Why Is the Media Belittling the Biggest Existential Threat Facing the Nation?
Today’s guest says the media is belittling the biggest existential threat facing our nation today: electromagnetic pulse, or EMP. Experts say up to 90 percent of the nation’s population could perish due to the EMP threat; yet the mainstream media often quotes non-experts who say the threat isn’t real.
In today’s episode, EMP expert Dr. Peter Pry discusses how the media belittles the EMP threat and why he supports the Trump administration’s America First policy.
Dr. Peter Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), cyberwarfare, mass destruction terrorism and other threats to civilian critical infrastructures. Dr. Pry also is director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory board to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction.
Why EMP Is a Real Threat
Dr. Pry: EMP is the biggest threat to our civilization, to global civilization. An EMP can come from the sun and take down electric grids worldwide, put billions of lives at risk. We know that for a fact because of the 1859 Carrington Event. These things rarely happen, but we’re overdue for a Carrington Event. NASA estimates that it’s a 12 percent likelihood per decade–12 percent per decade–that we’re going to get hit with another Carrington Event. And that virtually guarantees that within our lifetimes, or the latest that of our grandchildren, our electronic civilization will be put at risk and billions of lives will be put at risk because people can’t survive anymore without electricity. Transportation, communications, banking and finance, even food and water depend directly or indirectly on electricity.
The EMP commission on which I served estimated that, if we had a year-long blackout in this country from a natural EMP or from an EMP from a nuclear attack–or from a non-nuclear EMP weapon or cyber warfare that takes down the grid–that if we had a year-long blackout in this nation, up to 90 percent of our population would die from starvation, disease, and societal collapse.
A lot of people are outraged by that. And they said, well, how could that possibly be? How could we lose 90 percent of our population? Well, it’s not hard to prove that. You could just go back and look at the U.S. Census and see, well, what was the size of the American population before we became an electronic civilization? The first electric grid, I think, went online in 1887. And if you go back to 1887, the population of the United States was something like 50 or 60 million people, 50 or 60 million people compared to 330 million people today.
And the reason we were able to sustain 50 to 60 million people is because we were one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world in 1887. We had a very sophisticated railway system in this country, coal fired locomotives. We had a sophisticated market economy that was largely horse-drawn, but it provided food to the cities. That fed our growing cities. We had gravity-fed aqueducts; today we don’t rely on gravity to provide water to our cities anymore because we’ve got electricity.
If you take away electricity, just by looking at the Census, you’re not going to be able to sustain a population of 330 million people anymore. It’s going to have to fall back to the levels that it was at historically before we had electricity. And that means a best case scenario going from 330 million down to 50 to 60 million people. Now, you know, we don’t have air-conditioning, we don’t have coal-fired locomotives, steam power to move goods and services around this country … We don’t have a horse-drawn market economy to feed our cities anymore. So the real loss of life is likely to be much further below 50 to 60 million people. I think the number that the commission came up with was something like 30 million people which is leftover after a year, which is the loss of 90 percent of our population.
Why Does the Media Belittle the EMP Threat?
In a recent article you wrote, you said that the free world’s foremost EMP expert, Dr. William Graham, has warned that the U.S. faces an existential threat from EMP, in part because the mainstream media belittles the threat through disinformation. So could you tell us about how or why the mainstream media would be spreading disinformation about something that could kill the majority of our population?
Dr. Pry: Part of it is just gross incompetence. In my experience, most journalists are not very well educated when it comes to scientific and technical matters. And they don’t even know enough to know who a real expert is. So they’ll do a Google search on EMP, and they’ll look for the opinion of somebody who works for, I don’t know, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is a radical left-wing group that doesn’t know anything about EMP. But they hate nuclear weapons, and they don’t like to talk about nuclear threats. They’d like to play down the EMP threat because it’s a nuclear threat–or at least one of the biggest threats that comes from EMP is nuclear based.
These scientifically illiterate journalists routinely turn to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Federation of American Scientists and get disinformed. They are so naive that they think that these people are objective. They also think they’re real scientists. Most of them are not, even though their organizations end with the word science, most of them are political scientists and left-wing academics that work in universities.
And the Federation of American Scientists, which is another anti-nuclear left-wing–they’re more afraid of us modernizing our own nuclear arsenal. And so they’re against arms racing, especially America. Actually, that’s being too kind to them because they seem indifferent to Russia and China and North Korea developing nuclear weapons, perhaps because they know they can’t do anything to stop Russia and China and North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. And they’ve been quite successful in working in politics in the United States to slow down, delay, stop the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Deliberately Disregarding the Experts
Dr. Pry: Why is the liberal mainstream media often seeming to contradict or try to play down the EMP threat? They’re doing it on purpose, I would add, at least some of them. The Washington Post, for example. President Trump signed his executive order to protect our nation against EMP. I quickly drafted an article supporting President Trump’s EMP executive order and sent it to the Washington Post.
Even though I was the chief of staff at the EMP Commission, the Washington Post and the New York Times and USA Today have never published a single article by me or letter to the editor. And I always submit my stuff to them. I guess I’m on their blacklist or something for some reason. Even though I’m one of the country’s foremost experts on this, they will not publish a letter or an article by me on EMP.
The Washington Post, not to my surprise, rejected the article that I had written supporting President Trump’s EMP executive order. And instead they published an article that was coauthored by three or four college students on EMP that belittled the EMP threat and criticized President Trump for signing this executive order. And again, the college kids–they were from MIT, but they all basically had a political science background and didn’t know what they were talking about, once again. But the Washington Post did it on purpose. So to me that was just proof positive that–oftentimes it’s due to stupidity–but a lot of it is deliberate, deliberate disinformation.
The Washington Post had a choice. They could have published an article by a real expert that knew what they were talking about, or they could choose to mislead people by publishing an article that had the viewpoint of non-experts. That’s basically what happens over and over again in the press when it comes to EMP.
Press play at the top to hear the rest of Dr. Pry’s interview and hear why he supports President Trump’s America First policy.