Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

After reading the book One Second After we had an interesting discussion over on JoeUser about the subject.

One user said that humans had adapted and were far too enlightened today to revert to violence and mayhem in the absence of our modern conveniences.

So let’s walk through the EMP scenario:

Day 1: July Year 200x

5 container ships in the gulf of Mexico fire medium range SCUD missiles high into the atmosphere until it reaches far above Kansas and other states.  On board are 45KT nuclear warhead.  It explodes creating EMP that takes out all of the integrated circuits in the United States.

That means anything electronic that hasn’t been hardened is going to be ruined.  That means your computers, TVs, cars, home electronics, breaker box, phones, radios, cell phones. It also means the power companies, their generators, the backup generators at hospitals, nursing homes, etc.

All of the farms and their harvesting equipment is dead. The trucks that move food to the cities are ruined. The trains that move freight around the country are inoperable.

Every airplane flying crashes. All planes on the down are ruined.

The only thing working are US conventional forces that happened to be hardened against EMP (which means quite a few of them).  Some cars stored in underground parking garages would probably work depending on the proximity. 

There’s no fall out. Nobody dies from the attack directly.

Day 2:

With power out people’s fridges are DOA.  With no working cars, people don’t go to work. In the country and in the suburbs, people take the food out of their refrigerators and freezers before it “goes bad” and have BBQs. It’s a fun time.

People who were driving somewhere are mostly able to make it to town. A few people die of heat stroke on their journeys. In the deep south, particularly Florida, there are a number of deaths due to the heat since air conditioning is out.

In the cities, looting begins quite quickly. The police can’t do much since they’re on foot or on horse.

We know this sort of thing because we have seen what happens during extended power outages. Of course, in those cases cars, cell phones, and other crucial devices still worked but there was still massive looting in the large cities.

Day 3:

Local agencies really don’t know what’s going on since there is no communication. No cell phones. No radio. No land lines. The grid is gone.  There are spare parts but no where near enough to fix it all and because of the nature of the electrical grid, all the holes have to be plugged for the juice to flow again.  And even if they had enough parts, how do they transport them? No trucks. No cars. 

International relief from Japan, China, Canada (though most of Canada is taken out too), Mexico, Europe begins but it’ll be slow going. Food shipments can reach the coast in a couple of days but getting it inland will be a major problem as the vehicles will have to be transported in along with parts to try to get the railroads working again (along with teams to get dead trains off the rails).

In the subs, the party is over. It ain’t funny now.  People are finishing off what was in their refrigerator. Most people still have some food in the cupboard.

Stores start rationing their supplies. People are still using money (at least, those who keep cash). A bottle of water is $20.  How much cash do you keep in your house?

In the cities, riots have broken out with widespread destruction. Being July, it’s hot and dry. Fires from the riots start to spread.

End of Week 1:

By now, most people in the subs have run out of food they would normally remotely consider eating. Looting at the local Walmart and grocery stores begins as people simply take what they need.

Remember, people aren’t hearing anything from the authorities. There are no working TVs. No working radios. The handful of police are walking in the subs. 

If you live in the suburbs, take a close look around. How would the police reasonably patrol your city without cars?

Meanwhile, people in nursing homes have started dying enmasse. Without refrigeration drugs quickly go bad. Anyone requiring help breathing or anything else has already died.

People with type 1 diabetes are starting to see the writing on the wall.

Meanwhile, the first container ships of relief have reached San Francisco, Seattle, LA, San Diego, Houston, Miami, Boston, NY, Washington, Raleigh. Lots of food, medicine, some parts, lots of vehicles.

Unfortunately most of those cities are in utter pandemonium. In the south, tens of thousands have already died from heat.  In 2003, when there was a heat wave in France, 14800 people died. They didn’t lose power, they just didn’t have air conditioning.  In Florida, the death toll is skyrocketing quickly. Same in most of the other southern states.

End of Week 2:

People are starting to die of dysentery from eating bad food, drinking bad water. Many have left the suburbs to head to rural areas where they think there is food (they’re wrong, harvest won’t happen for months, industrialized food processing involves a lot of transportation between the farms and the slaughter houses).

The typical American family, now out of food and with no access to clean water is starting to get pretty desperate.

What? Only 2 weeks? How much food do you have in your house right now? Go check. I’ll wait….

Okay back? So how much is in your pantry? How long would it last you? If you knew at the start, you might have rationed it better. But you didn’t. 

Millions of Americans are wishing they had put those steaks and hamburgers and hotdogs in their basements in the cooler temperatures. Others are wishing they had salted them heavily and cooked them well done to store for the long haul.

In the cities on the coast, power is restored via backup generators relatively close to shore. However, within 10 miles from the harbor, death is everywhere.  Don’t agree?

Ever been to San Francisco? LA? New York City? 14 days have passed. Where would you have gone? The smart ones, who are able to, would have found their way to the harbors and waited for air lifts of food and such. But most would probably not think about that.

Meanwhile, armed thugs are starting to systematically go through every building and house looking and taking what they need.

End of Week 3

Starvation is starting to become a real problem. If your local law enforcement had a clue, they had already gotten themselves and helpful citizens around to the stores to gather up supplies to start rationing it.

At this point, martial law has been declared by any competent city government.  Some cities decide that, for the public good of course, that all community food will be collected and distributed equally to everyone. In other places, large armed mobs are violently taking what is needed to survive.

Are you a survivalist? Got all your supplies right? Got MREs in the basement. You have an AK47 that you managed to get quietly at a gun show. Your kids know how to use the two shot guns. You’ve been prepared for this day right?  Great. You’re about to die.

You see, you might be able to keep a few people away. But word got around that you have supplies because you’re that guy who everyone knew was expecting to “bug out” one day when the government and black helicopters came.  You might be able to take out a few people but 200+ Nope. You’re going to take a lot of them out but they’re going to come in, kill you, your family, and your supplies.

What? Don’t agree? People won’t do that? Again: Other than on the coast (in some major cities near harbors anyway) you’ve heard and seen nothing from the government other than the occasional Black Hawk flying around. No TV. No phones. No radios. 

A few people have managed to dig up old HAM radios and they are getting distant broadcasts of reassurance but it’s clear that nothing’s coming any time soon if you live significantly inland, especially if you don’t live in a densely populated area.

It’s triage at this point and the rural and suburbs areas are simply too spread out. Unfortunately, in the cities, fires have consumed much of them. Anyone strong enough to get out of there has which further distributes the population.

A few older cars start showing up again on the roads as collectables and just old junkers are fixed up and are able to drive because they didn’t have electronics in them.

End of the first month:

A network of outposts are re-established in most large and medium sized cities. Medium sized cities are faring a bit better. Kalamazoo Michigan, Santa Cruz California, and other cities of this kind are doing okay now as convoys are starting to show up.

Really large cities away from the coast are dead at this point.  Sorry Omaha, there’s nobody home anymore.

The Second Month:

Now is when the death toll really starts to go up.  First, you have about 5% of the population that was on medication to control their mental states. This is now gone.  They will mostly die off this month or take out a few others in the process.

Nearly everyone with Type 1 diabetes has died.

Virtually who requires assisted care at this point has died.

Millions of children under 2 have died. Why? Do you have any children? If you’re not nursing them, how are you feeding them at this point?

There are not many domesticated dogs left that haven’t been freed by owners.

The number of deer left that are near people has diminished to the point of being difficult to find. Same with geese, ground hogs, rabbits, etc.

Most cities of any decent size now have an outpost re-established with convoys of food now arriving. However, it’s starting to become a real problem because, well it turns out that the US and Canada supply a significant chunk of the world’s food. 47% of the world’s Soy beans are produced in the United States. 86% of the world’s corn. The bulk of the world’s wheat. 

It’s during this second month that the food shipments to the United States are going to start to dry up as hunger starts to become a significant problem in China, Japan, and other countries that have to import food. The US and Canada make up 20% of the world’s food exports and if you count only basic foods the percentage nearly doubles. 

The world has its first universal consensus: Oh shit.

It’s at about this time that those who were celebrating in the streets about the downfall of the great satan are starting to get the first thought that yes, they’re going to die too. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, and many other countries are about to see starvation on a level that has never been seen before.

By contrast, Europe is doing okay. Not great. But okay. Their economies are in ruins but they’re not going to die enmasse. 

In Japan, where starvation is a serious concern, they and Korea have enough money to pay top dollar for the dwindling import food supply. Russia, unfortunately, is about to have a very rough year.

Needless to say, the food aid shipments to the United States are starting to dwindle. Western Europe, particularly Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands are still sending food shipments.

If you’re on the East coast in a secure area, you’re in good shape.  If you’re on the west coast, most of you are going to die.

Third Month:

The population of the United States is starting to take on the same appearance it did in 1909.

Here is what it looked like in the year 2000.

8% of the poulation was over 70.  Nearly all of them have died.

3% of the population is under 4.  Nearly all of them have died.

Urban populations of the United States have had staggering death tolls, particularly those not near the coasts.

Anyone requiring medication that needed to be refrigerated in order to live (anti-rejection drugs, insulin, various heart medications, for instance) has died. Easily 10% of the population on top of the above.

Around 20% of the population has starved.

Another 10% in the south who are living in places that were uninhabitable without modern technology have died.  Think LA is nice? Imagine it without water.  Any water.

In fact, if you live in California, take a look around. Where does your water come from?  Most of the population of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Utah have died.

Power is starting to get restored due to generators and the government now had a decent supply of cars. Fixing the grid has become a priority.

While heat has killed millions in the south, we’re now getting near November. It’s starting to get cold.

The fourth month

I tell people who come and interview that Michigan’s southern part is about the same latitude as Northern California.  Winters in the upper part of the United States and lower Canada aren’t that bad – if you have heat.

But we don’t have heat.  Natural gas has to be pumped and pumped through a huge network across the country.  When power goes out, even for a few days, a lot of infrastructure falls apart.  New York’s subways, for example are gone.  Much of Chicago has flooded too.  Those who have enough propane will be okay, for awhile (at least until armed thugs come and take it).

By this point, restoring natural gas is not going to be a simple matter of restoring power.  Ever wondered how natural gas gets to your house?  It’s all repairable but it will take time and unfortunately, a lot of that expertise in people has died or is otherwise unavailable. That means bringing people in which will take more time.

If you live in northern states at this point, and you haven’t starved to death, you’re probably going to start dying of exposure.

But that’s a gift compared to what people still struggling to make it in warmer areas as we get reintroduced to cholera, TB, and diarrhea become major problems.

In fact, in 1900 the #1 cause of death in the United States was pneumonia. The #3 was diarrhea. That’s right. The runs killed more Americans than Heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc.  And this November, it returns from retirement as people, without proper sanitation, start to die off from all kinds of things that were previously unheard of.

In fact, as November closes, the United States has reverted to a third world country. No, that’s not fair. Third world countries usually have electricity and their inhabitants usually know how to start a fire.  Do you know how to start a fire without matches and such? Remember watching Survivor and laughing at them? They were in pretty good conditions to get a fire going.  You, by contrast, are wet, cold, weakened, and not sure if it’s even a good idea to start a fire because, well, what are you going to do with it? There’s little food.

On the west coast, food shipments have dropped to a trickle.  LA, Seattle, San Fran, it’s not a fun time there now.

One Year later

The grid is re-established in the midwest, the east coast, and much of the south.  It’s partially re-established on the west coast thanks to help from South Korea, China, and Japan. Thanks guys. We appreciate it even if most of us are dead.

So what’s the death toll?  Conservatively, you’re looking at 40% of the population of the US and Canada has died. That’s probably a best case scenario if food and equipment shipments from the rest of the world come in quickly.

A smart (well not really smart because the states that sponsor terrorists have died off due to the unintended consequences) terrorist would have also zinged Japan, South Korea, the Chinese east coast, and western Europe. If that happened, you would be looking far higher deaths everywhere as there would be no relief coming in.

The population of the United States today is over 300 million people.  In 1900 it was 76 million. The biggest reason for the increase isn’t due to birth rate but rather the massive decline of the death rate.  And remember, they had infrastructure back in 1900.  We’d be worse off than they were because they knew how to live back then. 

How many people know how to can food? How many modern Americans know how much wood to cut to burn? How many Americans live in places where they need an elevator, as a practical matter, to get to where they live?

Heck, how many Americans are simply living today because they have access to all kinds of medical technology?  How many Americans are living in places that can only be inhabited thanks to modern technology? Most of the south west was a barren desert until electrical pumps became possible. Much of the south wasn’t, as a practical matter, livable until air condition.

Also, consider our immune systems of today versus what it was 100 years ago. Our sterilized world has made us very vulnerable to the bacteria and viruses that lurk just outside our electrified civilization. And they would be back to visit within weeks.

Conclusions

Is what I describe realistic? Nobody really knows. There are studies out there.  The book One Second After is a bit more dire than I think it would be.  And it may turn out that our infrastructure is tougher than it seems or that the types of nuclear warheads that an Iran or North Korea could produce aren’t powerful enough to cause the necessary EMP. 

But what is so frightening is how vulnerable we are.  It wouldn’t take much of a shove to bring down the electrical grid.  You could still end up with a situation where 10% of the American population (30 million) die simply by screwing up the electrical grid for a couple months.

Do I think this will happen? Probably not. I have a lot of faith in humanity.  But when one considers the things that we worry about – global warming comes to mind, it amazes me how unconcerned people are at how easily disrupted our modern lives could be given how dependent we are on our technology today.


Comments (Page 7)
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Jun 28, 2009

sorry for the double post, but this was posted while I was making my first post and I had to respond.

taltamir, while I agree with you that ManSh00ter is underestimating the power of EMP's, I think that you are not taking into account the incredible unlikeliness of such an attack.

It is slightly MORE likely than direct hit nuclear attack.

How is an EMP attack more likely than a direct nuclear attack? A direct one required much less resources, can be prepared quickly, and is harder to defend against. All a terrorist needs for a direct attack is a small plane and the bomb itself. An EMP attack, on the other hand, requires an advanced missile, some way to actually launch said missile, and a much more advanced nuke than the direct attack. For an EMP you need a nuke that is small enough to fit on the missile with out compromising its range, and is also powerful enough to create the needed size of the EMP. With a direct attack size of the bomb doesn't matter as much.

Additionally, the countries likely to launch such an attack or provide nukes to terrorists (NKorea, Iran, etc) have yet to develop anything past "first generation" nukes. (ie, Hiroshima+Nagasaki) They are far too large to mount on a missile and still get the desired range. 

on Jun 29, 2009

Which all modern cars do... so let me rephrase, it will knock out MY car and most RUNNING cars. Ancient cars will keep on running. (as I doubt it will be powerful enough to damage the spark plugs)

Yes, all modern cars do.  I only meant they might get knocked out because a lot of cars are parked underground and a lot of cars are not being driven at any given moment.  I've been doing a lot of reading, and I'm starting to fall in with the school of thought that electronics not in use and not plugged into the walll will likely be just fine.  The electromagnetically caused induction which burns out things is a weak effect that is only significant to the power grid because the grid covers a huge area.  Electronics are susceptible to the initial micro second voltage change when the pulse first hits...this is the part that damages integrated circuits in computer chips.  If you had a computer unplugged or sitting in a box in a warehouse, it should be just fine.

on Jun 29, 2009

Yes, all modern cars do.  I only meant they might get knocked out because a lot of cars are parked underground

True, this has been mentioned before, underground parked cars are safe, but they aren't going anywhere with the roads clogged with broken down cars and the gas stations being down.

For transportation to continue working cars on the road have to continue functioning to be driven out of the way. Otherwise you will need heavy and slow vehicles like tractors and tanks to clear the way for incoming aid (trucks full of food and water). And even then you will have a fuel shortage problem until fuel stations are repaired.

How is an EMP attack more likely than a direct nuclear attack? A direct one required much less resources, can be prepared quickly, and is harder to defend against. All a terrorist needs for a direct attack is a small plane and the bomb itself. An EMP attack, on the other hand, requires an advanced missile, some way to actually launch said missile, and a much more advanced nuke than the direct attack. For an EMP you need a nuke that is small enough to fit on the missile with out compromising its range, and is also powerful enough to create the needed size of the EMP. With a direct attack size of the bomb doesn't matter as much.

Ah, we seem to be having different assumptions as to the SOURCE of the attack, you are thinking suicide bombers / terrorists.

I was thinking a potential altrecation with china or russia resulting in an ICBM attack. ICBMs are more useful if detonated higher up rather then closer to the ground, and since many go into the stratosphere before coming back down it shouldn't be a problem.

although, current US attitute towards iran is alarming in the terrorist nuke regards.

Either way I consider the chances of that happening low enough that I still live in a city with no water source / etc. If an attack does happen ill probably die, but I consider the risk low enough that I don't abandon my life to be a solitary hunter /farmer in the wilds.

on Jun 29, 2009

The first part, the part that only lasts a fraction of a second, is the one that fries electronics, and is very hard to protect against. It, as far as I can tell, does NOT require a larg curcuit to be effective.

Right, it doesn't need long circuits.  It is caused by the intense electric field from the initial electrons being displaced by the gamma radiation.  There is a very brief but very sharp voltage spike that damages fragile circuits under power.

The second part is very similar to the EMP from a lighting strike, and can be protected againt be normal surge protectors, so it isn't much of a threat. This is why the person who mentioned that we can protect our stuff from lighting is wrong about us also being able to protect against EMP with the same tech, because this is only part of the EMP.

All of the electrons are going to ground, kind of like lightning.  The safeguards our society already has to protect us from lightning will protect from this very effectively.

The third part is the slow (relatively) part. It is the part that is similar to a solar flare, and it is the part that fries power line transformers. This is the part that required the long curcuits.

This is from the Earth's electromagnetic field being deformed and returning to normal over a large area.  When you drag a wire through a field, you generate current.  In this case, you are dragging a field across the wires in the power grid...same effect.

 

http://jya.com/emp02.htm

Fun reading for the technically inclined or the supremely bored.

 

How is an EMP attack more likely than a direct nuclear attack? A direct one required much less resources, can be prepared quickly, and is harder to defend against. All a terrorist needs for a direct attack is a small plane and the bomb itself. An EMP attack, on the other hand, requires an advanced missile, some way to actually launch said missile, and a much more advanced nuke than the direct attack. For an EMP you need a nuke that is small enough to fit on the missile with out compromising its range, and is also powerful enough to create the needed size of the EMP. With a direct attack size of the bomb doesn't matter as much.

Additionally, the countries likely to launch such an attack or provide nukes to terrorists (NKorea, Iran, etc) have yet to develop anything past "first generation" nukes. (ie, Hiroshima+Nagasaki) They are far too large to mount on a missile and still get the desired range.

 

I agree.  I've been discussing the scenario, but I don't think it is plausible any time soon.  The nuke is not the hardest part of the puzzle...its getting a big enough rocket and managing to put said rocket in the right place.  Most terrorists are going to be pretty satisfied with a dirty bomb or detonating a nuke as close as they can get it to a US city.

on Jun 29, 2009

The major misconception here is that if an EMP goes off, all electronics will be fried. Anything that's turned off is likely to survive an EMP. Anything that's underground or hardened is almost guaranteed to survive. Most electronics surrounded by an ample amount of metal would be fine, too (such as cars). Being surrounded by lots of metal is in effect a form of hardening.

And even when you consider things especially vulnerable to EMPs, there would not be total failure! The power grid is probably the thing most vulnerable to an EMP, and it wouldn't fail completely. Not all transformers would blow. Just because something is vulnerable to an EMP doesn't mean that it is guarranteed to fail in the event of one - it just means it has a fairly high probability to be effected.

Also, some gas pumps breaking down is not the end of the world. Vast portions of the world get by without fancy gas pumps just fine - gas would merely need to be distributed by other means - either by jury rigging a crude pump, or by selling the stuff out of containers. It would take longer and be less efficient but hardly debilitating. But an even more important factor is this: in such an event you wouldn't want everybody driving around. Ideally only emergency services and relief efforts would be using the roads, anyway.

kyogre12

No, the point of using multiple, less powerful missiles as that you didn't need to get them as high. Instead of one really high missile taking out the whole country, you would have multiple missiles taking out smaller sections, which wouldn't require as high-powered of a missile because they wouldn't need to go as high.

That is false. If you don't get the altitude, you don't get quite the EMP. The range and strength of an EMP detonated within the atmosphere is limited to a few tens of kilometers at most. Also, if you detonate a nuke too high up, the strength of the EMP is also reduced - you sacrifice strength for area of effect the higher you go.

taltamir

I was thinking a potential altrecation with china or russia resulting in an ICBM attack. ICBMs are more useful if detonated higher up rather then closer to the ground, and since many go into the stratosphere before coming back down it shouldn't be a problem.

That's just silly. If things got bad enough that China or Russia decided to take such drastic measures, they wouldn't aim to knock our our laptops. They have more than enough nukes to utterly annihilate the entire United States. Going the EMP route would be particularly retarded because their EMPs wouldn't affect the majority of the US military - much of our air power is based overseas or on carriers, our subs and carrier groups would remain fully operational. Our missile silos and major military installations wouldn't be particularly effected. They'd take out some of the civilian infrastructure just to be annihilated in return. That said, this isn't a scenario worth talking about unless Russia or China decide they want to commit suicide and take somebody else with them.

But even for terrorists, it would be silly to go for the EMP. For one, getting enough compact nukes, enough missiles with long enough range and all the required launchers to go with it would be an enormous challenge. Getting all of that in position would be even harder. They'd achieve so much more damage with much less trouble by just placing the nukes in cities like NYC, LA, DC, etc and blowing them to high hell.

taltamir

1. most of the Y2K stuff was prevented by preemptive fixing. Without those fixing planes WOULD plummet and banks WOULD have lost everything.

2. while it is fairly simple to sheild systems / spares, we do not have such plans in place right now. If we spent a few years we could prevent almost all the damage. with priority number 1 being shielding the water facilities, number 2 is a fleet of food delivery trucks. and number 3 is law enforcment equipment. It should actually be CHEAPER to do than the Y2K fixing was.

Proof that you're wrong is that an enormous amount of technology that wasn't updated to be "Y2K-proof" survived just fine. There were no major equipment failures or anything like that. There were lots of little glitches here and there - date display bugs and some other minor things here and there - but nothing even remotely like planes falling out of the sky - and even with no preventative action, planes would not have fallen out of the sky. And the reason wasn't because the problem was recognized and protected against - the reason is because the problem was blown so far out of proportion I'm surprised that no one was arrested.

Also, you really think it'd be cheaper to protect all electronics against a nation-wide EMP? Are you insane?! You clearly have no concept of what it takes to ruggedize electronics, because it sure isn't cheap.

on Jun 29, 2009

Good point, I forgot about the trigger also being a reason for that. However, it is worth noting that Earth Penetrating Weapons (nuclear bunker-busters) are designed to impact and burrow into the ground and then explode to take out hardened underground bunkers, etc. Since these weapons work, impacting the ground doesn't seem to disrupt the warhead much.

We also have 70 years of design work put into things like that. The first gen bombs would have been like dropping a car from 50,000 feet and expecting it to start when it hit the ground.

Its worth pointing out that electric motors were not in widespread use at the time

Yeah, because cars still used wind up keys back then

Seriously, Honolulu was a fairly big city, run off of local generators. Neither motors or generators suffered news-worthy damage.

on Jun 29, 2009

Quoting kyogre12, reply 15

No, the point of using multiple, less powerful missiles as that you didn't need to get them as high. Instead of one really high missile taking out the whole country, you would have multiple missiles taking out smaller sections, which wouldn't require as high-powered of a missile because they wouldn't need to go as high.

That is false. If you don't get the altitude, you don't get quite the EMP. The range and strength of an EMP detonated within the atmosphere is limited to a few tens of kilometers at most. Also, if you detonate a nuke too high up, the strength of the EMP is also reduced - you sacrifice strength for area of effect the higher you go.

How is it false? My point was that with multiple missiles, they don't have to go as high, because you don't need the one, extremely large EMP. You can use smaller, localized EMP's, which wouldn't require the missiles to go as high as one giant EMP, so the missiles wouldn't have to be as powerful.

Its worth pointing out that electric motors were not in widespread use at the time

Yeah, because cars still used wind up keys back then

Seriously, Honolulu was a fairly big city, run off of local generators. Neither motors or generators suffered news-worthy damage.

But TV, radio, street lights, etc did. Which either means that such devices are more susceptable to EMP's than some people think, or that the generators or other parts of the power grid were affected.

And like others have pointed out, cars *might* be safe from EMP's because they are metal, so the motors in them might not have been affected. Likewise, the generators could have been underground, and also protected.

on Jun 29, 2009

And like others have pointed out, cars *might* be safe from EMP's because they are metal, so the motors in them might not have been affected. Likewise, the generators could have been underground, and also protected.

Ummmmmm...... I don't really know how to say this w/o sounding like a jerk, but most cars use internal-combustion engines, which are not electrically based.......

on Jun 29, 2009

Scoutdog

And like others have pointed out, cars *might* be safe from EMP's because they are metal, so the motors in them might not have been affected. Likewise, the generators could have been underground, and also protected.


Ummmmmm...... I don't really know how to say this w/o sounding like a jerk, but most cars use internal-combustion engines, which are not electrically based.......

No, but a lot of newer cars have integrated computers. Also, just about every car has a battery and some sort of electrical mechinisms that run off said battery. They might not be electrically based, but many do use electricity in some way. The real question is will the loss of those electrical systems compromise the car, or will it still be able to run, albeit with limited capabilities. IMO, we can't actually know the answer to that question without setting off an EMP an finding out.

on Jun 29, 2009

Well, the spark plugs are inside of basically a solid block of metal, and EMPs don't do much to batteries themselves... I'd be more worried about an arc off of the gas tank setting something on fire, but even that's HIGHLY unlikly.

on Jun 29, 2009

 

 

No, but a lot of newer cars have integrated computers. Also, just about every car has a battery and some sort of electrical mechinisms that run off said battery. They might not be electrically based, but many do use electricity in some way. The real question is will the loss of those electrical systems compromise the car, or will it still be able to run, albeit with limited capabilities. IMO, we can't actually know the answer to that question without setting off an EMP an finding out.

Unless you have an electric car plugged into the power grid, the heavy electrical components in the car, including the battery, are just fine.  Even electrical engines and transformers are safe if they are not attached to the power grid.  This is one of the reasons why the power company sometimes detaches transformers during a solar flare.  As you mentioned, it is the integrated circuits in the computer chips that risk being damaged.

Well, the spark plugs are inside of basically a solid block of metal, and EMPs don't do much to batteries themselves... I'd be more worried about an arc off of the gas tank setting something on fire, but even that's HIGHLY unlikly.

 

A gas tank should not be affected because there shouldn't be any potential circuit inside it to spark.  Sparks are a danger in other areas though --  an interesting article I read about EMP's danger to military equipment discussed how a lot of explosive ordinance is detonated by timed release of an electric charge, and these could in fact spark due to EMP setting off the munition.  Things like a claymore mine.

 

on Jun 29, 2009

Yes, but in order to get a spark, you'd need to induce a fairly large amount of electricity. I have adoubts about the EM pulse being able to generate that in such a small length of conductor as would be present in a, say, claymore mine.

This sounds like one for Mythbusters. They like big explosions anyway.

on Jun 29, 2009

I have to agree (in my humble opinion) that if terrorists or a rogue state did have nuclear weapons in their possession they'd be more inclined to use them on a highly populated area, like detonating them over a major city to inflict massive casualties.

In terms of EMP, that could be carried out more by a super-power state as a calculated move. Or as part of a first strike. In fact high altitude nukes for the express purpose of EMP's were one of the options the Soviets had in a direct nuclear war in order to sow as much confusion and disorganization as possible in order to "open the door" for their backfire bombers and other military assets to penetrate as far as possible before being intercepted.

For example, if China detonated several EMP's over the continental U.S there would be widespread confusion as most major communication and power networks would be down for a while.

This confusion and bedlam at home would give them the opportunity to, I don't know, invade Thaiwan or Japan for example. Once the U.S would recover (which it would), it would then be facing the prospect of either

A) complete nuclear annihilation with the other power

or

  A long conventional war with a distant power that's already cementing it's hold on the new region it had just conquered. Having lost regional staging grounds like Japan or the Phillipinnes would mean another D-Day type invasion which if memory recalls took several years of planning and organization to pull off.

And of course they'd be counting on the fact that the folks at home would be more concerned about getting reliable running water and power than worrying about fighting a war in a distant land at this point.

Just some food for thought?

 

on Jun 29, 2009

In terms of EMP, that could be carried out more by a super-power state as a calculated move. Or as part of a first strike. In fact high altitude nukes for the express purpose of EMP's were one of the options the Soviets had in a direct nuclear war in order to sow as much confusion and disorganization as possible in order to "open the door" for their backfire bombers and other military assets to penetrate as far as possible before being intercepted.

For example, if China detonated several EMP's over the continental U.S there would be widespread confusion as most major communication and power networks would be down for a while.

This confusion and bedlam at home would give them the opportunity to, I don't know, invade Thaiwan or Japan for example. Once the U.S would recover (which it would), it would then be facing the prospect of either

A) complete nuclear annihilation with the other power

or

A long conventional war with a distant power that's already cementing it's hold on the new region it had just conquered. Having lost regional staging grounds like Japan or the Phillipinnes would mean another D-Day type invasion which if memory recalls took several years of planning and organization to pull off.And of course they'd be counting on the fact that the folks at home would be more concerned about getting reliable running water and power than worrying about fighting a war in a distant land at this point.

Just some food for thought?

 

The good news here is that all of the major nuclear powers have 0 incentive to hurt the USA.  We are all so economically entwined that the loss of one country will cause tremendous problems for the others.  Now, if a fanatical regime takes charge, this could change someday.  This is one of the reasons nobody wants North Korea or Iran to have nukes.

 

Yes, but in order to get a spark, you'd need to induce a fairly large amount of electricity. I have adoubts about the EM pulse being able to generate that in such a small length of conductor as would be present in a, say, claymore mine.

This sounds like one for Mythbusters. They like big explosions anyway.

 

My understanding is the sparks that could set off electronic triggers are not caused by the long lasting EM field residual effect of EMP, they are potentially caused by overvoltage from the initial pulse.  The overvoltage electric field has such a brief / sharp gradient, it is mostly dangerous to tiny things such as integrated circuits WITHIN computer chips.  It was just listed as a possible concern in a military paper, that great care be taken with explosives because they could be compromised by an EMP event.  Even all of the electrons going to ground shouldn't harm anything that it isn't a convenient conductor to the ground.

Now if we could just get Mythbusters a blackmarket Soviet nuke or an EMP bomb, they could start testing this stuff for us.

on Jun 29, 2009

Now if we could just get Mythbusters a blackmarket Soviet nuke or an EMP bomb, they could start testing this stuff for us.

Actually, they (the military) have stationary devices that can generate a local field for testing hardened gear.... and I imagine it would be possible for someone with a few large industrial magnets and a lot of metal to actually build one on their own...

11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last