Look guys, I know this is serious business, but EMPs are not magic wands that cancel out technology and render us powerless.
That's exactly what they do actually.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has204000.000/has204000_0.HTM
But during the course of our early discussions when the Russians were acting very negatively toward America, a senior Russian, who at that time was the Chairman of the International Affairs Committee, the head of the Yabloko faction in Russia, a very dominant political party in Russia, and had been the former Soviet Ambassador to the U.S., Vladimir Lukin, made a statement that Roscoe and I could not believe.
He said, ''You know, you think you can tear people apart as you are doing in Serbia, but we have the ultimate ability to bring you down,'' and he referred to EMP.
So here was a high-level Russian official, someone who had been the ambassador to our country, mentioning the fact of something that we all knew that was a part of Russia's strategic nuclear doctrine that EMP has been, was and is a critical component.
Yes, I have at a number of hearings where it was appropriate to ask our military people how much of their warfighting capability would remain after a robust EMP laydown. Most frequently, the generals and the admirals turn to their staff who is behind them, and then they say, ''Gee, we will get back to you on the record for that.''
My colleague mentioned the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure that testified before us. General Marsh was here, and we asked him about EMP, and he said, ''Well, we did not think there was a very high probability that that was going to happen, and so we did not look at it anymore.''
One of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents who are knowledgeable in this area told me that several years ago he briefed one of the Army Joint Chiefs on the EMP threat, and, after the briefing, the General cussed him out. He said, ''Why did you do that? Why did you have to ruin my day? You know there is nothing I can do about that. Why did you want to make me feel bad?'' That is not the right response to this problem.
Any of you feeling better about the situation now?
Junyo said: Regardless, I doubt the B2s and B52 launched cruise missiles that would be sitting safely in the MidWest would be affected. The problem with screwing with a superpower is the same as a boxer facing a guy with 6 inch longer arms; you've got to deal with his reach. The Norks could disable every single weapon in the theater, and if we were sufficiantly agitated we could have our own nuke on target in 15-20 minutes.
Sure. But listen to what you just said. North Korea (or China versus Taiwan) launches a nuclear weapon OVER a terrority and detonates it. It destroys NO infrastructure, kills directly only those people that rely on electricity to survive (hospital patients, maybe some traffic accidents etc) and adds only a minimal amount of radiation to the planets atmosphere....and in retaliation you are suggesting that we launch a nuke in return. I assume you mean against their population centers...correct me if I'm wrong.
Launching a nuclear weapon against North Korea...when none of our bases, equipment, or other assets have been directly nuked will NOT make any friends in China...and maybe not in Russia...and possibly not in any other nation on the planet. Politically, it might not be possible to attack NK with a massive nuke bombardment because NK had not directly attacked your forces.
The US might feel constrained by political concerns to respond in kind. So we explode a nuke over NK and NK goes dark. What effect would that have on N. Korean forces? They aren't dependent on sophisticated laser range finders, and night vision equipment to the same level we are. Guns and cannons and Katyusha rockets will still work. Our stuff and the South Koreans might not.
Again, taken from the House briefing:
EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences and might result in the defeat of our military forces. EMP has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and, thus, to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well as to our ability to project influence and military power abroad.
The common element that can produce such an impact from EMP is primarily electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Our vulnerability is increasing daily as our use and dependence on electronics continues to grow. The impact of EMP is asymmetric in relation to potential protagonists who are not as dependent as we are on modern electronics.
Axis-of-evil states, such as North Korea and Iran, may also be developing the capability to pose an EMP threat to the United States and may also be unpredictable and difficult to deter.
Certain types of relatively low-yield nuclear weapons can be employed to generate potentially catastrophic EMP effects over wide geographic areas, and designs for variance of such weapons may have been illicitly trafficked for a quarter century.
The recent test was a low yeild device...interesting huh?
But we are prepared right? We had the Russians breathing on our necks for so many years we'd never forget that we might face a nuclear armed adversary, right?
Next view graph, please.
To turn to the military aspects of the EMP threat for a moment, the end of the Cold War relaxed the discipline for achieving EMP survivability within the Department of Defense and gave rise to the perception that an erosion of EMP survivability of military forces was an acceptable risk. Again, Congressman Bartlett cited specific examples of that in his experience.
EMP simulation and test facilities have been mothballed or dismantled, and research concerning EMP phenomena, hardening, design, testing and maintenance has been substantially decreased. However, the emerging threat environment, characterized by a wide spectrum of actors that include near peers, such as Russia, established nuclear powers, rogue nations, subnational groups and terrorist organizations that either now have access to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles or may have such access over the next 15 years have combined to place the risk of EMP attack and adverse consequences to the U.S. to a level that is not acceptable.
The situation of general purpose forces is more complex. Our increasing dependence on advanced electronic systems results in the potential for increased EMP vulnerability of our technologically advanced forces and, if unaddressed, make EMP employment by an adversary an attractive asymmetric option.
General LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that if you talk about the military structure, we started in our deliberations and our actions in response to EMP threats with the strategic forces. I think we went from somewhere around a two or a three, and, over the years, we have built up both the knowledge and the capability so that our strategic forces I would assess somewhere between a seven and a eight.
I think, since that time, since the wall came down, as we got into the acquisition of newer forces and so on, there were some aspects of those newer forces that we continued with some pieces of the hardening programs, and we understood hardening all that well, but the attention given to hardening vis-a-vis other things that we wanted to put in terms of capability aboard those weapons systems, I guess I would say that we moved hardening from the absolutely required item in the development of new weapons systems to a nice-to-have kind of an idea.
You can read more about this at the link provided.
Okay....someone asked me HOW China would physically get to Taiwan without being blown away by the tremendous wealth of Taiwanese defenses. First off, let's take the US out of this fight. That makes it more interesting. If the US was fighting in North Korea, it might be hard to protect Taiwan at the same time...and would we want to? Do we want to make China POed at us while we were fighting on the Korean peninsula?
Maybe I better post this and continue later...I'm pooped.