Like cyber or IEMI attack scenarios, Coordinated physical attack on critical infrastructure sector nodes, could create power outages of exceptionally wide geographic scope and long duration.
In addition, the risk of integrating physical with cyber and/or IEMI in a combined arms campaign represents another, disturbing area of risk. Military strategists have long understood that by attacking with multiple means at once, attackers can achieve a greater effect than if each element were used separately or sequentially. In a classic demonstration of the value of combined arms strategies, Napoleon’s Grand Armee employed infantry, artillery and cavalry in integrated operations to help him achieve decisive victories. Modern militaries frequently combine air, infantry and armor forces to create such synergies.
Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), expressed his apprehension about such a combined arms attack to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
“I am most concerned about coordinated physical and cyber-attacks intended to disable elements of the power grid or deny electricity to specific targets, such as government or business centers, military installations, or other infrastructures.”
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta spoke along similar lines:
“The most destructive scenarios involve cyber actors launching several attacks on our critical infrastructure at one time, in combination with a physical attack on our country. Attackers could also seek to disable or degrade critical military systems and communication networks. The collective result of these kinds of attacks could be a “cyber Pearl Harbor:” an attack that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life. In fact, it would paralyze and shock the nation and create a new, profound sense of vulnerability.”
Original article: Coordinated Physical Assault
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14
When you adamantly refuse to solve a legitimate problem expediently and properly, your weak half-measures will, as history proves, only create a dozen more.
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” President Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.”
This is exactly why this man hasn’t won the war against it.
In fact, he hasn’t even started it.
In reading declassified interrogation reports from the CIA and other para-military agencies, one is forced to wonder:
were the interrogators actually trying to break the terrorists they had captured? Or were they conditioning them in anticipation of release to be a greater threat than when they were first captured?
Were they actually programming recidivism and increasing their fanaticism?
ISIS’s attacks in Paris, the deadliest targeting of civilians in France since the end of World War II, will change the political and security landscape of Europe irrevocably.
President François Hollande has promised a merciless response. Borders have been sealed — in direct contravention of the Maastricht agreement signed more than 20 years ago that within the European Union, national boundaries would be dissolved.
And most consequential in the short term, since it now appears that at least one of the terrorists posed as a refugee, Western governments are reassessing their immigration policies.
But what does this mean for the United States? Is America less vulnerable because of the greater distance between our country and the ravaged territories of the Middle East and North Africa?
Recent trends in law enforcement and intelligence indicate that we aren’t safer. On the contrary: The probability of a Paris-style attack has dramatically increased.
As part of its support to law enforcement, the Threat Knowledge Group has been collecting and analyzing the open-source information on ISIS arrests in the United States.
This report, ISIS: The Threat to the United States, contains our findings.
Original article: http://goo.gl/T2M4eB