What use is gold in say an EMP strike?

a reply to: audubon

The actual effects of EMPs are exaggerated.

According to this article on EMPs and cars

Automobiles were subjected to EMP environments under both engine turned off and engine turned on conditions. No effects were subsequently observed in those automobiles that were not turned on during EMP exposure. The most serious effect observed on running automobiles was that the motors in three cars stopped at field strengths of approximately 30 kV/m or above. In an actual EMP exposure, these vehicles would glide to a stop and require the driver to restart them. Electronics in the dashboard of one automobile were damaged and required repair. Other effects were relatively minor. Twenty-five automobiles exhibited malfunctions that could be considered only a nuisance (e.g., blinking dashboard lights) and did not require driver intervention to correct. Eight of the 37 cars tested did not exhibit any anomalous response.

I've just remembered something else. One of the tactical uses of nuclear weapons is their EMP. The standard scenario for this is that you detonate a very large nuclear weapon (or more than one) in an airburst over enemy territory in order to disable that enemy. So this in itself tells you that governments recognise that a widespread EMP would be devastatingly disruptive.

So, the USA is brought to a halt by a solar EMP. Suddenly the nation is vulnerable to invasion (or worse) in a way that has been unimaginable throughout history. It's not even clear to me whether the US would still have a useable nuclear arsenal.

I don't mean this in a 'creepy campfire story' - it's just an 'outside context' consideration - but in the space of a few seconds, the US is less powerful than, say, Mexico, or (if the EMP caught South America too) then certainly insignificantly powerful compared to Russia.

It's about this time that you hope the response is an international aid effort rather than an envious neigbour taking advantage of a never-to-be-repeated stroke of luck.

a reply to: audubon
Pretty much the scenario I'm talking about.
* exactly the scenario in the OP I imagined.

a reply to: InceyWincey

Is it worldwide or isn't it?

a reply to: audubon

From the same article linked above:

Even the most massive solar storms are not known to contain the fast E1 component, which is the part of a nuclear EMP that can destroy items that are not connected to extremely long lines.

a reply to: daskakik
The thread is hypothetical, you do know that yeah?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: InceyWincey

Is it worldwide or isn't it?

I already said I imagined worldwide, *pages ago, can't you read?

a reply to: daskakik

Yeah, I covered that whole myth about EMP affecting vehicles a page or two ago (see post made on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:28 PM).

IIRC the myth even popped up in the 1980s disaster movie The Day After, which has whole roads suddenly become traffic jams because cars have magically stopped working. Bit of a research failure, there!

a reply to: InceyWincey

But audubon was talking about a local emp and you said that it was "exactly the scenario in the OP I imagined. Can't be both.

Also, your hypothetical is almost impossible so your conclusions about the use of gold and your projections of the recovery time are worthless.

Sorry if that wasn't the discussion you were hoping for but this is the survival forum and sorting out real threats from pointless hypotheticals is part of that.

a reply to: audubon

A nuclear blast does have the potential to cause trouble for cars but not the solar flare. So the only way the scenario in the op is even possible is with world wide nuclear war. Stocking up on anything would be pointless in that scenario.

a reply to: daskakik

Well, you live and learn. Thanks for that info.

a reply to: InceyWincey

The premise is as much the topic of the thread as your flawed conclusions.

What good is gold in a fake situation? As good or even better than water, food or ammo because the situation is fake.

Getting mad about someone pointing that out doesn't change that fact.

a reply to: daskakik
You are clearly unable to argue something hypothetical as well. Lol.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: InceyWincey
I would bet all my money that everyone who considered that 'pound for pound' question came to the same conclusion.

Not nightbringr.

On-topic, your gold won't buy a can of chicken soup off me if you're starving though, you can # off with it.

I did say that I would carry it if it were of value where I was headed.

I guess considering the whole post is too much to ask for?

Yeah yeah, got me in a trick question, my bad.

Either way this thread is encouraging. If people like you actually believe carting around gold when you are starving instead of food is a good idea, all the power to you.

My chances of survival are getting better all the time if people think like you. I'll gladly trade you pound for pound gold for canned food. When you starve to death a month later and in eating spam, ill grab your gold too to sell it back to another sucker.

a reply to: nightbringr
Lol true!

originally posted by: InceyWincey
a reply to: daskakik
You are clearly unable to argue something hypothetical as well. Lol.

Of course I can but it is still pointless.

I've argued before that gold is useless immediately after a SHTF situation.

You are going further by making up a long lag time to fit your argument. Even if a solar flare did what you say, there is no reason why things would take years to settle down. That isn't a valid argument either. You are begging the question.

In other words you are making up the hypothetical to fit your conclusions. That isn't a debate, argument or discussion.

a reply to: nightbringr

One pound of spam won't last you a month. all things being equal you will starve a day or two after the guy with one less pound of spam.

Nice try though.