Posted: 6/10/2017 4:29:24 PM EDT
| Please delete. Too many conflicting opinions. |
|
Quoted:
The op-ed pointed to a report that said “even a balloon-lofted warhead detonated at 30 kilometers altitude could blackout the Eastern Grid that supports most of the population and generates 75 percent of US electricity.” http://www.skibane.com/HEMP_Radius.GIF Simple matter to launch a balloon off a cargo ship in a harbor and an altimeter fused detonator should be possible for even the North Koreans. Hardest part for them would probably be getting enough helium for the balloon. Merchant shipping is the only realistic way NK could get any sort of weapon, including a nuke rigged for HEMP, to CONUS. NK merchant ships travel between DPRK and Cuba routinely, so they definitely have the ability to put cargo ships into the Atlantic ocean. The power grid on the west coast, particularly in CA is also fairly vulnerable and a strike there would delay the US military units most likely to target North Korea. |
|
Quoted:
What happens if you move the detonation point to right over NYC harbor? Then even at 30 km a burst would easily take out the power grid for the East Coast megalopolis and cause a lot of damage. Simple matter to launch a balloon off a cargo ship in a harbor and an altimeter fused detonator should be possible for even the North Koreans. Hardest part for them would probably be getting enough helium for the balloon. Merchant shipping is the only realistic way NK could get any sort of weapon, including a nuke rigged for HEMP, to CONUS. NK merchant ships travel between DPRK and Cuba routinely, so they definitely have the ability to put cargo ships into the Atlantic ocean. The power grid on the west coast, particularly in CA is also fairly vulnerable and a strike there would delay the US military units most likely to target North Korea. |
|
Quoted:
Our first generation nukes weighed 8-10,000 pounds. Even if the NK nukes are lighter, how big a balloon do you need to loft say 5,000 pounds essentially into space? Can you deploy such a balloon before someone notices? 
|
|
Quoted:
What happens if you move the detonation point to right over NYC harbor? Then even at 30 km a burst would easily take out the power grid for the East Coast megalopolis and cause a lot of damage. The ionosphere doesn't even exist below 80 km or so. |
|
Quoted:
What happens if you move the detonation point to right over NYC harbor? Then even at 30 km a burst would easily take out the power grid for the East Coast megalopolis and cause a lot of damage. Simple matter to launch a balloon off a cargo ship in a harbor and an altimeter fused detonator should be possible for even the North Koreans. Hardest part for them would probably be getting enough helium for the balloon. Merchant shipping is the only realistic way NK could get any sort of weapon, including a nuke rigged for HEMP, to CONUS. NK merchant ships travel between DPRK and Cuba routinely, so they definitely have the ability to put cargo ships into the Atlantic ocean. The power grid on the west coast, particularly in CA is also fairly vulnerable and a strike there would delay the US military units most likely to target North Korea. |
|
IMO, attacking just one part of the US power grid wouldn't make much sense, because
1. Power could be re-routed from other parts of the country, and 2. Replacements for damaged grid equipment could still be trucked in from other unaffected areas. You might see local power outages lasting days - but certainly not widespread outages lasting months. |
|
Quoted:
IMO, attacking just one part of the US power grid wouldn't make much sense, because 1. Power could be re-routed from other parts of the country, and 2. Replacements for damaged grid equipment could still be trucked in from other unaffected areas. You might see local power outages lasting days - but certainly not widespread outages lasting months. 1. Detonate EMP over USA. 2. Watch USA become overburdened and distracted trying to contain a large disaster encompassing multiple states. 3. ???? 4. Profit. |
|
Quoted:
Respectfully disagree. One does not just reroute power, and while replacement equipment could be shipped in from unaffected parts of the U.S., the chaos caused by a loss of power in a region of the country (especially with large metropolitan areas) would strain the resources of all locals, state, and federal governments. People in large numbers are stupid, selfish, and panicky. No TV, cell service, HVAC, or lights for the MONTHS ( 1. Detonate EMP over USA. 2. Watch USA become overburdened and distracted trying to contain a large disaster encompassing multiple states. 3. 4. |
|
Quoted:
IF they could pull something like that off it would be very localized and frankly no worse than any other natural disaster such as a hurricain to the power grid. emp continues to be VASTLY over rated. It really doesn't matter if the attack is localized to a few key substations or is ham handed by means of a high altitude EMP. EMP is a sexy way to express the underlying vulnerability. |
|
Quoted:
IMO, attacking just one part of the US power grid wouldn't make much sense, because 1. Power could be re-routed from other parts of the country, and 2. Replacements for damaged grid equipment could still be trucked in from other unaffected areas. You might see local power outages lasting days - but certainly not widespread outages lasting months. How many replacement transformers you think the US keeps on hand? There's at least hundreds of thousands in NYC. |
|
Quoted:
The fragility of the power grid is well documented and is underrated as a threat. The EMP threat is largely overrated and sensationalized, but the issue of an EMP, or well executed conventional attacks, doing significant damage to one or more of the three largest US power grids is a legitimate concern. It really doesn't matter if the attack is localized to a few key substations or is ham handed by means of a high altitude EMP. EMP is a sexy way to express the underlying vulnerability. |
|
Quoted:
i sit in critical infrastructure briefings every week put on by DHS and FBI and several other federal and private agencies. It's a concern but it's also not as bad as many here want to believe it is. it's also a larger threat in some sectors than others. a complete collapse of the power grid is a VERY small risk for the entire nation. Again JMHO & $.02 
|
|
Quoted:
Working in the public safety/ emergency services field I would tend to agree with the bear slayer. Its something to be mindful about but wouldn't be any worse then a large scale natural disaster. Say half the nation were to be affected by a solar flare, which IMHO is much more likely than a human employed EMP things would be pretty crazy and hectic for a few days, maybe a couple weeks but in most locations people would start to figure things out. Inner city might be an issue, but it could already be considered an issue WITH power! The majority of people are not looking to go full on mad max. Would there be problems? -Sure... Would things go apocalyptic? -Probably not... Again JMHO & $.02 |
|
Quoted:
How do you feed multiple major cities for more than a week if no one has power for a couple hundred miles? |
|
Quoted:
Are conflicting opinions a bad thing? I'd be horrified if everyone agreed with me 100% of the time on things and worried that someone was lying to me. Just my $.02 |
|
Quoted:
won't be much different than in major cities with 30 miles. most of those people don't have transportation anyway so 10 miles might as well be 1000. similar things have happened during majors storms in florida in the past. the world didn't end and communities tended to come together for the most part. it's gonna take more than a month of zero supply and infrastructure to give us mad max. Quoted:
Quoted:
How do you feed multiple major cities for more than a week if no one has power for a couple hundred miles? The sensationalism around EMP is the potential for damage to secondary systems. Depending on how you interpret the EMP Commission report, and how big of a HEMP we're talking about, and a million other factors, this could mean damage to everything connected to the grid (to include telecom) or could be very limited. Some have read into the potential damage to non-connected systems (such as ECU's in automobiles), but I doubt that sort of issue would be widespread beyond the areas closest to the point of detonation. All of this is to say if we take a non-sensationalist view of EMP as being a cause of a local, regional, or widespread grid outage, we still have the potential for it to do some level of damage to other systems. I think it is reasonable to expect that the reaction of the public to a power outage occurring concurrently with some random additional service interruptions and, possibly, widespread damage to devices that were connected to the grid at the time of the event, would be different than the standard reaction to a traditional power outage. How different? Maybe a lot, maybe very little. I will disagree with you on this statement: "it's gonna take more than a month of zero supply and infrastructure to give us mad max." That is absolutely true in some areas, and patently false in others. I absolutely believe that if you crippled critical infrastructure (power distribution and telecom) is more than one major urban center, our means to effectively respond and contain the situation would be strained. An event like that in the southeast would not be such an issue. You could hit the south with an event with a 250 mile radius and we'd come through it, largely because of the limited number of urban centers and wide dispersal of such enclaves. Take the same event, with a 250 mile radius of full effect, and put it over New York City and you've got Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston, and all the less significant cities in New Jersey, CT, and surrounding states. That would be exponentially more difficult. |
|
Quoted:
No but a certain mod thinks they are so it's better to just shut this down to prevent it from getting out of control. 
|
|
Quoted:
No but a certain mod thinks they are so it's better to just shut this down to prevent it from getting out of control. Quoted:
Quoted:
Are conflicting opinions a bad thing? I'd be horrified if everyone agreed with me 100% of the time on things and worried that someone was lying to me. Just my $.02 Ya want an echo chamber? Does the certain unnamed mod want an echo chamber. If so...be like our resident expert expert...and fill your ignore list up. Imho. Unless COC is broke ...let the post flow... |
|
Quoted:
I agree with you on the grounds of a grid outage caused by EMP is still just a grid outage. The sensationalism around EMP is the potential for damage to secondary systems. Depending on how you interpret the EMP Commission report, and how big of a HEMP we're talking about, and a million other factors, this could mean damage to everything connected to the grid (to include telecom) or could be very limited. Some have read into the potential damage to non-connected systems (such as ECU's in automobiles), but I doubt that sort of issue would be widespread beyond the areas closest to the point of detonation. All of this is to say if we take a non-sensationalist view of EMP as being a cause of a local, regional, or widespread grid outage, we still have the potential for it to do some level of damage to other systems. I think it is reasonable to expect that the reaction of the public to a power outage occurring concurrently with some random additional service interruptions and, possibly, widespread damage to devices that were connected to the grid at the time of the event, would be different than the standard reaction to a traditional power outage. How different? Maybe a lot, maybe very little. I will disagree with you on this statement: "it's gonna take more than a month of zero supply and infrastructure to give us mad max." That is absolutely true in some areas, and patently false in others. I absolutely believe that if you crippled critical infrastructure (power distribution and telecom) is more than one major urban center, our means to effectively respond and contain the situation would be strained. An event like that in the southeast would not be such an issue. You could hit the south with an event with a 250 mile radius and we'd come through it, largely because of the limited number of urban centers and wide dispersal of such enclaves. Take the same event, with a 250 mile radius of full effect, and put it over New York City and you've got Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston, and all the less significant cities in New Jersey, CT, and surrounding states. That would be exponentially more difficult. hell we watched people in new orleans nearly die of thirst and exposure because they wouldn't wade across hip deep water to get help on their own. THAT is what most of the "people" that would be causing issues have come to. Roving bands of violent scavengers imho are going to be very limited and frankly no worse than we have seen in localised natural disasters in the past. People tend to pull together in things like this and form their own micro communities for protection and resources. Every natural disaster worldwide has shown that to be the case <in general>. now i can easily see significant long term issues as business and jobs fold from long term outages. but those things can be recovered. getting supplies and building temporary emergency infrastructure for critical needs like food and fuel are planned and resources are identified and stocked in many locations at the federal and state areas for just these types of issues. Yes that will be a bigger challenge in NYC than in Birmingham. This is also why we ALL have a personal responsibility to care for ourselves and at some point people have to realise that or just suffer due to bad choices. whatever happens it WILL suck for anyone in the affected areas. |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only actual experience the world has with an actual EMP event caused by a nuclear explosion is the test from back when around Hawaii. Everything else is all hypothetical and a numbers game correct?
Do we even have any real modern numbers with modern test equipment as to highly likely probability of what would happen or are we going off observations from a decades-old experiment? |
|
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only actual experience the world has with an actual EMP event caused by a nuclear explosion is the test from back when around Hawaii. Everything else is all hypothetical and a numbers game correct? Do we even have any real modern numbers with modern test equipment as to highly likely probability of what would happen or are we going off observations from a decades-old experiment? |
|
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only actual experience the world has with an actual EMP event caused by a nuclear explosion is the test from back when around Hawaii. Everything else is all hypothetical and a numbers game correct? Do we even have any real modern numbers with modern test equipment as to highly likely probability of what would happen or are we going off observations from a decades-old experiment? Akin to the info we have now with the nuke maps and weapon size,blast radius etc.etc. It goes into detail estimated deaths,injuries. In time line format. From drop to xx days out. What stuck..more so than over pressures and estimated rads . Was deaths,I juries due to infrastructure failures. It was twice what the initial blast casualties. Even if EMP takes down basic grid services temporally 3 days,12 days. It's the effects of that. No power..water..sewer.etc. Add in mass hysteria and it can get sporty fast imho. |
|
Quoted:
i agree in part. but i still do not see a complete breakdown on a 2-3 month power and telco outage. Problems in majors areas, absolutely. This is one area the fed declaring martial law and actually rolling in an occupational force for violence in those areas could be a possibility. That said i still see those issue as not as big as people here want to make them. hell we watched people in new orleans nearly die of thirst and exposure because they wouldn't wade across hip deep water to get help on their own. THAT is what most of the "people" that would be causing issues have come to. Roving bands of violent scavengers imho are going to be very limited and frankly no worse than we have seen in localised natural disasters in the past. People tend to pull together in things like this and form their own micro communities for protection and resources. Every natural disaster worldwide has shown that to be the case <in general>. now i can easily see significant long term issues as business and jobs fold from long term outages. but those things can be recovered. getting supplies and building temporary emergency infrastructure for critical needs like food and fuel are planned and resources are identified and stocked in many locations at the federal and state areas for just these types of issues. Yes that will be a bigger challenge in NYC than in Birmingham. This is also why we ALL have a personal responsibility to care for ourselves and at some point people have to realise that or just suffer due to bad choices. whatever happens it WILL suck for anyone in the affected areas. Let's take away the "Oh my!" element of EMP, for the sake of discussion. Can we agree to a scenario that involves catastrophic damage to wired infrastructure (power, cable, teleco sans fiber), and perhaps includes damage to a non-trivial collection of sensitive devices that were connected to said wired infrastructure at the time of the pulse? I'd even allow for a handful of vehicular casualties, namely those in the air closest to the pulse, and the one upside of such a pulse is that electric vehicles that were plugged in are now rendered as impotent as their owners. So let's think this one through - without hyperbole, without Mad Max. A detonation over NYC with a radius of 250 miles that causes a 2 - 3 month (which I think is optimistic, but beyond 30 - 60 days the differences are negligible) outage of the power grid and landline comms, along with some incidental damage to connected electrical devices. I'd also concede that the golden horde will not be considered - let us assume that any significant roving band of marauders will be dealt with by Predator, Reaper, or special forces strikes. Now that we have moved from "Prepper fetish scenario" and "Survivalist novel" to "infrastructure failure and response", we can consider it not as a fantasy role playing for the ultra prepared high speed low drag operator, but for the thousands of linemen and bucket truck drivers needed to unfuck the situation. In this context, and in this very pedestrian scenario of an infrastructure failure, I disagree with you. There are roughly 56.5 million souls within a 250 mile radius of New York City. A failure of the power grid (along with comms, etc) means 56.5 million people without air conditioning. It means thousands of pharmacies no longer benefiting from our just in time supply chain. For the local population, high temperatures and clean water are the challenge. Remember a few years ago when Paris had a head wave of weather of over 80F? I'll cut to the chase. If such an event happened today, in seven days thousands of elderly would be dead due to the heat. Water treatment facilities would be running low on chemicals and fuel for their generators. Pharmacies would already be empty, and you while we can get basic first aid and trauma treatment almost anywhere in the world in under 24 hours, you don't rebuild 1/6th of our pharma supply chain in seven nights. Food supplies would already be depleted in major population centers. By day 14, food is scarce (think about your disaster readiness briefings - we're ready for Katrina v2, we're not ready for 15 - 25 times that population, over 10 times that number of square miles, to become dependent on government aid to survive). Life saving medicine and trauma treatment is available in population centers, but less common maintenance drugs are not. Half of the population that depends on maintenance drugs are now either out of medication or will be out within a few days. The roughly 30% of the population that takes psychiatric medication is now split - half of them are still medicated, half of them are in an uncomfortable situation and unmedicated. By day 30 the cities are burning - not because of angry marauders, but because we no longer have the luxury of water and fire trucks. The water you can find requires boiling to make it potable. Medicine is more valuable than jewels. Food, particularly in the former population centers, is priceless. Due to where the event happened, the rest of the country isn't in great shape either, as it caused severe damaged to our banking system, stock markets, government (Washington, DC was part of the impacted zone), and telecommunications. We do not have the means to provide for the medical needs, potable water needs, and 170 million meals pear day needs of a population of 56.5 million people spread across 196,349 square miles, even if the population were 100% compliant and peaceful and we were using 100% of our staged assets. If you treat it as nothing more than an infrastructure problem, and you assume the people will be helpful and non-violent, we still don't win. A wide spread (impacting >20 million population, give or take) infrastructure problem that can't be fixed within 30 days, will never be fixed. |
|
Undefined is picking an area that is not just population dense, it is "elected goofball" dense as well.
I would expect a whole lot of problems from those who need a lot of temperature sensitive meds or other stuff that is dependant on the world running like it is sort of normal. Just the hospitals not functioning and displacing people who now need to travel further is going to cost some lives. I would expect issues out of figuring out the elected goofball changes, does not matter if the government has a plan the people doing the current protesting and especially those who won't even go vote are going to make life silly for a bit. If I could drive several states away and get back to some sort of normal, I might just do that. My issue becomes a whole lot more serious when it is not a localized event, or there are a few events, and you basically are dealing with today's "easy peazy" life turning into "dang life must have sucked in the old days" becoming a tiny bit of reality. I hate to imagine a time where all the smart phones have no connection. All the people who can't charge their phone daily have a dead phone and it does not matter what they downloaded to their phone. I guess I did wander around, can't really decide how exactly to word my thinking. I think it would be an issue but the problems would come from several directions. Heck, just the newer buildings in new york city are probably made to only function with power, what happens if the power is out for all those sky scrapers? |
|
Quoted:
I've put off replying all day.... this is one reason "we" tend to have plans in place to leave an area that is completely fucked as soon as possible. if your in an affected area with no means of escape it's going to suck. no doubt. if your in poor health it's likely going to be fatal. No different than any other major disaster. while 100% services may not be restored quickly <or in months>, pockets of areas will be restored quickly from a strategic sense to support supply and critical services and infrastructure. those plans ARE made and in most areas in place. it takes a matter of days/weeks to restore critical areas for emergency services. you don't need to restore power to the entire state of NY to provide a flow of resources and fuel. Yes it will 100% suck for anyone in the affected area and yes they likely will be without power and clean water sources long term. Deaths in those areas will honestly be due more to human laziness and stupidity than loss of power. Many will simply die from things like dirty water sources due no clue how prepare it. i am absolutely NOT saying it will not be painful and that there would not be significant loss of life in major population areas if affected. It will not however be a disaster on a national scale. this would still be a regional disaster. |
