Did you even read the article?
It didn't say exploded 'within' the United States, it said exploded 'over' the U.S. at high altitude.
Something the Russians and Chinese could easily accomplish.
And the power loss wouldn't be a month, but possibly a year.
BTW. You needn't worry about using your ATM, because you wouldn't be able to get go it. Unless you WALK!
If any nation launched a nuke over our territory in that fashion it would be an act of nuclear war and we'd retaliate in cold-war fashion. It's absurd to think we'd track a missile, let it blow up, and then not respond to it like any other ICBM attack.
If any nation can explode a nuclear burst over America at a high altitude, my same sentiments regarding understating the obvious still apply here. Or do I need to explain that what is placed aloft still follows physical laws. What's going on here is a justification for nuclear war lite, like some beer commercial. It's not an appropriate retaliation to nuke Pakistan or Iran if they only nuke us in a first strike above 60,000 feet? When does it really count? 40,000 feet?
No folks, hardening ourselves against an EMP nuclear born burst is like claiming wearing a condom does not mean you raped someone. Sorry to be crude........