The winner of the next presidential election will face a struggling world economy and a Middle East in the process of dramatic political transition, but GOP presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain appear intent on scaring the public about fanciful dangers of an Reposted by arrangement with Think Progress

The winner of the next presidential election will face a struggling world economy and a Middle East in the process of dramatic political transition, but GOP presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain appear intent on scaring the public about fanciful dangers of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

The threat of a rogue state or terrorist launching an EMP attack — the detonation of a nuclear warhead at a high altitude, shutting down electrical power across large portions of the U.S. — has become the nightmare scenario cited by defense hawks as justification for costly missile defense systems. But the likelihood of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon, which they would then affix to a ballistic missile, remains remarkably small.

EMP alarmism generally remains on the fringe circles of the Republican party — the Center for Security Policy‘s Frank Gaffney issued a dire warning that an EMP attack could kill “nine out of ten Americans” — but comments from Gingrich and Cain have brought the “pulsers” agenda into the Republican primary race.

Cain’s “Foreign Policy & National Security Pillars” [PDF] includes:

COUNTER URGENT THREATS
• Stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons
• Fix border security – for real
• Shield us against Cyber and
• Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks

And Gingrich, listing the greatest threats to the U.S. at the Nov. 22, CNN National Security Debate, said:

The greatest threat to the United States was the weapon of mass in an American city, probably from a terrorist… [is] one of the three great threats. The second is an electromagnetic pulse attack which would literally destroy the country’s capacity to function.

Gingrich and Cain’s outspoken concern about the threat of a terrorist or rogue state’s EMP attack might appear to be simple paranoia, but the EMP campaign has been a go-to argument for proponents of costly missile defense shields and preventive war against North Korea and Iran.

While EMP rhetoric might be largely overlooked or ridiculed, EMP enthusiasts do little to hide the ulterior motives of pushing for dramatic increases in defense spending and leading the U.S. into preemptive wars with suspected nuclear proliferators.

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain told reporters and editors at the hawkish Washington Times that he would attack Iran if the Islamic Republic “mess(ed) with Israel.” Cain was responding to a question as to whether he agreed with former Ambassador John Bolton that the U.S. [...]]]> Reprinted with permission of Think Progress

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain told reporters and editors at the hawkish Washington Times that he would attack Iran if the Islamic Republic “mess(ed) with Israel.” Cain was responding to a question as to whether he agreed with former Ambassador John Bolton that the U.S. should preemptively strike Iran’s nuclear program. Cain said he agreed with Bolton, but the scenario he laid out amounts to a retaliatory war, not a preemptive one.

The Washington Times’s Ben Birnbaum described Cain’s position:

“There would be some other pieces of information I would need before I gave that order, but I’m saying that would be Option B,” Mr. Cain said during an interview with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

“Option A is, ‘Folks, we are not going to allow you to attack Israel‘ … If they call my bluff, they already know — they will know — what Option B is.”

Mr. Cain said that, as commander-in-chief, he would “make it crystal clear [that] if you mess with Israel, you’re messing with the United States of America,” but stressed that his “Cain Doctrine” would not be a “blank check” for Israeli military action.

Cain went onto say that if Iran attacked Israel, he would not “sit back and get a vote from the United Nations.” That sounds like deterrence — sometimes called “mutually assured destruction” — not the preemptive strike for which Bolton has spent years agitating.

According to the Washington Times story, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO-turned-candidate also met on Monday with Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren.

Early on in the campaign season, Cain proved completely clueless about the “right of return” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and told voters during a GOP debate that he didn’t know enough yet about Afghanistan to make a strategic decision. More recently, Cain wrongly thought that the U.S. still officially recognized Taiwan.

It’s no wonder, then, that even some on the far-right have taken to calling Cain a “Foreign Policy Ignoramus At Large.”