U.S.'S SECRET WEAPON AGAINST IRAQ (electromagnetic pulse bomb)

Newsmax Insider Report ^ | 8/29/02 | Limbacher

[dead]

Last week when President Bush met with the ever proper, suit-clad Donald Rumsfeld in Crawford, Texas, he met with the press and told them that when the time comes, a full discussion will reveal all the facts about Iraq.

President Bush offered a litany of factors that will be fully discussed, including, he said, "new technologies."

The buzz in Washington is that Bush was referring to a new weapon the Pentagon plans to use against Iraq, with devastating effect.

The new weapon is known as an "EMP" or electromagnetic pulse bomb. Such a weapon is not new to military planners.

When a nuclear device is exploded, it emits a powerful EMP that blows transistors and electric circuits for hundreds of miles. A successful EMP will knock out all electrical and communication systems. Even cars and trucks will stop working. Modern life will come to a screeching halt.

Apparently, the U.S. has perfected a weapon that emits a powerful EMP without the nuclear blast.

A Washington insider says such a weapon over Baghdad would likely collapse Saddam's command and control instantly.

"Saddam's Republican Guard won't even be able to use walk talkies," the insider tells NewsMax.com.

[js1138]

One thing is certain. EMP near a city can darken it. That and the CNN uplink the news rode in on.

[killjoy]

You can find most of the details here:

The Electromagnetic Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/kopp/apjemp.html

[stuartcr]

Radiation hardened chips are regularly used in space. Semiconductor manufacturers are very good at making radhard devices.

[Calvin Locke]

Hey! I think I saw this on the SciFi channel. Son of Chameleon, or the like.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

when CNN suddenly goes black

That may be the most useful aspect of the weapon -- it'll knock out all of their cameras poised outside of Baghdad's 7,845 baby milk factories.

[Jake0001]

I could see that. Having to make sure that all of our own aircraft and ground forces are out of range would be a logistic mess unless used during the very first strike.

There were scientists back in the 1940's who were afraid that detonating a nuke in the atmosphere could ignite the atmosphere. Fortunately they were wrong and it didn't happen.....

What if they detonate one of these untested devices and the effect hits a 1000 mile radius instead 100? Something to think about while waiting in line for gasoline at $10 a gallon perhaps? Of course I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time.

[desertcry]

USAF doesn't like EMP..... Well, if we have it, now is the time to gather data, and familiarity with the weapon in actual combat situation. We can always use traditional ordinance, if we find the results unsatisfactory. I may soumd cold, and calculating, but WAR IS HELL, and I remember 9.11 only too well. We should never allow it to happen again.

[Poohbah]

Well, if we have it, now is the time to gather data, and familiarity with the weapon in actual combat situation. We can always use traditional ordinance, if we find the results unsatisfactory.

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear.

In the absence of reliable propagation models that can give targeteers SOME assurance that when they use the gee-whiz EMP bomb, it will actually kill its intended target and NOT create a massive CNN photo-op, the USAF probably won't develop an EMP bomb of any sort.

[DK Zimmerman]

Folks, I would suggest there is WAY too much literature out there now for us to not know almost precisely what we can expect.

Several enlightening urls have been provided, above.

They in turn cite all kinds of references, some dating back to the '60s. We've probably had these weapons in development and /or on the racks for at least 20-30 years.

[DK Zimmerman]

On the other hand, these things DO entail exploding a bomb, which means a pattern of dispersed shards of metal, already traveling at a fair rate of speed.

I.e. Don't stand under one with a VOM meter to check the results.

[DK Zimmerman]

Unless you're Iraqi or need a haircut, really bad.

[desertcry]

on the rack for at least 20-30 years ... Maybe so, but I'm not aware that data on what this weapon can do under actual combat situation exists. Will it truly neutralize the enemy's capacity to conduct war after being hit with EMP ordinance?

[DK Zimmerman]

Well, the unclassified data suggestes that if you aim your bomb right and the equipment in question is not WELL hardened, yes, you'll fry whatever is in the neighborhood (effects footprint, which for these guys is NOT humongous).

My guess is, the stated footprint slightly to greatly underreports the actual. But those employing it will know exactly what they can expect. (We wouldn't design, develop, and deploy a munition without testing it fairly well.) Our pilots and planes are too expensive to toss about with unknown munitions.

[Poohbah]

True enough. But RF propagation is a lot more subject to weird and funky localized effects than blast and shrapnel from a JDAM.

If the weapon doesn't achieve the advertised effects, you've just put another poor guy at risk trying to take down that target.

The USAF likes measured and calibrated effects, but, as you pointed out, there ain't many folks willing to stand nearby with a VOM meter to accomplish that.

[DK Zimmerman]

Agreed, but I would have to think they want to employ these, pretty much as diagrammed, in a final trajectory that is almost vertical. "Ground effects" won't enter into it.

From their construction, they should be able to define a footprint according to height of burst. Anything inside that footprint employed naked or in a tent fries, no question (with or without hardening). Anything employed in an earthen bunker will fry 85% of the time, hardened not hooked up, 60%. Anything in reinforced concrete, top floor, etc, etc.

These numbers would vary according to the status and hardening of the target equipment and the height of the munition when it goes off. Most propagation issues arise from traveling along the ground or through a medium for some distance. This stuff should be pointed straight down and almost point blank.

Only propogation issues I can think of that would be significant is how it might "bounce back" or how far it could have an affect, outside the footprint. Neither of which is as much a targeting consideration as a collateral damage kind of thing. I dismiss bounce back since, if it really is possible, they'll most likely loft it, being safely away before it goes off.

[Rebelbase]

"I guess we'll know they used it when CNN suddenly goes black. ;~))"

And CNN will definately sue the Govt. for reimbursment of its damaged equipment!

[desertcry]

Our pilots, and planes are too expensive.... Yes, but as the saying goes: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It's impossible to know how good a weapon is until it is battle tested. Remember the torpedos used in the early part of WWII, and the early version of the M16 during the Vietnam war? Those weapons also cost a lot of American lives before they were perfected. There is just no cheap way around this issue I'm afraid.

[weikel]

Thanks.

[AFreeBird]

Thanks.... A Faraday shield (I've heard of them) can be made of aluminum mesh I suppose to keep it light. The shield is attached to the ground or something?

Actually, from what I read in "Nuclear War Survival Skills" - Oregon University (I think), which you can find via google search; says that the wire shielding should NOT be grounded as additional pulse radiation will make its way in through ground.

[ezo4]

O gee cant I be in as well. Hey you over there on the internet Pisst...Pisst.... Ya you.....I have a secret...want to here it?