Obviously, it's a very dangerous situation, Dennis. All available evidence seems
to point that out. It's in the WMD for real this time category. How would you propose to change
it? That seems to be the question.

Given the level of potential mass destruction threat, I honestly don't know. That's why I asked.

Thank you for the informative links.

Please take a look at this online defense technology journal.  I first read about EMP in one of these.   (Sorry about the harsh way they describe WND, Dennis.  I personally read a little of everything and don't dismiss sources so universally.)

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001526.html
EMP SCAREMONGERS FIZZLE
It sounds scary – like comic book super-villain scary – at first, this idea that Iran is plotting to hit American with a king-sized electromagnetic pulse, triggered by a nuke in the skies. Luckily, it's a scenario about as realistic as the X-Men.

 For years, a group of right-wing defense policy makers have been warning about the dangers of an EMP assault. Their "latest evidence," according to Internet tinhat-factory World NetDaily: a Tehran "military journal" article that "publicly considered the idea of launching an electromagnetic pulse attack as the key to defeating the world's lone superpower."....

---

Apparently this rumor has resurfaced, probably for political reasons.  There is some of that on both sides going on now.  We are being scared to death.

That's politics, but I just hope the American people are not actually fooled into a real war again.  Iran does not have a history of using WMD.  Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical weapons on them.  Iran did not respond in kind.

Lots of our enemies would love to see us invade Iran, including Al Qaeda.  That would kill two birds with one stone for them.  Even if Iran gets nuclear capability, they won't use it pre-emptively against us for the same reason all the other countries that have it don't use it - they would be turned to glass by us, or Russia or China.  Or maybe India or Pakistan or N. Korea? 

Klondike, I know the left hates WND mostly because of its conservative spin. But WND isn't the only report on EMP threat, and frankly
the Congress has been warned about this EMP threat repeatedly for many years and they take the threat seriously. Indeed they have an EMP Commission studying it (LOL, you didn't expect Congress to actually DO SOMETHING about it, now did you?). The U.S. has taken no substantial effort to prevent damage from an EMP attack, aside from our own military and the use of Tempest technology as far as I know.

Let's explore farther and get past the tinker hat fizzle cover-up of the reality of the threat and remove WND from the photo. One of the reasons EMP is described as a non-threat is because the left needs to debunk the possibility of this becoming a real devastating attack so that any spending for this threat then becomes re-deployable for more domestic concerns. Conversely, I'd expect hawks to overstate the threat for the same funding reasons.

Let's visit the Global Security dot Org site which documents all sorts of military intelligence on many countries and watches for news items on them. That includes Iran. Much of what is on this site is from the military and from Congress, and other reliable sources. The dates of the reports make it very clear this has been an issue for years, not something dreamed up for Election 2008.

First, there is the Washington Post with this 2005 article from Senator Kyle:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57774-2005Apr15.html

U.S. Lawmakers Warn Of Wider EMP Threat
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040726-emp-threat.htm
And note that was an article from 2004 and mentions the EMP discussions from 1999 and from 1997.
So this isn't political hay for the dumb 2008 elections. The article in Popular Mechanics was dated
2001.

Here is a 2005 article mentioning that we still don't have protection in place against this threat:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050309-electric-wmd.htm

Here is a 1997 article about the threat concerning our military and civilian infrastructure in Congressional testimony:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm
Same topic, from 1999:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1999_h/has280010_0.htm

Here is 2006 Congressional testimony re-establishing an EMP Commission with it producing studies due in 2007 and
through 2010.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_rpt/hr1815eh.htm

Here is a 2002 Army document that points out that Iran is suspected of seeking or has procured nuclear/EMP devices:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_rpt/hr1815eh.htm

EMP Commission 2004 report
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/2004_r/04-07-22emp.pdf

In 2005, Iran conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight. Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Graham has said "Briefly, a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth," said the report. "EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that 'shocked' – upset, damaged and destroyed – electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects."

Here was one report of many confirming that Iran tested a Shihab-3 missile claiming success when the missile climbed and detonated after flight. It also mentioned early on that Iran had a nuclear design for a warhead that would fit this missile. And other articles point out that Iran now has solid fueled missiles, including the Shihab-3, which can hasten the firing of the missiles and makes them more accurate, cheaper, and store longer.
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/006748.shtml
http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2005-06/2005-06-01.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/international/middleeast/01iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Going back in history, some experts predicted Iran would have nuclear weapons in 2005, perhaps from other nations.

I could go on, but I need to get up and walk around and exercise my legs.

Depleted Uranium is a low level radioactive round that the military uses intended to pierce heavy armor due to its extreme mass. It is a separate unrelated issue and probably can't be defended given the radioactive nature of the rounds.

What seems strange to me is that the U.S. is sitting on large deposits of oil and natural gas and the Congress is impeding the use of them while promoting that foreign oil use and dependence that you find strange bedfellows with national security issues. I noticed that while the oil companies can explore and do starter drilling on the leased lands the Feds provided, they have to keep going back to Congress to beg for the right to withdraw the deposits. And they do hear no... There are so many intertwined issues.

That is an unpopular position that you present suggesting that the U.S. is a nuclear threat. I guess somewhere in there is the implication that Iran should be permitted to gain WMDs too and then use them as their leader seems intent to do based upon his remarks about his visions?

We haven't used our nukes on others since Japan in WWII to my knowledge. And while the use is repugnant, those living at the time of that War would be quick to remind that they believed that MILLIONS of both U.S. and Japanese lives were saved by us NOT having to invade Japan and having that war drag on for many years. I am presenting that not as my opinion, rather just as one opinion from that time period.

If the U.S. were the threat you imply, we would not have asked the U.N. Security Council's involvement with Iran, nor would the IAEA have been involved, nor would we have listened to allies and others and postponed this for YEARS. Iran could have been given an ultimatum and then nuked, asked to relent, and then nuked again based on your position. There is a big difference in having superior weapons and having the intent to use them at every opportunity for bad purposes instead of deterrence. And if the U.S. were to have to attack Iran to prevent them obtaining nukes, I'd expect that attack to be limited to crippling their ability to project power at us and Israel as well as the military targets. Unlike the threat you imply, the U.S. wouldn't be nuking a city, rather taking out deep bunkers where the centrifuges and nuke development is being done.

Turning this around, what do you suggest be done with Iran? Let them obtain nukes? Let them use them on Israel? Let them then get hit by Israel and then as Iran's leader suggests, they will assuredly hit us as well in "retaliation" for Israel hitting them and us supporting Israel? And for how many more years? After Iran hits us probably wiping out a large amount of our regional military, do we retaliate then? Will our retaliation be effective as conventional weapons given they have buried their nuke developments in depp bunkers? Will that retaliation be effective after the Dems seriously cut defense spending like they always do, leaving our military underfunded? When conventional responses are not funded, it leaves only the more severe responses as options. Unfortunately Iran isn't like Russia's leaders. Russia understands mutually assured destruction (MAD) and hasn't wanted to start something that would cost them as much as it costs us. Iran's leaders accept that there would be losses to their actions and those would be accepted if they could end Israel's existence and kill the great satan. And do we permit Iran to threaten the other friendly Middle East nations with their nukes? Those other countries already believe Iran would do so, and that is why Saudi Arabia and others want to also develop nuclear "power". What Iran is doing is bringing an end to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and starting an age where less stable, less rational nations might acquire nukes. And those are more likely to use them and they are more likely to loose control over them to terrorists. Strange as I wrote this last part, this article popped up and so I am adding it:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24078316-25837,00.html

And now this presents a new issue. Does the U.S. act unilaterally and secure those nukes, when, and how? I hope we're not going to discuss the issue with everyone who might care for years while the nukes become available to those who would use them on Russia, on China, on Israel, on the U.S., on Britain, on India, etc.

I did a quick check. It looks like Pakistan has at least an estimated 75 nukes, some disassembled as of 2004.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/nuke-stockpile.htm
Nuclear facilities in Pak
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/facility.htm

Adding one soldier's point of view. I think many will like his song:
http://g.dwgsee.com/wake/index.htm

What I meant, Dennis, about our being a nuclear threat is our use of depleted uranium weapons.  Those are nuclear weapons.  We have been using them since the first Gulf War.  Bunker Busters containing tons of DU, as well.  Right in the cities.  I included the links above, if you are interested.

I think what we are doing, finally talking to Iraq, is a good way to proceed and long overdue.  As you rightly point out, much of the Middle East is on very shaky ground as it is.  I believe it is worse since the last Gulf War. 

Even if Iran were to launch an EMP attack and it actually did disable the US energy infrastructure, we are not the only country capable of attacking them, and that must be in their consideration.  Of course, I am not advocating for that.  I'm just pointing out that there is still room for MAD.  I really feel Iran is much more likely to be attacked by us than vice-versa.  Did you see the O'Fallon thread on Unmoderated Discussions?  I imagine you did.  There is quite a history of back and forth and intermingled issues you have mentioned on the surface as well. I, personally, being no big political expert, feel there is an underlying agenda because a lot of things just don't make sense.  There is more to the  picture, IMO, than a madman hell-bent on destroying the US and/or Isreal.  I'm glad the dialog has been started and hope to see it continue, knowing it will not be a tea party.  But I believe we can achieve peace through non-violent means.  And we have before.  I hope it will happen this time.