The EMP threat - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The EMP threat (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 4/30/2011 4:20:37 PM EDT

[#1]

Electronics connected to antennas or long wires that will act as an antenna (like power lines) are about the only items that would be effected. It takes something to collect and channel the energy in the pulse.

I'm lots more concerned by biological and chemical weapons than nukes....let alone EMP.

Posted: 4/30/2011 5:31:59 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:18:15 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:20:53 PM EDT

[#4]

It's pleasant to see so many experts gather in such a small area.

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:49:16 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:06:46 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:12:23 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship.

Yep - The problem with detonating a nuke at low altitude to produce EMP is that the effective range of the resulting EMP is very limited - In some cases, it's no larger than the blast radius of the nuke itself.

Getting really widescale EMP effects from a single nuke requires tremendous altitudes - and that ain't easy for a turd-world nation to accomplish.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:16:12 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship.

Yep - The problem with detonating a nuke at low altitude to produce EMP is that the effective range of the resulting EMP is very limited - In some cases, it's no larger than the blast radius of the nuke itself.

Getting really widescale EMP effects from a single nuke requires tremendous altitudes - and that ain't easy for a turd-world nation to accomplish.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1166/hempradiusue3.gif

Inverse square law also means that the higher you go, the more powerful the device needs to be. Double the height of your detonation and you quadruple the power it needs to be to have the same level of energy at ground level.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:18:29 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

No, but they can be made in different versions. Ground burst was also mentioned in my scenario.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:20:58 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship.

Yep - The problem with detonating a nuke at low altitude to produce EMP is that the effective range of the resulting EMP is very limited - In some cases, it's no larger than the blast radius of the nuke itself.

Getting really widescale EMP effects from a single nuke requires tremendous altitudes - and that ain't easy for a turd-world nation to accomplish.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1166/hempradiusue3.gif

Oh good, 62 miles looks like it would have very little effect. We'll be fine.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:21:32 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

And the fail just continues!

That is a cruise missile. One that flies exceptionally low to the ground. To get a widespread EMP effect you need to launch it to a very high altitude. Why? Line of sight. (We won't even get into whether or not the Russians will allow that particular version to be developed and the legality of such a weapon.)

You gotta ask yourself, if a container ship scenario is your concern then how would a terrorist actor or a rogue state deliver such a weapon? Launching a missile from a container ship straight up? So now, instead of smuggling one device onto a ship, they have to smuggle the device and then smuggle a missile as well. They also need control of the ship so they can erect the missile and launch it at a point of their choosing. Then because it is a ballistic missile they have to be pretty damn good, considering a ship pitches and rolls. We won't even get into minor details like weatherproofing the missile and the device.

They could just forget the missile and smuggle it in a container. Of course, then you're limiting the EMP effects and what you're really doing is just exploding a nuke at low level. They would have to settle for millions of dead and injured instead of causing varying degrees of inconvenience caused by an EMP.

Epic Fail.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:22:30 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Yep - The problem with detonating a nuke at low altitude to produce EMP is that the effective range of the resulting EMP is very limited - In some cases, it's no larger than the blast radius of the nuke itself.

Getting really widescale EMP effects from a single nuke requires tremendous altitudes - and that ain't easy for a turd-world nation to accomplish.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1166/hempradiusue3.gif

I hate that map. I live under the black dot in the center.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:23:14 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

No, but they can be made in different versions. Ground burst was also mentioned in my scenario.

Ground burst EMP? You mean a nuclear explosion. EMP effects aren't going to go much farther than the blast and initial radiation. In other words, you got more to worry about than whether or not your Aimpoint works.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:23:34 PM EDT

[#14]

Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:23:41 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

No, but they can be made in different versions. Ground burst was also mentioned in my scenario.

The topic is about EMP, so my response was directed towards the EMP angle of using a cruise missile. There's also the yield issue I mentioned in a later post. You need a large yield to affect an area large enough to make it a better idea than simply ground bursting. IIRC, no rogue nation is going to have the tech to create a device capable of that while still fitting on a cruise missile.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:24:56 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I have the book, and absolutelty was enthralled by it. I learned MUCH from this book also.
What prompted me to buy it, was I watched a 2 hour interview on C-SPAN with the author...literally the only thing Ive ever watched before or since
on that channel. And for all yall who say its "nothing to worry about", "not gonna/cant happen", "not on my list of things to worry about",
well I can tell you as of last summer when that interview occured, the U.S. military was damned concerened about it. There were several
of the highest ranking members of the military, and some congressmen who asked questions and wholly agreed with the author
about the, according to them, VERY high possibility, of an EMP attack on this country. These men, and the author himself, all, to a man, said how utterly
unpreventable and easy it would be to do this, and that the intell community has heard of plots to do this for years. They explained, and so does the author
on his website, how a small small bomb, small enough to fit on a small fishing trawler or in a shipping container,would be more than enough to really set us back
for quite some time. These gents are EXPERTS and so is the author. He has testified in front of congress and is one of the few "go to men" on this subject.
It is NOT fear mongering or made up to sell his books. For all of you who poo poo the idea, well I know people who last Tuesday thought they were safe & sound, then lost their lives and homes and all they had on Wenesday. This is ONE of MANY thing that could happen. I quarantee you that all of you here laughing at this possibility are the SAME ONES
who woulda joked, laughed and made fun of the idea of 2 airliners taking down the tallest buildings in America on Sept. 10th.
If you dont worry about it, good on you. Youll be the ones I turn away when/if it happens.
Also...the " douche" HAS explained why the military doesnt EMP proof their stuff. First off, some equipment IS EMP proofed.
The rest that isnt, these leaders say they have literally begged congress for money to EMP proof all necessary equipment, and have been denied funds.
Before you spout off ignorent remarks about something.. some here need to educate themselves to keep from making idiots of themselves. I doubt some of you read much from
the sound od some of these stupid comments. Ill listen to our military men way the hell before I do anyone here.
And the reason you should care whether or not power goes down from EMP or not is, power can be restored from storms, tornadoes, ect, and that doesnt keep your car from starting and every single electronic thing from working. EMP destroys everything electronic, and there will be NO repair crews, police, medical aid, help of any sort coming for a long long time.
THAT is the difference, and why you should "care". Damn...do some of you even THINK before commenting?!

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:25:24 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship.

Yep - The problem with detonating a nuke at low altitude to produce EMP is that the effective range of the resulting EMP is very limited - In some cases, it's no larger than the blast radius of the nuke itself.

Getting really widescale EMP effects from a single nuke requires tremendous altitudes - and that ain't easy for a turd-world nation to accomplish.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1166/hempradiusue3.gif

Oh good, 62 miles looks like it would have very little effect. We'll be fine.

That's also a 10 megaton device.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:26:11 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:27:25 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Overblown and way worse things to worry about that are a lot more pressing.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I worry more about Global Warming than an EMP incident.

And that is saying A LOT.

Sure, EMP happens, but it will never happen on the grand scale that fiction writers dream up.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:29:23 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:31:14 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:32:28 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Inverse square law also means that the higher you go, the more powerful the device needs to be. Double the height of your detonation and you quadruple the power it needs to be to have the same level of energy at ground level.

We aren't talking about blast effects here - We're talking about gamma radiation from the nuke knocking electrons out of the atoms in the upper atmosphere. The higher the nuke burst, the wider the amount of upper atmosphere exposed to gamma rays - and thus the wider the coverage of resulting electrons bombarding the earth.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:33:05 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

Hey!!!! No hair pulling!!!! You Swabbies fight fair.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:33:33 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

Hey!!!! No hair pulling!!!! You Swabbies fight fair.

I'm not a fuckin sailor.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:34:58 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

I never based any argument off a work of fiction. I merely stated if we were ever attacked, it would more likely be a rogue attack versus one from a country that can be retaliated against.

It's my opinion. Don't be butt hurt.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:35:38 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

I never said that. It is obvious you're the one not reading. I listed all the hurdles they'd have to overcome.

You are the one who decided to use a cruise missile to make your point. Totally different weapon system. Not to mention it's the wrong weapon system to get an EMP effect. That whole altitude thing. Trust me, I knew of that system you linked to much earlier than you ever even heard of it.

What you should have done was compared the idea of terrorists launching a ballistic missile from a ship to what the Navy does for BMD testing. Ever so often, we launch target ballistic missiles from a ship. Simply put, you wouldn't understand the difference between the two scenarios.

Nor could you adequately address the idea of getting the physics package to fit in the missile.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:36:47 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

I never based any argument off a work of fiction. I merely stated if we were ever attacked, it would more likely be a rogue attack versus one from a country that can be retaliated against.

It's my opinion. Don't be butt hurt.

Don't talk shit about total.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08ZxZ4GSSnE

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:37:28 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Inverse square law also means that the higher you go, the more powerful the device needs to be. Double the height of your detonation and you quadruple the power it needs to be to have the same level of energy at ground level.

We aren't talking about blast effects here - We're talking about gamma radiation from the nuke knocking electrons out of the atoms in the upper atmosphere. The higher the nuke burst, the wider the amount of upper atmosphere exposed to gamma rays - and thus the wider the coverage of resulting electrons bombarding the earth.

So it doesn't follow inverse square?
If you're in Birmingham, AL (near the edge of the 62mi line), I would think you'd receive more energy at ground level from the 62 mile detonation than the 186 or 300 mile detonation.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:37:28 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

I never based any argument off a work of fiction. I merely stated if we were ever attacked, it would more likely be a rogue attack versus one from a country that can be retaliated against.

It's my opinion. Don't be butt hurt.

I agree with your basic premise. It was your method of delivery that fails miserably.

Not to mention motivation. If a terrorist organization has a nuke. They're going for kills, not for EMP. What would be better? Nuking NYC? Or causing inconvenience for a period of time?

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:38:34 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

Seriously??? It says "CRUISE MISSILE" in the link!!

A cruise missile is not a ballistic missile. The two are not equivalent! A cruise missile is incapable of accomplishing what you fear so badly.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:40:07 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

No, but they can be made in different versions. Ground burst was also mentioned in my scenario.

If you detonate a nuke on the ground, the emp effects of it will be the absolute least important thing anyone will worry about. Everything that might have been affected by it will have been incinerated.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:40:48 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

I never based any argument off a work of fiction. I merely stated if we were ever attacked, it would more likely be a rogue attack versus one from a country that can be retaliated against.

It's my opinion. Don't be butt hurt.

I agree with your basic premise. It was your method of delivery that fails miserably.

Not to mention motivation. If a terrorist organization has a nuke. They're going for kills, not for EMP. What would be better? Nuking NYC? Or causing inconvenience for a period of time?

Just curious here, but could you define "inconvenience"?

I'll bet there is a pretty wide understanding concerning the detonation of an EMP. I think being inconvenienced may be at the very bottom of the perceived scale.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:43:34 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

No, but they can be made in different versions. Ground burst was also mentioned in my scenario.

If you detonate a nuke on the ground, the emp effects of it will be the absolute least important thing anyone will worry about. Everything that might have been affected by it will have been incinerated.

So, you're telling me that if I get hit by a "ground level EMP", that I don't have to worry about my microwave not working? Will my ' 93 Dodge diesel still run?

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:44:31 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every few months this comes up.

Most people thing the EMP is the boogie man and will kill everything from a flashlight to their pron computer.

I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

End of the World as We Know it and you'll have more things to worry about than your iPods and cell phones.

MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.

Say from a container ship.

Epic fail.

I see that now due to your very informative post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you should consider how a nuclear device can get to the altitude required to generate a good EMP effect, then consider how those would work when launched from a container ship. Then also consider whether a solitary low-medium yield device detonated as an EMP would cause more or less damage and terror than if it simply struck a major city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

I'm fairly certain that cruise missiles don't reach the height required to generate an effective EMP.

No, but they can be made in different versions. Ground burst was also mentioned in my scenario.

If you detonate a nuke on the ground, the emp effects of it will be the absolute least important thing anyone will worry about. Everything that might have been affected by it will have been incinerated.

So, you're telling me that if I get hit by a "ground level EMP", that I don't have to worry about my microwave not working? Will my ' 93 Dodge diesel still run?

You won't have to worry about anything, because you will be dead.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:45:10 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

I never said that. It is obvious you're the one not reading. I listed all the hurdles they'd have to overcome.

You are the one who decided to use a cruise missile to make your point. Totally different weapon system. Not to mention it's the wrong weapon system to get an EMP effect. That whole altitude thing. Trust me, I knew of that system you linked to much earlier than you ever even heard of it.

What you should have done was compared the idea of terrorists launching a ballistic missile from a ship to what the Navy does for BMD testing. Ever so often, we launch target ballistic missiles from a ship. Simply put, you wouldn't understand the difference between the two scenarios.

Nor could you adequately address the idea of getting the physics package to fit in the missile.

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:46:01 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

Get back to us when you have a physics degree and don't base your entire argument off a work of fiction.

I never based any argument off a work of fiction. I merely stated if we were ever attacked, it would more likely be a rogue attack versus one from a country that can be retaliated against.

It's my opinion. Don't be butt hurt.

I agree with your basic premise. It was your method of delivery that fails miserably.

Not to mention motivation. If a terrorist organization has a nuke. They're going for kills, not for EMP. What would be better? Nuking NYC? Or causing inconvenience for a period of time?

Just curious here, but could you define "inconvenience"?

I'll bet there is a pretty wide understanding concerning the detonation of an EMP. I think being inconvenienced may be at the very bottom of the perceived scale.

The "pretty wide understanding" is that detonating a nuke (there is no such thing as "detonation of an EMP") in the outer atmosphere will not produce the results you and the rest of the EMP truthers believe it will.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:47:21 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

I never said that. It is obvious you're the one not reading. I listed all the hurdles they'd have to overcome.

You are the one who decided to use a cruise missile to make your point. Totally different weapon system. Not to mention it's the wrong weapon system to get an EMP effect. That whole altitude thing. Trust me, I knew of that system you linked to much earlier than you ever even heard of it.

What you should have done was compared the idea of terrorists launching a ballistic missile from a ship to what the Navy does for BMD testing. Ever so often, we launch target ballistic missiles from a ship. Simply put, you wouldn't understand the difference between the two scenarios.

Nor could you adequately address the idea of getting the physics package to fit in the missile.

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is a uniquely nation-state capability. There are no terrorist organizations with that capability, nor are there likely to be.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:47:26 PM EDT

[#38]

An EMP will kill the power grid, not necessarily the stuff on it. the damage an EMP causes is directly proportional to the size/length of the conductor, so long power lines will cause much more energy to be absorbed.

little personal things have such a small conductor base it wouldn't do much. maybe an FM radio equipped MP3 player or a car radio due to their antennae.

If your computer has a surge protector it would probably be okay, aside from the power being down.

the damage to the major power grid, on the other hand would be HUGE.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:48:47 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Just curious here, but could you define "inconvenience"?

I'll bet there is a pretty wide understanding concerning the detonation of an EMP. I think being inconvenienced may be at the very bottom of the perceived scale.

Let's put this in context. If a terrorist organization was able to launch a ballistic missile from a ship what missile would it be?

In all likelihood it would be a SCUD. The max apogee of which is 86km (about 53.5 miles). So it's a lower altitude than the 62 miles on that chart. If you want it to go further, you reduce the payload.

So what kind of payload are we talking about? 10 megatons? Doubtful. I'd give them about 100kt, and I'm being optimistic. So the area would be much smaller than the first circle on that map.

So you'd have random electrical and electronic failures in an area that affects a slightly larger area than a hurricane or a large thunderstorm system. Only without the physical destruction.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:50:05 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

I never said that. It is obvious you're the one not reading. I listed all the hurdles they'd have to overcome.

You are the one who decided to use a cruise missile to make your point. Totally different weapon system. Not to mention it's the wrong weapon system to get an EMP effect. That whole altitude thing. Trust me, I knew of that system you linked to much earlier than you ever even heard of it.

What you should have done was compared the idea of terrorists launching a ballistic missile from a ship to what the Navy does for BMD testing. Ever so often, we launch target ballistic missiles from a ship. Simply put, you wouldn't understand the difference between the two scenarios.

Nor could you adequately address the idea of getting the physics package to fit in the missile.

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Ground burst from a container ship is stupid. The EMP is the least of your worries as your body spontaneously ignites into flame from the nuclear explosion.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:52:04 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is a uniquely nation-state capability. There are no terrorist organizations with that capability, nor are there likely to be.

You can believe that if you want. It grows more likely everyday.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:52:40 PM EDT

[#42]

It's a good threat, that little 9mm is very accurate.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:53:52 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is a uniquely nation-state capability. There are no terrorist organizations with that capability, nor are there likely to be.

You can believe that if you want. It grows more likely everyday.

And just what do you base than analysis on?

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:56:54 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

I never said that. It is obvious you're the one not reading. I listed all the hurdles they'd have to overcome.

You are the one who decided to use a cruise missile to make your point. Totally different weapon system. Not to mention it's the wrong weapon system to get an EMP effect. That whole altitude thing. Trust me, I knew of that system you linked to much earlier than you ever even heard of it.

What you should have done was compared the idea of terrorists launching a ballistic missile from a ship to what the Navy does for BMD testing. Ever so often, we launch target ballistic missiles from a ship. Simply put, you wouldn't understand the difference between the two scenarios.

Nor could you adequately address the idea of getting the physics package to fit in the missile.

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Ground burst from a container ship is stupid. The EMP is the least of your worries as your body spontaneously ignites into flame from the nuclear explosion.

You're right. If I was in the middle of a ground burst, I would not be worried about EMP.

Once again, my post said EMP or ground burst. You're the one who keeps tying them together to be the same thing.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:58:00 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is a uniquely nation-state capability. There are no terrorist organizations with that capability, nor are there likely to be.

You can believe that if you want. It grows more likely everyday.

No, it really doesn't. There are physics problems involved in the creation of nuclear materials, and the miniaturization of weapons using them.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:58:41 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just curious here, but could you define "inconvenience"?

I'll bet there is a pretty wide understanding concerning the detonation of an EMP. I think being inconvenienced may be at the very bottom of the perceived scale.

Let's put this in context. If a terrorist organization was able to launch a ballistic missile from a ship what missile would it be?

In all likelihood it would be a SCUD. The max apogee of which is 86km (about 53.5 miles). So it's a lower altitude than the 62 miles on that chart. If you want it to go further, you reduce the payload.

So what kind of payload are we talking about? 10 megatons? Doubtful. I'd give them about 100kt, and I'm being optimistic. So the area would be much smaller than the first circle on that map.

So you'd have random electrical and electronic failures in an area that affects a slightly larger area than a hurricane or a large thunderstorm system. Only without the physical destruction.

Ok, it would be inconvenient then. I'm on the inside of the inside of that circle. The rest of you won't have to worry though, because nothing really important happens in here. Well, except for college football. We do that every fall, so if it happens before then, it won't be that big of a deal. We usually listen to it on AM radio, that will still work won't it?

I'm not doubting any of what you all are saying. Pretty sure it will be a lot like the weather. Not quite as bad as some say, but way worse than what we'd like. You all seem like you have a pretty good understanding of this, well except for Josh.....That guy is making up most of what he's saying.

Look at his avatar...boats and airplanes.......Really? How can you take a guy like that serious?

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:59:26 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Read my post again and get back to me, otherwise STFU

If you're referring to me, then I did read your post. It's full of fail.

A navy boy who doesn't think a ship can launch a missile.

Classic

I never said that. It is obvious you're the one not reading. I listed all the hurdles they'd have to overcome.

You are the one who decided to use a cruise missile to make your point. Totally different weapon system. Not to mention it's the wrong weapon system to get an EMP effect. That whole altitude thing. Trust me, I knew of that system you linked to much earlier than you ever even heard of it.

What you should have done was compared the idea of terrorists launching a ballistic missile from a ship to what the Navy does for BMD testing. Ever so often, we launch target ballistic missiles from a ship. Simply put, you wouldn't understand the difference between the two scenarios.

Nor could you adequately address the idea of getting the physics package to fit in the missile.

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Ground burst from a container ship is stupid. The EMP is the least of your worries as your body spontaneously ignites into flame from the nuclear explosion.

Of course the payload capability of these container-ship-cruise-missiles probably isn't conducive to a 3d-world nuke warhead either.

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:00:50 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just curious here, but could you define "inconvenience"?

I'll bet there is a pretty wide understanding concerning the detonation of an EMP. I think being inconvenienced may be at the very bottom of the perceived scale.

Let's put this in context. If a terrorist organization was able to launch a ballistic missile from a ship what missile would it be?

In all likelihood it would be a SCUD. The max apogee of which is 86km (about 53.5 miles). So it's a lower altitude than the 62 miles on that chart. If you want it to go further, you reduce the payload.

So what kind of payload are we talking about? 10 megatons? Doubtful. I'd give them about 100kt, and I'm being optimistic. So the area would be much smaller than the first circle on that map.

So you'd have random electrical and electronic failures in an area that affects a slightly larger area than a hurricane or a large thunderstorm system. Only without the physical destruction.

Ok, it would be inconvenient then. I'm on the inside of the inside of that circle. The rest of you won't have to worry though, because nothing really important happens in here. Well, except for college football. We do that every fall, so if it happens before then, it won't be that big of a deal. We usually listen to it on AM radio, that will still work won't it?

I'm not doubting any of what you all are saying. Pretty sure it will be a lot like the weather. Not quite as bad as some say, but way worse than what we'd like. You all seem like you have a pretty good understanding of this, well except for Josh.....That guy is making up most of what he's saying.

Look at his avatar...boats and airplanes.......Really? How can you take a guy like that serious?

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:01:24 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is a uniquely nation-state capability. There are no terrorist organizations with that capability, nor are there likely to be.

You can believe that if you want. It grows more likely everyday.

And just what do you base than analysis on?

The fact that there are people who want to kill America, or Americans. They will seek out the most efficient way to do that, and they have always been trying to get their hands on nukes.

It's not an analysis, it's an opinion. You honestly believe you will never see a nuke used against the US?

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:03:08 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Paul posted:
I wouldn't be worried about the effects of the nukes lit off in upper orbit to do EMP but the ones that follow taking out 75-100 million Americans with low altitude bursts. The other side needs to worry about the return nukes from the deployed US Navy ballast missile submarines floating off their coast.

mac130 replied:
MAD is a good strategy against countries, but I think a rogue attack using EMP, or ground burst is a far more likely scenario.
Say from a container ship.

dport replied:
Epic fail.

I was pointing out an attack will more likely come from terrorists, rather than a country. I never supported the entire US could be brought down with a single missile.

Launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is a uniquely nation-state capability. There are no terrorist organizations with that capability, nor are there likely to be.

You can believe that if you want. It grows more likely everyday.

And just what do you base than analysis on?

The fact that there are people who want to kill America, or Americans. They will seek out the most efficient way to do that, and they have always been trying to get their hands on nukes.

It's not an analysis, it's an opinion. You honestly believe you will never see a nuke used against the US?

You've moved the goalposts pretty far there. First it's non-nation states having the capability to launch a ballistic missile with a large enough warhead to generate a strong EMP over the US, now it's an organization maybe being able to use a nuke of some kind in some way.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The EMP threat (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us