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
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.
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.