Bringing back civil defense

If there's a silver lining to the dark cloud of terrorist attacks on America, I hope it is the awareness that our country is virtually defenseless against attacks on our homeland.

For far too long, America has relied exclusively on the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" as its only defense of U.S. soil. In fact, the very word "defense," in the American lexicon, has come to mean "offense." The Pentagon is solely focused on fighting foreign wars in foreign lands and has abdicated its authority and responsibility for defense of the civilian population of the USA.

TRENDING: These girls are hurt by transgender competition

If a nuclear war is launched against the United States, our only recourse is to watch millions of Americans die, while raining death and destruction on the attacker. There are several problems with the MAD doctrine in the post-Sept. 11 world.

• How would we respond to a terrorist nuclear attack on U.S. soil? Who would we kill? And what difference would it make to the untold number of Americans dead?

• What about the even more likely scenario of a large-scale chemical or biological attack by terrorists on the U.S.?

• How does mutually assured destruction protect us from suicide bombers – who, by definition, kill themselves in the attack?

• MAD assumes our potential adversaries are as defenseless as we are – but are they?

Some time during the first Bush administration, America completely scrapped any vestige of its fledgling civil defense structure. It had eroded badly during President Carter's administration, when the Federal Emergency Management Agency took over as the lead agency for civil defense. In other words, the real "defense" work – protecting the American people from attack – was removed from the Defense Department. That is when the Defense Department became the "Offense Department."

It got worse during eight years of Clinton. FEMA's meager efforts to maintain equipment needed for saving lives in a future nuclear war were cut from the budget. The equipment was destroyed, lost, sold or abandoned.

For years, a political movement determined to disarm America had persuaded the public there was no use in trying to save lives during a nuclear war. We were all going to die. We might as well be vaporized. There was no point in trying to prepare, no point in defending ourselves, no point in living if we were attacked.

This movement ultimately won out and became official national policy during the Clinton years.

But the movement is based totally on lies. People do survive nuclear blasts. Most people survived the initial blasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many emerged from the rubble unscathed – only to die a miserable and unnecessary death from fallout. There were dire predictions the two islands would never be inhabited again – or at least for 75 years. Nagasaki and Hiroshima today are bustling metropolises – much bigger, more prosperous and more healthy places to live than they were before the blasts.

There is no question that properly constructed and stocked shelters can and do save lives during nuclear attacks. The proof? Russia has built them. China has built them. The Swiss have built them. All of them, by the way, built based on technology developed by the U.S. government and paid for by U.S. taxpayers – who remain defenseless.

There's more proof. Not all Americans are left defenseless. Your federal government has used your tax dollars to build shelters for itself and its key people – tens of thousands of them. They will survive the inevitable attack on the U.S. You, the taxpaying public, will not.

That's the plan. National suicide. It may be the biggest scandal involving government I have ever witnessed in my life. And it's the theme topic of the January issue of Whistleblower magazine – based largely on the revelations of a real-life whistleblower, Art Robinson, who has spent some 20 years trying to alert the public to the need for civil defense and the intrepid reporting of my wife, Elizabeth Farah.

There's been a great deal of debate in the last 20 years about strategic missile defense. Yet, as important as that component of defense is to our future, it is no substitute for civil defense – as the terrorist attacks illustrate so well. The first nuclear attack on the U.S. may well be a hand-delivered bomb – not one delivered on an intercontinental ballistic missile.

This is a big topic – one, granted, no one else is talking about. And that's why this special issue of Whistleblower is so important, so urgent, so needed.

Find out how the government is planning to sacrifice you, your kids and your grandchildren on the altar of political correctness. You will be shocked – and I hope shocked into action, before it's too late.

Editor's note: Beginning January 1, the price of a 12-month subscription to Whistleblower will increase from $36.00 to $39.95. All subscriptions received before the year's end will be at the lower price.

Order your subscription now for Whistleblower, WorldNetDaily's monthly offline publication.