The miniaturization myth

Obama and ‘experts’ wrongly measure North Korea’s nuclear intentions


By R. James Woolsey and Peter Vincent Pry

On March 9, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a paranoid psychopath, displayed a nuclear missile warhead he threatens to launch against the United States and its allies.

The public is being misled by the White House, some so-called “experts” and mainstream media casting doubt on whether the Great Leader’s threat is real. They claim North Korea has not demonstrated sufficient “miniaturization” of a nuclear weapon to be delivered by a missile.

However, defense and intelligence community officials warn North Korea probably already has nuclear armed missiles. The Defense Department’s 2016 report “Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea” warns that, in addition to medium-range missiles, they have six KN-08 mobile nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can strike the U.S. mainland.

Recently, the Pentagon warned North Korea rolled out a new longer-range ICBM, the KN-14, that can probably deliver a nuclear warhead to Chicago.

Continue reading

Canada’s Senate Committee on National Security and Defence forum

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security; and Cynthia Ayers, Deputy Director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security testified before the Senate Committee on National Security and Defense.

Video of Dr. Peter Vincent Pry and Cynthia Ayers testimony

Dr. Peter Pry and Cynthia Ayers testimony begins at about 15:32

The 1983 Nuclear War Scare–And Today

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

The Washington Post (October 24, 2015) reports that, in 1983, the Soviet Union’s paranoid political and military leaders nearly started World War III.  Moscow mistakenly perceived a NATO nuclear exercise as an impending U.S. surprise attack–and almost launched a nuclear first strike. Details of this brush with Armageddon are revealed in the recently declassified report The Soviet “War Scare” (February 15, 1990) written by the blue ribbon President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB).

Now, for the first time, the PFIAB Report on the near nuclear Gotterdammerung of 1983 is available to the public, 32 years later.

Continue reading

Lesson From The City Of Lights: KEEP THE LIGHTS ON!!!

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Paris known as the “City of Lights” literally, as the largest city in France, and figuratively, as the cultural capital of Western Civilization, now wonders, along with the rest of the civilized world, what to do about the Dark Ages threat embodied by ISIS and Islamic terrorism?

For the U.S. Congress, the next immediate step to protect America should be obvious.  Rep. Trent Franks has introduced a bill, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (HR 1073), that would protect the national electric grid from manmade and natural threats that could cause a protracted blackout of the life sustaining critical infrastructures–communications, transportation, business and finance, food and water.

A terrorist attack on the electric grid that causes a nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill up to 90 percent of the American people by starvation and societal collapse, according to the Congressional EMP Commission.

Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has introduced a similar bill (S 1846).

Congress has known for over a decade, since 2004 when the EMP Commission delivered its first report, about the existential threat to the United States from electric grid vulnerability.  Yet nothing has been done to protect the grid.

Congress has just a few more weeks before it breaks for the holidays to act.

Continue reading

Iran–The Worst Deal

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is not only a bad deal, but the worst deal possible–because Iran probably already has the bomb.

Consider the facts.

Iran A-Bomb Overdue

Historically, judging from open source estimates, the time required for all other nations to develop atomic weapons is 3-12 years.  Iran, which has had a nuclear program for over six decades and been crashing on the bomb for 25-30 years, should have developed atomic weapons by now.

For example:

The United States during the World War II Manhattan Project (1942-1945) built the first atomic bombs, two different designs, in just 3 years.  In just 3 years, when the atomic bomb was merely a theoretical possibility, the U.S. invented the two basic A-Bomb designs–the gun-type A-Bomb used on Hiroshima and the implosion-type A-Bomb used on Nagasaki–that are the basis for all atomic (fission) weapons and are the technological gateway to more sophisticated and powerful thermonuclear (fusion) weapons, including the H-Bomb.  In just 3 years, the U.S. invented and built the nuclear scientific and industrial infrastructure that mass produced thousands of A-Bombs and H-Bombs after 1945 during the Cold War.

Read Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1987) and consider whether it seems plausible that–where the U.S. invented the bomb and its nuclear weapons infrastructure in just 3 years using 1930s and 1940s era science and technology–supposedly (according to the Obama Administration) Iran has not yet duplicated the U.S. feat of World War II.  Yet Iran has access to copious unclassified materials on making and designing fission and fusion weapons.  Yet Iran is informed and equipped with 21st Century science and technology.  And Iran has been crashing on the bomb for 8-10 times longer than the U.S. WWII Manhattan Project–for 25-30 years.

Continue reading

Today North Korea–Tomorrow Iran

Can Israel trust Vice President Joe Biden’s March 9 promise to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the people of Israel that America “will act” if Iran violates the nuclear deal?


Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

The Obama administration’s willful blindness to the present nuclear missile threats emanating almost daily from North Korea is a “teaching moment” on how President Obama–and any future Democrat administration that supports Obama’s nuclear deal–will respond to nuclear missile threats from Iran.

Denial.  Obfuscation.  Impotence.  This is how President Obama is reacting to the fact that North Korea is a fully fledged nuclear missile state.  No doubt it is how President Obama, or a future President Hillary Clinton or President Bernie Sanders–who also support the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)–will react when Iran reveals to the world that it too is a nuclear missile power.

North Korea has conducted four overt nuclear tests, the last possibly of a hydrogen bomb.  All of these nuclear tests are illegal violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which North Korea once subscribed in order to acquire its nuclear infrastructure.

Of great significance for the case of Iran, North Korea’s nuclear tests are flagrant violations of the Agreed Framework.  The Agreed Framework is not an official treaty with the U.S. but an agreement concluded with President Bill Clinton under his executive authority–exactly the same unconstitutional basis for President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Continue reading

Letter to President Barack Obama

Letter to President Obama FINAL May 21st, 2015

President Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,
We need your personal intervention to provide for the protection of the American people against an existential threat posed by natural and manmade electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The consequent failure of critical infrastructure that sustain our lives is a major national security threat and would be catastrophic to our people and our nation.

The national Intelligence Council, which speaks for the entire U.S. Intelligence Community, published in its 2012 unclassified Global Trends 2030 report that an EMP is one of only eight Black Swan events that could change the course of global civilization by or before 2030. No official study denies the view that an EMP is a potentially catastrophic societal threat that needs to be addressed urgently. America is not prepared to be without water, electricity, telephones, computer networks, heating, air conditioning, transportation (cars, subways, buses, airplanes), and banking.

All the benefits of our just-in-time ecomony would come to a deadly halt, including the production of petroleum products, clothing, groceries and medicine. Think about cities without electricity to pump water to their residents.

Some signatures to this letter are from people who-like a growing number of Americans-have only recently learned about the EMP threat and find it hard to believe that our government has permitted it to continue. They joined in signing because they, in representing those same Americans, wish to show broad support for qualified experts ending this vulnerability as quickly as possible.

An EMP is like a super-energetic radio wave from natural or manmade causes that can damage and destroy electronic systems across vast regions, potentially across the entire continental United States, across Europe, or any other country that has not hardened its electric power grid. Russia and China have substantially hardened their electric grids. Other nations are beginning to harden theirs. But the United States has done little or nothing to counter this threat.

We urge you immediately to issue a Presidential Study Directive (PSD) directing your National Security Advisor to lead a focused interagency effort to provide, in connection with your current budget execution activities and future budget requests, a specific program to address this natural and manmade threat. In particular, this PSD should direct that hardening technology, well known in the Department of Defense, be exploited by all agencies with responsibility for maintaining the electric power grid. It is imperative that plans are immediately implemented to protect America’s at least 100 nuclear reactors and their co-located spent fuel storage facilities from an EMP. It should also take into account bipartisan congressional initiatives, such as the Secure High-Voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage (SHIELD) Act and the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA).

Continue reading

When Iran Goes Nuclear

Failure to protect the nation would amount to dereliction of duty


R. James Woolsey and Peter Vincent Pry – Monday, March 2, 2015

Our attention these days with regard to security is understandably riveted on the Islamic State, or ISIS, and its hideous decapitations, rapes and live immolations. We must deal with the Islamic State, but it is not the gravest threat we face. The Israelis are right — we should awaken to the fact that the coming of a nuclear Iran holds special dangers and requires particularly urgent attention. There are four driving reasons.

First, the Mideast abounds in clashing religious beliefs, but there is special danger in the Shiite doctrine held by many Iranians, including some of Iran’s national leaders: The return of the hidden Imam will bring the war that ends the world and creates heavenly bliss for believers. As America’s dean of Mideast studies, Bernard Lewis, puts it: During the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction was a deterrent; today it is an inducement.

Second, Iran works very closely with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs. Consequently, it has the ballistic missile capacity to launch weapons of substantial size and intercontinental range against us, or to orbit satellites above us.

So troubling is this capability — in the hands of either Iran or North Korea — that nine years ago, based on the ability of North Korea’s Taepodong missile to carry a nuclear warhead to intercontinental range, the current secretary of defense, Ashton Carter, and a prominent former secretary, William Perry, urged in a 2006 oped a pre-emptive strike against the then-new North Korean long-range missiles on their launch pads. As the two secretaries put it then, “Intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.” Their view was that our ballistic missile defense capabilities were unproven and should not be relied upon for such an important task. “Diplomacy has failed,” they said, “And we cannot sit by.”

Continue reading

Terrorism–An Existential Threat

Family Security Matters


by DR. PETER VINCENT PRY February 13, 2015

Terrorism is NOT an existential threat, according to Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor, and according to the new White House national security strategy unveiled on Friday, February 6, 2015.  Nor does the United States face any other threats to its existence, according to the White House, except for “climate change.”Rice explained, “Too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective.  Yes, there is a lot going on.  Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War.”

Polling indicates as many as one-third of Americans believe Rice and the White House, when in reality the U.S. faces existential threats of greater severity than World War II or the Cold War from terrorists, Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea.

Regular readers of Family Security Matters do not need to be told why Russia, China, and North Korea–all nuclear missile states hostile to America and U.S. allies–pose a growing existential threat to the United States.

This article shall focus on the existential dangers from terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS and from the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism–Iran.  Islamic terrorists and Iran pose an even greater threat to the existence of the United States than did Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany during World War II, or than the USSR during the Cold War.

Continue reading