UBLs USA EMP Attack Plans

Sources cannot be confirmed - however, there are claims
that EMP attack plans have been overheard. I think they
are just wishful thinking on the part of the terrorists and
not anything solid, but I'll let ya'll judge for yourselves.
I'd rather pass the info along and have it not materialize
than sit on it and have everyone get hit unaware later.

spacewar.com

Quote

by John C.K. Daly
UPI International Correspondent
Washington (UPI) Jun 22, 2006

A former Pakistani intelligence agent who once worked closely with Osama bin
Laden says that the U.S. may well be attacked with electro-magnetic pulse
bombs. During a June 22 interview with Adnkronos International news agency
Khalid Khawaja said, "The e-bomb shall be the new threat for the USA, not the
nukes or gas attacks."

Khawaja is a retired former member of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or
ISI. After retiring, he went to Afghanistan and fought with bin Laden. Khawaja
said of bin Laden, "Osama is above all this politicking. He is a great man and will
remain great." Khawaja is said to retain close ties with Kashmiri militants and
former Taliban leaders. ~snip~

Khawaja told the news agency that he overheard the reference to the e-bomb in
several conversations among Arab fighters in Afghanistan over the years after the
Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

More info at the site -
spacewar.com




[edit on 6/24/2006 by FlyersFan]

This makes sense..

Would that also disrupt the Internet?

I'm not much worried about the missile HEMP threat from terrorists - IE the high-alt nuke. This is something it'd be hard for large countries to pull off, let alone a terrorist cell. Al Qaeda goes for massive casualties and symbolic targets - if they get a their hands on a nuke it's going to be set off downtown in a major city, not powering some iffy EMP weapon.

On the other hand a conventional HPM-style EMP bomb set off at the right location, say Wall Street near the NYSE, could have a significant impact.

[edit on 6/24/06 by xmotex]

How is EMP more dangerous then a nuke ???

A nuke KILLS everything in the blast radius....it
also destroys all of the equipment and infrastructure
along the way.

And EMP disables all electrical current and burns the
crap out of any electronics device in its radius.

imagine all the pissed off yuppies with sizzled Ipods down on wall street! seriously tho an EMP detonation down on wall street would be catastrophic. Its all electronically run. Billions in damage I would estimate. Federal reserve is not too far away either.


Pie

I'd be more worried about the high-altitude EMP over something like New York. One of those old Soviet nukes airbursting and destroying a city is horrible. Worse yet is the potential destruction caused by destroyign practically all the unshielded electronics in North America. Behold, the power of WIKI!




Only Newfoundland would have power. Well, conceptually. Think about having no more Wall Street, TSE, practically no bussinesses running on the continent. It is, dare I say, nearly apocalyptic.

DE

Although i doubt terrorists will ever have the capability of creating an EMP, an EMP is not to be laughed at.

Imagine the economic pounding a country would take, and then consider the mass panic because of the breakdown in communication and transport.

My worry would be one of those older nuclear weapons from the Soviet Republics being modified for higher yield and used as an atmospheric EMP. A couple of transformers blew in Upstate New York a few years back, and a huge chunk of the united states and Canada lost power. Now, what happens if the power goes out for good? What would an EMP do to nuclear reactors? 'So screwed' wouldn't even begin to cover it.

DE

I really doubt a terrorist organization could pull off a "doomsday scenario" HEMP attack.

Not only would they have to get their hands on a high-yield nuke, but they'd have to get their hands on an ICBM to launch it. Then they'd have to figure out how to program the missile's targeting system. Then they'd have to get accurate & current data on the upper atmospheric conditions over the central US in order to detonate the thing at the proper altitude to get the HEMP effect.

Frankly it would be a lot simpler, and a whole lot more likely to succeed, to simply take the same weapon, deliver it to NYC in a shipping container, and flatten the city.

An e-bomb is not a nuke. It is a conventional explosive contained inside an electromagnetic field. It works by compessing the explosion to a small area in the core of the EM field before blowing out. The physical damage is slight (think mortar shell or pipebomb).

The fear of an e-bomb is nothing new. Sad reality is Popular Mechanics (or was it Popular Science) ran an artical in September 2001 detailing the construction of and the theory behind how it works. Now if you want to be worried, an e-bomb capibily of frying NYC would cost about $500 in materials to build. The article specifically mentions the fear of terrorists using it because of simple and cheap construction.

Got to love freedom of the press for publishing information. But think of this, the article would have had to been written in March or April, the issue printed in late June or early July (magazines are third class bulk mail--I know because that is what I haul in the truck) just so it can be to subscribers before or at the time of release for sale in newstands on September 1, 2001. The sad irony was that it was the cover story of that issue.

I spoke with the editor after 9/11 while he was being interviewed on the Bill Cunningham Show (700 AM WLW Cincinnati,OH) and was cut off shortly after thanking him for leaving out the detail of how to control the compression. He admitted that it was purposefully left out and mentioned vague electronic control which would be the major expense. At this point he asked me if I knew how to make it work. I said yes, I do. Bill asked me what I did for a living. I repiled "Willie (his nickname), I won't say how to do it for obvious reasons of national security but I am going to tell you how serious this is. I am an unarmed hospital security guard (I was at the time) and I could build it although I think it could be built for far less than $500 if you knew what you were doing and had some practice." At this point I was cut off and their 5 second delay cut off with I could build it.

We are talking about different types of weapons. HEMP = a nuke detonated high in the atmosphere to knock out electronics over a wide area. E-Bomb = conventionally powered generating an EMP over a much smaller area. And the effective radii I've seen listed for conventionally driven ebombs max out at a couple of city blocks, not an entire city. Given the right couple of city blocks though, they could still cause a lot of mayhem.

Originally posted by xmotex
I really doubt a terrorist organization could pull off a "doomsday scenario" HEMP attack.

There's miles of difference between 'doubt' and 'possibility'. You wouldn't think that North America has forty or so years of home-grown terrorist attacks on its own soil, but here we are. As hard as it may be, it CAN be done, which should be more than a little terrifying due to the unaccounted for Soviet adn Russian military equipment just kicking around nowadays.

Not only would they have to get their hands on a high-yield nuke, but they'd have to get their hands on an ICBM to launch it.

Don't those usually come in a package, or at least in proximity? Anyways, could not an older nuclear warhead's yield be improved using various methods, such as tritium injection?

Then they'd have to figure out how to program the missile's targeting system. Then they'd have to get accurate & current data on the upper atmospheric conditions over the central US in order to detonate the thing at the proper altitude to get the HEMP effect.

As my external image denotes, the optimal height for a large thermonuclear attack is apparently 500km into the atmosphere, which is technically beyond the Karman Line and thus not atmospheric at all. The only issue would be putting the damn thing into near-orbit. The resulting blast would also obliterate a great deal of satellites, which is not so good. Link

Frankly it would be a lot simpler, and a whole lot more likely to succeed, to simply take the same weapon, deliver it to NYC in a shipping container, and flatten the city.

As destructive as flattening NYC would be, I hardly think it compares to utterly obliterating the electronic infrastructure of the West, including its bussiensses, satellites, and information capacities.

Originally posted by xmotex
We are talking about different types of weapons.

Yep, I was going with the mention of the e-bomb in the qouted article of the OP

HEMP = a nuke detonated high in the atmosphere to knock out electronics over a wide area. E-Bomb = conventionally powered generating an EMP over a much smaller area.

Yes, correct. I knew the difference beforehand, but thanks for clarifing your position.

And the effective radii I've seen listed for conventionally driven ebombs max out at a couple of city blocks, not an entire city. Given the right couple of city blocks though, they could still cause a lot of mayhem.

As with all things size and power are relative. NYC can be without power by striking in other places than NYC directly. The removal of 20 key bridges on the National Interstate System will disrupt the nation far more than vaporising Wall Street could ever do. Stock Exchange can be relocated to Chicago in minutes. Re-routing just Wal-Mart loads alone would be far more cause for concern to the average American person than NYC, LA, Atlanta, Chicago and Miami going dark from an EMP.

I don't want to come off as just belittling you xmotex. I just want you to understand that there are far greater things to worry about and that they are being watched. I can show you 20 bridges that have obvious cameras and posted warnings that they are watched. I travel by them periodically.

Ultimately, there is little to worry about. Things either will or will not happen. If they do happen, we will as whole continue. Things might be harder and people will need more self-reliance than what we have now. But life will go on.