As the Bush Administration continues talks to lift sanctions and provide international aid to nuclear-capable terrorism sponsor North Korea, Saturday's Wall Street Journal reminds us of one more thing to worry about: the EMP threat. EMP—that's electromagnetic pulse, a fun little side effect of a nuclear detonation. Basically, set off a nuclear weapon way up high (like suborbital/low-orbit high, ballistic missile high), and you won't knock over any buildings or give anyone radiation poisoning. But the explosion will generate a power surge that will fry every electronic device in sight. Cell phones, computers, refrigerators, 99% of cars on the road today, maybe the entire electric grid—kaput!
I remember learning about EMP effects watching The Day After back in 1983, when Steve Guttenberg couldn't get a car to start after Kansas City got nuked. ABC gave EMP the dramatic treatment again in 1987's Amerika, in which the Soviets get the drop on us by setting off just four stratospheric nuclear blasts that EMP us into surrender.
So anyone care to speculate which Presidential candidate is more inclined to develop a program along the recommendations of a government commission's 2004 report (PDF alert) on deterring rogue nuclear attacks, "hardening" critical electronic systems, and putting together a restoration for the national power and communication grids? Obama and McCain both support missile defense, but I don't see EMP addressed.
In the meantime, try not to get too dependent on that Blackberry, and keep an eye on good fishing holes.
If we were attacked using an EMP that would be the end of everything. Our strategic weapons are hardened against EMP but most of our conventional weapons are not. Without those forces we would feel compelled to use our strategic weapons. And that would be the end. No need to restart the power grid. No one would be left.
ReplyDeleteEMP is a very cold war era threat. It would take a large industrial nation to create the ICBM necessary to deliver such a bomb (which is another challenge in and of it self). Based on all of the terrorist attacks in modern history, Terrorists don't seem interested in disabling our electronic devices, they look for easy ways to take out a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteWell, the answer to your question whether it would be McCain or Obama that would work harder to prevent this, it would be no contest. McCain understands war, the horrors of all wars, man's inhumanity to man, etc much better than Obama; he has lived it. Obama does NOT have the experience to lead our nation in these times. Being a credible leader is a lot different than giving inspiring speeeches, with the help of a teleprompter.
ReplyDeleteNonnie
I tend to agree with Matthew here.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding about EMP is that, while this phenomenon is theoretically capable of bringing down the entire U.S. electrical and electronic infrastructure, a huge nuclear device would be necessary, and it would have to be denotated at a sufficient altitude so that all or most of the U.S. mainland could be "seen" from its vantage point.
Imagine a 10-gigaton super-bomb aboard a geostationary satellite, or a hundred 100-megaton bombs aboard 100 low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites synchronized to go off all at the same time. Or something on that order. Not the type of thing our cave-dwelling evil adversaries are likely to devise any time soon.
In the movie (or one like it), a nuclear device was denotated at high altitude (maybe 100 miles, by an incoming missile) to cause EMP over a region, with the intent of causing confusion and distraction prior to the use of another, low-altitude bomb to annihilate the local population. Even that is well beyond the current technological capacity of the Evil One.
So, Cory, I think your concern is unwarranted or at least based on exaggeration of the facts.
Hardening the entire U.S. electrical and electronic infrastructure against EMP would be akin to preparing for an asteroid impact. The limited funds available from taxpayers' wallets might be better spent on getting us away from dependency on fossil fuels that come largely from countries friendly to, and perhaps even harboring, the Evil Cave Dwellers. Then we could reduce our presence there, stop launching wars of aggression, and ultimately take much of the wind out of the sails of those who hate us.
That said, it would not be wise to ignore the nuclear threat from these dirtbags. One small nuke on Wall Street would be quite enough to throw the U.S. into a fine tailspin for awhile. That, I believe, is a clear and present danger. And it is perhaps the main reason I intend to vote for John McCain in November.