSTNET, TSP, AND SHARES) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Emergency Communications Division (ECD), formerly the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), offers priority services programs to mitigate the impacts of communications threats such as EMP and to enhance the ability of our critical national security and emergency preparedness personnel to communicate during disasters.  In addition, the DHS National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC) provides resilient backup communications services through the SHARES program.

Priority Telecommunications Services  DHS/ECD provides priority telecommunications services to support national security and emergency preparedness communications for government officials, emergency responders, critical infrastructure personnel, and industry members. The Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS), Wireless Priority Service (WPS), and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) programs ensure key Federal, State, local, Territorial and Tribal governments, and first responder and industry organizations have communications capabilities available to support emergency response incidents. 

 

GETS provides priority access on the landline networks:  • Increases call completion during telephone network congestion. • Does not require special phone equipment. • No charge for test calls or enrollment. • Priority access, including calls to most cellular devices.

 

WPS provides priority access on the wireless networks:  • Increases call completion on cell phones during network congestion. • Is an add-on feature to your cell phone. • Can be used in conjunction with GETS to provide priority access.

 

FirstNet provides resilient, reliable wireless access on AT&T’s network:  • Public safety receives preemption and priority access to the network with no throttling. • FirstNet has a public safety only core that comes with FIPS 140-2 compliant end-to-end security solutions. • The wireless coverage reaches more than 99 percent of Americans and covers 76.2 percent of the continental United States with further improvements ongoing. • Deployables improve resiliency and can be used to extend coverage when needed.

 

TSP provides priority installation and repair of critical communications circuits:  • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated program prioritizes restoration and installation of circuits. • Vendors restore or install TSP circuits prior to servicing other non-TSP circuits. • Covers voice and data circuits that support emergency operations.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix C             

 

  C-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)  During emergencies, the public telephone network can experience congestion due to increased call volumes and/or damage to communications infrastructure, hindering the ability of critical personnel to complete their calls. GETS is accessible nationwide providing authorized personnel priority access and processing during an emergency or crisis situation when the landline networks are congested and the probability of completing a call is reduced. GETS facilitated response and recovery efforts during and after events such as 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Ike, and Sandy by providing over a 95 percent call completion rate. 

 

GETS is an easy-to-use calling card service that works on both local and long distance networks; no special phones are required. Calls placed through GETS will receive priority over normal calls; however, GETS calls do not preempt calls in progress or prevent the general public’s use of the telephone network. GETS allows users to communicate even during the highest levels of network congestion and also provides priority calling to cell phones during times of congestion on most major carrier networks. There is no charge to enroll in GETS or to make calls to the familiarization line. When making GETS calls, subscribers can be charged the equivalent of long distance phone rates. 

Wireless Priority Service (WPS) During emergencies, cellular networks can also become congested, hindering the ability of national security and emergency preparedness personnel to complete emergency calls on their cell phones. The WPS program is available nationwide, and is intended to provide authorized personnel priority access in an emergency or crisis situation when the cellular networks are congested and the probability of completing a call is reduced. After the April 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon, up to 93 percent of calls placed through WPS were successfully completed, allowing critical personnel to carry out their missions to assist the public. 

 

WPS is an easy-to-use, add-on feature that is offered by all nationwide cellular service providers. Authorized personnel can subscribe to WPS on a per-cell phone basis. Calls placed via WPS will receive priority over normal cellular calls; however, WPS calls do not preempt calls in progress or prevent the general public’s use of the cellular networks. WPS subscribers are responsible for any cellular carrier charges for initial enrollment and monthly subscription, as well as per-minute usage fees. 

 

  FirstNet is an independent authority within the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). Its “mission is to deploy, operate, maintain, and improve the first high-speed, nationwide wireless broadband network dedicated to public safety.”16 The AT&T-based public safety communications platform includes all of the features found in commercial cellular networks together with several public safety related improvements:

 

Preemption & Priority  • First responders receive guaranteed priority and preemption versus public traffic.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix C             

 

  C-3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

• Priority levels within public safety can also be boosted during an emergency.  • FirstNet users will not be throttled even if they are on unlimited plans. Network Security • “The FirstNet core comes with FIPS 140-2 compliant VPN solutions, radio, transport and network core encryption, and advanced physical and logical security protocols to keep all traffic on the network protected.”17  • FirstNet lab certifies applications and devices for public safety use although certification is not mandated.  • Certified applications can be downloaded from the FirstNet Applications Store. Coverage • “Wireless coverage will reach more than 99 percent of Americans, extending to 2.74 million square miles, covering 76.2 percent of the continental United States.”18  • AT&T is improving its coverage in each state and territory per commitments made in each of its FirstNet State Plans. • Deployables can be used to extend coverage when needed. Resiliency • With a dedicated FirstNet core, resiliency is significantly increased. • Deployables are available to provide communications to FirstNet users when the network is down or when extra capacity is required.  • Hardening of the network is expected to become more of a focus once the initial requirements (e.g., coverage) have been met.

 

First Responders include fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services, and emergency managers by default, but also includes authorized national security personnel. These users have access to all of AT&T’s commercial network. Further, as stated above, the public safety users receive priority on this network and can even preempt an existing user on any of the bands (not just the 700 MHz Band 14 that public safety was allocated). Dedicated care is also provided for additional support as needed.

 

Mission Critical Voice (MCV) is the only indispensable wireless voice service that is just partially implemented by FirstNet. Several MCV features have been implemented including Full Duplex, Talker Identification, Emergency Alerting, and Audio Quality. However, because the following MCV features have not been implemented, many MC personnel are continuing to use land mobile radio (LMR) in addition to cellular or FirstNet:

 

• Mission Critical Push-To-Talk (MC PTT) was finalized in Release 13 of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) LTE standards in March 2016 and is being implemented. FirstNet has committed to going live with this feature set by March 2019. The standard includes high availability/reliability, low latency, support for group calls and 1:1 calls, talker identification, and clear audio quality.  • Device-to-Device Communications (D2D) can be supported via Proximity Services (ProSE), but has not been implemented per public safety requirements where one cellular phone can contact another phone that might be 0.25 miles away without infrastructure. This is an area of research.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix C             

 

  C-4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

• Coverage and resiliency, including preventing EMP damage, may be better with some local LMR networks than it is with FirstNet. These are issues that need to be worked out by public safety agencies before relying upon FirstNet for MCV.

  With the implementation of MC PTT, it is expected that more agencies will move their non-MC users fully onto FirstNet or Verizon and off LMR in areas where the FirstNet or Verizon coverage is adequate. Additionally, most agencies use these cellular networks for broadband data and FirstNet is continuing to move forward with features such as MC Video and MC Data, which are planned to be rolled out with 3GPP Releases 14 and 15. 

 

Some MC users will move off LMR as well, but many agencies need more proof of the cellular networks resiliency or require improved D2D communication capabilities. Once the above have been resolved, cost concerns may continue to hinder some organizations from fully using FirstNet since they already have spent the capital for an LMR system. 

 

The bottom line is that FirstNet’s and Verizon’s public safety services can help improve communications resiliency. However, until there is more evidence that these networks are resilient across many threats including EMP, it is recommended that agencies also consider other backup communications such as LMR and satellite. Agencies needing EMP Level 3 or 4 resiliency should include EMP hardened solutions using satellite communications and HF as discussed earlier in this document.

 Verizon’s Priority Services To better meet the needs of public safety, Verizon has rolled out FirstNet-like features that are specific to public safety, most of which are at no additional cost. Similar to FirstNet, this includes a Public Safety Private Core (PSPC), preemption and priority, excellent coverage, and deployables (see http://www.verizonenterprise.com/Public-Safety). Further, Verizon is no longer throttling public safety users even if they have an unlimited data plan that states users may be throttled after they’ve used a specified amount of data.   Verizon is also working on MCV and D2D similarly to FirstNet and plans to offer MC PTT in 2019. Perhaps the primary differences between the Verizon and FirstNet offerings are coverage and performance that are dependent upon the local network capabilities. However, FirstNet also has an independent team that represents public safety and helps set the priority of public safety related requirements for AT&T. As part of this public safety support, this FirstNet team certifies new devices and applications for the network, which helps ensure that new features work as advertised.

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP)  Following hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other natural or man-made disasters, telecommunications service vendors can experience a surge in requests to restore existing services and/or install new services. TSP authorizes national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) organizations to receive priority treatment for vital voice and data circuits. The TSP program provides service vendors an FCC mandate to prioritize requests by identifying those services critical to NS/EP. A TSP assignment ensures that it will receive priority attention by the service vendor before any non-TSP service.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix C             

 

  C-5 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

An organization can only receive a TSP assignment if it maintains services or infrastructures that are considered critical NS/EP communications assets. TSP subscribers are subject to minimal telecommunications carrier charges for initial enrollment and monthly subscription fees. 

 

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, TSP was critical to restoration and recovery efforts by facilitating the rapid repair of damaged circuits and processing over 200 requests to install new circuits for the response community. 

 

TSP Eligibility Criteria

 

The national security and emergency preparedness community spans the Federal, State, local, Tribal and Territorial governments, public safety and emergency responders, industry partners who are responsible for maintaining the Nation’s critical infrastructure, and other authorized users. Organizations that rely on telecommunications on a daily basis to provide public health, maintain law and order, ensure public safety, or provide financial or utility service should enroll in these vital priority services.

 

Typical GETS, WPS, and TSP users are responsible for the command and control functions critical to management of, and response to, national security and emergencies. There are five (5) broad categories that serve as criteria for determining eligibility for the priority telecommunications services:

 

• Serve national security leadership; • Support the national security posture and U.S. population attack warning systems; • Support public health, safety, and maintenance of law and order activities; • Maintain the public welfare and the national economic system; or • Are critical to the protection of life and property or to national security and emergency preparedness and disaster recovery activities during an emergency.

 

TSP Enrollment Process

 

The first step in the enrollment process is to establish a point of contact (POC) for your organization. Many organizations already have established POCs who facilitate the enrollment process. To determine the POC and enroll in the priority services programs, please contact the DHS Priority Telecommunications Service Center at (866) 627-2255, or visit one of the following websites: http://www.dhs.gov/GETS, http://www.dhs.gov/WPS, or http://www.dhs.gov/TSP. 

SHARES Program

National security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) personnel need to transmit critical messages to coordinate emergency operations even when traditional means of communicating via landlines and cellphones are damaged or destroyed. The SHAred RESources (SHARES) Program, administered by the DHS National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC), provides an additional means for users with NS/EP missions to communicate when landline and cellular communications are unavailable.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix C              

 

  C-6 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

SHARES members use existing HF radio and other communications resources of government, critical infrastructure, and disaster response organizations to coordinate and transmit emergency messages. SHARES users typically rely on HF radio and satellite communications to perform critical functions, including those areas related to leadership, safety, maintenance of law and order, finance, and public health. This program also provides the emergency response community with a single interagency emergency message handling and frequency sharing system. SHARES promotes interoperability between HF radio systems and promotes awareness of applicable regulatory, procedural, and technical issues.

More than 2,100 HF radio stations, representing 104 federal, state, and industry organizations located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several locations overseas, are resource contributors to the SHARES HF Radio Program. Nearly 500 emergency planning and response personnel participate in SHARES. Approximately 180 HF radio channels are available for use by SHARES members.

Membership in the SHARES program by government (federal, state, and county), critical infrastructure, and disaster response organizations is voluntary. SHARES is available on a 24-hour basis and requires no prior coordination or activation to transmit messages. Members consult the SHARES Handbook to find stations, frequencies and/or Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) addresses of participating organizations they need to communicate/coordinate with. Participating SHARES HF radio stations accept and relay messages until a receiving station is able to deliver the message to the intended recipient.

Further information on SHARES may also be obtained at https://www.dhs.gov/shares or by contacting the SHARES Program Office at 703-235-5329 or nccshares@dhs.gov.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix D. EXCERPTS FROM 2017 BRIEF TO INFRAGARD SUMMIT

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-5 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-6 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-7 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-8 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-9 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix D             

 

 D-10 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix E             

 

 E-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix E. ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATION OF DECIBELS 3GPP  3rd Generation Partnership Project A  Ampere or Amp AC/DC  Alternating Current/Direct Current AEHF  Advanced Extremely High Frequency AM  Amplitude Modulation ARO  Amateur Radio Operator CCMG  Continuity Communications Managers Group COTS  Commercial off the shelf D2D  Device-to-Device Communications dB  Decibel (see Table E1 at the end of this Appendix for additional information) DHS   Department of Homeland Security DoC  Department of Commerce DoD  Department of Defense DTRA  Defense Threat Reduction Agency DTV  Digital Television EAS  Emergency Alert System ECD  Emergency Communications Division EFT  Electric Fast Transient EM  Electromagnetic EMAT  Electromagnetic Assessment Tool EMC  Electromagnetic Compatibility EMI  Electromagnetic Interference EMP  Electromagnetic Pulse ESA  Electrical Surge Arrester FCC  Federal Communications Commission FM  Frequency Modulation  GDT  Gas Discharge Tube GETS  Government Emergency Telecommunications Service GIC  Geomagnetically Induced Current GMD  Geomagnetic Disturbance HCI  Hardness Critical Item HEMP  High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse HF  High Frequency

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix E             

 

 E-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

HIRF  High-intensity Radiated Field HM/HS  Hardness Maintenance/Hardness Surveillance HOB  Height of Burst HPM  High Power Microwave HV  High Voltage HVAC  Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IC  Integrated Circuit IEC  International Electrotechnical Commission IEEE  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEMI  Intentional Electromagnetic Interference IMT  Infrastructure Mapping Tool IND  Improvised Nuclear Device ISR  Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance IT  Information Technology ITU  International Telecommunication Union IRA  Impulse Radiating Antenna  kA  kiloamp km  Kilometers kT  Kiloton kV/m  Kilovolts/meter kW  Kilowatt MA  Mega Amp MC  Mission Critical  MC PTT Mission Critical Push-To-Talk MCV  Mission Critical Voice MHD  Magneto hydrodynamic MOV  Metal Oxide Varistor ms  Millisecond MT  Megaton MHz  Megahertz NB HPRF/M  Narrowband, High Pulse Repetition Frequency mode Microwave  NCC  National Coordinating Center for Communications NOAA  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ns  Nanosecond

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix E             

 

 E-3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

OEC  Office of Emergency Communications PBX  Private Branch Exchange POE  Point of Entry POTS  Plain Old Telephone System (wireline) ProSE  Proximity Services ROM  Rough Order of Magnitude RF  Radio Frequency RFW  Radio Frequency Weapon (RFW) RP  Receiver Protection SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SHARES SHAred RESources SPD  Surge Protection Device SREMP Source Region Electromagnetic Pulse TBB  Telecommunications Bonding Backbone TEMPEST Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Emanation Standard TPD  Terminal Protection Device TOP  Test Operations Procedures` TRX  Transceiver TSP  Telecommunications Service Priority TVSS  Transient Voltage Suppression System UHF  Ultra High Frequency UPS  Uninterruptible Power Supply µs  Microsecond USSR  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics UWB  Ultra-wideband  VHF  Very High Frequency VSWR  Voltage Standing Wave Ratio WBC  Waveguide Below Cutoff WPS  Wireless Priority Service

 

 

 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix E             

 

 E-4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

 

Table E-1. Explanation of Decibel (dB)

 

 POWER  (like mW/cm²)

FIELD  (like V/m or kV/m)

dB Power Ratio

% Attenuation

% Transmission

Field Ratio

% Attenuation

% Transmission 0 1.000 0 100 1.00 0 100 1 1.259 21 79 1.12 11 89 2 1.585 37 63 1.26 21 79 3 2.000 50 50 1.41 29 71 4 2.512 60 40 1.58 37 63 5 3.162 68 32 1.78 44 56 6 4.000 75 25 2.00 50 50 7 5.013 80 20 2.24 55 45 8 6.310 84 16 2.51 60 40 9 7.941 87 13 2.82 65 35 10 10 90 10 3.16 68 32 15 31.6 96.8 3.2 5.62 82 18 20 100 99 1 10 90 10 25 316 99.7 .3 17.8 94.4 5.6 30 1,000 99.9 .1 31.6 97 3 35 3,162 99.97 .03 56.2 98.2 1.8 40 10,000 99.99 .01 100 99 1 50 100,000 99.999 .001 316 99.7 .3 60 1,000,000 99.9999 .0001 1,000 99.9 .1 80 100,000,000 99.999999 .00001 10,000 99.99 .01 100 1,000,000,000 99.99999999 .000001 100,000 99.999 .001

 

 

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix F

 F-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix F. IEC SC 77C BIBLIOGRAPHY The below are publications dealing with the protection of civil equipment and systems from the effects of HEMP and IEMI issued by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) SC 77C. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. 

 

1. IEC/TR 61000-1-3 Ed. 1.0 (2002-06): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 1-3: General – The effects of high-altitude EMP (HEMP) on civil equipment and systems. Basic EMC publication. 

 

2. IEC/TR 61000-1-5 Ed. 1.0 (2004-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 1-5: General – High power electromagnetic (HPEM) effects on civil systems. Basic EMC publication.

 

3. IEC 61000-2-9 Ed. 1.0 (1996-02): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2: Environment – Section 9: Description of HEMP environment – Radiated disturbance. Basic EMC publication.

 

4. IEC 61000-2-10 Ed. 1.0 (1998-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2-10: Environment – Description of HEMP environment – Conducted disturbance. Basic EMC publication.

 

5. IEC 61000-2-11 Ed. 1.0 (1999-10): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2-11: Environment – Classification of HEMP environments. Basic EMC publication. 

 

6. IEC 61000-2-13 Ed. 1.0 (2005-03): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2-13: High-power electromagnetic (HPEM) environments – Radiated and conducted. Basic EMC publication.

 

7. IEC 61000-4-23 Ed. 1.0 (2000-10): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-23: Testing and measurement techniques – Test methods for protective devices for HEMP and other radiated disturbances. Basic EMC publication. 

 

8. IEC 61000-4-24 Ed. 2.0 (2015-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-24: Testing and measurement techniques – Test methods for protective devices for HEMP conducted disturbance. Basic EMC Publication. 

 

9. IEC 61000-4-25 Ed. 1.1 (2012-05): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-25: Testing and measurement techniques – HEMP immunity test methods for equipment and systems. Basic EMC publication. 

 

10. IEC/TR 61000-4-32 Ed. 1.0 (2002-10): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-32: Testing and measurement techniques – High-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) simulator compendium. Basic EMC publication.

 

11. IEC 61000-4-33 Ed. 1.0 (2005-09): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-33: Testing and measurement techniques – Measurement methods for high-power transient parameters. Basic EMC publication. 

 

12. IEC/TR 61000-4-35 Ed. 1.0 (2009-07): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-35: Testing and measurement techniques – High power electromagnetic (HPEM) simulator compendium. Basic EMC publication.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix F

 F-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

13. IEC 61000-4-36 Ed. 1.0 (2014-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-36: Testing and measurement techniques – IEMI immunity test methods for equipment and systems. Basic EMC publication.

 

14. IEC/TR 61000-5-3 Ed. 1.0 (1999-07): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-3: Installation and mitigation guidelines – HEMP protection concepts. Basic EMC publication.

 

15. IEC/TS 61000-5-4 Ed. 1.0 (1996-08): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5: Installation and mitigation guidelines – Section 4: Immunity to HEMP – Specifications for protective devices against HEMP radiated disturbance. Basic EMC Publication.

 

16. IEC 61000-5-5 Ed. 1.0 (1996-02): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5: Installation and mitigation guidelines – Section 5: Specification of protective devices for HEMP conducted disturbance. Basic EMC Publication.

 

17. IEC/TR 61000-5-6 Ed. 1.0 (2002-06): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-6: Installation and mitigation guidelines – Mitigation of external EM influences. Basic EMC publication.

 

18. IEC 61000-5-7 Ed. 1.0 (2001-01): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-7: Installation and mitigation guidelines – Degrees of protection by enclosures against electromagnetic disturbances (EM code). Basic EMC publication.

 

19. IEC/TS 61000-5-8 Ed. 1.0 (2009-08): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-8: Installation and mitigation guidelines – HEMP protection methods for the distributed infrastructure. Basic EMC publication.

 

20. IEC/TS 61000-5-9 Ed. 1.0 (2009-07): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-9: Installation and mitigation guidelines – System-level susceptibility assessments for HEMP and HPEM. Basic EMC publication.

 

21. IEC/TS 61000-5-10 DTS (2017-105): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-10: Installation and mitigation guidelines – Guidance on the protection of facilities against HEMP and IEMI. Basic EMC publication.

 

22. IEC 61000-6-6 Ed. 1.0 (2003-04): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 6-6: Generic standards – HEMP immunity for indoor equipment. Basic EMC publication.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix G

 G-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix G. REFERENCES 1. MIL-STD-188-125-1, “High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Protection For Ground-Based C4I Facilities Performing Critical, Time-Urgent Missions, Part 1: Fixed Facilities,” April 7, 2005. 2. MIL-HDBK-423, “High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection for Fixed and Transportable Ground-Based Facilities, Volume I: Fixed Facilities.” 3. TM 5-690, “Grounding and Bonding in Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Facilities.” 4. MIL-HDBK-419, “Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding for Electronic Equipment and Facilities.” 5. MIL-STD-464C, DOD Interface Standard:  Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements for Systems, 1 December 2010. 6. MIL-STD-470, “Maintainability Program for Systems and Equipment.”  7. MIL-STD-785, “Reliability Program for Systems and Equipment Development and Production.” 8. MIL-STD-729, “Corrosion and Corrosion Prevention Metals.” 9. MIL-STD-2165, “Testability Program for Electronic Systems and Equipment.” 10. MIL-STD-2169B, High Altitude EMP (HEMP) Environment, 17 December 1993. 11. IEC 61000-4-36 Ed. 1.0 (2014-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-36: Testing and measurement techniques – IEMI immunity test methods for equipment and systems. 12. IEEE-Std 81-2012, “Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Grounding Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System.” 13. IEEE Std 299-2006, “Standard Method for Measuring the Effectiveness of Electromagnetic Shielding Enclosures.” 14. Meta-R-319, Geomagnetic Storms and Their Impacts on the U.S. Power Grid, John Kappenman, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010. 15. Meta-R-320, The Early-Time (E1) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid, by Dr. Edward Savage, Dr. James Gilbert, and Dr. William Radasky, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010. 16. Meta-R-321, The Late-Time (E3) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid, by Dr. James Gilbert, Dr. Edward Savage, John Kappenman, and Dr. William Radasky, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010. 17. Meta-R-322, Low-Frequency Protection Concepts for the Electric Power Grid: Geomagnetically Induced Current (GIC) and E3 HEMP Mitigation, by John Kappenman, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010. 18. Meta-R-323, Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid, by Dr. William Radasky and Dr. Edward Savage, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010. 19. Meta-R-324, High-Frequency Protection Concepts for the Electric Power Grid, by Dr. William Radasky and Dr. Edward Savage, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix G

 G-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

20. TIA-607, Revision C (2015-11), “Generic Telecommunications Bonding and Grounding (Earthing) for Customer Premises.  21. M.A. Messier, K.S. Smith, W.A. Radasky, M.J. Madrid, “Response of Telecom Protection To Three IEC Waveforms, Zurich EMC Symposium, 2003. 22. QSTAG 244, Edition 4: Nuclear Survivability Criteria for Military Equipment, 19 January 1993. 23. QSTAG 620, Edition 2: Nuclear Survivability Criteria for Communications-electronics Equipment, 29 January 1993.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-1 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix H. EXAMPLE EMP IMPLEMENTATION FOR HF COMMUNICATIONS SITE Many Federal Government departments and agencies use high frequency (HF) radio transceivers for backup voice and email communications. To enable better interoperability using HF during emergencies, the Department of Homeland Security operates the SHARES Program (see SHARES Program in Appendix C). It is recommended that all critical infrastructure operators with a national security and/or emergency preparedness mission join the SHARES program. 

 

The three most commonly used SHARES HF transmitter power ratings are 100-150 W, 500 W, and 1 kW. The lower power ratings are typically good for regional communications while the higher power ratings may be required for communicating across the country although the actual area covered is highly dependent upon many factors (for example: location, antenna type/position, solar weather, and time of day). For amateur radio operators, the lower power options are the most popular due to lower costs and ease of operations. 

 

The sample EMP implementation in this Appendix is designed to help enterprises better understand the equipment, supplies, and rough order of magnitude (ROM) funds needed to install an HF transceiver system with EMP resiliency versus installing it with protection only against lightning. If the site already exists, these estimates could increase depending upon the EMP level being implemented and the existing equipment and installation. Costs shown do not include maintenance partially because those costs are operationally dependent and since the EMP material maintenance costs are minimal (e.g., replace a very inexpensive GDT every few years). 

 

For this sample implementation, it is assumed that the site consists of the following:

 

• Equipment o HF transceiver, power supply, built-in antenna tuner, and power amplifier (PA) connected to a combined microphone and speaker that are a 1 meter (m) away. o Antenna system including RF antenna cable o UPS for computer and networking equipment (only required for Level 2 and 3 with data) o Computer (optional for data).  • Data Cables  o Fiber connection from external data source (i.e., outside of the equipment building/room) to an internal fiber optic media converter (assumed fiber is standard from the facility operator or the communications provider). o 20 m Ethernet cable from fiber optic media converter to computer. o 3 m meandering Ethernet cable from computer to HF transceiver. o 1 m – 2 m speaker/microphone cable • Rooftop – The antenna is placed on top of a building and has a 100’ RF cable running from the antenna to the HF base station.  o This antenna could be placed on an antenna tower instead of a rooftop with no technical impact on the HF EMP prevention suggestions.  o Deploying an antenna on a tower could impact the labor costs to deploy the HF equipment, but in many cases this deployment will occur at the same time as when either installing the HF equipment initially, making an upgrade, or performing

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-2 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

maintenance in which case the additional labor to add the EMP improvements discussed below would be minimal. o Excellent grounding is available and can easily be connected to. • Equipment Building/Room – The equipment building/room provides 10 dB of protection (bricks, wood, and windows are not good shielding material as discussed in “Figure 21. Effect of Building Materials on EMP Attenuation” and “Table 9. Building shielding “rules of thumb” for E1 HEMP”).  See Table E-1 for more information on decibels (dBs). 

 

Potential solutions to achieve EMP Level 1, 2, and 3 results with the above assumptions are shown below in two sets of tables. The first set, consisting of Table H-1 through Table H-3 below, discusses the technical requirements that are specific to an HF site to make an HF site Level 1, 2, or 3 EMP resilient. The second set consists of just one table shown in Table H-4, which discusses non-HF specific requirements, such as food and fuel supplies. 

 

As shown below in Table H-1, an enterprise can meet EMP Level 1 guidelines with no equipment costs beyond implementing best practices for lightning protection. 

 

Table H-1. Level 1 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs

HF Specific Requirement Level 1 EMP Cost Details Cost

Unplug power and data lines from spare or backup equipment where feasible.

Best practice for lightning and energy savings and there is no extra cost to leave a cable unplugged. $0

Turn off equipment that cannot be unplugged and is not actively being used.

Best practice for lightning and energy savings and there is typically no extra cost to turn off something. $0

Use at least a lightning rated surge protection device (SPD) on power cords, antennas, and data cables; maintain spare SPDs

Best practice for lightning and energy savings as well as EMP; thus, assume these are already deployed or will be used if it’s a new installation.  • Power Supply SPD (e.g., $15 for 6 outlet APC SurgeArrest that will alert the operator when it’s no longer fully operational). • SPDs with Gas Discharge Tubes (GDTs) that are not soldered are preferred for easy replacement. For example, the Alpha Delta TT3G50 lightning SPD costs around $50, its replacement cartridge costs under $15.

$0

Wrap spare electronics with aluminum foil or put in Faraday containers.

Store spare electronics in an area with at least 20 dB protection. This is adequate for smaller electronic devices (or battery powered devices) as might be required for an HF site.

$0

Join SHARES, if applicable. There are no fees and the effort is negligible to join SHARES. This is also independent of EMP. $0 Consider HF radios This HF site meets suggestion. $0 Level 1 EMP Resilient HF Site Incremental Technical Costs $0

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-3 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

 

For Level 2, the HF specific EMP changes from Level 1 are the following:

 

• Implementation of a power SPD with a clamp time of 10 ns or less. • Addition of an EMP rated RF SPD. • Addition of ferrites to the antenna cable (minimal cost) • Use of a UPS, which in this case is a line interactive unit since it is less expensive and more efficient at low power loads than an online unit. • A small amount was also allocated for a shielded Ethernet cable.

 

The material cost to implement Level 2 versus Level 1 is $630, which includes providing the site with extra functionality via a UPS.

 

Table H-2. Level 2 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs

HF Specific Requirement(s) Level 2 Cost Details Cost

Use EMP-rated SPDs on power cords, antennas, and data cables to protect critical equipment.

 

Also… 

 

Use fiber optic cables (with no metal); otherwise use shielded cables and ferrites and/or SPDs. Note: shielded racks, rooms or facilities may be more cost-effective than hardening numerous cables.

HF Transceiver & PA Power Supply SPD – To obtain an SPD for the power cable that protects against EMP, the SPD’s recovery time should be 10 ns or less. Note: The $200 Transtector 6 outlet AC Surge Protection device SLV Surge Cord has a published tested specification of 5 ns. It costs about $180 more than a lightning only SPD. 

 

$200

Shielded RF Antenna Cable – No extra cost since low inductance and lightning protected cables can be selected that also provide EMP protection. For instance, RG-214 is double shielded/braided, or can use low loss LMR-400, which is braided plus has a foil (this is not as good as double shielded/braided).

$0

 

Antenna RF Cable SPD –The NexTek HF (1-50 MHz) subns response SPD part FPNNMNFBCA3B, which has been tested per MIL-STD-188-125-1, costs approximately $200 (minimum order may apply). Note: This is $150 more than the Level 1 SPD listed (plus the replacement cost is considerably higher).

$200

Antenna Cable Ferrites – Can buy a package of these for under $10. $10 Antenna Tuner SPD – Use extra SPD outlet purchased above or can connect into the UPS for surge protection. $0 Computer Power Cable SPD – Connect to UPS for surge protection. $0 Fiber Optic Media Converter SPD – Connect to UPS for surge protection. $0

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-4 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

HF Specific Requirement(s) Level 2 Cost Details Cost

20 m Ethernet Cable to Computer – Use a shielded Ethernet cable from the fiber optic media converter to the computer. Ground shield at one end only. Wireless can also be used to connect to the computer.

$20

Computer Microphone and Speaker Cable – Use EM shielded cabling, which likely came with the system. Thus, there it is assumed that there is no extra cost (no SPD is required given the short distance.

$0

Meandering 3 m Ethernet Cable to HF Transceiver – Use a shielded Ethernet cable from the computer to the HF transceiver. Note: Could use an unshielded Ethernet cable in this case since the cable is inside and it’s not straight, but a shielded cable is better for consistency and improved EMP protection with no material cost increase. Regardless, no SPD is required given the above.

$0

Use on-line/doubleconversion uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) or a high quality line interactive UPS. 

• The UPS includes back up power for everything but the HF transceiver and the HF power supply. • The pricing assumes the purchase of an interactive UPS for Level 2 (and an online UPS for Level 3).

$200

Implement EMP protected, high frequency (HF) voice and email for long-distance communications.

The above includes a computer and data connection to enable these communications. $0

Level 2 EMP Resilient HF Site Costs (includes Level 1 costs) $630* * Can save $90 if going straight to Level 2 and not purchasing standard lighting SPDs then replacing them as well as installing shielded Ethernet cable from the start.

 

For Level 3, shown in the table below, the HF specific EMP changes from Level 2 are the following:

 

• UPS – Level 3 uses an online UPS instead of a line interactive unit in this example although a line interactive unit could have been used. o The online version will block EMP by default through its design. o Unless the line interactive unit has been specifically tested for EMP, there is a risk that it may not effectively block the EMP pulse if the built-in surge protection is insufficient. Therefore an online version is used in this table. • IEC and SPDs – The surge suppression components in Level 3 must the IEC requirements. However, in this case all Level 2 surge suppression components meet Level 3. • Maintenance Program – Although the upfront costs of this are minimal (create a plan and procure spare equipment), the ongoing costs to replace UPS units and SPDs, surveil the antenna site, etc. can impact the budget although most of the maintenance program

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-5 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

should be implemented for a normal lightning protected site (e.g., swap out defective power SPDs).

 

The estimated material cost for Level 3 is over $7,000, but most of this cost is driven by buying a Faraday enclosure which is the most expensive option listed and often will not be required. Further, this assumes that Level 2 has not been implemented and therefore those parts cannot be reused. Lastly, Level 3 uses an online UPS instead of a less expensive line interactive UPS. 

 

In addition to the material costs, there is labor involved to maintain the system and potentially resources involved to test the HF transceiver to ensure that it can tolerate higher levels of EMP transients that bypass the selected voltage level of an SPD.

 

Table H-3. Level 3 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs

HF Specific Requirement(s) Level 3 Cost Details Cost

Use International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EMP and IEMI protection standards (IEC SC 77C series). 

• Equipment vendors should use the IEC SC 77C generated series of standards. In particular, the 61000 series of standards could be listed, which were prepared by the 77C subcommittee.  • These standards include specifying the EMP test and measurement techniques.  •  The standardized EMC test for immunity to surges is IEC/EN 61000-4-5 • Alternatively, MIL-STD-188-125-1 and MILHDBK-423 may be met.

$0 (cost occurs under other requirements) 

UPS (see Level 2 requirement)

• Assumes use of online UPS. • Online UPS cost shown is around $500 ($300 more than the Level 2 line interactive UPS)

$500

Shielding should be 30+ dB of protection through 10 GHz.  Use EMP shielded racks, rooms, or facilities to protect critical computers, data centers, phone switches, industrial and substation controls and other electronics.

First Option: Appropriately shield all internal components to meet 30 dB protection requirement (shielding is additive). Note: Since it is assumed that the building offers 10 dB of protection, the shielding may just offer 20 dB of protection to meet the 30 dB requirement. • Shield Cables – Ensure all RF, data, and power cables are shielded. RF cables should already be shielded. Using shielding on data cables is very low cost (assume $10). Shielded power cables are also very inexpensive, but assume a few of these needs to be replaced for $10 each. • Shield Equipment – Some equipment is manufactured with all sensitive electronics in a

$40

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-6 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

HF Specific Requirement(s) Level 3 Cost Details Cost fully enclosed metal shield and do not require extra shielding. • This option is usually the least expensive for smaller EMP-protected operations. Second Option: Shield the room to at least 20 dB or put the equipment in a shielded enclosure. Note: This protection together with the assumed 10 dB of shielding from the building will equal 30 dB. • Might be able to move the equipment from a room with windows into a room in the middle of a building with no windows or into a more protected area of the basement. • Could put EMP composite on walls and ceiling in sealed windowless room to improve EMP protection (may need to use EMP rated ventilation guides). • Procure a Faraday cage for the equipment. The cost of a Faraday cage varies depending upon several characteristics, but this example assumes that it costs $6,000 together with the necessary accessories.  $6,000 (assumed; Faraday cage costs can vary significantly)

Use “Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures” from EMP Commission for grid and undersea cable protection planning. Use 85 V/km for CONUS E3 threat.

• This requirement is primarily applicable to long power and communications cables, such as used in the electric grid or undersea – this is part of the reason behind the required EMP protected backup power. • As part of the maintenance plan, power SPDs should not be replaced during an E3 HEMP event, which can last for hours, unless there are plenty of spare power SPDs.

$0

Use EMP tested SPDs and equipment.

• The Level 2 Transtector power SPD is sufficient for Level 3 as well since it’s tested to MIL-STD188-125. List price is around Level 2: $200. • The Level 2 NexTek HF (1-50 MHz) SPD part FPNNMNFBCA3B can continue to be used since it has been tested per MIL-STD-188-125-1. List price is around Level 2: $200. • The HF transceiver should be tested to ensure that it can tolerate higher levels of EMP transients that bypass the selected voltage level of an SPD. The cost shown assumes that the

$400

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-7 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

HF Specific Requirement(s) Level 3 Cost Details Cost organization can reuse someone else’s test results. Institute hardening maintenance and surveillance (HM/HS).  • HM/HS combines preventive maintenance, inspection, test, and repair activities accomplished on a HEMP protected operational facility to ensure that HEMP hardness is retained throughout the lifecycle.  • The cost shown assumes that spare SPDs are purchased as part of the HM/HS program. $400 upfront (On-going effort is required) Level 3 EMP Resilient HF Site Upfront Costs (includes Level 2 costs) $7,340 * * If reusing Level 2’s SPDs and line interactive UPS and if the first shielding option can be used, these material costs can be substantially reduced to $40 plus the cost of the spare parts (which likely would have been purchased in Level 2).

General EMP Requirements

 

General EMP requirements help sites prepare for a HEMP or SREMP event, but are also applicable to other manmade disasters as well as natural disasters. These requirements impact the overall operations or the site characteristics (e.g., priority phone service, EMP protected backup power). The suggested requirements and the general nature of the costs to implement the requirements are shown in the table below. The estimated costs are not specified both because they are highly variable and they are not HF specific requirements.

 

Table H-4. General, Non-HF Specific EMP Requirements for Levels 1-3

Level Non-HF Specific Site Requirement Details

1

Have either EMP protected backup power or a generation source that is not connected to the grid with one (1) week of on-site fuel or equivalent (e.g., renewable source). 

 

• A 3 kW generator could backup all of the equipment, including a 1 kW transmitter. • If using a lower power transmitter or a battery backup system for the HF transceiver system, then a smaller generator could be used with improved fuel efficiency.

2, 3

Use EMP protected backup power that is not vulnerable to EMP coupled through the power grid.

The backup power generation is often handled by the facility.

1, 2 Have one (1) week of on-site fuel or equivalent (e.g., renewable source).

The fuel supplies is often handled by the facility’s emergency planners.

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix H

 H-8 Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Level Non-HF Specific Site Requirement Details 3 Have thirty (30) days of EMP protected fuel/power. It may be helpful to shut off power to all non-essential equipment to meet this requirement.

1,2,3 Use priority phone services like GETS, WPS (for cell phones), and TSP.

The costs for these services are dependent upon the service provider, but they tend to be minimal as discussed under Appendix C.

1,2,3 Consider land mobile radios with standalone capabilities and FirstNet.

There is no extra cost to use FirstNet or Verizon’s priority services versus one of their non-priority cellular services.

1,2,3 Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to receive Emergency Alerts.

Need just one of these radios to receive alerts.

1,2 Store one week of food, water, and other supplies for personnel. 

Could work with on-site food provider, such as a cafeteria to help ensure that food is available.

3 Store 30 days of food, water, and critical supplies for personnel.

Maintenance of the critical supplies also needs to occur.

2,3

Consider geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellite services, like BGAN. Avoid low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite supported communications, unless EMP protected.

LEOs could be damaged or become dysfunctional due to a HEMP event. GEO satellites are too far from potential HEMP events to be significantly impacted. 2,3 Shortwave radio for situational awareness. This consideration is for the overall facility and not just the HF site.

3

Use time-urgent EMP resilient comms, like X, Ku and Ka satellite, and either HF groundwave or Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) HF.

The higher satellite frequency bands are more resilient to EMP bursts until the ionosphere stabilizes.

 

EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED Appendix I

 I-1

 

Note: These guidelines do not endorse any referenced product, company, service, or information external to DHS.

Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019 Guidelines are subject to change and only represent the views of the NCC.

Appendix I. ENDNOTES

1  Title 47: Telecommunication, PART 215—FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOCAL POINT FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) INFORMATION, https://ecfr.io/Title-47/pt47.5.215  2  The White House, National Security Strategy of The United States of America (Dec 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf  3  Graph courtesy of Metatech (Oct 2018) 4  Quartz Media LLC, North Korea’s latest missile test traveled 10 times higher THAN THE ISS, https://qz.com/1140566/north-koreas-latest-missile-test-traveled-10x-height-of-iss-and-suggests-itcould-hit-us/ (7/16/18) 5  Statement Dr. PETER VINCENT PRY, EMP COMMISSION STAFF BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND SECURITY AND HOMELAND SECURITY, MARCH 8, 2005, FOREIGN VIEWS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK, http://web.archive.org/web/20121108204504/http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_pry.p df 6  Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (July 2017), Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures, Courtesy of Los Alamos National Laboratory 7  William Radasky, Edward Savage, Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid (Jan 2010), https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/reliability/cybersecurity/ferc_meta-r-323.pdf  8  ibid 9  Homeland Security Council, National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan (August 2007), https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=482817  10  National Communications System (NCS), Volume I EMP/Transient Threat Test of Protection Devices for Amateur/Military Affiliate Radio System Equipment (October 1985) 11  Motorola Publication R56, “Standards and Guidelines for Communications Sites” (2005), http://www.ronet.co.za/downloads/R56%20Guidelines.pdf  12  ARRL, Grounding and Bonding for the Radio Amateur (2017), http://www.arrl.org/shop/Grounding-and-Bondingfor-the-Radio-Amateur  13  Digi, Indoor Path Loss (June 2012), http://ftp1.digi.com/support/images/XST-AN005a-IndoorPathLoss.pdf  14  MIL-STD-188-125-1 (7/17/1998), HIGH-ALTITUDE ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (HEMP) PROTECTION FOR GROUND-BASED C4I FACILITIES PERFORMING CRITICAL, TIME-URGENT MISSIONS, Part 1, Fixed Facilities, http://futurescience.com/emp/MIL-STD-188-125-1.pdf  15  ibid 16  https://www.firstnet.com/ (9/27/2018) 17  https://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/firstnet-core-delivers-promise-dedicated-network-publicsafety (9/27/2018) 18  https://www.firstnet.com/coverage 

 

 

 

February 6, 2019

Progressives pulling a bait-and-switch with ‘Medicare for All,’ by Paul R. Gregory [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:45 pm

Progressives pulling a bait-and-switch with ‘Medicare for All’

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Progressives pulling a bait-and-switch with 'Medicare for All'
© Stefani Reynolds

Politicians are known to misrepresent themselves to get elected, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is supposed to be an exception. It is said that he has remained true to his socialist convictions through thick and thin.

Surely, such a dedicated socialist can truthfully explain what socialism is. If not he, then Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), the influential newcomer to Congress and member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), could lend a hand. She must know what socialism is if Bernie won’t speak up.

Prepare for a surprise. Sanders has consistently claimed that his socialism is a Scandinavian-type welfare state. He assures voters that his socialism is comprised of free medicine and education and a fair distribution of income, nothing more, nothing less.

Ocasio-Cortez rattles on about giving things away free and that capitalism is rotten. If pressed, she turns to recipes and social-media tips.

Those who wish for a clear definition of socialism from Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez are left with two possible interpretations: Either they have no idea, or they fear voters would be repelled if they came clean.

With a majority of the Democrat base now claiming to prefer socialism to capitalism, a flood of leftist Democrats (some newly minted) are seeking to co-opt Sanders’ platform of free this and free that. As they roll out their presidential-primary campaigns, they jostle to outbid each other in giveaways and taxing the rich.

That’s all we are going to hear from the left’s socialist crowd on the campaign trail. For those who wish to delve into what socialism really is, here are my key takeaways after having perused the DSA website:

  • First, socialism gives free medical care, education, retirement and other requisites of a welfare state to all.
  • Second, socialism will cripple private ownership of business enterprises. “Consumer representatives,” worker collectives or state-run agencies will replace private owners.
  • Third, wise technocrats, not private consumers and producers, will decide what is in the public interest because the public interest prevails over private interest.
  • Fourth, large enterprises will be planned for the public good not directed by private profit.
  • Fifth, capitalism must be checked because it exploits women, minorities, gays, immigrants and a whole list of downtrodden folks.

The DCA description of socialism represents the consensus view of its 50,000 members, including, we assume, Ocasio-Cortez. It spells out how to construct a socialist America in the abstract, but we have two proposed pieces of legislation that dictate how to restructure American medicine in practice.

We are curious whether these proposed pieces of legislation are consistent with or are derived from the DSA’s version of socialism.

In September 2017, Bernie Sanders and 13 Senate co-sponsors (including five current Democrat presidential candidates) put forward the “Medicare for All Act.”

In March 2018, 124 Democrat “progressive” members of Congress co-sponsored House Resolution 676 (HR676),  also entitled “Medicare for All.” The Senate and House bills are similar, but we focus on HR676 and ask whether the key provisions of “Medicare for All” follow the DSA model of socialism.

Here are the features of HR676:

Free giveaways:  HR 676 makes health care free to all U.S. residents. (The “secretary” decides who is a resident). Moreover, all conceivable medical services (opticians, dentists, chiropractors, doctors, surgeons, medicines, hospitals, etc.) are covered.

Eliminate private health insurance: “It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.” HR 676 includes all conceivable medical benefits; therefore there is nothing left to insure. Health insurance, including employer plans, ceases to exist.

Eliminate for-profit providers: “No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution.” All for-profit, medical-related practices must be converted to non-profits or government ownership. They are somehow to be compensated for their losses in what promises to be a massive expropriation.

Hand control of all health-care decisions to the government: A mammoth VA-like bureaucracy will determine who is eligible, set compensation of medical providers, determine what services are covered, root out back-alley private providers and so on.

“Medicare for All” provides a revelatory snapshot of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and, increasingly, the left of the Democrat party. It seeks to destroy private businesses that provide medical care, the most important victim being private health insurance.

HR 676 replaces market allocation with bureaucratic decision-making and control. A giant bureaucracy, not the people affected, determine what is in the public interest and what is not. All of these provisions feature prominently in the DCA version of socialism.

If enacted, HT 676 would deliver a potentially fatal shock to our medical care system that accounts for one-fifth of the economy.

Medicare for all has been the Holy Grail of the left for decades. We could perhaps dismiss HR676 as an election stunt. Do not be so confident. HR676 could become law if American voters pay no attention and fall for the false promise of a Swedish or Danish-style welfare state.

Realize that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and the socialist wing of the Democrat party are employing a “bait and switch.” They are pretending to be European-style Social Democrats not socialists, as defined by DSA.

The European welfare state is the product of European Social Democrats who fought for improved working conditions, pensions and health care, while keeping private ownership and a market economy intact.

Some 90 percent of the Swedish economy is privately owned, and all three Scandinavian countries outperform the U.S. in business freedom. In the process, Social Democrats forged an eventual consensus with their conservative counterparts that the “social state” (Sozialstaat) is here to stay, despite its huge cost.

That political battle is still proceeding in the United States, whose electorate does not relish the astronomical payroll and value-added taxes required to pay for the social state.

“Medicare for All,” if properly explained, should markedly increase the chances of Donald Trump’s re-election. The media has already figured out that “Medicare for All” outlaws the employer health insurance of 170 million Americans and that medical resources may cover 44 million currently on Medicare but would be insufficient for 325 million.

Tough decisions lay ahead for the Democrat presidential candidates.

Note: The piece has been updated from a previous version to reflect the author’s interpretation of the DSA platform instead of a “five-point description.”

Paul Roderick Gregory is a professor of economics at the University of Houston, Texas, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a research fellow at the German Institute for Economic Research.

Remodeling America, by Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:33 pm

Remodeling America

Senator Kamala Harris launches her presidential campaign at a rally in Oakland, Calif., January 27, 2019. (Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters)

The Jacobins of today take up the tools of France’s 18th-century radicals.By mid 1793–4, the radical Jacobins had successfully completed their hijacking of the French Revolution.

close dialog
Advertisement
close dialog

 

Jacobinism

They openly enacted agendas that might have seemed impossible in the heady days of 1787. Long gone were the pretenses of the original idealism when the revolution abolished feudalism, issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and wrestled with turning the Ancien Régime of Louis XVI into some sort of constitutional or parliamentary monarchy analogous to what had emerged in Great Britain.

Soon executing the clerisy en masse was logically followed by Jacobins guillotining thousands of surviving aristocrats and fellow revolutionaries for supposed counterrevolutionary sympathies.

Most of the leaders of the Jacobins were themselves finally guillotined, largely because their ascendant revolutionary zeal could end only in a sort of cannibalism — given that no revolutionary could possibly meet their accelerating purist demands. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was similar, though he slaughtered millions, not thousands.

NOW WATCH: ‘How Great Is It to Be Tom Brady?’

Volume 0%
Rewind 10 Seconds
Next Up
Live
00:00
00:34
00:34
Closed Captions
Settings
Fullscreen
Watch: 0:34
How Great Is It to Be Tom Brady?

In less melodramatic terms, we are watching a rare revolutionary phase in American politics as leftists have devoured Democrats. Progressives ate liberals. And progressives are now being devoured by socialists, and soon no doubt socialists will be eaten by hard leftists, Communists, anarchists, and nihilists. In such revolutionary logic, perhaps only Antifa will emerge as pure.

The result is that the 2020 election will offer the starkest choices in the past 50 years, far eclipsing the radical contrasts of 1972. The current parade of would-be Democratic presidential hopefuls is already apologizing for their past sins of Democratic centrism, in fear of being politically guillotined.

 

Green Poverty

Senator Kamala Harris has pledged to follow the “New Green Deal” currently championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In other words, if enacted, the Democrats, within ten years of passing the bill, would favor ending all “nonrenewable” sources of electrical generation (natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear) — or 83 percent of all the current ways that we produce electrical energy. Would the government go after classic Corvettes, confiscate Priuses, and electrify NASCAR? Outlaw gas lawn mowers and chain saws? Confiscate leaf blowers? Would Nancy Pelosi board a private solar- or battery-powered jet? Would Silicon Valley yachts rely on wind and sail?

We get almost no information about the real costs, much less the effect on the now booming U.S. energy sector. America is currently the largest producer of gas and oil in the world. Energy production is a vital source of national wealth, central to millions of American workers, and perhaps the greatest subsidy of middle-class lifestyles, through inexpensive fuel. Would fracking and horizontal drilling become like corn-mash stills during Prohibition?

The New Green Deal would wipe out the economies of a broad swath of states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Such legislation would make Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign blunder—“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”—seem in comparison not a major gaffe, but timid and counterrevolutionary.

 

The United States of Everyone

Open borders and the elimination of ICE will also be the stuff of 2019–20 Democratic debates. But they will be “debated” only in the sense that all contenders will either agree or go well beyond both positions in order to support blanket amnesty. In other words, the problem of illegal immigration would not be 20 million or so illegal aliens who have entered and resided in the country unlawfully, but no problem at all.

Millions more could arrive as they pleased. Caravans would become not the stuff of dramatic news accounts, but rather dreary daily events as thousands of the “other” exercised their global “rights” and “migrated” to the U.S. Or as Univision’s Jorge Ramos put it, the border is “nothing more than an invention.”

The subtext would be radical demographic change designed to finish flipping the southwestern United States to blue in the Electoral College. It would also fuel the growing narrative that America requires far more recalibration of constitutional “issues” if it is ever to achieve parity for the arriving impoverished and oppressed underprivileged, who have supposedly legitimate historical racial and class grievances against neocolonialist Yanqui culture.

What is unspoken about the current illegal-immigration issue is the assumption that open-borders activists and their supporters do not just believe that Spanish speakers have a right to enter the U.S. as they please, but also that they have a far greater right than anyone else from Asia, Africa, or Europe. This is the chauvinistic and ethnically exclusive position, not the inclusive, liberal, and pro-diversity stance.

 

Health Care — for the Healthy

Medicare for all will likewise become a 2020 rallying point. But aside from its multi-trillion-dollar costs, it would destroy the 55-year compact of Medicare and indeed the 85-year-old history of Social Security itself.

Namely, these programs were sold on a number of premises, but two especially. One: Younger and healthier Americans would subsidize the financial, career, and health challenges of an older generation that was no longer fully hale. Two (whether still valid or not): Americans from their preteen years “pay” into a system that keeps track of their chits, calibrated by both years and dollar amounts, to adjudicate their own eventual retirement benefits, the so-called grand bargain that one now pays for others so that still others to come will one day pay for him.

While the system is nearing insolvency, the tradition that Americans individually have already “paid” into their retirement benefits would be destroyed, once benefits were shared by millions who had not yet contributed much at all. The generational psychological bond would end, and the very logic of Social Security as a war between old and young would arise.

The elderly are not historically illiterate. They grasp that all universal “free” health-care scams eventually hinge on culling out the costly and bad investments, i.e., themselves. They know that “Medicare for all” translates into “Medicare for no one,” especially in an age of open borders. So they will not be paranoid to also assume that in an era of euthanasia and “managed” and “rationed” care, it makes more progressive social sense to “invest” in our youthful future than in “prolonging” already-spent lives — especially when we will be adding more ethnic and racial fuel to the generational inferno.

A society that approves of killing an infant shortly after it emerges from the birth canal might similarly have little compunction about pulling the plug on a 90-year-old who was deemed “unproductive” or suffering from “severe deformities” — albeit of course after a “conversation” with family and their “doctor.” To the Margaret Sanger mind, abortion and euthanasia are twins, and both are cost-effective means to free up dollars for more “moral” purposes.

 

The Criminal Rich

Another likely plank of the new Democratic party will be a “you didn’t build that” “wealth tax.” Many Democrats are talking seriously about an additional 2 percent or 3 percent tax on the accumulated wealth of particular large private fortunes, wealth that has already been taxed as income or capital gains.

Income over $10 million (or lower) would be taxed at 70 percent — or 90 percent as Democrats’ race to Venezuela accelerates. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her adherents point to prior high rates of American taxation, without noting that they were accompanied by an array of tax loopholes and deductions, many of them eliminated in the 1980s Reagan tax revolution.

In our Balzac world of “behind every great fortune is an equally great crime,” assets of $10 million and up are proof enough of illegality. Talk of new wealth taxes, higher income-tax rates, and soaring estate taxes will make good on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s taunt that “there’s plenty of money in this country, it’s just in the wrong hands.”

 

The Cult of Reason

One hallmark of the radical French revolutionaries was a poorly disguised but predictable dislike of religion. Today it’s an aversion in particular to Catholicism and Judaism — at least if one collates the various statements of Senators Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono, and Representatives Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Hank Johnson, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. The mainstreaming of anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, television commentary by the likes of Marc Lamont Hill, and the growing anti-Israeli foreign policy of the Democratic party only add to the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hostility.

Revolutionary “scientific” socialism is historically agnostic if not atheist. Anywhere it has taken root in its multifarious forms — China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela — it seeks to destroy or corrupt religion. We have already seen attacks on Israel supporters within the Democratic party, attacks that are only thinly disguised anti-Semitic rants from the likes of Omar, Tlaib, and Linda Sarsour. One wonders how the anti-Catholicism of the Democratic Jacobins will connect with millions of new first- and second-generation Hispanic Catholic voters. Perhaps one of our young Robespierres can slightly modify the new atheist religion to “The Cult of the Supreme Being” and enjoin us all to worship an anthropomorphic Logos.

 

Revolutionary Cannibalism

Once revolutionary movements accelerate, they must devour their own to ensure revolutionary purity, whether in fifth-century Greece, Republican Rome, revolutionary France, 1919 Russia, or Mao’s China.

We already are seeing some of this cannibalism, as the new socialists start consuming their aging progenitors. Liberal Tom Brokaw is under assault for suggesting the value of assimilation and that English should be reemphasized by the Latino immigrant community. During the Brett Kavanaugh nomination hearings, Corey Booker and Kamala Harris upstaged old-guard Democratic liberals with their televised histrionics and their revolutionary creed that if one in theory can do a crime, then he is equally guilty of in fact committing it. Male feminists are learning that “inappropriate” jokes, staring, or attitudes are grounds for #MeToo ostracism.

In truth, there are far more revolutionary agendas to come. The Jacobins will have to explain how they plan on abolishing $1.5 trillion in aggregate student debt, at a time of a likely $22 trillion national debt, and how from here on out they will make college “free for all” in the manner of health care. Will adults who have driven a semi-truck since they were18 pay for the debts of hipster Pajama Boys who dabbled in six-unit semesters ad infinitum?

Will Maxine Waters’s idea of racial “reparations” become a mandatory position for Democratic candidates? If so, will Jay-Z, Oprah, Eric Holder, Louis Farrakhan, or LeBron James qualify?

Abortion is already being reconceptualized as a new Jacobin issue, but new only in the sense of pushing back the limit when babies can be “terminated” — oddly (or not so oddly) at a time when science is itself lowering the age of fetal viability ever closer to the moment of conception. Will Dr. Gosnell be given post factum amnesty?

Gun control will likewise be de rigueur, but not just in the sense of more registration, book work, and petty annoyances for the gun owner. In truth, confiscation is the only way to “control” millions of guns hidden away, handed down generation to generation, and sold and traded in private transactions — or at least we’ll have to mandate gun registration as a method of eventual collection.

Finally, just as the 18th-century Jacobins transferred the wealth and power of the church to the state, so the new Jacobins will demand more transfers of riches and influence to the federal government.

We have already seen the weaponization — or rather liberation? — of the IRS, the NSC, the FBI, the CIA, and the NSC.

Leftists believe that Lois Lerner — retired with full multimillion-dollar benefits and no threat of a trial let alone jail time — got a raw deal. They like the idea of surveilling, unmasking, and leaking of the names of “right-wing” Americans. For left-wingers, James Comey went from villain to hero once we learned that he had used the FBI to attempt to emasculate the Trump presidency. Ditto for the left-wing pundits James Clapper and John Brennan. Just as Jacobins worship billion-dollar Silicon Valley fortunes, so too they revere rogue bureaucrats who have warped their enormous powers of surveillance and prosecutorial abuse for correct leftist agendas.

By the time November 2020 arrives, the Clintons will be seen as reactionaries and the Obamas as old fogeys.

 

Victor Davis Hanson — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.

January 29, 2019

CO SB19-042 Circumvention of the U.S. Constitution [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:25 pm

First Regular Session | 72nd General Assembly

Colorado General Assembly

 

SB19-042

National Popular Vote

Concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the president of the United States by national popular vote.

Session:

2019 Regular Session

Subject:

Elections & Redistricting

Bill Summary

The bill enacts and enters into with all other states joining therein the agreement among the states to elect the president of the United States by national popular vote (agreement). Among other provisions, the agreement:

  • Permits any state of the United States and the District of Columbia to become members of the agreement by enacting the agreement;
  • Requires each member state to conduct a statewide popular election for president and vice president of the United States;
  • Prior to the time set for the meeting and voting of presidential electors, requires the chief election official of each member state to determine the number of votes cast for each presidential slate in a statewide popular election and to designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the national popular vote winner;
  • Requires the presidential elector certifying official of each member state to certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner. At least 6 days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, requires each member state to make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and to communicate an official statement of the determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state. Requires the chief election official of each member state to treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by congress.
  • Specifies that the agreement governs the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which the agreement is in effect on July 20 in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes;
  • Permits a state’s withdrawal from the agreement, except in limited circumstances;
  • Specifies that the agreement will terminate if the electoral college is abolished; and
  • Provides that the invalidity of any of the agreement’s provisions do not affect the remaining provisions.

The bill specifies that when the agreement becomes effective, it supersedes any conflicting provisions of Colorado law.

When the agreement becomes effective and governs the appointment of presidential electors, each presidential elector is required to vote for the presidential candidate and, by separate ballot, vice-presidential candidate nominated by the political party or political organization that nominated the presidential elector.
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

 

[ALL HANDS: This bill is in the Colorado Legislature and is being voted on now. This bill will take away your right to determine the presidency. Straight up, it violates the U.S. Constitution and eliminates the Electoral College without amending the constitution. It will create a one party national government and destroy the federalism inherent in the 1787 constitution.

All states with Democrat Party legislatures and governors are entering into this “agreement.”

Keep in mind, Clinton won the popular vote because Ross Perot took 17,000,000 popular votes from Bush 41.

If y’all don’t want the United States to turn into Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, or Iran, y’all need to pay attention to what your legislatures are doing and fight this tyrannical takeover of our republic.

The full bill is available at http://www.colorado.gov click on legislation and follow the number SB19-042.

Be afraid, be very afraid.]

 

January 24, 2019

What you can do about the shutdown

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:58 pm
The following is an email that I sent to my House representative, Jason Crow. I am suggesting that y’all send same to your rep. You can find who that is by going to the House website. Crow is a (D), so only people who live in his district can send him an email. You will probably need your zip+4 to send your rep an email. The USPS website will help you find your +4 if you don’t know it. If you know of a scandal in your area, you can change or add it in the place where I referenced the VA Hospital in Denver’s missing one billion dollars. Where I put my military service, there’s something that you can put in, such as “as an irate taxpayer,” or omit that sentence entirely:
I have been a registered Democrat since age 18. I am now “unaffiliated.” I am not stupid nor uneducated. You are my representative. Voting for you in 2018 depends upon how well you represent my interests. Please pay attention:
1. Dissassociate yourself from Ms. Pelosi;
2. Dissassociate yourself from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez;
3. Dissassociate yourself from Socialism; &
4. End the shutdown.
As a veteran of the US Marine Corps with a combat tour and now disabled, how about you direct your attention to the administrative failure of the VA? Where did that one billion dollars go missing in Denver? or, How about you be concerned with how the uneducated AOC wants to increase my tax burden by trillions with nothing to show for it? What happened to those trillions that went into the failed “War on Drugs” and the failed “War on Poverty” and the other “wars” y’all have declared?
Because of you (congress), I have over $80,000 as my share of the National debt, and you people keep adding to that. How about you fix the National Debt, or Social Security, or Medicare, instead of giving welfare to illegal aliens (it’s a legal term, there’s no such thing as an undocumented immigrant. Immigrants came here legally, and were vetted in the process.)
How about you represent me, instead of California?
Respectfully, and watching your performance,

January 16, 2019

The New, New Anti-Semitism, by Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:25 pm

The New, New Anti-Semitism

Activist Linda Sarsour speaks at a protest march in New York City, October 1, 2017. (Stephanie Keith/Reuters)

Old stereotypes resurface among today’s woke progressives.The old anti-Semitism was mostly, but not exclusively, a tribal prejudice expressed in America up until the mid 20th century most intensely on the right. It manifested itself from the silk-stocking country club and corporation (“gentlemen’s agreement”) to the rawer regions of the Ku Klux Klan’s lunatic fringe.

While liberals from Joe Kennedy to Gore Vidal were often openly anti-Semitic, the core of traditional anti-Semitism, as William F. Buckley once worried, was more rightist. And such fumes still arise among the alt-right extremists.

Yet soon a new anti-Semitism became more insidious, given that it was a leftist phenomenon among those quick to cite oppression and discrimination elsewhere. Who then could police the bigotry of the self-described anti-bigotry police?

close dialog
Advertisement
close dialog

The new form of the old bias grew most rapidly on the 1960s campus and was fueled by a number of leftist catalysts. The novel romance of the Palestinians and corresponding demonization of Israel, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War, gradually allowed former Jew-hatred to be cloaked by new rabid and often unhinged opposition to Israel. In particular, these anti-Semites fixated on Israel’s misdemeanors and exaggerated them while excusing and downplaying the felonies of abhorrent and rogue nations.

Indeed, evidence of the new anti-Semitism was that the Left was neutral, and even favorable, to racist, authoritarian, deadly regimes of the then Third World while singling out democratic Israel for supposed humanitarian crimes. By the late 1970s, Israelis and often by extension Jews in general were demagogued by the Left as Western white oppressors. Israel’s supposed victims were romanticized abroad as exploited Middle Easterners. And by extension, Jews were similarly exploiting minorities at home.

NOW WATCH: ‘Trump’s Birth Control Effort Blocked’

Volume 0%

Rewind 10 Seconds
Next Up
Live
00:00
00:40
00:40
Closed Captions
Settings
Fullscreen
Watch: 0:40
Trump’s Birth Control Effort Blocked

Then arose a relatively new mainstream version of Holocaust denial that deprived Jews of any special claim to historic victim status. And it was a creed common among World War II revisionists and some American minorities who were resentful that the often more successful Jews might have experienced singularly unimaginable horror in the past. The new anti-Semitism that grew up in the 1960s was certainly in part legitimized by the rise of overt African-American bigotry against Jews (and coupled by a romantic affinity for Islam). It was further nursed on old stereotypes of cold and callous Jewish ghetto storeowners (e.g., “The Pawnbroker” character), and expressed boldly in the assumption that black Americans were exempt from charges of bias and hatred.

Anti-Semitic blacks assumed that they could not be credibly charged with bigotry and were therefore free to say what they pleased about Jews. Indeed, by the 1970s and 1980s, anti-Semitism had become the mother’s milk of a prominent post–Martin Luther King Jr. black-activist leadership, well beyond Malcolm X and the Black Panthers — even though Jews had been on the forefront of the civil-rights movements and had been recognized as such by an earlier generation of liberal black leaders.

Soon it became common for self-described black leaders to explain, to amplify, to contextualize, or to be unapologetic about their anti-Semitism, in both highbrow and lowbrow modes: James Baldwin (“Negroes are anti-Semitic because they’re anti-white”), Louis Farrakhan (“When they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know what they do, call me an anti-Semite. Stop it. I am anti-termite. The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a great name. Hitler was a very great man”), Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Al Sharpton (“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”), and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (“The Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me”).

Note that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both ran as Democratic candidates for president. Sharpton officially visited the Obama White House more than 100 times, and Wright was the Obamas’ longtime personal pastor who officiated at the couple’s wedding and the baptism of their daughters and inspired the title of Obama’s second book.

In the past ten years, however, we have seen an emerging new, new anti-Semitism. It is likely to become far more pernicious than both the old-right and new-left versions, because it is not just an insidiously progressive phenomenon. It has also become deeply embedded in popular culture and is now rebranded with acceptable cool among America’s historically ignorant youth. In particular, the new, new bigotry is “intersectional.” It serves as a unifying progressive bond among “marginalized” groups such as young Middle Easterners, Muslims, feminists, blacks, woke celebrities and entertainers, socialists, the “undocumented,” and student activists. Abroad, the new, new bigotry is fueled by British Labourites and anti-Israel EU grandees.

Of course, the new, new anti-Semitism’s overt messages derive from both the old and the new. There is the same conspiratorial idea that the Jews covertly and underhandedly exert inordinate control over Americans (perhaps now as grasping sports-franchise owners or greedy hip-hop record executives). But the new, new anti-Semitism has added a number of subtler twists, namely that Jews are part of the old guard whose anachronistic standards of privilege block the emerging new constituency of woke Muslims, blacks, Latinos, and feminists.

Within the Democratic party, such animus is manifested by young woke politicians facing an old white hierarchy. Progressive activist Linda Sarsour oddly singled out for censure Senate majority leader Charles Schumer, saying, “I’m talking to Chuck Schumer. I’m tired of white men negotiating on the backs of people of color and communities like ours.”

In attacking Schumer, ostensibly a fellow progressive, Sarsour is claiming an intersectional bond forged in mutual victimization by whites — and thus older liberal Jews apparently either cannot conceive of such victimization or in fact are party to it. With a brief tweet, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez dismissed former Democratic senator Joe Lieberman’s worry over the current leftward drift of the new Democratic party. “New party, who dis?” she mocked, apparently suggesting that the 76-year-old former Democratic vice-presidential candidate was irrelevant to the point of nonexistence for the new progressive generation.

Likewise, the generic invective against Trump — perhaps the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish president of the modern era — as an anti-Semite and racist provides additional cover. Hating the supposedly Jew-hating Trump implies that you are not a Jew-hater yourself.

Rap and hip-hop music now routinely incorporate anti-Semitic lyrics and themes of Jews as oppressors — note the lyrics of rappers such as Malice, Pusha T, The Clipse, Ghostface Killah, Gunplay, Ice Cube, Jay-Z, Mos Def, and Scarface. More recently, LeBron James, the Los Angeles Lakers basketball legend, tweeted out the anti-Semitic lyrics of rapper 21 Savage: “We been getting that Jewish money, everything is Kosher.” LeBron was puzzled about why anyone would take offense, much less question him, a deified figure. He has a point, given that singling out Jews as money-grubbers, cheats, and conspirators has become a sort of rap brand, integral to the notion of the rapper as Everyman’s pushback against the universal oppressor. The music executive and franchise owner is the new Pawnbroker, and his demonization is often cast as no big deal at best and at worst as a sort of legitimate cry of the heart from the oppressed.

Note that marquee black leaders — from Keith Ellison to Barack Obama to the grandees of the Congressional Black Caucus — have all had smiling photo-ops with the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, a contemporary black version of Richard Spencer or the 1980s David Duke. Appearing with Farrakhan, however, never became toxic, even after he once publicly warned Jews, “And don’t you forget, when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s forever!”

Temple professor, former CNN analyst, and self-described path-breaking intellectual Marc Lamont Hill recently parroted the Hamas slogan of “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” — boilerplate generally taken to mean that the goal is the destruction of the current nation of Israel. And here, too, it’s understandable that Hill was shocked at the ensuing outrage — talk of eliminating Israel is hardly controversial in hip left-wing culture.

The Democratic party’s fresh crop of representatives likewise reflects the new, new and mainlined biases, camouflaged in virulent anti-Israeli sentiment. Or, as Princeton scholar Robert George recently put it:

The Left calls the tune, and just as the Left settled in on abortion in the early 1970s and marriage redefinition in the ’90s, it has now settled in on opposition to Israel – not merely the policies of its government, but its very existence as a Jewish state and homeland of the Jewish people.

In that vein, Michigan’s new congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, assumed she’d face little pushback from her party when she tweeted out the old slur that Jewish supporters of Israel have dual loyalties: Opponents of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement, which targets Israel, “forgot what country they represent,” she said. Ironically, Tlaib is not shy about her own spirited support of the Palestinians: She earlier had won some attention for an eliminationist map in her office that had the label “Palestine” pasted onto the Middle East, with an arrow pointing to Israel.

Similarly, Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) — like Tlaib, a new female Muslim representative in the House — used to be candid in her views of Israel as an “apartheid regime”: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” On matters of apartheid, one wonders whether Omar would prefer to be an Arab citizen inside “evil” Israel or an Israeli currently living in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Sarsour defended Omar with the usual anti-Israel talking points, in her now obsessive fashion. Predictably, her targets were old-style Jewish Democrats.  This criticism of Omar, Sarsour said, “is not only coming from the right-wing but [from] some folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.” Again, note the anti-Semitic idea that support for the only functioning democracy in the Middle East is proof of lackluster support for democracy and free speech.

The unhinged Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) has derided Trump as a Hitler-like character, and Trump supporters as a doomed cadre of sick losers. He had once wondered whether too many U.S. Marines stationed on the shores of Guam might tip over the island and capsize it, so it was not too surprising when he also voiced the Farrakhan insect theme, this time in connection with apparently insidious Jewish destroyers of the West Bank: “There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself.”

Out on the barricades, some Democrats, feminists, and Muslim activists, such as the co-founders of the “Women’s March,” Tamika Mallory and the now familiar Sarsour, have been staunch supporters of Louis Farrakhan (Mallory, for example, called him “the greatest of all time”). The New York Times recently ran a story of rivalries within the Women’s March, reporting that Mallory and Carmen Perez, a Latina activist, lectured another would-be co-leader, Vanessa Wruble, about her Jewish burdens. Wruble later noted: “What I remember — and what I was taken aback by — was the idea that Jews were specifically involved, and predominantly involved, in the slave trade, and that Jews make a lot of money off of black and brown bodies.”

Progressive icon Alice Walker was recently asked by the New York Times to cite her favorite bedtime reading. She enjoyed And the Truth Will Set You Free, by anti-Semite crackpot David Icke, she said, because the book was “brave enough to ask the questions others fear to ask” and was “a curious person’s dream come true.” One wonders which “questions” needed asking, and what exactly was Walker’s “dream” that had come “true.” When called out on Walker’s preference for Icke (who in the past has relied on the 19th-century Russian forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in part to construct an unhinged conspiracy about ruling “lizard people”), the Times demurred, with a shrug: It did not censor its respondents’ comments, it said, or editorialize about them.

These examples from contemporary popular culture, sports, politics, music, and progressive activism could be easily multiplied. The new, new anti-Semites do not see themselves as giving new life to an ancient pathological hatred; they’re only voicing claims of the victims themselves against their supposed oppressors. The new, new anti-Semites’ venom is contextualized as an “intersectional” defense from the hip, the young, and the woke against a Jewish component of privileged white establishmentarians — which explains why the bigoted are so surprised that anyone would be offended by their slurs.

In our illiterate and historically ignorant era, the new, new hip anti-Semitism becomes a more challenging menace than that posed by prior buffoons in bedsheets or the clownish demagogues of the 1980s such as the once-rotund Al Sharpton in sweatpants. And how weird that a growing trademark of the new path-breaking identity politics is the old stereotypical dislike of Jews and hatred of Israel.

January 12, 2019

Real Facts About Shutdown, by Robert B. Charles [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 5:07 pm

Real Facts About Shutdown – Reassurance for Most Americans

Share
Tweet
Email
federal-shutdown-congress

Let’s do a reality check on the current federal shutdown.  Are you ready for a good laugh?  Put down your favorite mainstream media outlet.  Switch it off, and just follow the numbers.  Yes, every rooftop is cluttered with news anchors, bellyaching reporters and stray Democrats shouting “the sky is falling!” or “the federal shutdown is ending life as we know it!”  Here is real news.  Not so.

First, recall that when President Obama managed a congressional shutdown, he blamed Congress and “weaponized” that shutdown against average Americans – deliberately putting barricades around traditionally open, accessible monuments and parks, including our WWII Memorial on the National Mall.

President Trump has done the reverse, waiving obstacles to volunteers at monuments and parks, clearing the way for federal agencies to stay as open as much as possible.  He has specifically assured EVERYONE entitled to a timely tax refund will get it, throughout the shutdown.  Most parks can use operating budgets to keep restrooms and garbage pickup going.  As he seeks to get Congress to properly secure US borders, he is looking after the American People – in ways his predecessor did not.

Second, remember that the bills held up by Democrats in Congress have more than 300 billion dollars that could be placed against the five million dollar request.  It would take ten minutes for Congress to agree. The five could be taken from parts that deliberately EXCEED the President’s original request – such as the 10.6 billion dollar jump up for Housing and Urban Development over the President’s request.  This would instantly end the crisis, allowing money to be used for border security or “the wall,” also allowing other programs to remain at requested levels.

Third, look at the real numbers on shutdown impact.  No one is doing it – so let’s do it here.

As of this week, 328,000 federal employees are on furlough, according to the most recent agency reporting.  If history is any example, they will all be given back pay – part of the eventual compromise – when the shutdown ends.

They represent 38 percent of employees at the several affected agencies – so less than half, even of those agencies – and almost nothing by comparison to total government employees, federal or national employment.

Today, there are 230 public employees for every 10,000 Americans, according to the US Census data.  Altogether, America has 16 million public employees employed beyond the federal government, plus more than two million (fulltime) federal employees, excluding postal employees.

Since we have another half million postal employees, we have a total of 2.5 million federal employees, 18.5 million overall public employees (with the federal employees), and a total of 126 million employees nationally – a number that has risen sharply (and in every demographic) since President Trump took office.

So, let’s keep some perspective here.  This “partial shutdown” – furloughing 328,000 “non-essential” federal employees who will likely be paid for time off – is a drop in the national bucket.  To be precise, these “time off” employees represent 13 percent of our total federal workforce, less than two percent of public employees, and one quarter of one percent of all American employees.

So, while congressional Democrats insist that 10.7 million illegal aliens in the United States amount to nothing to worry about, and we witness roughly one-half a million new illegal entries per year, the commotion is now about the one quarter of one percent of employees who are presently furloughed – pending protection of the border.

The sad irony is that this contrast – genuine public health and safety issues tied to a porous US border versus the political hoopla promoted by Democrats who refuse to pass the bills that would protect the border and pay the quarter of one percent on furlough – is somehow lost in the clatter and clank of what masquerades as modern political debate.

Average Americans are tired of this poking by Congress at a President trying to protect the nation, endless and pointless posturing, ranting and reorganizing of facts to support what Democrats in Congress think will bring more votes.

The average American is glad that President Trump has assured all social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Military pay, and IRS refunds will go out uninterrupted by the political shenanigans.  They are glad essential personnel will remain as usual, and that the “partial federal shutdown” is not being weaponized against the American people.  They are glad too that President Trump wants to protect them and secure the borders.  What they are not pleased about is the antics that now define the public square.

January 9, 2019

Why 70% Tax Rates Cannot Finance Socialism, by Brian Riedl [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:34 pm

Why 70 Percent Tax Rates Cannot Finance Socialism

Democratic Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talks to reporters in Washington, D.C., November 14, 2018. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

There’s no way to raise the money without hammering the middle class.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a 70 percent income-tax rate to finance green-energy initiatives has energized the Left. Yet this is completely destructive proposal. A 70 percent tax bracket would raise very little (if any) revenue, while damaging the economy and sending income and jobs overseas.

While details of Ocasio-Cortez’s energy proposal are unavailable, former Green-party presidential candidate Jill Stein has proposed a “Green New Deal” costing between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year for public jobs and clean energy initiatives. That is roughly 4 percent of GDP.

That 21 percent of GDP cost would double federal spending. And that does not even account for a baseline budget deficit rising to 7 percent of GDP over the decade — bringing the total budget gap to 28 percent of GDP.

Even if taxing the rich could finance a Green New Deal costing 4 percent of GDP — which I will show is not possible — that would use up all the plausible upper-income tax hikes that could otherwise address the remaining baseline deficits and new liberal spending initiatives that total 24 percent of GDP (an annual budget shortfall of $5 trillion in today’s dollars). The middle class would have to pay that remaining tab.

Representative Ocasio-Cortez floated the idea of limiting the 70 percent tax bracket to incomes over $10 million. My analysis of IRS data shows this would raise only 0.25 percent of GDP — about $50 billion annually — in part because nearly half of the income earned by these 18,000 filers comes in the form of capital gains that would be left outside a 70 percent tax on salary income.

Yet it is not just about income-tax loopholes. Super-wealthy families often keep their wealth in the form of investments and other assets that can be converted into taxable income on their own schedule. Jeff Bezos may be worth $160 billion, but in 2017 he reportedly paid himself an annual salary of just $81,840, with total compensation (including deductible expenses) of $1.6 million. Taxing 70 percent of all salary and wages above $10 million (or even $1 million) would not even touch the Amazon founder.

Realistically, additional income and payroll taxes on families earning $400,000 or more could raise at most 1 or 1.5 percent of GDP.

This pushes the full “bludgeon the rich” revenues to around 2 percent of GDP, or about $400 billion per year. Still not nearly enough for a 4 percent of GDP Green New Deal (or the rest of the liberal wish list plus deficit reduction).

A common liberal retort is that the economy survived 91 percent income-tax rates under President Eisenhower and 70 percent tax rates through the 1970s. That does not mean those policies raised much revenue. Tax exclusions and high income thresholds shielded nearly everyone from these tax rates — to the degree that the richest 1 percent of earners paid lower effective income-tax rates in the 1950s than today. In 1960, only eight taxpayers paid the 91 percent rate. Overall, today’s 8.2 percent of GDP in federal income-tax revenues exceeds that of the 1950s (7.2 percent), 1960s (7.6 percent), and 1970s (7.9 percent). Those earlier decades were not a tax-the-rich utopia.

Not a single country in the OECD has a 70 percent tax bracket. Indeed, America’s top combined income- and payroll-tax rate already exceeds that of England, Germany, and Norway, and is only 7 points below that of France. Europe finances its generous welfare states through steep value-added taxes that hit the entire population.

Increasing federal spending by 21 percent of GDP to fund Democratic socialism — even after slashing defense — would require either a 55 percent payroll tax increase, or 115 percent value-added tax, according to CBO data.

Acknowledging this brutal middle-class burden would immediately end any public flirtation with “free-lunch socialism.” Which is why the Left refuses to move beyond “tax the rich” talking points and actually lay out a specific, comprehensive proposal of spending and tax increases. If the numbers added up, the Left would have produced them.

Can Higher Education be Saved? by Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:15 pm

Can Higher Education Be Saved?

(Pixabay)

Universities are expensive engines of propaganda and intolerance, and many non-academics are offering scholarly material free online.America is schizophrenic about its major universities and, to a lesser extent, its undergraduate colleges.

On the one hand, higher education’s professional schools in medicine and business, as well as graduate and undergraduate programs in math, science, and engineering, are the world’s best. America dominates the lists of the top universities compiled in global surveys conducted from the United Kingdom to Japan.

Few believe any more that current liberal-arts programs have prepared graduates to write persuasively and elegantly, to read critically and to think inductively while drawing on a wide body of literary, linguistic, historical, artistic, and philosophical knowledge. In fairness, that is no longer the aim of higher education. When students at tony colleges present petitions objecting to free speech or the right of guests to give lectures, they are usually full of grammatical errors and often incoherent.

Colleges, with some major exceptions (Hillsdale most preeminently), simply do not ensure the teaching of such skills any more. Of course, there remain wonderful classes, courageous deans who buck trends, and hardworking faculty who teach splendidly and have received modest compensation and little credit for their yeoman work. But they are a minority and a shrinking one at that.

 

I. Debt

Students owe about $1.5 trillion in student loans, much of it at interest rates higher than those of contemporary mortgages. At least a half-trillion dollars cannot and won’t be paid back. It is hard to know whether unsustainable college mortgages are a reflection or a cause of university decline, or both.

But the crushing student debt plays a variety of pernicious roles in wider society. Students postpone marriage and child-rearing, a trend that is negatively affecting U.S. demography. Home ownership is put off, in favor of living at home in prolonged adolescence, ending the old idea of becoming an adult in one’s early twenties. Most of today’s pejoratives, such as “snowflake” or “social justice warrior,” originate from the reality that on-again-off-again college debt has arrested the development of adult men and women and consumed their twenties.

Staggering student debt came at time when major research universities no longer measured their endowments and income in the millions, but in some cases the many billions. In other words, some institutions did very well, even as most students did not.


II. The Therapeutic Curriculum

Most college courses in literature and history — despite their sometimes anachronistic and traditional titles — focus on “diversity.” That is, they present a play or novel, or a past historical period or event, in terms of how it adversely portrayed or affected the poor, women, and minorities. The larger agenda is ideological: to instruct how the superior present can craft remedies to ensure that incorrect thinking and the biases throughout history and literature do not contaminate contemporary life and society.

What is often forgotten is that political correctness comes at a price of not learning a language, or reading the plays of Shakespeare, or mastering the basic outlines of the Civil War or World War II — given that for youth learning is so often a zero-sum game with only limited hours in the day for study and reading.

Finally, the morality of the curriculum is upside down. If the purpose of the contemporary university is to empower the marginalized and the previously discriminated against, then it would be hard to envision classes that could more deprive first-generation college students of the very analytic tools and knowledge that might ensure their success.


III. Scholarship and the Internet

Higher education invests a huge fortune in faculty “development,” more specifically in sabbaticals, grants, teaching reductions, release time, accelerated promotions, cash prizes, and awards and merit raises to conduct research. In theory, such subsidies are a wise investment, even in the humanities and social sciences. The mostly unknown work of scholars supposedly expands the body of wisdom. Ideally, seemingly narrow, unheralded work finds its way into surveys and popular knowledge. Scholars become better teachers as they ground their classroom work with the facts and data of their own narrower investigations.

Moreover, scholarship benefits the larger public. For example, the tedious work of establishing accurate Linear B texts allows us to understand why Mycenaean civilization more or less mysteriously collapsed in the 13th century b.c. Using archival work to reconstruct the year-by-year lives of a Ulysses S. Grant or William Tecumseh Sherman allows biographers to provide the public with a richer appreciation of their complex careers. Thanks to scholarly and often underappreciated work, we have a more nuanced understanding of prior simplistic views, such as the notion that the Versailles Treaty was too punitive.

Yet as universities expanded, scholarship became deeply embedded in careerism and, in many cases, became scholastic nitpicking and, in other instances, abjectly political. Then came the Internet, which destroyed many academic hierarchies and brought the law of the arena into scholarly work. Rather than wait a year for a prestigious journal to peer-review a submission (supposedly blindly but more often not quite) and then, when published, to reach an audience of 20 to 30 fellow scholars, most academics could post anything on a blog and sometimes find an audience of hundreds if not thousands.

The absence of peer review, scholarly critique, and editorial intervention, of course, green-lighted incompetent work, but the majority thumbs-up/thumbs-down opinion of thousands of online readers also tended to glean some chaff from the wheat.

In sum, thousands of autodidacts and independent scholars are now publishing as they please, and often their ideas and research are as good as, or better than, the costly university bureaucracy of academic production. As we look back at the 75-year massive investment in post-war scholarly research, it is increasingly clear that, in our present age of over-specialization and postmodern partisanship, the results often no longer justify commensurate release time from teaching or the careerist rewards that “research” provides. Universities would be better off investing in part-time faculty to end the rank exploitation of those with provisional contracts.


IV. Online and For-Profit Courses

For-profit “diploma mills” are laughed at by serious colleges on the rationale they offer neither “the college experience” nor a “broad education” but simply sell units of online certification in vocational skills, education, and business. But if the universities do not offer a rich liberal-arts curriculum that emphasizes literature, philosophy, and history, and if the modern campus is a cultural and political landmine where perhaps four of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights do not apply, then millions will ask, Why pay for academia’s toxic bells and whistles?

Colleges have an argument to make that close interaction among faculty and students, the larger landscape of cultural opportunities available on a physical campus, and the ability to see and talk directly with an instructor inside a classroom are essential to an undergraduate experience, but they have not made that case. Instead, they have invalidated it by their very intolerance and warping of the curriculum.


V. Tenure

There should always be an argument for tenure given that administrators and academics are by nature timid and vindictive and will predictably bend to the mob’s demand to fire someone for saying something that someone else doesn’t like.

But the 80-year experience with widespread academic tenure suggests that it no longer encourages diverse views or protects freedom of speech — the university is now one of the most monolithic and ideologically repressive institutions in society. Moreover, at many state schools, nearly 40–50 percent of the courses offered are taught by part-time, non-tenured faculty, who enjoy no such career protection.

In sum, tenure has become a medieval caste system. It gives mandarins life-long career security without much post-tenure review or encouragement of diversity of thought, while simply writing off thousands of faculty helots as not worthy of commensurate career security. It could be easily replaced by five- or ten-year contracts, specifying teaching and research expectations without discriminating between part- and full-time faculty.

We are entering an age in which college, as we have understood that term, will no longer be assumed essential to becoming educated. And the number of colleges will shrink either because of consolidation, transformations to online institutions, or bankruptcy. The reasons for these existential changes are not just technology and economics but are found within the university itself. It broke its pact with the public to offer a disinterested and good education at an affordable price to the nation’s youth — and instead ended up doing precisely the opposite.

December 18, 2018

The Globalist Mindset: They Hate You, by Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:40 pm

The Globalist Mindset: They Hate You
By Victor Davis Hanson| December 16th, 2018
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
FacebookShare to TwitterTwitterShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to Google+Google+Share to EmailEmailShare to PinterestPinterestShare to PocketPocketShare to WhatsApp
WhatsApp
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Against what or whom is the contemporary Western public pushing back?

The French non-Parisians against new green taxes on already unaffordable gasoline? Broke southern European Union nations against the financial demands of German bankers? The Eastern Europeans against French and German open-border mandates?
ADVERTISING

The British masses against both the EU and their own government that either cannot or will not follow the will of the people and implement Brexit? The American populists against outsourcing, offshoring, and illegal immigration?

The common target of all these populist pushbacks is an administrative and cultural elite that shares a set of transnational and globalist values and harbors mostly contempt for the majority of their own Neanderthal citizens who are deemed hopelessly unwoken to environmental, racial, gender, and cultural inevitabilities.

In a word, the Ivy League, Oxbridge, and the Sorbonne masters of the universe assume that the world is on a predetermined trajectory. We are to follow an arc of history bending toward state-managed social justice if you will—to end up as a sort of global Menlo Park, Malibu, Upper West Side, Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Schwabing, or Kensington. No wonder, it is their ethical duty of transnationals to goad the fated, but sometimes stalled, process along.

Like Aristocrats of Old
Voters in consensual societies are often assumed too ignorant of the world beyond their borders, too encumbered with traditional racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and nationalist prejudices, and too ill-informed to know what is good for them. No wonder that sometimes hoi polloi must either vote repeatedly until they get it right, or follow executive and judicial fiats issued from their betters on high. In the globalist mindset, Brexit passed not because it was felt to be good by a majority or even advantageous for the United Kingdom, but because racists, xenophobes, nativists, protectionists, and chauvinists deluded the clueless public into thinking a pre-EU, and more racist and sexist Britain was somehow superior.

A postelection depressed Hillary Clinton had to travel all the way to Mumbai, India to find a more enlightened audience that would appreciate her insight that the ogre Trump had beat her because:
ADVERTISING

If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle, places where Trump won. What that map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that own two-thirds of America’s Gross Domestic Product. I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are, whatever that problem is, I am going to solve it.

The globalist elite is certainly transnational and is sickened by localism, traditionalism, and autonomy. Monsieur Macron shares much more in common with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Justin Trudeau than he does with rural Frenchmen. It is almost as if in 2019 our elites are emulating the interlocking aristocratic families of late 19th-century Europe, but instead of being common descendants of Queen Victoria they are the godchildren of Menlo Park, Brussels, Strasburg, Davos, and Wall Street.

Donald Trump’s efforts to deregulate the U.S. economy, demand reciprocal trade with China, Mexico, or Germany, rout ISIS, open up federal lands for natural gas and oil exploration, build pipelines, lower taxes, and grow the economy at best are seen as misguided parochial boosterism and at worse the sort of selfish nationalism that ignores expert global and world-is-flat consensus. In either case, the common denominator is that the world community can ill afford another U.S. president who has not been stamped, vetted, or audited by an Ivy League law or business school, a prior Washington D.C. federal office, or Wall Street firm.

Angela Merkel—who recently pronounced that nations must be “prepared to give up their sovereignty”—and her ilk are representations of the same sort of values as those of Hillary Clinton’s circle. Elites do not see their fellow citizens in exceptional terms of the affinities of a common language, shared history, or sovereign geography. Instead, they envision themselves as Socratic citizens of the world. They are an international siblinghood with common blue-chip educations, wealth, and long service in the administrative state. The anointed alone “see” and “grasp” what is really going on with the world, and therefore what really needs to be done right now, at all costs, regardless of the opposition from what Hillary wrote off as “all that red in the middle.”

International Crusading
Globalism is both an ideology and a culture of behavior. The creed is that the Western world, given its colonial and imperialist past, has a duty both to make amends to the former third world through magnanimously lending the global community elite Western expertise—whether through Kyoto- or Paris-like climate accords, foreign interventions guided by Western humanitarian principles, asymmetrical trade agreements, open borders, or U.N. mandates.

The globalist alone knows how global warming threatens us and how the ignorant masses must sacrifice to cool things down, how nationalism supposedly causes world wars, how sexism, racism, and homophobia have warped Western, but non-necessarily non-Western, society, and how human nature can be modified to avoid these pathologies through greater coercion, more relevant social education, improved material conditions, and greater secular ecumenicalism—a far better religion than calcified Christendom. The Western consumer—fat, “lazy,” played out—surely does not need any more affluence or income. His nation, therefore, can afford to subsidize, through his superfluous lifestyle, far nobler international crusades for mankind.

The nation-state then is passé. Transnational organizations, the larger and more powerful the better, tame mindless Western chauvinism, while enhancing and making invaluable alternative post-Western paradigms. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, the chief executive officer of the World Bank, the Secretary-General of NATO, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, the President of the Council of Foreign Relations, the president of CNN Worldwide, all these are certainly to be listened to in a way an elected senator from Kansas, the nuts who stirred up the gilets jaunes, the unhinged Poles and Bulgarians who wanted to build fences on their borders, or renegade British MPs pushing for Brexit should not be.

Globalist penance for past sins is accomplished in a variety of ways. Non-Westerns are not to be held to symmetrical value systems. Islamic countries can destroy churches, Western nations consider mosques sacrosanct. Illegal immigration force feeds diversity onto a tired and exhausted Western public in dire need of having its horizons expanded by the other. Dumping, patent and copyright theft, and technological appropriation are sins only for wayward Westerners.

The elite must never be subject to the sometimes unfortunate ramifications of their own ideologies—any more than a laboratory scientist need be singed when he recklessly puts the wrong volatile ingredients into his beaker mix. Open-borders architects in the U.S. need not put their children in schools overwhelmed by illegal immigrants. Walls are useless on borders but effective around Malibu and Napa estates. The elite need not live in neighborhoods where European languages are rarely spoken; others less liberal need such exposure and enlightenment. French citizens must pay high gas taxes for their huge carbon footprints, French elites fly private jets to conduct profitable business in the carbon-rich Gulf, India, and China.

“Noble” Ends, Unethical Means
Globalists generally assume that their own privileged material conditions are pitiful wages for the greater good they do and so justify their material hypocrisies, as if they were wounded wild fawns forced to rely on rich artificial shrubbery of suburban gardens. They often share the greatest disdain for the rural and muscular classes of their own countries who lack the sophistication of the elite and the romanticism of the distant poor. If worse comes to worst, such impediments can simply die off and be replaced by more fertile, more energetic immigrants from the former Third World happy to have a shot at Western material conditions and the general welfare state, and who are at least thankful and appreciative of their benefactors and so more than willing to be receptive to globalist, transnational, and redistributive bromides.

Globalism ultimately is an offspring of elite progressive universities, think tanks, foundations, government institutions, and borderless corporatism. All the old progressive boilerplate—anti-trust legislation, prohibitions on monopolies, product liability—ceases when vast multibillion-dollar tech fortunes put their money into progressive causes, and thereby remind us that sometimes noble ends justify unethical means of obtaining them.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter have a perfect right to monopolize, to warp political expression, and to censor free speech if they devote their billions to enacting global climate, political, or social justice change, in the manner that here at home the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and NSA—at times in conjunction with their foreign counterparts—justifiably had to monitor, use informants, and spread libelous smears on reckless Cro-Magnons like Donald J. Trump, who would harken us back to an embarrassing nationalist and sovereign past. Illegality has its uses.

Whom do the globalists despise?

The carbon spewing Winnebago owners, the snowmobilers, the jet skiers, the Glock packers, the Elks Clubbers, the lathe workers, the 101st Airborners with molôn labé tattooed on their arms, the 7-11 owners, the nutty Brit who speaks reverentially of Churchill, the dumb grubby French guy on a tractor who has no clue that his diesel engine must soon be replaced by three-hour batteries, the wacko Greek who cannot appreciate a boatload of noble Libyans landing on the beach below his ancestral olive grove in Crete, the limited Czech who clings to the hokey belief that residents in the Czech Republic should still speak Czech—in other words, all the autonomous cranks, and odd ballers who did not get the message, are not yet on board, and should have been by now long past woke.

December 12, 2018

The Dangers of Asymmetry, by Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:14 pm

The Dangers of Asymmetry
By Victor Davis Hanson

December 11, 2018 6:30 AM

President Trump with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, November 2017. (Damir Sagolj/Reuters)
International disequilibrium in trade, religious freedoms, immigration — plenty of Americans are fed up.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
I t is strange how suddenly a skeptical Wall Street, CEOs, and even university and think-tank policy analysts are now jumping on the once-taboo Trump bandwagon on China: that if something is not done to stop China’s planned trajectory to global hegemony, based on its repudiation of the entire post-war trade and commercial order, then it will soon be too late. In a wider sense, at some point on a variety of fronts, Americans got fed up with perceived lopsidedness, and their ensuing exasperation started to change status-quo thinking and policy — whether China’s flagrant cheating, the recent illustration, via the “caravan,” of rampant hypocrisies about illegal immigration, or weariness with the asymmetries with the Islamic world.

China

China in its planned trajectory to world global supremacy makes two assumptions about the United States:

that China can weld government-run market capitalism to autocratic government to improve on supposedly chaotic Western democratic and republican government and indulgent human rights;
that the Western world will continue to excuse Chinese violations of global commercial and trade norms, on their misplaced theories either that the more successful the Chinese become, the more they will evolve to a democratic and transparent society and join the Western liberal community and follow its post-war international norms, or that there is nothing the West can do about a fated Chinese supremacy.

As to Chinese trust that their brand of government-managed capitalism is superior, in the short term, it is true that authoritarian governments, mostly in wartime, occasionally can achieve temporary spectacular results through partnering with capitalists.

But in the longer run, managed capitalism proves far less flexible and ultimately less productive than free markets that are moderately regulated by elected governments rather than heavily controlled by authoritarians or socialists.

In addition, the Chinese misjudge Western patience, especially as its surpluses grow, its violations of copyright and patents become more flagrant, and espionage and technological appropriation are seen as a Chinese birthright.

NOW WATCH: ‘China Is Reportedly Close To Cutting Their Tariffs On US Cars’

China assumes that many of the third of a million Chinese students and green-card holders in America have an obligation to engage in espionage for the mother country; and they further expect that U.S. visitors to China not only do not share such rigid loyalty to the United States, but if they did, they would be sorely punished by Beijing.

If we think Chinese students at Stanford or Cal Tech or in Silicon Valley are won over by our diversity, prosperity, consumerism, free-wheeling popular culture, and unfettered free speech, and that they will take back such an ethos to China, leading eventually to a democratic spring, the Chinese government thinks that we are sorely mistaken. It believes instead that returning Chinese students and green-card holders will be chock-full of invaluable technological, military, and commercial information but nonetheless turned off by American license — perhaps in the same way that Japanese visitors and residents in the United States during the 1920s, a future Admiral Yamamoto and foreign minister Yōsuke Matsuoka among them, eventually became strong advocates for war against the U.S.

Yet the history of democracies, as Thucydides pointed out, is that laxity, complacency, and self-absorption are abruptly replaced in extremis by frantic mobilization to danger, as the entire commonwealth becomes invested in addressing existential challenges. The U.S. responses in 1917, 1941, and 1947 bear that out. For all the talk of decline, the Chinese should not wish to provoke the U.S. and its allies into a response that would remind them actually how relatively weak in comparison to the U.S. they actually are in terms of economic clout, military capability, cultural influence, and political unity.

Radical Islam

The various manifestations of hostile radical Islamism — the Iranian theocracy and its terrorist surrogates, ISIS affiliates and Sunni fundamentalist terrorism, many within the Pakistani government, and often two-faced authoritarian regimes — all assume a similar idea that the West accepts asymmetry as a sort of psychological penance. Westerners must pay for their inordinate wealth, the theory goes, or for their supposed sins of 19th- and 20th-century colonialism and imperialism, or they’re simply too morally compromised to regain enough confidence in the ancient spirit of Christendom and Western civilization to defend their values.

Yet ISIS learned that there are limits to the Western tolerance of beheading. It is a peculiar Western characteristic that despite all the West’s pious appeals to its own restraint and humanitarianism, when its patience is rarely and finally exhausted and it feels justifiably aggrieved, it can bring terrifying military resources to bear without much worry over limiting the damage it inflicts.

In terms of culture, we also live in an asymmetrical world with Islam itself: Mosques sprout all over the West; Christian churches are banned in many kingdoms of the Gulf and more and more are disappearing, from Syria to Turkey. This is said to be normal, and we are to get over it.

Inside a Western country, if one blasphemes Jesus, the mockery is seen as the stuff of comedy, art, popular culture, and entertainment. Try the same in Paris or New York with the prophet of Islam, and the consequences can become violent and relentless. Try it in a Muslim country, and the consequences are death. That asymmetry, again, becomes normative. To Islamic extremists, this is not a token of magnanimity to be reciprocated but rather proof of timidity and impotence to be justifiably exploited.

Mass and illegal immigration to the West from Arab and Muslim nations is assumed, along with the idea that even illegal aliens from the Middle East and North Africa immediately on entrance to Europe or the U.S. have the right and indeed the eagerness to demand from the West the freedoms and prosperity lacking in most Islamic countries — including the liberty to ridicule the hospitality of their newfound hosts.

What Pakistani immigrants expect as visiting rights in Britain, or what Turks assume of Germans, is not reciprocated by Pakistan and Turkey in their treatment of Western visitors in their own countries. Pakistani and Turkish immigrants also insist that their new Western hosts treat them far better than their prior governments did. Fine, that is the Western tradition. And yet immigrants often romanticize the distant countries they have forsaken, and they damn the new hosts who have saved them. No better examples of such schizophrenia can be found than the current confusion and chaos of Islamic citizens and immigrants in France, or the role of many first-generation Muslim intellectuals residing in the West.

Mexico and Latin America

The shocking thing about the so-called caravan wearing out its welcome in Tijuana was not that Mexican citizens were tired of the chaos of illegal immigrants demanding services of its newfound host country Mexico — but that Mexicans seemed absolutely oblivious to the irony that Americans might feel toward them as they feel to Central Americans.

In other words, both the Mexican government and Mexican illegal immigrants have their own set of asymmetries that they now treat as de facto entitlements:

$30 billion in remittances from mostly illegal aliens residing in the U.S. are owed to Mexico, without taxation on such transactions, and with the full expectation that the U.S., state, and local governments will provide entitlement subsidies to illegal aliens that in turn help to free up cash to be sent to Mexico.
The U.S. will serve as a safety valve for popular anger at rampant Mexican corruption, inequality, racism, and exploitation. The implicit message to Mexican citizens is something like “March to San Diego rather on Mexico City.”
Mexico, both in its own constitution and legal system, and in daily practice, assumes it would never be as compassionate to illegal immigrants within its own territory as the U.S. is to illegal aliens from Mexico. The entire psychology is bizarre. Sometimes the pretext is a vague notion that “Alta” Mexico — the southwestern United States — really belongs to Mexico. Sometimes the assumption is that the U.S. is so rich and powerful that it can afford to subsidize Mexico for the greater North American good. And sometimes there is a sort of contempt: America treats Mexicans nobly, in a fashion Mexico would never treat like illegal immigrants, because Americans are contemptibly guilt-ridden or morally arrogant.
Psychologically, Mexico also expects that its expatriates owe more allegiance to the country that drove them out than to the country that took them in. And this cynical assumption is often accurate. One of the strangest disconnects in the entire illegal-immigration masquerade is the presence of Mexican flags at immigrant rallies on behalf of illegal aliens, or the occasional booing of hometown U.S. soccer teams and the cheering of visiting Mexican rivals. The mindset of undocumented aliens in such instances comes across to the hosts as something like, “I demand that you never send me back to the country I ostensibly love, and further demand that I must stay in the country I don’t especially appreciate or even like.”

All these asymmetries become force multipliers of one another, creating widespread exasperation on the part of Americans.

That vexation especially is magnified when foreign diplomatic officials or residents inside the U.S. lecture Americans on their moral shortcomings for not opening their border without restraint. Especially exasperating are American elites who talk down to the so-called deplorables and irredeemables about their racism, nativism, xenophobia, and general inferiority — with the full expectation that the elites themselves have enough money, influence, and clout to exempt them from the consequences of what they advocate for others. (Don’t believe for a second that New York Times columnists put their children in schools where half the student body does not speak English, or that MSNBC talking heads live across the street from recent M-13 arrivals, or that NPR hosts are sometimes rear-ended by hit-and-run illegal-immigrant drivers or find their social-security numbers or IDs stolen by illegal aliens, or even that Jane Fonda cleans her own toilets or Hollywood grandees mow their own lawns.)

Trump was many things to many people, no doubt. But what fueled his ascendance was a promise not to embark on radically abnormal agendas (as alleged by his critics), but to return things to perceived symmetry.

Thus, China must play by the rules that others do, given that it would not like to be treated as it treats others. The Muslim world would not long tolerate Western visitors demeaning Middle Eastern values, customs, and religions, or Evangelicals building churches in Riyadh — and should at least be cognizant of such hypocrisy. And would Mexico allow 10 million illegal aliens to crash its southern border and, once inside, demand of Mexico City rights and entitlements that their own governments in Central America would never extend to them?

Fairly or not, by 2016, Americans saw far too much of such asymmetry: disequilibrium in NATO contributions, too little parity in NAFTA, Paris climate-accord virtue-signaling rather than concern with actual carbon reductions, a distorted Iran Deal, etc. Half the country — the poorer interior — no longer accepted the usual apologies that the U.S. was so rich and powerful that it could always absorb such overhead for the sake of global harmony and collective advancement.

Symmetry is what Americans believe leads to mutual respect and, with it, stability and peace. Asymmetry leads only to pent-up anger, contempt, frustration, furor — and conflict.

December 11, 2018

The Rise of the New Old Left, by Victor Davis Hanson, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:59 pm

The Rise Of The New Old Left
by Victor Davis Hanson
Friday, December 7, 2018
Image credit:
istock

In the 1960s, campus radicals were branded the New Left. The media saw the mélange of radicals like Bill Ayers, David Delinger, Jane Fonda, Allen Ginsberg, Abbie Hoffman, Herbert Marcuse, Jerry Rubin—as well as hippies, the Black Panthers, the gay liberation movement, La Raza, women’s liberation, draft resistance, and the anti-Vietnam War and new ecology movements—as a new counter-culture, quite different from the narrower “Old” unionists, Trotskyites, Comintern orthodox communists, and Stalinists of the 1930s-1950s.

Sixties radicals claimed their enemies were not just the old corporate bosses and greedy bankers, but rather the entire “Establishment”. The new targeted status quo was supposedly a racist, sexist, homophobic, nativist, and white cohort. By 1968, the “Man” was ritually accused of war-mongering, polluting, and exploiting—as well as just being “repressed”, “irrelevant”, “boring”, “square”, “uptight”, and “out-of-it”.

Sixties radicals saw even the Old Left, with its folk-song protest music, loyalty to Moscow, support for world communist revolutions, and never-ending labor strikes, hopelessly puritanical and dreary. For their part, these old, class-struggle Leftists, who came of age in tougher times, were not so interested in New Left trademark agendas and indulgences of a pampered boomer generation like abortion, LSD and marijuana, sustainable living, identity politics, rock music, free speech, and back to nature living.

Instead, Depression-era warriors remained wedded to the doctrines of Karl Marx, and were convinced that “class” transcended all other concerns of race and gender, and that all revolutionary movements had to be tightly controlled, organized, and centralized. If hippies found the Old Left boring and too straight in their conventional lifestyles, dress and manners, Old Leftists found hippies spoiled, smelly, unserious, addled, and preoccupied.

There were overlaps, of course.

Many Old Leftists, while sexists, had claimed they were feminists (pointing to past heroines in the French and Soviet revolutions). And they often bragged that class-consciousness was liberating to minorities and women. New Leftists, for all their self-indulgence and hedonism, always argued they were on the side of unions and popular resistance movements.

Yet for the most part, the current New Old Left is quite different from both of these preceding leftist movements. Or rather, perhaps it is a new fusion Left. It seems to combine the hard-left Marxism of the Old Left, with the indulgences and the cultural crassness of the New Left. Think of Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter.

Once that weld is understood, many of the current bizarre leftwing contradictions and paradoxes make a sort of sense.

Doctrinaire global warming ideology combines sixties environmentalism (in contrast, remember that socialist smokestack utopias like Mao’s China, Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, and the Soviet Union were the world’s worst polluters and environmental desecrators), with the authoritarian doctrinarians of the Old Left who hated capitalist production and held that bourgeois consumerism was the root of all evil.

Old Leftists always tried to organize coal miners and indoctrinate them against supposed corporate bloodsuckers. But New Leftists saw coal itself as too dirty and tainted. It was proof of a toxic establishment’s warped environmental values. New Leftists certainly privileged their worries about clean air over the plight of the Appalachian proletariat.

Yet the present New Old Left, all at once, wants both to shut down all coal production, and to organize the unemployed into new green brigades to man subsidized government wind farms, solar panels, and biofuels. New Old Left convert Hillary Clinton spelled out such a scheme in her disastrous 2016 campaign visit to Ohio coal country.

On the one hand, Old Leftists were always looking for any wrong word or action that would prove counter-revolutionary heresy: not using the proper address “comrade” in the Soviet Union or being “corrupted” by capitalism into buying a stylish new car with fins on credit.

On the other hand, New Leftists on campus in the 1960s began using the F-word, an array of expletives, and sexual and scatological profanities—as part of letting “it all hang out”. Unfettered, stream-of-consciousness talk was supposed to liberate one from repressive establishment norms of speech and etiquette.

Now take a look at social media and you can see the new New Old Left fusion: Internet mobs scan the day’s news to find some “unwoke” enemy of the people favorably quoting the colonialist imperialist Winston Churchill, or failing to deconstruct the counter-revolutionary and oppressive nature of Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer—while lacing their outrage with the F- and S-words, expressed in mostly Sixties doggerel.

Likewise, current identity politics adopts the old Marxist canard that a grasping elite exploits the poor, with the New Left idea that such bloodsuckers are not just rich but largely white, male, Christian, and heterosexual. Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin would now likely be considered unserious white male privileged pranksters, who made their girlfriends vacuum their apartments and wash the dishes—even by those New Old Leftists who now emulate their look, fashion, and behavior.

Campus radicals of the 1960s claimed they were for “free speech” and screamed and broadcast anything they wished. The Old Left, however, favored censored speech and looked for “party lines” from senior commissars and ideologues.

No wonder the New Old Left shares the worst traits of both inheritances: protestors shout profanities and yell in classrooms and lecture halls, but their shouts are boring and predictable. With all the boilerplate directives of “white privilege”, “intersectionality” and “institutional racism,” Antifa protestors sound like hippies as they shout out New Left obscenities, but they also put on black riot gear and masks, and resemble the old well-organized communist street mobs of the 1930s.

Today’s radical feminism is often reduced to an unhappy marriage between 1930s Old Left puritanism of the sort George Orwell chronicled in his novel 1984, wedded to the sexual liberation of the 1960s. The result is the progressive mishmash of the modern campus dorm, where youths “hook up”, wear provocative clothing, and dismiss as Victorian prudery assumptions like abstinence, virginity and traditional marriage.

Yet students also seek to apply Soviet-style binaries of oppressors and oppressed, victimizers and victims, to sexual congress. The result is that no one is quite sure whether consensual unhappy one-night stands in the dorms are expressions of 20th-century sexual hedonism or 21st-century proof of male-dominated predation and premeditated exploitation.

We can see the power of the contemporary New Old Left in the careers of people like the newly elected congresswoman Alexandria Occasio-Cortez. In one sense, she seems like a stern 1930s organizer in calling for Medicare for all, the abolition of ICE, cancellation of student debt, guaranteed incomes, and free college. But in another sense, she does so in vernacular language, as a “woman of color” and an avatar of the new intersectionality of race, class, and gender.

To those of the current and growing New Old Left, sixties cultural warriors like multimillionaire and mansion-living Sen. Diane Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi appear ossified, and stuck on fuddy-duddy, half-century-old issues. They fail to see that the concerns of 21st-century minorities and women like Ocasio-Cortez are the supposed future of the Democratic Party.

Today’s hip billionaire class is well aware of the rise of the New Old Left. In fact, it is terrified that New Old Leftists are directing their class warfare fury at them, despite techies’ lavish support for progressive and trendy causes. Both the Silicon Valley rich and Wall Street elites have deliberately acted cool. They have dressed in sneakers and T-shirts, and they often talked in Sixties Woodstock lingo of “cool” and “nice”, lacing their speech with the “ya-know” and “like”.

Being hip so far, and giving lavishly to progressive causes, had provided some insurance to the Masters of the Universe against class warfare. Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon billionaires may be the wealthiest capitalists and most cutthroat monopolists in world history. Yet their cool high-tech products and their casual lifestyles and progressive worldviews so far had provided them exemption from scrutiny from Old-style Left revolutionaries.

Now not so much. The New Old Left youthful cadres see wealthy high-tech hipness and cool as a façade. They are growing as angry at Silicon Valley corporate octopuses as the Old Left once was with railroads, steel, and mine companies.

What looms on the horizon is a progressive cat fight. Trump-hating cool multimillionaires in flip-flops and jeans will fight it out with street theater socialists, eager to trust-bust, nationalize, and redistribute—all indistinguishable from one another in look and talk.

In the shadows sits Donald Trump. For his part, he has created his own New Old Right answer: a populist, workers’ party that directs its culturally conservative ire beyond progressives to include corporations and globalists.

Add it all up, and the primaries and general election of 2020 may prove to be the most confusing, contradictory, and bitter election in memory.

December 4, 2018

Does ‘Make X Great Again’ Ever Happen in History [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:50 pm

Does ‘Make X Great Again’ Ever Happen in History?

By | December 2nd, 2018
AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to LinkedInLinkedInShare to Google+Google+Share to PinterestPinterestShare to PocketPocketShare to WhatsApp

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The short answer: Sometimes.

Here’s one example. By 527 A.D., the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople seemed fated to collapse like the West had a near century prior. The Persian Sassanids were gobbling up Byzantine lands in the east. Almost all of old Rome west of Greece had already been lost.

A growing and unsustainable administrative state exercised near control of Constantinople. Christianity was splintering into irrelevant factionalism. The law was a selective mess.

Justinian was certainly an unlikely emperor: an outsider of peasant stock from the northern frontier, an Eastern Latin rather than Greek speaker (and likely the last native Latin-speaking emperor), who would marry an infamous but shrewd courtesan, Theodora.

Yet in some 38 years of sometimes brutal rule, Justinian through the leadership of his brilliant generals, Belisarius and Narses, stabilized the eastern borders. He reclaimed for eastern Rome North Africa, Sicily, much of Italy, and some of Spain, often through small, well-organized armies and prudent alliances. He reformed the bureaucracy, systematized Roman law (Codex Justinianus), and built the magnificent Christian cathedral of Hagia Sophia—the largest church in the world for a thousand years.

Justinian might have done even far more had not a devastating three-year epidemic of bubonic plague spiked and wiped out a quarter of the empire’s population. The millions of losses created a permanent manpower shortage that left the Byzantines vulnerable to relentless Gothic enemies in Western Europe—and ultimately, a century and a half later, the conquests of new Islamic armies in the Middle East and North Africa.

The outsider Justinian’s agendas were those of many past reformers and restorers: apply the law equally and rationally, control government finances, restore the value of the currency, unite and inspire the population with iconic buildings and new infrastructure, reform and enhance religious practice, and offer predictable and steady rule.

Out of a Rut
History is replete with leaders who wish to perpetuate the status quo and to manage supposed permanent decline, but less frequently witnesses a few successful “great again” reformers of various stripes and agendas, both elected and the more ruthless (e.g., Pericles, Alexander, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Joseph II, Lincoln, Churchill).

In our own time, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the most notable restorers. Both came into power at a time when the English-speaking West was considered near spent.

A much talked about “crisis of confidence” and “malaise” had led to general British and American depression about the costs of containing global communism. No one seemed to know what to do about the economy—given stubborn stagflation, low growth, high unemployment and inflation, and a rising “misery” index.

Oil shortages and rising prices were proof of “peak” oil in a dependent West—and permanent reliance on corrupt Middle-East petrodollar kingdoms. Radical Islam and Middle East terrorism were on the rise. But then so were ascendant “Tiger” economies in Asia that seemed in perpetuity would make cars, steel and just plain stuff better and cheaper than in Detroit or Manchester. The cultural residue of the Sixties made any call for reformation and renewal seem quaint and hokey.

The United States would no doubt follow Britain’s postwar trajectory. Declinism—supposedly due to moral nihilism, debt, spiritual emptiness, permanent energy shortages, Cold War militarism, laziness, statism, corruption—was thematic in think tanks and current in-the-know books.

Popular culture and politics offered no avenue of optimism. Remember the age of polyester, platform shoes, bell bottoms, falsetto disco, “Mork and Mindy,” Watergate, Chevettes, Gremlins, Pacers, and Pintos—and choppers leaving the roof of the Saigon embassy, oil boycotts and gas lines, the Yom Kippur War, the Munich Olympics, and hostages in Iran.

After the end of the roaring 1960s and late 1970s, both Thatcher and Reagan were written off as near kooks, advocating strong defense, renewed nationalism, optimism, traditionalism, limited government, lower taxes, smaller government, and free-market deregulation—as pathways to a new muscular Britain and renewed superpower United States.

The results of their revolutions were the collapse of global communism, the eventual restoration of Anglo-American international finance, recalibrated American entrepreneurism, and energy renaissances. Certainly the United States today in terms of technology, defense, agriculture, fossil fuel production, and higher education towers over its competitors in ways that would have seemed impossible in the 1970s.

The idea of a Trump economic restoration in 2015-2016 seemed equally absurd. Larry Summers had assured us that annualized 3 percent GDP growth was the stuff of “fantasies.” He predicted instead a recession at 18 months of the Trump term, while Paul Krugman insisted on a market collapse in early 2017 with dubious chances of recovery.

We could never “drill our way out” of an energy crisis—so Obama had insisted and wrote off the very idea of a manufacturing rebound as some myth requiring a “magic wand.” Massive illegal immigration was a permanent fact of life, as was the new demography and identity politics. We were apparently to live with the Iran Deal and though not spoken, an eventual nuclear Iran. Nuclear missiles pointed at the West Coast from North Korea required “strategic patience.”

“Lead from behind” diplomacy relied on an international consensus of the sort illustrated by the Paris Accord and permanent refugee status of the Palestinians—as well as avoidance of disruptive moves likes leveraging NATO partners to meet their promised contributions, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, considering taboo tariffs to trim China’s huge surpluses and its assumption that its ascendance to global hegemony was a matter of when, not if.

Dilemmas of Restoration
Trump had lots of assets and advantages in seeking to restore U.S. power and prosperity. American research universities dominate global education. American frackers had produced more natural gas and oil than ever thought possible. Agriculture had never been more productive, and the United States had unused leverage and economic clout to recalibrate trade deals and alliances in a more symmetrical fashion.

The dilemma of Trump’s restoration was similar to that of many radical reformers: being an abject outsider meant he was beholden to few insiders and was largely immune from stifling and ossifying establishment groupthink. Yet his pariah status also ensured little inside help, lots of status quo deep state venom, and a learning curve required to rein in the chariot of a huge and dangerous bureaucracy.

No one knows how this latest historical effort to make great again a perceived ailing state will play out. On the plus side, Trump has sought to restore traditional jurisprudence through impressive judicial nominations. He has praised rather than lectured business and helped to free the animal spirits of capitalism. Trump cut rather than raised taxes, deregulated rather than stymied entrepreneurialism, and expanded energy leasing on federal lands and green-lighted pipeline construction.  His current foreign policy team of Bolton, Mattis, and Pompeo is impressive and seeks to restore U.S. deterrence that will bring far more stability to the world than mushy lead from behind subordination. A possible Chinese agreement to cut their trade surpluses and play by international trading rules, and a North Korean guarantee of denuclearization would be the most significant foreign policy developments since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Where has Trump’s MAGA agenda stalled?

A Republican majority House and Senate squandered a rare chance for radical change between 2017-2018 by failing to repeal and reform Obamacare, failing to build a border wall, failing to pass an immigration law that would secure the border and ensure only meritocratic, legal, diverse and measured immigration, and failing to stop out of control spending and debt by addressing unsustainable entitlements.

Trump and the Republican Party also have underestimated the effects of radical changes and protocols in voting laws, such as voter harvesting in California that has made Election Day totals largely irrelevant. Trump has neither chipped away at the 90-percent negative coverage of the media nor yet made it irrelevant.

Trump’s rare winning efforts at humor and self-deprecation (“I never had a glass of alcohol. I never had alcohol, for whatever reason. Can you imagine if I had? What a mess I would be. I would be the world’s worst.”), and real empathy (our miners, our vets, our farmers) become overshadowed by “horseface” and “Schitt” tweets that turn off once won-over squishy suburbanites.

Inept Justice Department decisions led to the venomous Mueller investigation that ignored real wrongdoing as it chased a Trump collusion unicorn. In some sense, if Trump’s election as the first president without either political or military experience was unprecedented, equally unparalleled was a 90 percent hostile media, coup-like attempts to abort a presidency through absurd resorts to the Logan Act, Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, lawsuits, impeachment writs, and non-stop celebrity talk of assassination, and death and destruction to the Trump family. Almost any other man Trump’s age would long ago have collapsed under the stress and venom.

Trump’s Uncertain Fate
The future of Trump’s solid two years of achievement is uncertain. The more his economic policies and foreign affairs bring results, the more the hatred of him grows, both inside and outside his own party.

So Trump’s three signature long-term agendas hang in the balance—checking China’s often ruthless rise to global commercial and eventual military supremacy, growing an economy that includes preeminent American manufacturing, energy production, and industrial output, and ending the idea of a bicoastal elite adjudicating politics and culture for a supposedly backward and declining traditional interior.

No one knows quite how to fathom Trump’s paradox. His extraordinary powers of resilience and retaliation stave off the constant assaults from progressives and the media, and such defiance inspires a red-state America. Yet so far Trump’s caustic retorts also stymie winning over enough swing and minority voters to achieve a 51 percent ruling majority to ensure his ideas of restored greatness.

For now, Trump’s fate may be in the hands of others—as it was in 2016 when what put him over the top was wide scale repugnance at the thought of a corrupt President Clinton and all that her victory would entail. The final take-over of the Democratic Party by progressive extremists might well empower Trump to reelection.

Yet it is a scary idea that the fate of making America great again might hinge on the nihilism of the Democratic Party.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

[All said, Heather MacDonald, Phd JD, has concluded that if the Progressive Agenda continues, we will having a shooting Civil War within 5 years, effectively bringing forward Chittum’s “Civil War: II”.]

November 29, 2018

How Europeans Viewed the War (1861) by Thomas DiLorenzo [How long have I been saying these things?]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:20 pm

How Europeans Viewed the War

A review of Slavery, Secession, & Civil War: Views from the United Kingdom and Europe, 1856-1865 (Scarecrow Press, 2007) by Charles Adams.

At long last Charles Adams’s new book, Slavery, Secession, & Civil War: Views from the United Kingdom and Europe, 1856-1865, has been published. I’ve been anxiously waiting for this book for about five years. The book contains about 500 pages of excerpts from European (mostly British) magazines and journals on the events leading up to the war, the war itself, and the nature of the Lincoln regime. This is a most valuable effort since the mainstream Northern press was censored during the war. Foreign writers, however, “were not arrested and imprisoned,” as they were in the North, writes Adams. “They were not silenced by aimed soldiers, mobs, or censorship of the mails,” and “their editors were not hauled off to prison,” to mention just a few of the more totalitarian acts of the Lincoln regime. Even today, writes Adams, the “gatekeepers” of “Civil War” history are “still making war on the South” by distorting history.

Although it is a very long book, I could not put it down. Nineteenth-century English commentators on the war were remarkably astute, well informed, and articulate in expressing their views—so astute as to make your typical mainstream “Lincoln scholar” of today sound like an uneducated boob. There were supporters of both North and South in the European press, although many Northern supporters switched sides once they began observing the behavior of Dishonest Abe and his regime. They all opposed slavery very strongly, but those who supported the Southern cause believed that the North’s invasion of the Southern states had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

During the 1856-1860 period, writes Adams, quite a few British editors “saw the separation of the North and South as a good thing,” and believed that “slavery had no significant part in the conflict.” For example, Chamber’s Journal of Popular Literature, Science and Arts, one of the “workingman’s journals,” wrote on March 21, 1857, that a major source of conflict was that Northern business interests wanted the South to “consent to the high protective tariff,” and if they did, “anti-slavery agitation would stop.” “Antislavery agitation” meant opposition to the extension of slavery, not Southern slavery. Pretending to want to “check the progress of slavery” in this way “has been only a disguise under which to advance the interests of the [Republican] party.”

This publication also noted that the black population of the North was generally treated as inhuman. “In scarcely any of the large cities of the North did they [blacks] escape violence” at the hand of whites. It was hardly likely, therefore, that Northern whites would fight a war and die by the hundreds of thousands purely for the benefit of black strangers, as has been taught to generations of American school children.

The Edinburgh Review was a prominent British journal that observed in 1858 that “abolition was not a policy of the North,” and that secession would actually spell the end of slavery because it would no longer be propped up by the federal government’s Fugitive Slave Act. This view was echoed by other high-quality British publications such as Fraser’s Magazine and The Saturday Review, among others. Thus, the most prominent British journals agreed on the eve of the War with a statement that Alexander Stephens would make five or six years later, that slavery was actually “more secure” in the union than out of it.

A British publication called The Quarterly Review ran a long article in April 1857 on the New York State Disunion Convention. The stridently pro-North Westminster Review, founded by philosophers James Mill (father of John Stuart Mill) and Jeremy Bentham, also wrote that “Massachusetts was, we believe, the first State which organized Disunion Associations.”

Who has ever run across that fact in an American history book?! The magazine also wrote of a Massachusetts secession convention that was held around the same time in the town of Worcester.

Perhaps the most influential pro-South journal in England was All the Year Round, edited by Charles Dickens. Writing on “The American Disunion” on September 6,1861, Dickens recognized that the opposition to slavery extension in the territories was not based on moral, but political and economic grounds. It was “a question of political power between North and South” because of the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution, which added three persons to a state’s population count for every five slaves. This inflated the South’s representation in Congress, which in turn allowed the South to effectively oppose the North’s corporatist or mercantilist agenda of high tariffs, corporate welfare, and a government-ran central bank.

The Morrill Tariff was the main cause of the war as Dickens saw it. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South [due to high protective tariffs on manufactured goods]; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many, many other evils.” “The quarrel between the North and South,” Charles Dickens believed, “is … solely a fiscal quarrel.” (Dickens entertainingly wrote of how Lincoln “came across as a bit of a country bumpkin” to those Europeans who had met him.)

The Quarterly Review agreed wholeheartedly with Dickens, calling the protectionist tariff a “revolting tribute” paid to Northern businessmen by Southerners who “had been groaning for years under the crashing bondage of Northern protectionists.” This publication also noted that the Republican Party platform of 1860 supported the “inviolate rights of the states,” especially “the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions” (i.e., slavery); that Lincoln strongly supported his party’s platform; and that he also supported the notorious Corwin Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution explicitly. (The Amendment passed the House and Senate before Lincoln’s inauguration, with exclusively Northern votes.) These are all facts that few, if any, American school students are ever made aware of but which were well known all around the world in the 1860s.

The Athenaeum, a London journal that published such famous authors as T.S. Eliot, George Santayana, and Thomas Hardy, echoed Dickens’s views regarding the economic causes of the war, and excoriated Lincoln as a dictator and a tyrant. “President Lincoln … suspended the writ of habeas corpus. He has muzzled the press and abridged the freedom of speech…. He has, without authority of law and against the Constitution … plunged the country into war, murdered … citizens, burned … houses…. He has seized unoffending citizens [of the North], and, … has imprisoned them in loathsome dungeons.” Moreover, “under the tyrant’s plea, he is proceeding to do a great many acts and things which would more become the savage and the brute.”

Blackwood’s Magazine, which is still being published, argued in 1861 that “slavery had no significant part in the conflict.” The union, through the Fugitive Slave Act, protected slavery, said Blackwood’s, repeating the view of other British journals that secession would actually lead to the demise of slavery by nullifying that federal law. The tariff laws, on the other hand, were “ruinous to the South.” They were “the chief complaint of the South,” and “have been for thirty years oppressive and unjust.” As for Lincoln, “He may possibly be a good attorney,” the magazine wrote, “though we should never have selected him as a legal adviser.”

By 1862, Blackwood’s was denouncing the Lincoln regime as “[M]onstrous, reckless, devilish.” ‘The North seeks to make the South a desert—a wilderness of bloodshed and misery,” and all for money. “The North would league itself with Beelzebub, and seek to make a hell of half the continent.” Lincoln had “inaugurated dictatorship” and “abolished liberty” in the North. ‘Taxes had been imposed, debt incurred, and paper money issued, to the fullest amount possible.” All of this is what today’s court historians call “a new birth of freedom.”

The events of the War proved to Blackwood’s that the “Yankees” of New England “do not care a straw for the Constitution,” for “they have sacrificed both legality and liberty long ago.” Nor did the Yankees “care a cent for the abolition of slavery on the day when the South inaugurated the war by the attack on Fort Sumter.” “With Mr. Lincoln at their head,” they “would have rejoiced exceedingly if the whole race could be transported to their native Africa.”

The prestigious Economist magazine, which is still one of the preeminent publications in the world, editorialized in 1861 that what motivated the North was its obsession for empire. “They have dreamed of omnipotence and immortality; and they feel, with angry disappointment and bitter humiliation, that such a disruption as now seems almost consummated is a deplorable end to all these ambitious hopes and all this … self-glorification.” The magazine published both pro-North and pro-South articles during the course of the war, and its analysis was always very astute.

Fraser’s Magazine, a high-quality publication that won high praise from Charles Dickens, editorialized that “it appears impossible to sympathize with the North” because the North was motivated not by humanitarianism or constitutionalism, but “jealousy, fanaticism, and wounded national vanity.”

By 1865, some British journals, such as MacMillan’s magazine, were expressing fears that the U.S. government, having destroyed the Confederacy, would turn on England next. England had traded with the Confederates, and after the war the Republican Party regime did arrogantly demand “reparations” from Great Britain for this “sin.” Thus, MacMillan’s asked, “Will [the U.S. government] be tempted to employ these [military] forces in an attack upon any foreign country?—and if so, will England be the country attacked?”

Quite a few British publications understood the War as the final showdown between the true federalists (Jeffersonian states’ rights advocates) and the nationalists that animated the American government from its founding. The North British Review, for example, wrote in May of 1861 that “The whole South stand upon State rights, or a nearly sovereign exercise of power; and a majority in the North sustains Federalism, or the delegation of a portion of that power to the national Government.”

Summing up American events in 1862, the Review wrote that the essence of the War was that “twenty million say to the other ten millions, ‘You shall continue to live under a government you detest, you shall submit to laws you wish to change, you shall obey rulers you repudiate and abjure.’” Only a “‘nisi riius’ [trial] lawyer could deny the right of a state to secede,” the magazine wrote, in what appears to have been a slap at Dishonest Abe the old railroad industry’ trial lawyer.

The Review had nothing but seething contempt for the Lincoln regime. “Mr. Seward has been one of the most signal failures ever known,” it wrote in 1862. And “Mr. Stanton has made up for want of real vigour and talent, by a lawless, fitful, and ineffective violation of the civil rights of every [Northern] citizen whom he fancied he could oppress with impunity.” Furthermore, “looking over all the … chief Federal authorities … never was a country so miserably served.”

Nor was the Review fooled by the Emancipation Proclamation. It clearly understood that by applying only to “rebel territory,” the Proclamation freed no one. It was denounced as “perhaps the most grotesquely illogical and inconsistent decree ever issued by a government.” It catalogued numerous reasons why it believed the Proclamation was “a blunder and a crime.” The real cause of the War, the Review believed, was so that “a mighty conception of universal empire may be realized.”

The humorous journal Punch published hundreds of editorial cartoons related to the War. One particularly eye-catching one reproduced by Adams is entitled “The Federal Phoenix,” published in December of 1864. A giant Lincoln head is the head of a “phoenix,” a mythical bird of ancient Egypt which, according to Adams’s account, “was consumed voluntarily by fire and rose again from its own ashes to a youthful life.”

There is a blazing fire in the cartoon, and the crumbling logs in the fire represent the old Jeffersonian republic of the founders that was facing imminent destruction. Written on the logs are “low tariff and world trade”; “United States Constitution”; “states’ rights”; “habeas corpus”; and “free press.”

The Quarterly Review went so far as to say that “there was little difference … between the government of Mr. Lincoln and the Government of Napoleon III.” The reason given for this harsh condemnation was that in the Northern states “scarcely any dared to oppose” the party in power for fear of “a charge of treason”; there has been “the manipulation of elections”; “pitiless conscription”; and “disregard of personal liberty” (in the North, mind you). Moreover, “There is no Parliamentary authority whatever for what has been done. It has been done simply on Mr. Lincoln’s fiat.” He declared himself dictator, in other words, all in the name of promoting “freedom.”

This magazine was just getting started: “Mr. Lincoln is a poor plagiarist in the art of tyranny. There is nothing striking or original in his proceedings; his plan is just like that of any Old-world despot, to crush out adverse opinion by sheer force.” These awful precedents created a situation whereby “it is now the undisputed law of the United States that a President may suspend civil liberty whenever and for as long as he thinks fit.” Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush, among others, have all proven this prediction to be prescient.

The prestigious Times (of London) turned against the North as the war proceeded, editorializing that the North was fighting for “nothing more than the old idea of Empire and national grandeur expressed in more specious language.” It harshly condemned the Republican Party for putting “empire above liberty” and having “resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power.”

Adams includes a few excerpts from French, Spanish, and Italian publications as well, but they seem quite feeble compared to the extraordinarily well-informed and incredibly well-written British essayists that he surveys.

The most striking thing to me about this collection of essays is how so many of them supported the Southern cause simply because the writers were aware of many of the essential facts about Lincoln, his regime, and the War—facts that most Americans seem completely unaware of. They all knew about his promise of everlasting support for Southern slavery, his eagerness to codify it in the Constitution, his dictatorial destruction of personal liberty in the North, and his waging of a barbaric war on the civilians of the South. They also knew that the Republican Party was the party of political plunder, and that it fully intended to plunder the South economically with protectionist tariffs and corporate welfare funded by a central bank, among other schemes.

These and many other facts have been swept under the rug by generations of American “gatekeepers” in academe and elsewhere. Most Americans today are so ignorant of this period of history that all they know about it is a few of Dishonest Abe’s political slogans and a little nineteenth century Republican Party propaganda. This propaganda is repeated over and over and over again in the public schools, by all the “Lincoln scholars,” and by (mostly) contemporary Republican Party politicians and their media mouthpieces.

The Lincoln Myth is the ideological cornerstone of the American empire and its sole claim to moral authority. Thanks to Charles Adams, we now know that during Lincoln’s time there were a great many highly educated and articulate Europeans who saw this spectacular bundle of lies for what it was.

This article was originally published in the Volume 26, Number 3 issue of Southern Partisan magazine.

About Thomas DiLorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola University in Maryland and is the author of The Problem with Socialism, The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and Hamilton’s Curse. More from Thomas DiLorenzo

November 13, 2018

The Present American Revolution, by Victor Davis Hanson, PhD [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 10:00 pm

The Present American Revolution
By Victor Davis Hanson

November 13, 2018 11:34 AM

(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters )
Destroying the Constitution and seeking state-mandated equality of result

The revolution of 1776 sought to turn a colony of Great Britain into a new independent republic based on constitutionally protected freedom. It succeeded with the creation of the United States.

The failed revolution of 1861, by a slave-owning South declaring its independence from the Union, sought to bifurcate the country, More than 600,000 dead later, slavery was abolished, a Confederacy was in in ruins, and the South was forced back into the United States largely on the conditions and terms of the victorious North.

The 1960s saw efforts to create a new progressive nation by swarming democratic and republican institutions. The sheer force of a left-wing cultural revolution would supposedly transform a nation, in everything from jeans, long hair, and pot to rock music and sexual “liberation.” It was eventually diffused by popular weariness with the extremism and violence of the radical revolutionaries, and the establishment’s agreements to end the Vietnam War, give 18-year-olds the right to vote, phase out the draft, expand civil rights to include reparatory action, legalize abortion, radicalize the university, and vastly increase the administrative state to wage a war on poverty, a war on pollution, and a war on inequality.

Our present revolution is more multifaceted. It is a war on the very Constitution of the United States that has not yet brought the Left its Holy Grail: a state-mandated equality of result overseen by an omnipotent and omniscient elite. The problem for today’s leftists is that they are not fighting Bourbon France, a reactionary Europe of 1848, or Czarist Russia, but an affluent, culturally uninhibited, and wildly free United States, where never in the history of civilization has a people attained such affluence and leisure.

Poverty is not existential as it once was, given high technology and government redistribution. The grievance is not that America is destitute (indeed, obesity not famine is our national epidemic). The poorer do not lack access to material goods (everything from iPhones to high-priced sneakers is in the reach of about everyone).

IN THE NEWS: ‘McConnell Rejects Vote On Bill To Protect Mueller’

Instead, the complaint is that some have far more than others, and the government, despite its $21 trillion in debt, seems unable to guaranteed universal parity, especially when the people seem unexcited about joining “taking a knee” protests or “swarming the homes” of counter-revolutionaries. In other words, millions of Americans will never join Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or Occupy Wall Street on the barricades; nor will they worry that in Texas 59 percent of white women voted for Latino Ted Cruz while 95 percent of black women voted for white male Robert O’Rourke. They apparently prefer instead to live private lives on their own terms.

Taking a drive in a Hyundai today is far more comfortable, reliable, and safe than touring in a 1970 Rolls Royce. An inner-city youth with an iPhone has more computing power and global access in his palm than did an estate owner in 1990 with a row of mainframe computers in his basement. So revolution is not so easy anymore and requires changing the very idea of the state, the law, and the ancient institutions that uphold them.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Immigration

Sovereign and secure borders do not lead to the sort of demographic upheaval that fuels progressive agendas. Measured, legal, meritocratic, and diverse immigration does not result in a vast impoverished shadow population in need of self-appointed advocacy; it enhances individual assimilation, integration, intermarriage, and Americanization.

If in the past nullification of federal laws led to the states’-rights crises involving southern states in 1828–32, 1860, or 1962, today there is apparently little worry about ignoring federal immigration statutes. We simply have allowed more than 500 municipalities, counties, and states to declare full enforcement of federal immigration law null and avoid within their jurisdictions — period.

Immigrants 1,000 miles away, intent on crashing the southern border and residing in the U.S. illegally, sue the federal government to force acceptance of their anticipated illegal entry. Again, the revolutionary idea is that progressive messaging cannot win 51 percent approval without changing the demography — and changing the demography is impossible without constitutional nullification.

Elections and Courts

Voting does not always result in the result that progressives desire. Unfortunately for the Left, more than half the country still believes America is unquietly good, blessed with a wonderful inheritance by its brave and ingenious ancestors, a beacon of freedom and security in a scary world, and constantly improving. Even a progressive media, university, Hollywood, and a progressive plutocracy, Antifa, and street theater cannot yet change that fact.

So the revolution again turns to upending the constitution and the law. In Florida, local violations of state election laws seek to warp the result and elect the more progressive candidate. More fundamentally, why does a Wyoming of 600,000 souls deserve two senators, the same number as in California with its 40 million? Are not 39,400,000 California citizens deprived of their “rights” of proportional senatorial representation?

Why is there an electoral college that violates the spirt of Athenian democratic direction elections? Why is there a Second Amendment that allows “automatic” assault weapons and “nuts” with handguns?

For that matter, why is there a counterrevolutionary First Amendment that protects “hate speech” and de facto promotes right-wing racists, homophobes, nativists, xenophobes, sexists, and climate-change deniers, allowing them to propagandize and pollute the public discourse and infect campuses with right-wing rhetoric?

The courts have become revolutionary. They now routinely overturn popular referenda, presidential executive orders, and legislative statutes, mostly on the principle that better-educated, more moral and experienced judges answer to a higher, more progressive calling and know what in the long run is best for the uneducated rabble. From now on out, every Republican-nominated Supreme Court nominee will probably result in a Kavanaugh-like circus, in which protestors in the gallery, disruptive senators themselves, and mobs in the street will attempt to create so much chaos that the wearied public will cave and just wish that conservatives would not nominate such controversial constructionists.

Campuses

Today’s university is in a revolutionary spiral. The U.S. Constitution does not necessarily protect students and faculty. By that dramatic statement, I mean, free speech is all but gone. A professor who confessed opposition to affirmative action, abortion, or global warming would face ostracism and even risk physical assault and yet see his attackers all but sanctioned by a neutral or complicit administration.

Due process is nonexistent in many areas. In accusations of sexual harassment or assault, there is little left of the presumption of innocence, the right to confront and question a transparent accuser, and the appeal to be judged by a jury of one’s peers. Most of the 1960s civil-rights agenda is moribund on campus.

Racial segregation in dorms and safe spaces is unquestioned. Racial biases can result in rejected admission on the premise that there are too many of one particular race on campus — and merit-based criteria are a prejudiced construct anyway. Censorship has returned, by both banning texts and demonizing classics now deemed to need “trigger warnings.” Free assembly and expression are on life support. Speakers and guests deemed “right-wing” are shouted down, swarmed, or disinvited by a terrified Bourbon administration.

The Mob

The mob is becoming in some ways as powerful as the French rabble who cheered on the guillotine, or the adolescent crowds that spoiled affluent kids such as Bill Ayers and Jane Fonda once used as demonstration fodder. Instead, it is vast and global — and linked by instant communications on social media and the Internet, and it remains often anonymous. Post or say one wrong word, and the electronic turba comes out of the shadows, swarming to demand career-ending confessions, or offering amnesty on promises of correct reeducation. One’s entire life can be accessed in nanoseconds to root out past thought crimes and counterrevolutionary speech. Be deemed a right-wing obstructionist or activist, and everything — from one’s cell-phone number and email address to private residence and office —can become known to 7 billion.
Comments

Logging on may mean using the public airspace and thus entering the domain of a traditionally regulated public utility, but the masters of the universe at Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, by the power of their trillions of dollars and loud progressive fides, are exempt from antitrust and monopoly legislation. So when the mob targets a public enemy, correct-thinking thirtysomething geeks and nerds in Menlo Park and Palo Alto gear up to shut down, censor, and recalibrate public transmitted speech and thought.

Almost everything we have seen in just the last three months — the Kavanaugh chaos, the “caravan,” the ongoing Mueller octopus, recounting election results until they are deemed “correct,” the Beto and Gillum neo-socialism craziness, the swarming of a Fox News anchor’s home, driving public officials out of restaurants, the media circus at presidential press conferences — are symptoms of revolutionary America. In this conflict, one side believes it is not only not fair but also not allowable that it lacks the necessary power to make us all equal — but equal only in the eyes of a self-anointed elite.

November 12, 2018

Evan Sayet on Trumpism [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 11:51 pm

Evan Sayet:

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.

Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today.

Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking.. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.

It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”… Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. … They need to respond.

This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do.

These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it – he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!

November 9, 2018

Armistice day, Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:21 pm

The 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month—100 Years Ago
By Victor Davis Hanson| November 8th, 2018
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
FacebookShare to TwitterTwitterShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to Google+Google+Share to EmailEmailShare to PinterestPinterestShare to PocketPocketShare to WhatsApp
WhatsApp
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The First World War ended 100 years ago this month on November 11, 1918, at 11 a.m. Nearly 20 million people had perished since the war began on July 28, 1914.

In early 1918, it looked as if the Central Powers—Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire—would win.

Czarist Russia gave up in December 1917. Tens of thousands of German and Austrian soldiers were freed to redeploy to the Western Front and finish off the exhausted French and British armies.

The late-entering United States did not declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary until April 1917. Six months later, America had still not begun to deploy troops in any great number.

Then, suddenly, everything changed. By summer 1918, hordes of American soldiers began arriving in France in unimaginable numbers of up to 10,000 doughboys a day. Anglo-American convoys began devastating German submarines. The German high command’s tactical blunders stalled the German offensives of spring 1918—the last chance before growing Allied numbers overran German lines.

Nonetheless, World War I strangely ended with an armistice—with German troops still well inside France and Belgium. Revolution was brewing in German cities back home.

The three major Allied victors squabbled over peace terms. America’s idealist president, Woodrow Wilson, opposed an Allied invasion of German and Austria to occupy both countries and enforce their surrenders.

By the time the formal Versailles Peace Conference began in January 1919, millions of soldiers had gone home. German politicians and veterans were already blaming their capitulation on “stab-in-the-back” traitors and spreading the lie that their armies lost only because they ran out of supplies while on the verge of victory in enemy territory.

The Allied victors were in disarray. Wilson was idolized when he arrived in France for peace talks in December 1918—and was hated for being self-righteous when he left six months later.

The Treaty of Versailles proved a disaster, at once too harsh and too soft. Its terms were far less punitive than those the victorious Allies would later dictate to Germany after World War II. Earlier, Germany itself had demanded tougher concessions from a defeated France in 1871 and Russia in 1918.

In the end, the Allies proved unforgiving to a defeated Germany in the abstract but not tough enough in the concrete.

One ironic result was that the victorious but exhausted Allies announced to the world that they never wished to go to war again. Meanwhile, the defeated and humiliated Germans seemed all too eager to fight again soon to overturn the verdict of 1918.

The consequence was a far bloodier war that followed just two decades later. Eventually, “the war to end all wars” was rebranded “World War I” after World War II engulfed the planet and wiped out some 60 million lives.

What can we learn from the failed armistice of 1918?

Keeping the peace is sometimes even more difficult than winning a war.

For an enemy to accept defeat, it must be forced to understand why it lost, suffer the consequences of its aggressions—and only then be shown magnanimity and given help to rebuild.

Losers of a war cannot pick and choose when to quit fighting in enemy territory.

Had the Allies continued their offensives in the fall of 1918 and invaded Germany, the peace that followed might have more closely resembled the unconditional surrender and agreements that ended WWII, leading to far more than just 20 years of subsequent European calm.

Deterrence prevents war.

Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 because it was convinced that Britain would not send enough troops to aid its overwhelmed ally, France. Germany also assumed that isolationist America would not intervene.

Unfortunately, the Allies of 1939 later repeated the errors of 1914, and the result was WWII.

Germany currently dominates Europe, just as it did in 1871, 1914 and 1939. European peace is maintained only when Germany channels its enormous energy and talents into economic, not military, dominance. Yet even today, on matters such as illegal immigration, overdue loans, Brexit and trade surpluses, Germany tends to agitate its allies.

It is also always unwise to underestimate a peaceful America. The U.S. possesses an uncanny ability to mobilize, arm and deploy. By the time America’s brief 19-month foray into war ended in November 1918, it had sent 2 million soldiers to Europe.

Had the armistice of November 1918 and the ensuing peace worked, perhaps we would still refer to a single “Great War” that put an end to world wars.

But because the peace failed, we now use Roman numerals to count world wars. And few believe that when the shooting stops, the war is necessarily over.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.