Why Did DoD Just Defund The Congressional EMP Commission?

Yeah, I don't think they should have taken almost twenty years to figure out how to combat this, that kind of stuff would never go in the business world. I hope we didn't pay these people too much or pay their staff too much over that time. I would like to see the total cost and compare it to what they actually got done. I suppose the friends and relatives of congressmen need to make good salaries too in DC

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3daysgone

Are they installed or banked somewhere?

Yeah. They can also deploy able to different regions.

a reply to: Black_Fox

In the One Second After series, there were some hints that the EMP strike against the US is a false flag operation because a Tyrannical Government took over in the aftermath.

Sorry double post

Sorry Triple Post

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yeah, I don't think they should have taken almost twenty years to figure out how to combat this, that kind of stuff would never go in the business world. I hope we didn't pay these people too much or pay their staff too much over that time. I would like to see the total cost and compare it to what they actually got done. I suppose the friends and relatives of congressmen need to make good salaries too in DC

I think they already figured out how to stop it.

Maybe that is why they did away with it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nwtrucker

Commission, not committee.
It was funded by Congress. Not no more, NDAA 2018.

Ah, I see. So I can assume, that if this 'defunding' P.O.'d the right people in Congress they 'could' address this on their own?

Not this year. The NDAA is a done deal for this fiscal year.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yeah, I don't think they should have taken almost twenty years to figure out how to combat this, that kind of stuff would never go in the business world. I hope we didn't pay these people too much or pay their staff too much over that time. I would like to see the total cost and compare it to what they actually got done. I suppose the friends and relatives of congressmen need to make good salaries too in DC

I think they already figured out how to stop it.

Maybe that is why they did away with it.

They probably figured out how to stop it fifteen years ago.

a reply to: rickymouse

HAARP is no longer operational.

a reply to: Phage

And was barely noticed in Hawaii, 900 miles away. They lost some street lights, and a phone trunk. Yeah, that's going to kill 90% of the population.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes. A 1.4 megaton weapon (kinda small, actually), not designed for EMP maximization, had effects at a distance of 800 miles.

The point is, 200-300 miles is the "correct" altitude. Orbital altitude is the "correct" altitude for an EMP attack.

Can North Korea do it? No. Not at this point. Probably. But I too am skeptical about that 90% figure. It would be bad though.

a reply to: Phage

You realize that your quote about 300 miles over Nebraska was most likely taken from a fictional book, right? Bartlett seems to think that it's an incredibly accurate portrayal.

"I read a prepublication copy of a book called One Second After. I hope it does get published; I think the American people need to read it. It was the story of a ballistic missile EMP attack on our country. The weapon was launched from a ship off our shore, and then the ship was sunk so that there were no fingerprints. The weapon was launched about 300 miles high over Nebraska, and it shut down our infrastructure countrywide. The story runs for a year. It is set in the hills of North Carolina. At the end of the year, 90 percent of our population is dead; there are 25,000 people only still alive in New York City. The communities in the hills of North Carolina are more lucky: only 80 percent of their population is dead at the end of a year."

A little more realistically, from someone on the committee,

Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control scholar, wrote in Foreign Policy in 2013, "(the) EMP Commission exposed 37 cars and 18 trucks to EMP effects in a laboratory environment. While EMP advocates claim the results of an EMP attack would be "planes falling from the sky, cars stalling on the roadways, electrical networks failing, food rotting," the actual results were much more modest. Of the 55 vehicles exposed to EMP, six at the highest levels of exposure needed to be restarted. A few more showed "nuisance" damage to electronics, such as blinking dashboard displays."

www.popularmechanics.com...

The problem is that they don't know how big a weapon is needed, or many other factors.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phage

And was barely noticed in Hawaii, 900 miles away. They lost some street lights, and a phone trunk. Yeah, that's going to kill 90% of the population.

Kill the ATMs, credit cards, fueling ability of trucks moving food? Three day food supply in the cities? I don't care how many military units are hardened. There won't be anywhere near enough to maintain order. It could easily get to 90%....fast.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust
You might want to check on our success rate so far. Then you can talk about how safe we are.

Success rate? Have we tried to stop an incoming missile attack before?

The U.S. military launches classified payloads into orbit. Maybe some of them are EMP weapons.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You realize that your quote about 300 miles over Nebraska was most likely taken from a fictional book, right? Bartlett seems to think that it's an incredibly accurate portrayal.

A book based on science. Yes. I do realize that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A little more realistically,

About cars. Not much there about the grid. Here's the report, it's fascinating.

The ultimate result of automobile EMP exposure could be triggered crashes that damage many more vehicles than are damaged by the EMP, the consequent loss of life, and multiple injuries.

But what about the main concern (which isn't cars and trucks)?

Based on the testing and analysis outlined in this chapter, we estimate that a substantial and highly significant fraction of all control and protective systems within the EMP-affected area will experience some type of impact. As the test results were briefed to industry experts at NERC and the Argonne National Laboratory, it became apparent to the Commission that even minor effects noted during the testing could have significant impacts on the processes and equipment being controlled.

Restoration to electrical service of a widely damaged power system is complex. Beginning with a total blackout, it requires adequate communication to match and coordinate a generating plant to a load with an interconnected transmission that normally can be isolated via switching at several substations, so it is not affected by other loads or generation. The simultaneous loss of communication and power system controls and the resulting lack of knowledge about the location of the damage all greatly complicate restoration. There are also a diminishing number of operators who can execute the processes necessary for restoration without the aid of computers and system controls.

www.futurescience.com...

The problem is that they don't know how big a weapon is needed, or many other factors.

So, not a problem then? Did you read that whole report (from 2008)? The thing is, they actually can calculate the effects. The EMP from Starfish Prime was greatly underestimated, they learned quite a lot from that.

a reply to: carewemust

Yes. We've tested our systems more than once.

a reply to: carewemust

That would be a blatant violation of a very important treaty. We know the current administration doesn't care much for treaties, but previous ones placed some importance on them.

a reply to: Phage

Yes it's a book based on science. So is the book I'm listening to now, where they're living on another planet. Based on science doesn't mean 100% accurate.

Yes, it's talking about cars, I wasn't aware that meant that it's unrealistic. I'm well aware that they learned a lot from Starfish Prime. And I'm aware of the 2008 report. If you want to run around screaming the sky is falling you have fun with that. I'm going to be slightly more realistic about it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Based on science doesn't mean 100% accurate.

Based on science means the basic science (when applied) is sound.

I said I'm skeptical about the 90% figure. I said that North Korea is not up to the task.

I also said an EMP attack would be bad. It seems that you don't think so. Why, we could just start our cars up and everything would be fine.


Do you think the EMP commission was superfluous? The recommendations pointless?