Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/19/2006 1:40:07 AM EST
Ok, I keep seeing this whole deal bout EMP-this and EMP-that...

But for all this worry about who/what could survive an EMP, people seem to miss the actual reality about the subject....

THERE IS NO WAY TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO PULL OFF AN EMP ATTACK.

EVEN IF THEY GET A NUCLEAR WEAPON, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO (A) GET A BIG ENOUGH ONE, AND (B) DETONATE IT HIGH ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A CATESTROPHIC EMP EFFECT FAR OUTSIDE THE BLAST RADIUS....

IN FACT, FOR MOST VIABLE TERROR-NUKE SCENARIOS, THERE WOULD BE NO ESCAPING EMP AT ALL...

But of course, we all need to be 'ready'...

A note: Yes, the RUSSIANS do have tha ability to do some EMP damage with a MISSILE DELIVERED large weapon... But last I checked, we weren't worried bout Russia nuking us any time soon...

Link Posted: 10/19/2006 1:47:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2006 1:48:10 AM EST by Tomislav]
Future Arfcom threads:

1) What is the best EMP to use against zombies?

2) Which of these EMPs that I meet on Myspace should I date?

3) My EMP is red and dripping puss, should I go see a doctor?

Link Posted: 10/19/2006 1:49:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Future Arfcom threads:

1) What is the best EMP to use against zombies?

2) Which of these EMPs that I meet on Myspace should I date?

3) My EMP is red and dripping puss, should I go see a doctor?



You forgot "can you tell a Sunni EMP from a Shiite EMP??"
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 1:51:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Future Arfcom threads:

1) What is the best EMP to use against zombies?

2) Which of these EMPs that I meet on Myspace should I date?

3) My EMP is red and dripping puss, should I go see a doctor?



You forgot "can you tell a Sunni EMP from a Shiite EMP??"


Pffft. Farraday Cage them both and let God sort it out.

Link Posted: 10/19/2006 1:53:39 AM EST
Optimus Prime would not find this humorous at all... OPSEC people.

Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:29:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2006 3:31:12 AM EST by Skibane]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
THERE IS NO WAY TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO PULL OFF AN EMP ATTACK.


And you're assuming that terrorists are the only nuclear threat faced by the U.S.?


last I checked, we weren't worried bout Russia nuking us any time soon...


Speak for yourself, white boy...
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:36:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2006 3:36:30 AM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:38:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:41:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2006 3:42:03 AM EST by mr0w1]
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:48:57 AM EST
+1 to the gun for the thumpers making too much noise
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:49:02 AM EST
Some people need something to worry about or they aren't happy. EMP is a good boogeyman to keep 'em worrying and thinking about how to wrap tinfoil around their moped so it will start when the SHTF.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:51:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 3:52:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.


I just want to zap Ipods and VW Jettas - because I hate liberals.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:03:20 AM EST
Fallout 2 has EMP grenades, works real well against the robots.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:04:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.


I just want to zap Ipods and VW Jettas - because I hate liberals.


Ooh yeah. I forgot about Ipods. Zombies walking around in their own little worlds.

Could you make an EMP directional? I mean, light is EM, and you can make it directional, so why not an EMP?
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:04:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Future Arfcom threads:

1) What is the best EMP to use against zombies?



Damn, and I was just going to ask that
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:05:39 AM EST
MASER
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:06:33 AM EST
The real fear I have from an EMP attack is the loss of ARFCOM!

Just think about how crappy the day is when the servers go down for a few hours.


Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:13:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.


EMP Machines
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 4:15:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By BIKECOP29:

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.


EMP Machines


Neat ass!! I could also take care of peoples' kidney stones with that!
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 12:00:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
THERE IS NO WAY TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO PULL OFF AN EMP ATTACK.


And you're assuming that terrorists are the only nuclear threat faced by the U.S.?


last I checked, we weren't worried bout Russia nuking us any time soon...


Speak for yourself, white boy...


Presently, terrorists ARE the only credible nuclear threat...

Countries that can pull off an EMP-producing strike:

Russia
China
France
UK
US­A

Any of those guys likely to nuke us? NO...

So who is the 'credible nuclear threat'? North Korea isn't - they just tested their first weapon, they haven't managed to (a) make it missile-deliverable, or (b) make a missile reliable enough to mount a nuke on....

Iran? No bomb, no intercontinental missiles...

And so on...

Link Posted: 10/20/2006 12:03:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By avengeusa:

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.


lol



really, it is not emp that we have to worry about....


it is smuggled nukes from the unwatched border being set off inside of the US

it is th evulnerable power supply, when enough damage occurs we will have no power for a long time


Why would they have to smuggle them thru 'the' (actually BOTH - Canada is worse) border?

It's not like the coasts are any more secure...

That's the other one I don't get - it's so easy for AQ to get into the US legally, but everyone here keeps saying OH, They'll sneak in over the border!!! Why would they bother to cross the terrain & hazards on either border when they can just come in the froont door?
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 12:08:48 AM EST
Beware the wrath of Xenu!
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 12:50:50 AM EST
Speaking of terrorists smuggling a nuke into US and detonating it, it got me thinking: They (terrorists) don't have to smuggle in any nuke. All they have to do is park a freighter a few hundred miles away from our coastal line and fire a medium range missile (supplied by Iran) tipped with a nuclear warhead into Hollywood. Wouldn't that be easier than trying to smuggle in nuke into the US?
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 3:28:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
Speaking of terrorists smuggling a nuke into US and detonating it, it got me thinking: They (terrorists) don't have to smuggle in any nuke. All they have to do is park a freighter a few hundred miles away from our coastal line and fire a medium range missile (supplied by Iran) tipped with a nuclear warhead into Hollywood. Wouldn't that be easier than trying to smuggle in nuke into the US?


Yes it would be, and no it would not be. Just because you have a nuke and a missile does not mean you can make a nuculear tipped missile, it's not like taping a stick of dynamite to an arrow ala Dukes of Hazard.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:00:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2006 4:03:59 AM EST by AvengeR15]
Popular Mechanics Sep 2001 - How to build an E-bomb



The next Pearl Harbor will not announce itself with a searing flash of nuclear light or with the plaintive wails of those dying of Ebola or its genetically engineered twin. You will hear a sharp crack in the distance. By the time you mistakenly identify this sound as an innocent clap of thunder, the civilized world will have become unhinged. Fluorescent lights and television sets will glow eerily bright, despite being turned off. The aroma of ozone mixed with smoldering plastic will seep from outlet covers as electric wires arc and telephone lines melt. Your Palm Pilot and MP3 player will feel warm to the touch, their batteries overloaded. Your computer, and every bit of data on it, will be toast. And then you will notice that the world sounds different too. The background music of civilization, the whirl of internal-combustion engines, will have stopped. Save a few diesels, engines will never start again. You, however, will remain unharmed, as you find yourself thrust backward 200 years, to a time when electricity meant a lightning bolt fracturing the night sky. This is not a hypothetical, son-of-Y2K scenario. It is a realistic assessment of the damage the Pentagon believes could be inflicted by a new generation of weapons--E-bombs.

The first major test of an American electromagnetic bomb is scheduled for next year. Ultimately, the Army hopes to use E-bomb technology to explode artillery shells in midflight. The Navy wants to use the E-bomb's high-power microwave pulses to neutralize antiship missiles. And, the Air Force plans to equip its bombers, strike fighters, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles with E-bomb capabilities. When fielded, these will be among the most technologically sophisticated weapons the U.S. military establishment has ever built.

There is, however, another part to the E-bomb story, one that military planners are reluctant to discuss. While American versions of these weapons are based on advanced technologies, terrorists could use a less expensive, low-tech approach to create the same destructive power. "Any nation with even a 1940s technology base could make them," says Carlo Kopp, an Australian-based expert on high-tech warfare. "The threat of E-bomb proliferation is very real." POPULAR MECHANICS estimates a basic weapon could be built for $400.

An Old Idea Made New
The theory behind the E-bomb was proposed in 1925 by physicist Arthur H. Compton--not to build weapons, but to study atoms. Compton demonstrated that firing a stream of highly energetic photons into atoms that have a low atomic number causes them to eject a stream of electrons. Physics students know this phenomenon as the Compton Effect. It became a key tool in unlocking the secrets of the atom.

Ironically, this nuclear research led to an unexpected demonstration of the power of the Compton Effect, and spawned a new type of weapon. In 1958, nuclear weapons designers ignited hydrogen bombs high over the Pacific Ocean. The detonations created bursts of gamma rays that, upon striking the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, released a tsunami of electrons that spread for hundreds of miles. Street lights were blown out in Hawaii and radio navigation was disrupted for 18 hours, as far away as Australia. The United States set out to learn how to "harden" electronics against this electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and develop EMP weapons.

America has remained at the forefront of EMP weapons development. Although much of this work is classified, it's believed that current efforts are based on using high-temperature superconductors to create intense magnetic fields. What worries terrorism experts is an idea the United States studied but discarded--the Flux Compression Generator (FCG).

A Poor Man's E-Bomb
An FCG is an astoundingly simple weapon. It consists of an explosives-packed tube placed inside a slightly larger copper coil, as shown below. The instant before the chemical explosive is detonated, the coil is energized by a bank of capacitors, creating a magnetic field. The explosive charge detonates from the rear forward. As the tube flares outward it touches the edge of the coil, thereby creating a moving short circuit. "The propagating short has the effect of compressing the magnetic field while reducing the inductance of the stator [coil]," says Kopp. "The result is that FCGs will produce a ramping current pulse, which breaks before the final disintegration of the device. Published results suggest ramp times of tens of hundreds of microseconds and peak currents of tens of millions of amps." The pulse that emerges makes a lightning bolt seem like a flashbulb by comparison.

An Air Force spokesman, who describes this effect as similar to a lightning strike, points out that electronics systems can be protected by placing them in metal enclosures called Faraday Cages that divert any impinging electromagnetic energy directly to the ground. Foreign military analysts say this reassuring explanation is incomplete.

The India Connection
The Indian military has studied FCG devices in detail because it fears that Pakistan, with which it has ongoing conflicts, might use E-bombs against the city of Bangalore, a sort of Indian Silicon Valley. An Indian Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis study of E-bombs points to two problems that have been largely overlooked by the West. The first is that very-high-frequency pulses, in the microwave range, can worm their way around vents in Faraday Cages. The second concern is known as the "late-time EMP effect," and may be the most worrisome aspect of FCG devices. It occurs in the 15 minutes after detonation. During this period, the EMP that surged through electrical systems creates localized magnetic fields. When these magnetic fields collapse, they cause electric surges to travel through the power and telecommunication infrastructure. This string-of-firecrackers effect means that terrorists would not have to drop their homemade E-bombs directly on the targets they wish to destroy. Heavily guarded sites, such as telephone switching centers and electronic funds-transfer exchanges, could be attacked through their electric and telecommunication connections.

Knock out electric power, computers and telecommunication and you've destroyed the foundation of modern society. In the age of Third World-sponsored terrorism, the E-bomb is the great equalizer.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:08:56 AM EST
the EMP fans want it to happen because, as far as TEOTWAWKI goes, it's a lot cooler than an airburst the kills millions.

Basically, they get their SHTF fantasy without the need to police up dead bodies to prevent wide scale pestilence.

Make no mistake....there are dozens of posters here who actually want what they would consider a "weeding out" event.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:26:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.
Go to a CB shop,that's all I can say about that!
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:35:20 AM EST
perhaps a question for the survival forum. you can rent metal containers of various sizes. i've seen em places where people were doing renovations of vacation homes. they rent a container. its delivered on site and big enough to hold lots of stuff. metail with a solid metal locking door. so i wonder if you could take one of these and build a 'faraday' cage by sealing up all leaks and wholes and probably insulating the floor and then putting all your electronic gear in there and sealing it up..
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:48:37 AM EST
"the EMP fans want it to happen because, as far as TEOTWAWKI goes, it's a lot cooler than an airburst the kills millions."

COOLER?! Try WORSE because unlike a mushroom cloud that everyone can SEE and react to in a fairly straightforward way (duck and cover, 2 week shelter in place or immediate bug out to avoid hot fallout...), EMP would be high altitude, and possibly not visible to people (unless they looked up at the right spot).

For hours most people won't know how widespread the event is... hours that if it were 'shrum clouds, WOULD BE SPENT productively in full blown SHTF mode.

"Basically, they get their SHTF fantasy without the need to police up dead bodies to prevent wide scale pestilence."

WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE PEOPLE YOU REFER TO? again with a massive EMP attack (which doesn't necessarily need to be over CONUS... it could be touched off OVER international waters - shot straight up from a SCUD from a medium size cargo ship - check a map, most of the major urban centers are within a couple dozen miles from the coasts...

Again, whereas ground or near-ground airbursts will kill millions instantly and sicken untold more immediately, it wouldn't wipe out civilization as we know it. Most electronics would be find in the rural and more inland areas... not so with EMP, we would be faced with "policing" the whole fricken East and West Coasts without the benefit of communications or easy transport. Mass starvation.

I think the real problem is EMP is the WORST scenario, and as such, you are simply not prepared for it *(neither am I, neither are most of us). So instead of even doing basic things you keep thinking of suit case nukes and truck bombs.

"Make no mistake....there are dozens of posters here who actually want what they would consider a "weeding out" event."

Really? Like who? Between a half dozen ground bursting suitcase nukes or 2 high altitude EMP nukes, chances are far greater that most of us would survive the annihilation of down town cities or ports than we would the sudden and irreversible loss of electronics and electricity for the foreseable future.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:48:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By st0newall:
perhaps a question for the survival forum. you can rent metal containers of various sizes. i've seen em places where people were doing renovations of vacation homes. they rent a container. its delivered on site and big enough to hold lots of stuff. metail with a solid metal locking door. so i wonder if you could take one of these and build a 'faraday' cage by sealing up all leaks and wholes and probably insulating the floor and then putting all your electronic gear in there and sealing it up..


I won't pretend to know everything I should know about it, but someone did a very simple experiment a while back in the SF by putting a cordless phone inside their gunsafe in a metal ammo can. This significantly reduced the power of the phone because the signal could not get through both layers of metal, IIRC.

So, I keep my GPS reciever and a pair of walkie-talkies with batteries in an ammo can in the safe. If the power goes out from EMP, I will still have a few items shielded, hopefully.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:54:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Badseed:
Optimus Prime would not find this humorous at all... OPSEC people.



LOL

Really it is not like EMP devices are anything new.

Link Posted: 10/20/2006 4:58:32 AM EST
Aint gotta have a Nuke to get EMP.

A decent sized EMP at the right place in the Grid could black out major sections of the country for weeks.

Heck didnt a tree limb in ohio? take down the Atlantic Seaboard a couple of years back?
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 5:37:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Countries that can pull off an EMP-producing strike:

Russia
China
France
UK
US­A

Any of those guys likely to nuke us? NO...


IIRC, that line of reasoning got us Pearl Harbor...
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 5:43:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2006 5:50:10 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Countries that can pull off an EMP-producing strike:

Russia
China
France
UK
US­A

Any of those guys likely to nuke us? NO...


IIRC, that line of reasoning got us Pearl Harbor...


No, the battleship guys (and their disdain for air power, ergo no viable air defense) and the belief that PH was too shallow for torpedoes got us Perl Harbor...

The 'writing was on the wall' as far as Japan, the question was where and when...

Of that list, one of them is US, one is a country that's scared of it's own shadow, and 2 are former enemies who aren't exactly in a position to start WWIII, and aren't fanatical maniacs - MAD may not work against Queda, but it does work against the Chinese & Russians - even if they did EMP us, we'd still be able to return fire, and suicide is not profitable....
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 6:09:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2006 6:11:53 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
"the EMP fans want it to happen because, as far as TEOTWAWKI goes, it's a lot cooler than an airburst the kills millions."

COOLER?! Try WORSE because unlike a mushroom cloud that everyone can SEE and react to in a fairly straightforward way (duck and cover, 2 week shelter in place or immediate bug out to avoid hot fallout...), EMP would be high altitude, and possibly not visible to people (unless they looked up at the right spot).

For hours most people won't know how widespread the event is... hours that if it were 'shrum clouds, WOULD BE SPENT productively in full blown SHTF mode.

"Basically, they get their SHTF fantasy without the need to police up dead bodies to prevent wide scale pestilence."

WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE PEOPLE YOU REFER TO? again with a massive EMP attack (which doesn't necessarily need to be over CONUS... it could be touched off OVER international waters - shot straight up from a SCUD from a medium size cargo ship - check a map, most of the major urban centers are within a couple dozen miles from the coasts...
newsflash: SCUD can't carry a large enough warhead....
Again, whereas ground or near-ground airbursts will kill millions instantly and sicken untold more immediately, it wouldn't wipe out civilization as we know it. Most electronics would be find in the rural and more inland areas... not so with EMP, we would be faced with "policing" the whole fricken East and West Coasts without the benefit of communications or easy transport. Mass starvation.
Only if we were hit by multiple ICBMS, with high-MT warheads... Not some obselete tactical missile launched off some cargo ship, mounting a too small warhead the badguys haven't even been able to make yet (a SCUD compatible nuke warhead isn't something you'll see from a 1st-gen nuclear power - and even Russia's SCUD nukes wern't EMP-attack material), and not frying an empty forest 'cause the ship rolled a bit during launch...
I think the real problem is EMP is the WORST scenario, and as such, you are simply not prepared for it *(neither am I, neither are most of us). So instead of even doing basic things you keep thinking of suit case nukes and truck bombs.

No, instead of looking at what it would really take to create the chaos you are describing, you find any possible way you think it could work... The fact of the matter is that a small liquid-fueled land-based tactical balistic missile (such as FROG or SCUD) is not capable of carrying thw size warhead needed to create such damage, nor is it realistically deployable from a ship at sea (fuel issues, plus the missile needs a solid, perfectly stable launch platform - it is not engineered for marine ops like a SLBM...)

"Make no mistake....there are dozens of posters here who actually want what they would consider a "weeding out" event."

Really? Like who? Between a half dozen ground bursting suitcase nukes or 2 high altitude EMP nukes, chances are far greater that most of us would survive the annihilation of down town cities or ports than we would the sudden and irreversible loss of electronics and electricity for the foreseable future.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 7:18:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2006 7:18:45 AM EST by xinflt]
click -----> Lights Out
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 7:24:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
the EMP fans want it to happen because, as far as TEOTWAWKI goes, it's a lot cooler than an airburst the kills millions.

Basically, they get their SHTF fantasy without the need to police up dead bodies to prevent wide scale pestilence.

Make no mistake....there are dozens of posters here who actually want what they would consider a "weeding out" event.
That's a no-shitter.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 7:31:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By xinflt:
click -----> Lights Out


FICTION...

Like I said... Next, alongside zombies and bigfoot, what if Al Queda gets phasers & photon torpedoes...

Just about as realistic a scenario....
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 7:37:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
"the EMP fans want it to happen because, as far as TEOTWAWKI goes, it's a lot cooler than an airburst the kills millions."

COOLER?! Try WORSE because unlike a mushroom cloud that everyone can SEE and react to in a fairly straightforward way (duck and cover, 2 week shelter in place or immediate bug out to avoid hot fallout...), EMP would be high altitude, and possibly not visible to people (unless they looked up at the right spot).

For hours most people won't know how widespread the event is... hours that if it were 'shrum clouds, WOULD BE SPENT productively in full blown SHTF mode.

"Basically, they get their SHTF fantasy without the need to police up dead bodies to prevent wide scale pestilence."

WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE PEOPLE YOU REFER TO? again with a massive EMP attack (which doesn't necessarily need to be over CONUS... it could be touched off OVER international waters - shot straight up from a SCUD from a medium size cargo ship - check a map, most of the major urban centers are within a couple dozen miles from the coasts...
newsflash: SCUD can't carry a large enough warhead....
Again, whereas ground or near-ground airbursts will kill millions instantly and sicken untold more immediately, it wouldn't wipe out civilization as we know it. Most electronics would be find in the rural and more inland areas... not so with EMP, we would be faced with "policing" the whole fricken East and West Coasts without the benefit of communications or easy transport. Mass starvation.
Only if we were hit by multiple ICBMS, with high-MT warheads... Not some obselete tactical missile launched off some cargo ship, mounting a too small warhead the badguys haven't even been able to make yet (a SCUD compatible nuke warhead isn't something you'll see from a 1st-gen nuclear power - and even Russia's SCUD nukes wern't EMP-attack material), and not frying an empty forest 'cause the ship rolled a bit during launch...
I think the real problem is EMP is the WORST scenario, and as such, you are simply not prepared for it *(neither am I, neither are most of us). So instead of even doing basic things you keep thinking of suit case nukes and truck bombs.

No, instead of looking at what it would really take to create the chaos you are describing, you find any possible way you think it could work... The fact of the matter is that a small liquid-fueled land-based tactical balistic missile (such as FROG or SCUD) is not capable of carrying thw size warhead needed to create such damage, nor is it realistically deployable from a ship at sea (fuel issues, plus the missile needs a solid, perfectly stable launch platform - it is not engineered for marine ops like a SLBM...)

"Make no mistake....there are dozens of posters here who actually want what they would consider a "weeding out" event."

Really? Like who? Between a half dozen ground bursting suitcase nukes or 2 high altitude EMP nukes, chances are far greater that most of us would survive the annihilation of down town cities or ports than we would the sudden and irreversible loss of electronics and electricity for the foreseable future.



Wasn't there a thread here a few weeks ago about how some middle eastern nation (Iran) did succesfully launch a short or mid range ballistic missile from a container ship only a few hundred miles off our coast? The purpose of that was a warning that it can be done. Their ballistic missiles are capable of carrying nukes, and it doesn't have to be that accurate in order to acheive a high altitude EMP effect.



-K
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 8:22:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Wasn't there a thread here a few weeks ago about how some middle eastern nation (Iran) did succesfully launch a short or mid range ballistic missile from a container ship only a few hundred miles off our coast? The purpose of that was a warning that it can be done. Their ballistic missiles are capable of carrying nukes, and it doesn't have to be that accurate in order to acheive a high altitude EMP effect.



-K
AGNTSA

No they did not. It was a hypothetical scenario presented to Congress. It NEVER happened.

Link Posted: 10/20/2006 8:25:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2006 8:32:12 AM EST by bnoji]

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
perhaps a question for the survival forum. you can rent metal containers of various sizes. i've seen em places where people were doing renovations of vacation homes. they rent a container. its delivered on site and big enough to hold lots of stuff. metail with a solid metal locking door. so i wonder if you could take one of these and build a 'faraday' cage by sealing up all leaks and wholes and probably insulating the floor and then putting all your electronic gear in there and sealing it up..


I won't pretend to know everything I should know about it, but someone did a very simple experiment a while back in the SF by putting a cordless phone inside their gunsafe in a metal ammo can. This significantly reduced the power of the phone because the signal could not get through both layers of metal, IIRC.

So, I keep my GPS reciever and a pair of walkie-talkies with batteries in an ammo can in the safe. If the power goes out from EMP, I will still have a few items shielded, hopefully.


This can be a relatively simple project to protect small electronic items from EMP damage... You might try attaching a wire from your safe to a water pipe in order to give it a path to ground. You could also try layering additional conducting layers like a wire mesh inside or outside of the safe.

ETA: How about an old microwave?
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 8:31:47 AM EST
why worry about nukes for emp.

you can make a simple emp weapon that works on misslies they currently have access to

of course the downside is we won't be able to tell they aren't nuclear till they land so you might get nuked for your trouble
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 8:53:53 AM EST
Whoever wrote the Popular Mechanic’s story needs to go back to school.

“The detonations created bursts of gamma rays that, upon striking the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, released a tsunami of electrons that spread for hundreds of miles.”
The electrons did not spread for hundreds of miles.

EMP is produced when the gamma radiation from a nuclear weapon hits the atmosphere. It creates Compton electrons by stripping them off the atoms of the gases in the atmosphere. This leaves two large sets of charged particles free, the electrons stripped from the atoms are of course negatively charged and the atoms are now positively charged. These two sets are attracted to each other and quickly recombine. This charge movement creates a very strong electric and magnetic field pulse that can propagate.
It is EMP.
EMP is not generated as efficiently in the lower atmosphere since the gas density is too high, or in underground explosions. It will not occur in the hard vacuum of space either.
The altitude range to produce a significant pulse is limited.
The Russians have experimented with explosively driven EMP generating equipment with only limited success. Area coverage from a ground device is not very good, and the amount of electric and explosive energy required in a single shot device is very large.

Go to a good library and get a copy of “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons”, Glasstone, Samual and Dolan, Philip J., USDOD & USDOE, 1977.

It has more than you will ever want to know about nuclear weapons effects. A good copy even has a dial nomagraph tool in the back for finding fireball diameter as a function of yield, dose as a function of range and yield, and the ever interesting “translation velocity for man’ ring. How far you will be blown based on yield and range to the event.

EMP will not destroy the electric grid, just disrupt operation.
Most of te long distance communication grid in the US is on fiber now, so only the local loops and facilities will have a real issue.
It is actually relatively simple to protect equipment from EMP effects. Even the steel of a car chassis provides a huge amount of protection to the electronics needed for engine operation. The radio wil probably die. Unprotected RF front ends are easy to damage.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 10:55:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2006 11:06:26 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Wasn't there a thread here a few weeks ago about how some middle eastern nation (Iran) did succesfully launch a short or mid range ballistic missile from a container ship only a few hundred miles off our coast? The purpose of that was a warning that it can be done. Their ballistic missiles are capable of carrying nukes, and it doesn't have to be that accurate in order to acheive a high altitude EMP effect.



-K
AGNTSA

No they did not. It was a hypothetical scenario presented to Congress. It NEVER happened.




The Russian toyed with the concept back in the late 60's, the project was called 'sea scorpion'. They looked at fitting a few SLBM tubes in the cargo hold of freighters to be used for a pre-emptive attack. It came to nothing but there are rumors that the 'Dear Leader; has shown an interest in the concept after buying a bunch of scrap Russian Golf class subs from the Japanese who had forgotten remove the stabilization gear along with the SS-N-6 launch tubes when de-milling them.

ANdy

Linky 1

Linky 2
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 11:01:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By mr0w1:
I wanna build a small scale, hand held, directional EMP gun that I can use to zap peoples POS cars with huge stereos in them that make them sound like they're going to vibrate apart, people's cars who lay on the horn for no reason, and cell phones.


I just want to zap Ipods and VW Jettas - because I hate liberals.



Cell phones...they always forget the cell phones.

I want to zap them all. Including my own.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 11:05:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Ok, I keep seeing this whole deal bout EMP-this and EMP-that...

But for all this worry about who/what could survive an EMP, people seem to miss the actual reality about the subject....

THERE IS NO WAY TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO PULL OFF AN EMP ATTACK.

EVEN IF THEY GET A NUCLEAR WEAPON, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO (A) GET A BIG ENOUGH ONE, AND (B) DETONATE IT HIGH ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A CATESTROPHIC EMP EFFECT FAR OUTSIDE THE BLAST RADIUS....

IN FACT, FOR MOST VIABLE TERROR-NUKE SCENARIOS, THERE WOULD BE NO ESCAPING EMP AT ALL...

But of course, we all need to be 'ready'...

A note: Yes, the RUSSIANS do have tha ability to do some EMP damage with a MISSILE DELIVERED large weapon... But last I checked, we weren't worried bout Russia nuking us any time soon...



As long as there is a "Former Soviet Union" the tools are out there for it to happen.

Oh wait, teh goobermint will protect us!!!
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 11:08:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Ok, I keep seeing this whole deal bout EMP-this and EMP-that...

But for all this worry about who/what could survive an EMP, people seem to miss the actual reality about the subject....

THERE IS NO WAY TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO PULL OFF AN EMP ATTACK.

EVEN IF THEY GET A NUCLEAR WEAPON, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO (A) GET A BIG ENOUGH ONE, AND (B) DETONATE IT HIGH ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A CATESTROPHIC EMP EFFECT FAR OUTSIDE THE BLAST RADIUS....

IN FACT, FOR MOST VIABLE TERROR-NUKE SCENARIOS, THERE WOULD BE NO ESCAPING EMP AT ALL...

But of course, we all need to be 'ready'...

A note: Yes, the RUSSIANS do have tha ability to do some EMP damage with a MISSILE DELIVERED large weapon... But last I checked, we weren't worried bout Russia nuking us any time soon...



As long as there is a "Former Soviet Union" the tools are out there for it to happen.

Oh wait, teh goobermint will protect us!!!
Actually, the knowledge is out there, not the tools. The dirty little secret about Russian nukes is they are maintenance intensive. They don't have the money to maintain all of them. That's why they got rid of a significant portion of their arsenal, too expensive. The ones they kept may or may not be in serviceable condition.
Link Posted: 10/20/2006 11:15:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By nationwide:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
not the tools. The dirty little secret about Russian nukes is they are maintenance intensive. They don't have the money to maintain all of them. That's why they got rid of a significant portion of their arsenal, too expensive. The ones they kept may or may not be in serviceable condition.



Some 'Mil commentators have postulated that Kim Jong Illests 'test' may have been a nuke that 'fell off the back of a lorry' in the former Soviet Union and was a dud due to the very high maintenance requirements of the Ruskie nukes.

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/21/2006 3:49:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Wasn't there a thread here a few weeks ago about how some middle eastern nation (Iran) did succesfully launch a short or mid range ballistic missile from a container ship only a few hundred miles off our coast? The purpose of that was a warning that it can be done. Their ballistic missiles are capable of carrying nukes, and it doesn't have to be that accurate in order to acheive a high altitude EMP effect.



-K
AGNTSA

No they did not. It was a hypothetical scenario presented to Congress. It NEVER happened.




The Russian toyed with the concept back in the late 60's, the project was called 'sea scorpion'. They looked at fitting a few SLBM tubes in the cargo hold of freighters to be used for a pre-emptive attack. It came to nothing but there are rumors that the 'Dear Leader; has shown an interest in the concept after buying a bunch of scrap Russian Golf class subs from the Japanese who had forgotten remove the stabilization gear along with the SS-N-6 launch tubes when de-milling them.

ANdy

Linky 1

Linky 2


And there is a big difference between SLBM tubes & purpose-built SLBMs (designed for sea launch) and 'regular' land based ballistic missiles... The sort of short range tactical missiles (ala SCUD) that the terrorists WOULD have access to (but have never used) have enough trouble getting near target ON LAND...

And while you may say 'allmost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons', the sort of 'allmost' we are talking about is bigger than the warhead such a missile would be carrying...

Link Posted: 10/21/2006 3:50:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2006 3:53:13 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Dino:
why worry about nukes for emp.

you can make a simple emp weapon that works on misslies they currently have access to

of course the downside is we won't be able to tell they aren't nuclear till they land so you might get nuked for your trouble


If it's so simple, how come the Russians tried and gave it up (see above), and our own services are using static charged carbon-flakes instead of this 'simple' EMP bomb?

And unless the terrorists somehow get access to a full-on ICBM, they can't deliver the damn thing (even if they could build it) anyway....
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top