"That you are citing two twenty-year-old documents, the first of which was written by anything but unbiased authors"
Your original post cites many sources that could be less than defensible when you consider how gov't funded research dollars are handed out.
Which premise would get more money for a gov't funded lab:
1. EMP is a disaster waiting to happen
2. EMP is a concern, but it is likely that modern design methods will mitigate it significantly
I'm not impugning the entire premise, just pointing out that your own sources are potentially biased - Defense and gov't labs can hardly be seen as squeaky clean in your "CFO scenario".
It is quite possible that any EMP hardening would amount to making sure that our power and telecommunications infrastructure implements the electrical code with respect to grounding and lightning protection. I concede the point that some may not properly implement their design, even though sufficient grounding/ESD/lightning protection was called for in the design specs. That is worth checking for.
An EMP has nothing over close proximity lightning, and/or ESD - The physics of which have changed little over the past 50 years.
The Ham radio paper is relevant - as anything connected to an antenna will be more apt to absorb the energy from an EMP.
One item of note, the ionization of the atmosphere following a nuclear attack will raise the noise floor of any communications system - those not designed to compensate will be useless for the time that it takes atmospheric ionization to dissipate.
Regarding the power grid, as I have stated before - EMP hardening may require little more than prepositioning an additional inventory of fuses and breakers, and reviewing lightning protection. Procedures for quickly bringing a cold power grid back up in a stable fashion could also be useful (note the recent Northeast US blackout)
The paranoia is real - fueled by hollywood and less-than-impartial gov't and defense types.
Again BS. And EMP is a cascading even in the atmosphere. It does not act like a nearby lightning strike.
RFEngineer …
Your original post cites many sources that could be less than defensible when you consider how gov't funded research dollars are handed out.
It may seem like nit-picking to you, but working in a government-funded lab does not lend itself to the same kind of bias as being a member of a government homeland security team that is charged with the oversight of something extraordinarily important … and then admitting that that ‘extraordinarily important’ entity is not being properly monitored, nor is its potential integrity when under assault being properly addressed.
I worked in the nuclear science industry (in fuel element design/development) back in the seventies, for a company that was under contract to the government. Sure there were people there who would sell their own mother down the river to procure or keep a government grant. But the huge majority of those people (probably ninety-five percent) were what I would now call patriots, and I’d like to think that ratio still holds in such an industry.
While I respect your apparent knowledge of the subject (although would debate some of your solutions), I believe that you are, in some ways, proving my point (and the point of the many respected, unbiased so-called Chicken Littles whom I referenced in the original essay …and still more that have been referenced on this thread by other FReepers).
No matter how you believe our electronics-based control systems, sensors, communication systems, protective systems, computers, etc. would be affected by a high-altitude EMP strike, very few on this thread believe that we are entirely prepared for such an attack, and most agree as to the Clinton administration’s contributions to China’s (and others’) satellite/missile/sub capabilities. The debate, instead, centers on whether the PRC would launch such an attack, our degree of preparedness regarding the consequences, our degree of preparedness regarding an effective response, what would be required to achieve preparedness, and the funds and manpower that would be necessary. I believe that policy changes – some of them controversial (as have been the responses on this thread) and considerable study and expense would have to be borne.
As a result of my own personal research, I believe the PRC has the ability to launch such an attack, but would only use it under very limited circumstances, and I also believe that we are nowhere near sufficiently protected.
I also believe that we have to take first things first. In order to save American lives, and preserve American sovereignty, our first focus regarding EMP must be the hardening of our most sensitive and most necessary systems (or proof of the fact that they are already sufficiently hardened) – namely our communications infrastructure, including satellite and airborne intelligence, navigation and targeting systems.
And our (close) second focus needs to be the expansion of our ballistic missile defenses. The Navy’s AEGIS fleet must have the ability to shoot down any (especially ship-launched) missile capable of generating an EMP strike. And we must already have at our disposal (as opposed to intending to produce) properly hardened equipment and repair parts – especially switching systems, high-voltage transformers, generators and turbines, etc. -- which will be needed to repair systems capable of being damaged by such a strike.
No matter one’s beliefs on the magnitude of the threat, or our capability to withstand it, this is one case in which it cannot hurt to be ‘too prepared’ … and it most definitely will hurt to find ourselves not prepared enough.
Am going to be off-line for the rest of the weekend, but, even though I don’t agree with much of it, thank you for your obviously informed insights and opinions.
~ joanie