Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: crawdaddyjim on December 13, 2008, 09:37:32 AM

Title: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: crawdaddyjim on December 13, 2008, 09:37:32 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748923919852015.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748923919852015.html)

This Kennedy fellow is evidently legit. There is a online http://www.survivalmonkey.com/SF%20books/LightsOut!/LightsOut-Current.pdf (http://www.survivalmonkey.com/SF%20books/LightsOut!/LightsOut-Current.pdf) that uses just this scenario as a plot for a book. Not a bad read. But has holes in it. As in there are no dogs present or used in the story?

And now that "O" has told Israel that they will have to just learn how to live with a Nuked up Iran. I wonder if the scenario laid out in the book is possible? Beck was on the radio yesterday with Sen. Jim DeMint and actually told him that average Joe was just about past the point of pissed off and it is starting to look ugly out there in the hood.

Jim
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Rudy Kohn on December 13, 2008, 11:21:26 AM
The actual ramifications of such an attack would be far more localized than in Lights Out.  One nuke could not knock out all of the electronics in the U.S.--it would take thousands, all detonated simultaneously a couple hundred miles above the earth, all above different spots.

Electronics in metal boxes (like cars or some factory buildings, and hardened gov't buildings) would be less likely to be affected.

It would suck for whatever city it happened over, and it would be expensive to fix, but it would not be nearly as bad as Lights Out.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: MicroBalrog on December 13, 2008, 11:53:03 AM
Actually, Rudy, a single 20-megaton nuke in low orbit, would mess up most of the consumer electronics in the US.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: gunsmith on December 13, 2008, 11:57:19 AM
all I got was an article about the bailout.
next time links and story please
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: crawdaddyjim on December 13, 2008, 12:04:04 PM
I think if you look at the power grid for the US it would likely take one to cripple the grid and two or three to kill it. This would be a long term cripple as the rebuild would be enormously labor intensive. As the grid went down only those municipalities with back up generators in unaffected areas and a continuing supply of fuel would continue to operate as normal. The rest would devolve to a degree likely paralleled by the Katrina event without the flooding issue. Which would make it manageable with difficulty.

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.encarta.msn.com%2Fxrefmedia%2Faencmed%2Ftargets%2Fmaps%2Fmap%2F000a5302.gif&hash=c2c994b503f5b494b7044ffe7eee6418ab4368c0)


A hit over say Pittsburgh PA would cause a cascading effect and possibly bring down the grid from the Mississippi to the East Coast. The transformers and switching stations are what are susceptible to EMP.

Jim

PS. Gunsmith, The link works for me?
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Lbys on December 13, 2008, 02:14:20 PM
I'll grant you that 20 MT seems like it would do some serious damage, but how likely is that that up-and-coming nuclear powers would be able to 1) develop such a weapon, 2) launch it into space, and 3) detonate it without a country disabling or destroying it with an ASW before it had a chance to be used? 

Certainly, there are more than a few unfriendly regimes that are trying to develop their own nukes, and I don't know that you could count Russia, China, and/or India out of such a gambit. 
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 13, 2008, 02:24:16 PM
Quote
Actually, Rudy, a single 20-megaton nuke in low orbit, would mess up most of the consumer electronics in the US.

Sources, please?
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: mtnbkr on December 13, 2008, 02:32:34 PM
Sources, please?

Goldeneye. :P

Chris
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 13, 2008, 02:45:13 PM
Thanks for the Mountain Dew-stained keyboard, Chris!

I thought he was going to refer to the elusive and apocryphal "Sparky" once again...  ;/
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Lbys on December 13, 2008, 02:51:23 PM
The Oracle of Wikipedia has a pretty good intro to this (I've not read it before):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse)

20 MT is a figure quoted, but of course, there isn't a source cited.

A primer, referenced in the Wiki:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm)

If I'm reading the sidebar underneath the yield graph correctly:

The blue 'pre-ionisation' curve applies to certain types of thermonuclear weapon, where gamma and x-rays from the primary fission stage ionise the atmosphere and make it electrically conductive before the main pulse from the thermonuclear stage. The pre-ionisation in some situations can literally short out part of the final EMP, by allowing a conduction current to immediately oppose the Compton current of electrons. (http://The blue 'pre-ionisation' curve applies to certain types of thermonuclear weapon, where gamma and x-rays from the primary fission stage ionise the atmosphere and make it electrically conductive before the main pulse from the thermonuclear stage. The pre-ionisation in some situations can literally short out part of the final EMP, by allowing a conduction current to immediately oppose the Compton current of electrons.)

That would mean that you actually need a thermonuclear weapon to make this happen; otherwise, a purely fission device creates a destructive electrial interference that risks negating the EMP effect.  If one makes the assumption that it's an order of magnitude more difficult to construct a functioning thermonuclear device than it is a fission device, that might indicate that newer nuclear powers are less likely to employ such weapons for their intended purposes.  

Of course, I'm probably talking out of my rear and/or trying to justify burying my head in the sand.  It's been a long time since I've looked at this kind of thing.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: gunsmith on December 13, 2008, 03:37:14 PM
    * Arts
    * Letters to the Editor
    * Discussion Groups
    * Political Diary
    * Columns
    * Forums
    * 

    *

      Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
      See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
    * Need a Real Sponsor here

    * OPINION
    * NOVEMBER 24, 2008

What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.

    * Article

more in Opinion »

    * Email
    * Printer Friendly
    * Share:
          o Yahoo Buzz more
          o facebook
          o MySpace
          o LinkedIn
          o Digg
          o del.icio.us
          o NewsVine
          o StumbleUpon
          o Mixx
    * smaller Text Size larger
    * 

By BRIAN T. KENNEDY

As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.

Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us. And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:

First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.

Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.

Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.

Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.

Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.

The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."

Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.
In today's Opinion Journal

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

    * Secretary of Bailouts
    * Jindal's Medicine
    * The Sidwell Choice

 

TODAY'S COLUMNISTS

    * The Americas: Election Fraud in Nicaragua
      – Mary Anastasia O'Grady
    * Information Age: When Even Good News Worsens a Panic
      – L. Gordon Crovitz

 

COMMENTARY

    * The Fed Is Out of Ammunition
      – Christopher Wood
    * What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
      – Brian T. Kennedy
    * Change Our Public Schools Need
      – Terry M. Moe
    * Bush Does the Right Thing for Darfur
      – Kenneth Roth

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2008, 03:46:56 PM
Regarding the grid, this state apparently has an agreement with Canada to buy hydro power if needed, there's already a grid connection. I need to look up the thing I was reading about that. Seabrook's Westinghouse 1400MW can handle most of the state on its own, but I don't know if states can decouple, no idea how that all works. If stuff ever really messed up, though, I could see the less-populated states up here, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine cutting off Massachusetts at switching points, though. There's enough power from the VT and NH reactors and from hydro (and a couple coalburning legacy plants here) to supply those three, but NOT Boston Metro or the other large cities down there.

Now I'm curious as to what sorts of plans are in place.

And what in the world is that HVdc going through NH? Never heard of that... I did not even know we had one.

Edit: Quebec - New England Transmission HVdc +-450 kV 2000 MW ...huh. I had no idea that was there. It's connected to Hydro Quebec at the point of origin.

Quote
The Quebec - New England Transmission is a long-distance HVDC line between Radisson, Quebec, and Sandy Pond in Ayer, Massachusetts. In contrast to most other HVDC facilities, it is equipped with multiple static inverter stations.

Originally, the Quebec - New England Transmission consisted of the 172 kilometer section between Des Cantons in Quebec and Comerford Reservoir, New Hampshire which, because of the asynchronous operation of the American and Québec power grids, had to be implemented as HVDC. This line, which is an overhead line for its whole length, went into service in 1986. It could transfer a maximum power of 690 megawatts. The operating voltage was +/-450 kV.

The line was planned to extend beyond the two terminals in Des Cantons and Comerford to the hydroelectric power plants of the La Grande Complex, in the James Bay region of Québec, and to the high consumption area around Boston, Massachusetts. For this reason the line was extended by 1,100 kilometers to the north toward the static inverter plant at Radisson Substation and to the south to the static inverter plant at Sandy Pond in Massachusetts. The transmission power was increased by extending the existing static inverter stations to 2,000 megawatts. The value of the transmission voltage remained unchanged at +/-450 kV. For the connection of the Montreal area, a further static inverter station at Nicolet was put into service in 1992 with a transmission capacity of 2,000 megawatts.

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww02.abb.com%2Fglobal%2Fgad%2Fgad02181.nsf%2F0%2F7692a4efb83da8d0c12570c8002e70c2%2F%24file%2FQue-NE%2Bmap%2B484x393.jpg&hash=d9cd01ef21591ebbf419f5a6d3b1ef630d7e2242)

There's some MASSIVE tower arrays going through Goffstown with a wide clearance...that's what those are!

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fca%2FSt_jean_htpl.jpg%2F400px-St_jean_htpl.jpg&hash=fa64317d3cbf64dbac511e11a0668118784fdb56)

We're plugged into Canada and are taking their power. Cool. :lol:
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: MicroBalrog on December 13, 2008, 03:50:20 PM
Sources, please?

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fcd%2FEMP_areas.JPG&hash=96b3bd5fa63658c241f29ab07d1cc064c6995459)

This is also useful and provides the various necessaries:

http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Leatherneck on December 13, 2008, 04:08:49 PM
There's also non-nuclear EMP technology that isn't very difficult.

TC
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Rudy Kohn on December 13, 2008, 05:38:25 PM
Microbalrog,
One of the papers linked on the page you linked:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0307/0307127.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0307/0307127.pdf)
from the conclusion:
"...the lack of damage to both the power and the communications systems in Hawaii from ...[Starfish]...counters the view that the effects of EMP are devastating to such systems.  ...One may expect the telecommunications system to be far more vulnerable than... the electric power system."

The breakdown of the electric power system is stated as millions of volts.  EMP peak fields are measured in tens of thousands of volts per meter, but the actual energy content (integrated over time) is not enough to burn out resistive elements.  Inductive and semiconductive elements are far more vulnerable.

More from the same article:  "Based on the analyses presented in this paper and in Refs. [7-81 (sic, probably supposed to be [7-8]), it appears highly improbable that the EMP from a single nuclear burst could blackout this nation's power grid.  ...Concurrent multiple bomb bursts will not (emphasis in original) have an additive TEMP effect..."

According to several of the links on that page, the danger is greatly overstated.

It looks like there's at least some controversy over whether such an attack would be as catastrophic as you say.  Also, 20 megatons is huge--for comparison, the largest nuke made was around 100 megatons, according to Wiki (Tsar Bomba).

I don't doubt that consumer electronics could be damaged by such a blast, but I think that the certainty of damage is by no means high enough to completely throw the U.S. into chaos as occurred in Lights Out.  Devices surrounded by a Faraday cage (conductive box) would be at least partially shielded, and many vulnerable parts are pressed-in chips which are manufactured in China by the million.  Repair would be costly, time-consuming, and a real pain, but I suspect the infrastructure damaged by any such attack could be repaired in a few months, and workarounds would not be impossible in the meantime.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried about it, but rather that Lights Out is at least an order of magnitude worse than it is likely to be.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: gunsmith on December 13, 2008, 05:50:48 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748923919852015.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748923919852015.html)

This Kennedy fellow is evidently legit. There is a online http://www.survivalmonkey.com/SF%20books/LightsOut!/LightsOut-Current.pdf (http://www.survivalmonkey.com/SF%20books/LightsOut!/LightsOut-Current.pdf) that uses just this scenario as a plot for a book. Not a bad read. But has holes in it. As in there are no dogs present or used in the story?

And now that "O" has told Israel that they will have to just learn how to live with a Nuked up Iran. I wonder if the scenario laid out in the book is possible? Beck was on the radio yesterday with Sen. Jim DeMint and actually told him that average Joe was just about past the point of pissed off and it is starting to look ugly out there in the hood.

Jim

Jim! you're right!
No dogs in "lights out"
given the breakdown in society presented in lightsout you would expect feral dog packs being a problem.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: just Warren on December 13, 2008, 07:50:33 PM
Obviously, we need to put hand-cranked generators on everything. 
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Gowen on December 13, 2008, 08:15:48 PM
Obviously, you forgot about THAAD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United States Army project to develop a system to shoot down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles using a hit-to-kill approach. The missile carries no warhead but relies on the kinetic energy of the impact. THAAD was designed to hit Scuds and similar weapons, but also has a limited capability against ICBMs.

The THAAD system is being designed, built, and integrated by Lockheed Martin Space Systems acting as prime contractor. Key subcontractors include Raytheon, Boeing, Aerojet, Rocketdyne, Honeywell, BAE Systems, and MiltonCAT. Development was budgeted at over USD$700 million for 2004, and full deployment is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars[citation needed].

Although originally a U.S. Army program, THAAD has come under the umbrella of the Missile Defense Agency. The Navy has a similar program, the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. THAAD was originally scheduled for deployment in 2012, but deployment has recently been accelerated to 2009. [1]
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: RocketMan on December 13, 2008, 09:49:45 PM
Does anyone here really believe The One will continue the theater or strategic ABM programs?  I didn't think so.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: MicroBalrog on December 13, 2008, 09:56:39 PM
Quote
According to several of the links on that page, the danger is greatly overstated.

Rudy, please understand that I am no expert on nuclear physics, nor do I play one on TV. If I made it appear that I claim some ultimate authority on this matter, I apologize. Many members on this forum know far more than I do about nuclear stuff, and especially Gewehr98 would be the one to be consultes.

However, from my reading of the different scenarios for nuclear warfare/EMPs, it seems clear that the experts are not in agreement about the issue.

What remains clear, to me at least, is the following:

1. Modern infrastructure is extremely fragile in terms of disaster and nuclear attacks. Additionally, the modern economy is based not only on the physical existence of the infrastructure, but on the confidence of all players that it will continue. Because of that, an infrastructure strike will have an effect greater than the physical damage done.

2. Damage done in a particular area will have an effect beyond that area. For example, if New York were shut down, damage to the economic life of the Union would be incredible even beyond the immediate geographical area.

3. While it is true that humans can and once did survive without electronics, most of us cannot easily revert to the previous level and keep up with our obligations.

Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Boomhauer on December 13, 2008, 10:21:02 PM
Jim! you're right!
No dogs in "lights out"
given the breakdown in society presented in lightsout you would expect feral dog packs being a problem.

You didn't actually finish reading Lights Out did you?

There were feral dogs...

Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: mtnbkr on December 13, 2008, 11:01:59 PM
We're plugged into Canada and are taking their power. Cool. :lol:

I. DRINK. YOUR. MILKSHAKE! 

Chris
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2008, 11:02:38 PM
I. DRINK. YOUR. MILKSHAKE! 

Chris

 :lol:
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Nitrogen on December 14, 2008, 02:04:22 AM
Build yourself a nice faraday cage to keep your important stuff in.

I built one in my first house in AZ, but my wife thinks i'm absolutely nuts to want to build one now, so...
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: gunsmith on December 14, 2008, 05:03:26 AM
You didn't actually finish reading Lights Out did you?

There were feral dogs...



I stayed up quite a few late nights, I read it twice almost.
I don't remember dogs, but heck, I don't remember Karate mans name ( Mark ) his kids name or his wifes name.
great story though.
It would be interesting if this scenario played out.


Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Rudy Kohn on December 14, 2008, 10:37:37 AM
Microbalrog,

I agree with all of your points.  =)
I just think that an urban nuke detonation is a greater threat (based on probability, likely death toll, long-term damage, etc.) than a low-orbit one.  Therefore, given limited resources for nuke defense, I think the majority of them should be spent trying to prevent terrorists with a nuke from driving it into NYC (for instance) and detonating it.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Boomhauer on December 14, 2008, 10:48:16 AM
I stayed up quite a few late nights, I read it twice almost.
I don't remember dogs, but heck, I don't remember Karate mans name ( Mark ) his kids name or his wifes name.
great story though.
It would be interesting if this scenario played out.




The dogs came in towards the latter third of the story...

In the book, they used eight nukes total. I don't know how many they airbursted over the US, but the story mentions Europe getting hit later, too...

I think Lights Out is a pretty good read...

I hope to God this scenario doesn't happen in the US...we would be so screwed...


Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: RevDisk on December 14, 2008, 12:22:44 PM
Actually, Rudy, a single 20-megaton nuke in low orbit, would mess up most of the consumer electronics in the US.

Not really.

A Calculation Model for High Altitude EMP (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A009208&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

Double digit megaton warheads are not efficient at all.  Clusters of smaller nukes are the better method.  And you'd need a lot of them to blanket the US with sufficient EMP to mess up the bulk of the consumer electronics across the entire US. 
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Gowen on December 14, 2008, 12:31:41 PM
Now the $64 question is...  Will "the one" respond with nukes if we are attacked first?
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Manedwolf on December 14, 2008, 12:35:47 PM
Now the $64 question is...  Will "the one" respond with nukes if we are attacked first?

No.

It will be a tragedy and we'll have to understand their needs better, what drove them to do such an act.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: AJ Dual on December 14, 2008, 01:01:43 PM
Not really.

A Calculation Model for High Altitude EMP (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A009208&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

Double digit megaton warheads are not efficient at all.  Clusters of smaller nukes are the better method.  And you'd need a lot of them to blanket the US with sufficient EMP to mess up the bulk of the consumer electronics across the entire US. 

That's very true. There's a reverse curve in Megatonnage to EMP and direct thermal/blast effects. A 100Mt bomb is not 200% more destructive than a 50Mt device.

Larger weapons are also exponentially more expensive to produce, and there's increased maintenance and a shelf-life on some of the isotopes and "special herbs and spices" the larger devices need (especially if you're trying to make it compact as possible). And designing them to optimize EMP effects vs. blast/thermal output adds a whole other layer of complexity. Despite the fact that we made the first fission bombs in 1945, North Korea's recent underground sub-kiloton "fizzle" proves that even the most basic  gun-barrel or sub-critical Uranium devices still aren't "easy", even for an entire nation-state, one presumably with access to "axis of evil", Bill Clinton, and other assistance.

And it's true there are capacitor/coil/conventional explosive EMP devices, but they're not "easy" either. There's a reason the U.S. and other top-tier militaries are the one's experimenting with them, and only within the past decade or so. Like the nukes, the basic theory is out there for anyone willing to read PopSci, but like any complex undertaking, "the devil is in the details", and that's the stuff that's kept truly under wraps by the first nuclear powers.

Then, even if you have achieved a multi-megaton capability, there's the size/weight issue to contend with, what that does to the range or capabilities of your missile, or if a whole new multi-year program is needed to develop a new launcher.

It's not as simple as assuming that the U.S. and USSR were "doing this" in the 1950's/60's, so 2000's era rouge states can do it now. These are exponentially expanding technical challenges, it's not a linear progression. (And Russia had lots of help in the 50's and 60's due to espionage in America to get their program jump-started...)  And the things you expect to help, like cheap pervasive and powerful computing do help, but not to the degree people would automatically assume. There's whole entire industries that need to be leveraged, materials science, ultra-precision machining, metallurgy, electronics, chemistry etc. You have to be the best and have the best in all of them, or it's going to slow your program down. There's still a lot of hard-won technical knowledge and methods we've had since the 40's that are still not public domain.

For the next decade or two at least, an EMP attack is only a threat from Russia and China. Container ship or van-delivered ground-bursts are probably a threat now.

The Iranian scenario as posited in the WSJ article is troubling and has some true potential for direct attack, but even if they had the EMP capability to blanket the entire U.S., my gut tells me they'd prefer a direct strike. It seems to me that the Islamists prefer fire, body count, and destruction. 
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Manedwolf on December 14, 2008, 01:23:11 PM
Then, even if you have achieved a multi-megaton capability, there's the size/weight issue to contend with, what that does to the range or capabilities of your missile, or if a whole new multi-year program is needed to develop a new launcher.

Are...you forgetting that these people are suicidal? Launcher? Why?

They'd put it in an old cargo-dog 727 flying up from South America, and detonate it in the air over a city.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: AJ Dual on December 14, 2008, 01:26:40 PM
Are...you forgetting that these people are suicidal? Launcher? Why?

They'd put it in an old cargo-dog 727 flying up from South America, and detonate it in the air over a city.

No, not at all. But the main thrust of the discussion was a low-orbit EMP strike, not a ground or airburst strike against a city. Which I too find much more likely.

A human pyramid of jihadi's stacked 200 miles high would be kind of obvious, even if somewhere in the middle of Kansas or Nebraska to get the geographic center and cover all of CONUS with an EMP strike.   =D

Launcher technology, and the exponentially difficult science of multi-megaton devices comes into play. (as compared to a "dumb" kiloton-range Uranium sub-critical device, which even NK couldn't pull off.)
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Manedwolf on December 14, 2008, 01:30:33 PM
No, not at all. But the main thrust of the discussion was a low-orbit EMP strike, not a ground or airburst strike against a city. Which I too find much more likely.

A human pyramid of jihadi's stacked 200 miles high would be kind of obvious, even if somewhere in the middle of Kansas or Nebraska to get the geographic center and cover all of CONUS with an EMP strike.   =D

Launcher technology, and the exponentially difficult science of multi-megaton devices comes into play. (as compared to a "dumb" kiloton-range Uranium sub-critical device, which even NK couldn't pull off.)

They might not be able to get it 200 miles high, but they can certainly explode one aboard a plane at cruising altitude. All it would take is taking over a legitimate cargo flight at its point of origin in some other country or creating a front company for the whole thing, and they'd have a high altitude bomb carrier. Or several at the same time.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Gowen on December 14, 2008, 05:34:17 PM
They might not be able to get it 200 miles high, but they can certainly explode one aboard a plane at cruising altitude. All it would take is taking over a legitimate cargo flight at its point of origin in some other country or creating a front company for the whole thing, and they'd have a high altitude bomb carrier. Or several at the same time.

Why not just take a cargo ship to the gulf of mexico and load one of their el numb-nuts rocket launchers in it and have a go at it.  The rockets can fly 200 miles  high in the sky I am sure and several thousand miles inland.  Heck, they could blame it on cuba.
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: RevDisk on December 14, 2008, 06:29:58 PM
Are...you forgetting that these people are suicidal? Launcher? Why?

They'd put it in an old cargo-dog 727 flying up from South America, and detonate it in the air over a city.

25 MT nukes the US produced were 10,670 lb.  Mind you, this was produced by the the most sophisticated industrial nation on the planet.   A less sophisticated version would be much heavier.  Only the B-52 Stratofortress and B-47 Stratojet could carry one.  While 5 tons doesn't sound like much, it is when it's as small as a nuke tends to be.   Very very dense.   So you need special handling kit and something to hold it in place.  Tie downs aren't recommended.   

Gewehr, mind telling us what would happen if a jihadi didn't use proper kit to hold a nuke in place and it started bouncing around in a 727? 


Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: crawdaddyjim on December 14, 2008, 10:05:22 PM
I was referring to dogs on the good guys side. But yes the son, David was attacked by a feral dog pack. But it would have made more sense to have dogs patrolling the fence line with the sentries. I know I would have started a program such as that from the get go.

As for the capabilities of the bad guys. If we keep telling ourselves that they don't have and can't develop the tech to make it happen then they will just purchase it or the scientists to do it. These guys are highly motivated. And they have Billions of dollars to devote to this kind of project. As they don't spend much on social programs...

They most likely would not try to take out the whole grid at once. They wouldn't have to. Witness the cascade effect of the last power failure. Now if you caused it with a EMP which damaged inductive components (transformers) then you would have lead times just as described in the story. They don't have these things sitting in warehouses waiting on a call.

I agree it is a long shot. But then again who would have thought they could coordinate and execute simultaneous hijackings.

Jim
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: Manedwolf on December 14, 2008, 11:28:00 PM
25 MT nukes the US produced were 10,670 lb.  Mind you, this was produced by the the most sophisticated industrial nation on the planet.   A less sophisticated version would be much heavier.  Only the B-52 Stratofortress and B-47 Stratojet could carry one.  While 5 tons doesn't sound like much, it is when it's as small as a nuke tends to be.   Very very dense.   So you need special handling kit and something to hold it in place.  Tie downs aren't recommended.   

Gewehr, mind telling us what would happen if a jihadi didn't use proper kit to hold a nuke in place and it started bouncing around in a 727? 

So they use tiedowns. There's nothing in the plane but the nuke, locked down every possible way, and possibly some ballast to keep the plane balanced. They do not need a 25kt. It doesn't matter what the yield is. It could be the kind that would fit in a truck! There's no altitude sensors, no fuze, just a gun device with a cup of U-235 at one end and a cone backed by charges at the other.

And, 737, even. There's a LOT of these in the world, back to early models, still flying. Planes in questionable flying condition came into Miami from South America all the time.

If they blew it over a city, it would still ruin everyone's day below.

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.daylife.com%2Fimageserve%2F06fbfQUaz0d0w%2F610x.jpg&hash=aee7ef66caa3e9172ea40ae864300b33de60602c)
Title: Re: The WSJ has joined the Frugal Squirrel legion
Post by: ArfinGreebly on December 15, 2008, 02:40:07 AM
Quote
It will be a tragedy and we'll have to understand their needs better, what drove them to do such an act.

Evidently, they would "need" bombing.