No it isn’t. Post 58, when actually read from a NON-alarmist point of view, shows clearly that EMP is not that strong. It had a fraction of the range the alarmist predict, and a fraction of the damage. The evidence overwhelmingly shows the alarmists are liars.
The effects on communications, banking, bonds, other infrastructure and markets could be interesting.
“No it isn’t. Post 58, when actually read from a NON-alarmist point of view, shows clearly that EMP is not that strong. It had a fraction of the range the alarmist predict, and a fraction of the damage. The evidence overwhelmingly shows the alarmists are liars.”
Friend, if you read the document in Post 58, it actually validates what I’ve been telling you. It adds the dimension of an EMP from a SURFACE blast - something you’ve obviously misunderstood to apply to a high-altitude. The Marines paper validates the threat, if you understand what he wrote. I am not an alarmist.
My position is we need to understand what an EMP will do to infrastructure - it will not be zero, and won’t be total - it will be in between.
The strength of an EMP is known, because it has been measured. It is significant and considered “strong” if we want to use your subjective term.
Read Longmire:
Longmire Theoretical Notes # 353 “EMP on Honolulu from the Starfish Event†(March 1985)
“We see that the amplitude of the EMP incident on Honolulu from the Starfish event was considerably smaller than what could be produced over the northern U.S. by more intense gamma fluxes. Therefore, one cannot conclude from what electrical and electronic damage did NOT occur in Honolulu that high-altitude EMP is not a serious threat.â€
Longmire is “the man” on this effect. He figured it out analytically and then measured it in reality.