Thunderclouds in China ... A Storm is Brewing ...

"I think I will stay off the EPM threads from here out."

Request denied.

;^)

I thought this thread had died a natural death a while back but I'm glad to see that it's been resurrected- and that you are still defending your ground Joanie. Your and Jeff's additional arguments are still very convincing.

" I think those who have an issue with more security requirements in the U. S. are wearing tinfoil hats folded and bent just right using the Constitution as the foil. "

Good way to shut down discussion and marginalize those you don't agree with. Kind of like calling someone a racist or asking them "when did you quit beating your wife?".

Regarding Government Labs:

Government labs are no more or less likely to be completely honest on an application for funding than any other research institution that is funded with taxpayer money.

The scientists and researchers that work there are no more or less patriotic than any other American.

If you ask them "Does this warrant further study?" or "Could this be a problem?" with regard to EMP, the answer will ALWAYS be "Yes".

It is important to gauge their institutional self-interest when looking at what get proposed for research. To say that they do not have biases, just like any other institution, is not being realistic. It doesn't mean their research is tainted or wrong, it means you look at the available funding, prioritize, and fund what you can.

Regarding EMP effects on electronics......I just posted from a source referenced by Radio Astronomer - that standard EMC/EMI design practices mitigate EMP effects against electronics. I agree with that - it follows what I know, and other posters have stated.

Regarding EMP and the power grid.......This is a greater concern. We don't get much practice bringing up the entire grid. It's not an easy thing to do, as shown in the NE grid failure of a couple years ago. This is where most focus/funding should be placed. Don't worry so much about the electronics - follow sound design principles and electronics will be as safe as reasonably achievable.

Regarding Bill Clinton and technology transfers.....we are in violent agreement.

Regarding hardening "critical" infrastructure.....Satellites already operate in the harshest of environments. Nothing more can be done on existing satellites. It's a matter of how much money you want to spend.

Regarding AEGIS capability......Any missile defense will be layered as currently planned. There is no ONE system that will adequately address the threat. AEGIS is a key part.

There is a more tactical reason why you might want to detonate a high-altitude nuke - you may get collateral things like EMP, etc. but that is not the best reason for China to do something like that.

The best reason is that other ionization effects will effectively blind our sensors for a period of hours, making it very difficult for us to track any subsequent launches.

Therefore, any high-altitude nuclear detonation over the US must be considered a nuclear attack on the US and a full nuclear response is thus warranted.

This is a fascinating topic, and I thank you for bringing it up. I am not among the "chicken littles" but I am not a "stone ager" either with regard to EMP damage potential.

Electronics in some ways are more vulnerable to EMP effects (smaller chip geometries, for example) and in other ways are less vulnerable - EMC/EMI has become more of a focus in devices over time. Additionally, as posted by _Jim, ESD hardness is also a significant factor that mitigates EMP effects.

My assessment in a nutshell: Power Grid is widely vulnerable, electronics are not widely vulnerable to a EMP scenario.

I would be happy to debate the numbers and why I reach this conclusion if anyone wishes.

PING good China thread, lots of info...

Therefore, any high-altitude nuclear detonation over the US must be considered a nuclear attack on the US and a full nuclear response is thus warranted.

I would expect any high-altitude EMP nuclear detonation to be followed in short order (minutes) by the largest strike the Chinese could throw at us precisely for that reason. Therefore, any clear ICBM trail (one or two or a few) either origniating from Chinese soil or one of their subs (and you can bet that we know exactly where there current SSBN is and where their other two will be once they are at sea), should be followed by an immediate, overwhelming response on Red China. All critical infrastructure, C&C and military.

Their subs would be at the bottom of the sea well before our missiles stuck home.

In addition, I agree regarding a layered defense. AEGIS will be a good part of that solution, but IMHO, ultimatley we will need a space-based leg, perhaps an airborne leg and a land based leg as well, in addition to the AEGIS capability at sea.

Personally, I do not expect the Red Chinese to confornt us in this manner. It plays to our overwhelming strength and would be so un-Sun Tsu...and ultimately complete devastation for them...unless of course they come up with something themselves to offeset it which I do not see on the near event horizon. I expect rather, that they will play to their numerical superiority (which they are also vastly improving in technical capability) in the litoral waters near their shores for any first test of our strength, resolve, and commitment.

I have written an entire series of five books that explore such a scenario fictionally.

In addition, here's a good bit of factual info I put together in that regard on the current (and rapidly developing) capabnilities of the PLAN:

I think I will stay off the EPM threads from here out.

EPM = embarrassment per mistypes

Wish this forum had an edit feature. And I agree with Jeff Head, your comments are valuable.