Take it up with all of the respected people she has quoted, and the report of the congressional commission.
Awesome research Joanie. Just awesome! Thanks much for the ping!
"If they were, our space bursts in the 50's and 60's would have wiped out Hawaii, and instead they just screwed up AM radio for a few minutes."
Hawaii had tube type electronics in that day. The semiconductor of the last 20 years are 1000 times more susceptable to damage from EMPs.
Those tests were not over Hawaii. They were quite far away from it. Not to say there is not a certain degree of hype regarding EMP. But an EMP laydown consisting of 400 - 500 mile high space bursts, in a grid of about 10 detonations over CONUS would be a complete disaster. Anyone trained in physics (I am) can see this.
First of all, it's not a vanity post. This was a compilation of independent sources -- which you have obviously chosen to arbitrarily discredit without so much as one supporting source of your own -- on the potential dangers of EMP damage to the domestic infrastructure.
BTW, your facts about EMP are not true. If they were, our space bursts in the 50's and 60's would have wiped out Hawaii, and instead they just screwed up AM radio for a few minutes.
So, all the sources cited in the compilation are wrong, while you are right? Have I got it? Guess you must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
As to the 1950's and 1960's nuclear tests in space (there were nine space tests I believe)...the types of components used in those years, both military and civilian, were not as suceptable to EMP damage as the discrete electronic compoinents we have come to abjectly rely on today. That is one reason why the impact back then was much more minimal than what it would be today.
How far out in space were these bursts, and what was the yields of these bursts?