The EMS Threat – USA Gov Policy

The U.S. General Accounting Office has released a study on a comparatively new and crucial area of defense: the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS.) The EMS is essential for facilitating control in defense on air, land, sea, space, and cyber domains. the natural range of frequencies that support various warfighting functions such as communications, navigation, and weapons usage.

The pervasiveness of the EMS across almost all warfighting operations means that maintaining or achieving EMS superiority against an adversary is critical to battlefield success. The Pentagon stresses that the EMS is essential for facilitating control within the operational environment and impacts all domains—air, land, sea, space and cyber—and portions of military operations.

According to DOD, America needs to control the spectrum to support warfighting functions or it risks losing control of the battlespace. Other military capabilities across warfighting domains require use of the electromagnetic spectrum. These include such things as signals intelligence on adversary transmissions, information operations that affect adversary decision-making, and command and control functions that link communications between U.S. forces.

Very troubling studies by the Department of Defense (DOD) and others reveal that China and Russia are highly aware of the importance of EMS. Both those nations have taken steps to improve their ability to threaten America’s ability to use and control this key area. China and Russia have invested decades in developing capabilities that could degrade DOD’s operations and affect superiority in the EMS,cyberoperations, and other elements of the information environment.

China in particular has made control of the EMS spectrum a key goal. The Report notes that “Drawing heavily on Chinese source documents, a 2018 RAND study further characterized China’s strategic military approach as one that emphasizes “comprehensive dominance” in traditional domains (air, land, and sea) as well as space, cyber, psychological warfare, and the electromagnetic spectrum. The study notes that dominance across domains is framed by a Chinese military theory that victory is predicated on successfully waging ‘system destruction warfare’ to paralyze or destroy an enemy’s systems.The theory further contends that integrated combat forces should be used in system versus system operations that feature information dominance, precision strikes, and joint operations, according to the RAND study. “

America’s adversaries are more diligent in seeking EMS dominance.

“China is taking steps to enhance its capabilities to use the EMS through strategic, organizational, and training advances. Meanwhile, Russian electromagnetic warfare forces, described by the Defense Intelligence Agency as ‘world class,’ have demonstrated their effectiveness through successful real-world applications against U.S. and foreign militaries.”

It is tadalafil from cipla caused due to excessive hand practice. It increases the blood circulation in the reproductive organs and keep you in good health. http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ickes.pdf cheap sale viagra You cannot get into a sexual problem if your blood circulates well in the body. generic viagra One of the most important messages a parent can give children is that they have the power to beat every competition that they come across. viagra professional price

To the rulers in Beijing, EMS dominance is real, practical, and current. The Report found that China’s words and actions indicate they have moved beyond the theoretical to the practical.

“In a 2019 report to Congress, DOD noted that Chairman Xi Jinping has articulated a strategic vision to create a force that dominates all networks, uses information operations to control a conflict in its early stages, and that enables China’s ability to perform in the electromagnetic spectrum as part of joint military operations.

^“The DOD report also recognized China’s strategic vision by noting that China emphasizes EW dominance by suppressing, degrading, disrupting, or deceiving enemy electronic equipment. This includes targeting adversary systems that operate in radio, radar, microwave, infrared, and optical frequency ranges, as well as computer and information systems.”

China has taken specific steps toward the realization of their EMS strategic vision.

What’s at stake? The Pentagon warns that Without control of the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS)—the natural range of frequencies that support various warfighting functions such as communications, navigation, and weapons usage—DOD risks losing control of the battlefield. DOD conducts specific EMS operations (EMSO)—such as electromagnetic warfare (EW)—but also relies on the EMS for many other uses even as these operations have placed increasingly complex demands on the spectrum. The U.S. military’s operations in all domains— air, land, sea, space, and cyber—depend on the ability to use and control the EMS. However, technological advances could result in EMS dependent capabilities being among the first to be targeted in a conflict.

Illustration: DoD

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]