It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Iranian Situation - Pre-emptive EMP Strike?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Should the Iranian situation turn into something real, rather than the heavy duty Sabre Rattling it currently is, should a pre-emptive strike on Iran be implemented? Now I am not speaking of Troops, or air strikes, not a Nuclear weapon of destruction. What I am speaking of is an EMP device. An EMP device from what I understand would knock out the power grids, as well as most machinery, rendering Iran virtually parylized. All of this without actual destruction to cities, and little to no loss of life.

Several questions come to mind:
1) Is this a viable solution?
2) How accurate is an EMP device - can it be pinpointed - or is it like a shotgun
blast?
3) If this were to be carried out, would Israel go running in, citing some excuse?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Currently, the only weapon able to create a big enough EMP blast is a Nuclear weapon.

So, back to the drawing board



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
wow. this is one of the most rational ideas ive heard! if you think about it, and EMP device would be perfect for this type of situation. as far as i know the EMP is omni-directional (meaning it would have equal impact in all directions...even be able to get any underground bases they may have). the only problem i see with this is that a device strong enough to do the damage we want will littereally destroy EVERY electrical device around. that goes for anything in hospitals and other manditory infastructure, this would most likly send Iran spinning into uncontrollable social panic as well as the complete breakdown of their economy.

also, they will not be able to watch sunday morning cartoons.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Currently, the only weapon able to create a big enough EMP blast is a Nuclear weapon.

So, back to the drawing board


Not necessarily true Britguy.

Non-nuclear EMP Weapons
The United States most likely has EMP weapons in its arsenal, but it's not clear in what form. Much of the United States' EMP research has involved high power microwaves (HPMs). Reporters have widely speculated that they do exist and that such weapons could be used in a war with Iraq.
Most likely, the United States' HPM e-bombs aren't really bombs at all. They're probably more like super powerful microwave ovens that can generate a concentrated beam of microwave energy. One possibility is the HPM device would be mounted to a cruise missile, disrupting ground targets from above.


science.howstuffworks.com...


High-power microwave (HPM) / E-Bomb
High-power microwave (HPM) sources have been under investigation for several years as potential weapons for a variety of combat, sabotage, and terrorist applications. Due to classification restrictions, details of this work are relatively unknown outside the military community and its contractors. A key point to recognize is the insidious nature of HPM. Due to the gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz) involved, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only radio front-ends, but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment. At sufficiently high levels, as discussed, the potential exists for significant damage to devices and circuits. For these reasons, HPM should be of interest to the broad spectrum of EMC practitioners.


www.globalsecurity.org...

While I don't know for sure that these weapons are in our current arsenal, I would not be surprised in the least. Assuming that they are operational and ready to go, doesn't it make sense?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by lombozo]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Whatever happened to live and let live, and to all my blood thirsty christians;


what was commandment numero VI?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
Whatever happened to live and let live, and to all my blood thirsty christians;


what was commandment numero VI?



That's the whole idea behind this thread! Live and let live. EMP doesn't kill, just disrupts anything electrical.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Currently, the only weapon able to create a big enough EMP blast is a Nuclear weapon.


Well, this depends on the definition of “big enough” and if the 1950’s technology research in E-Bombs and Flux Compression Generators (all aside from mounted HPM) were actually dropped as projects by the US, my understanding is they do in fact exist. So, perhaps the drawing board has already been addressed.

I'm all for "shutting down" an adversary rather than inflict massive casualties.

mg



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   


posted by lombozo

Should the Iranian situation turn into something real, rather than heavy duty Sabre Rattling, should a pre-emptive strike on Iran be implemented? [Edited by Don W]



This “pre-emptive” stuff from Bush43 will get us all into more trouble than we can ever bail out of. I would have thought surely we would have learned our lesson in Iraq. We can’t win, we dare not leave. Is not that a genuine quagmire? Iran is in the cat-bird set. Thx. B43. This is your legacy to America Bush43!



I am speaking of is an EMP device. An EMP device from what I understand would knock out the power grids, as well as most machinery, rendering Iran virtually paralyzed.



Over the course of more than 30 years of atmospheric testing of atom bombs of various sizes and at various altitudes, there never was a EMP event reported. I think the same guy who invented EMP is also the same guy who invented WMDs for Bush43. Don't forget the strength of radions is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.



Q. 1) Is this a viable solution?
Q. 2) How accurate is an EMP device - can it be pinpointed - or is it like a shotgun blast?
Q. 3) If this were to be carried out, would Israel go running in, citing some excuse?



1) No.
2) I don’t believe in them. EMPs. I think they are more Sci-Fi.
3) Israel couldn’t “run” into Lebanon. I don’t know how they could “run” into Iran. It's 600 miles from Tel Aviv to Tehran. Iran’s got 65 million people and 400,000 square miles to “run in to.” That sounds like a lot of running. Iraq is less than half that size and population and our 140,000 men can’t “run” out of the Green Zone. Hmm?

Under the Olmert Bush43 Axis of Blunder, the world has seen two "paper" tigers exposed! We had better deal with Iraq before we undertake another bite larger than we can chew.



[edit on 8/25/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Even if you could initiate an EMP large enough to affect the nation of Iran.

Even if you could limit the damage/devastation to within just the borders of Iran.

Even if you could accomplish this feat without using a nuclear burst, which would threaten a large portion of the middle east, friend and foe alike, with radioactive fallout.

Even if the resultant cataclysmic effect such an attack would have upon the "innocent" civilian population of Iran did not turn every one of them into rabid Jihadists against the West.

Even if all these things could be counted upon, you over look two major flaws to your plan:

It is likely that Iran's suposed (and as yet, unproveven to exist) "nukes" are likely shielded under megatons of rock.

And secondly, Iran's modernized military, like that of the West, is most likely hardened against EMP attacks!



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Britguy
Currently, the only weapon able to create a big enough EMP blast is a Nuclear weapon.


Well, this depends on the definition of “big enough” and if the 1950’s technology research in E-Bombs and Flux Compression Generators (all aside from mounted HPM) were actually dropped as projects by the US, my understanding is they do in fact exist. So, perhaps the drawing board has already been addressed.

I'm all for "shutting down" an adversary rather than inflict massive casualties.

mg


I agree with you mg. I am not a fan of "taking out" innocent civilians. I grew up in a very strict military household, and understand the military mindset. I know and understand that the enemy - AND I MEAN MILITARY - is a target for deadly force, unfortunately it is extremely difficult to not have collateral damage to civilians. Yes I know it is aggregious, but unfortunately it is a fact. If a nation could be crippled with little or no loss of life - BEFORE - something horrific could happen doesn't it make sense? Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am not a fan of Israel. Not the Israeli people, (I respect the israeli people), but the self indulgent, whining, me me me, government of Israel is of whom I speak. This being said, I would never want to see Israel "whiped off the map". Let's face it my ATS brethren, there are "crazies" who neighbor Israel who would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction to kill off many innocent civilians if they could. They blow up restaurants, coffee shops, even Mosques for crying out loud to target and kill the most innocent of civilians - including children. 9/11 - there wasn't even 1 military target. OK you might say the Pentagon - arguably it might be considered a military target, however the majority of workers are civilians with security clearance.
The towers (NEVER FORGET) - civilians, who's only crime was to get up and go to work. Not to mention the people on the flights including the children aboard. Terrifying how sick and demented these bastards are.
I for one state again that if it becomes evident that Iran - or anyone else for that matter, is clearly planning a nuke attack on another country, that an EMP device would be a viable alternative. During the chaos, and there would be massive chaos, make no mistake, "situations" could be handled.
Just my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   


posted by lombozo

" . . Let's face it my ATS brethren, there are "crazies" who neighbor Israel who would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction to kill off many innocent civilians if they could. They kill the most innocent of civilians - including children. 9/11 - there wasn't even 1 military target - civilians, whose only crime was to get up and go to work. Not to mention the people on the flights including the children. I for one state again that if it becomes evident that Iran - or anyone else for that matter, is clearly planning a nuke attack on another country, that an EMP device would be a viable alternative. During the chaos, and there would be massive chaos, make no mistake, "situations" could be handled. Just my 2 cents. [Edited by Don W]




In 2006, is there any such animal as an “innocent” person? Oh, I know they are convenient for propagandists, and maybe have other uses too, in insurance claims and such, but in the bottom line of nation-states, is there an “innocent” person?

Even before the current War on Terror which joins our often hyped War on Drugs - still on going - and our War on Poverty - we surrendered in the 1990s making it our shortest - and our War on Crime - started in 1941 but never seriously engaged - all of which were in their time, ballyhooed as the creme de la creme of governmental intervention; there was a real war between 1939-1945 when this question came to the fore.

The answer was given by the London Blitz, the retaliation on Hamburg and Dresden, the “December” surprise at Pearl Harbor for which revenge at 100 to 1, was realized on August 6 and August 9, 1945, in Japan. Currently, we are wringing our hands over Darfur when slaughter is on-going even as I write, which recalls Rwanda and Uganda and etc and etc.

So what’s all this “innocent” stuff? Is it bandied about to justify our other less humane motives? Is it mainly intended to make us “feel good” or to make us mad, or is it just one more popular word like the newest, r o b u s t, introduced by our own president? Like his other new word, “Islamofacist.” More or less meaningless for conveying information, but a good sound bite? Nevertheless.

Today’s child will be tomorrow’s hero or terrorist, depending on the side of the fence you live. So isn’t it cheaper (and less dangerous) to kill him or her in their youth than to wait for them to grow into resourceful people? I know this is Machiavelli at his worst, but it is also happening every day on our planet. Mostly without complaint. So why is one person more “innocent” than another person? Or is it just hyperbole?



[edit on 8/29/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

In 2006, is there any such animal as an “innocent” person? Oh, I know they are convenient for propagandists, and maybe have other uses too, in insurance claims and such, but in the bottom line of nation-states, is there an “innocent” person?

So what’s all this “innocent” stuff? Is it bandied about to justify our other less humane motives? Is it mainly intended to make us “feel good” or to make us mad, or is it just one more popular word like the newest, r o b u s t, introduced by our own president? Like his other new word, “Islamofacist.” More or less meaningless for conveying information, but a good sound bite? Nevertheless.

Today’s child will be tomorrow’s hero or terrorist, depending on the side of the fence you live. So isn’t it cheaper (and less dangerous) to kill him or her in their youth than to wait for them to grow into resourceful people? I know this is Machiavelli at his worst, but it is also happening every day on our planet. Mostly without complaint. So why is one person more “innocent” than another person? Or is it just hyperbole?


Uhhmmmm Oooooooo-K,
The man/woman who wakes up, kisses his family goodbye so that he/she can go off to work every day to make ends meet - Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).

The children who's biggest challenge is if they can make it to the potty before they have an "oops". Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).

The old man/woman, who's biggest treat is the "Bingo game" every Thursday night. Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).

The teens who's only crimes are running up the minutes on their parents cell phones, staying up too late on the computer, playing their music too loud, and maybe smoking the occassional bone (sound like anyone you know?). Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).

The only thing I agree with you on, is the fact that if the parents teach hate to the children, that they will grow up hating. Kill them before they become "resourceful people"? Sorry dude, while I understand where you're coming from and I truly do, I could not disagree with you more.
That actually is a great topic for debate.
Just my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
two major flaws to your plan:

It is likely that Iran's suposed (and as yet, unproveven to exist) "nukes" are likely shielded under megatons of rock.

And secondly, Iran's modernized military, like that of the West, is most likely hardened against EMP attacks!


great point...

If the ultimate outcome is to only take out the nuke factorys, then the end result will be that everything BUT the nuke factories will go out...

SO you tell me...

If you are an Iranian president or religious ruler... sitting around in the dark, and getting bored with watching the dust blow by... not to mention the heat is unbearable without airconditioning... no way to communicate with the country, and no way to alleviate the peoples suffering without electricity (and safe water)

and all you have is some nukes...
What would you do?



[edit on 29-8-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   


posted by LazarusTheLong



posted by Bhadhidar

Two flaws: 1) It is likely that Iran's supposed "nukes" are shielded under megatons of rock. 2) Secondly, Iran's modernized military is likely hardened against EMP attacks! [Edited by Don W]



Great point . . SO you tell me . . If you are Iran’s president or religious ruler . . sitting in the dark, and bored with watching the dust blow by . . not to mention the heat is unbearable without air-conditioning . . no way to communicate with the country and no way to alleviate the peoples suffering without electricity and all you have is some nukes . . What would you do? [Edited by Don W]



A. Nuke Tel Aviv?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite



posted by LazarusTheLong



posted by Bhadhidar

Two flaws: 1) It is likely that Iran's supposed "nukes" are shielded under megatons of rock. 2) Secondly, Iran's modernized military is likely hardened against EMP attacks! [Edited by Don W]



Great point . . SO you tell me . . If you are Iran’s president or religious ruler . . sitting in the dark, and bored with watching the dust blow by . . not to mention the heat is unbearable without air-conditioning . . no way to communicate with the country and no way to alleviate the peoples suffering without electricity and all you have is some nukes . . What would you do? [Edited by Don W]



A. Nuke Tel Aviv?


Actually that is a great point. Now, let's say that the Nukes are under megatons of rock, and are "shielded". Would the electronic guiding systems and or firing mechanisms be affected?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo
The man/woman who wakes up, kisses his family goodbye so that he/she can go off to work every day to make ends meet - Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).


If he goes to work at say an insurance company. (innocent)
If he goes to work at a missile factory (target)
What if he goes to work at an insurance company that owns stock in a missile factory?



The children who's biggest challenge is if they can make it to the potty before they have an "oops". Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).


Innocent even if the government puts a Surface to Air missile site in his backyard or school.



The old man/woman, who's biggest treat is the "Bingo game" every Thursday night. Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).


Unless the Bingo game is a fund raiser for Hezzbollah. (I know I'm reaching here)



The teens who's only crimes are running up the minutes on their parents cell phones, staying up too late on the computer, playing their music too loud, and maybe smoking the occassional bone (sound like anyone you know?). Innocent (As far as a military/terror target goes).


Sure if Junior isn't going to take his Air Jihads and his Semtex vest and blow up a market place or airliner full of people.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The original question posed by donwhite was who is innocent.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
If he goes to work at say an insurance company. (innocent)
If he goes to work at a missile factory (target)
What if he goes to work at an insurance company that owns stock in a missile factory?

Hmmm.......
If the company he works for owns stock in a missile factory? Innocent.



Innocent even if the government puts a Surface to Air missile site in his backyard or school.


Yep, In my eyes, those children are innocent.



Unless the Bingo game is a fund raiser for Hezzbollah. (I know I'm reaching here)








Sure if Junior isn't going to take his Air Jihads and his Semtex vest and blow up a market place or airliner full of people.


That pretty much goes without saying. I personally don't believe in killing many thousands of people who are innocent civilians. Think if it were here on US soil, and a nuke goes off in say New York City, how many innocent people would be killed. How much rage would you experience at it?
Well try and look at it through Irans eyes. They feel the same way. And they are fully aware that the US has the capability to erase them from the globe at a moments notice. The USA doesn't have to enrich, then construct a bomb. She has a plethora of them ready to go. Frankly I pray that none of them ever have to be used.
Just my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Yea. People seem to forget that Iran has NO nukes, and according to CIA reports wont have them for 10 years.

How many nukes does America have? And you guys are afraid of threats? Who would dare threaten you?

What makes more sense is, America creates its own enemies, and attacks on the grounds of self-defense.

Who gave Iran the blueprints for Nuclear Reactors? Bill Clinton, who at the time was President of the United States OOOO.
(takes a step back, cant believe it)

Bill Clinton and CIA gave Iran blueprints for nuclear bombs

Now they claim they are dangerous because they are able to build these reactors. Absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AscendedMaster
Yea. People seem to forget that Iran has NO nukes, and according to CIA reports wont have them for 10 years.

How many nukes does America have? And you guys are afraid of threats? Who would dare threaten you?

What makes more sense is, America creates its own enemies, and attacks on the grounds of self-defense.

Who gave Iran the blueprints for Nuclear Reactors? Bill Clinton, who at the time was President of the United States OOOO.
(takes a step back, cant believe it)

Bill Clinton and CIA gave Iran blueprints for nuclear bombs

Now they claim they are dangerous because they are able to build these reactors. Absolutely ridiculous.


Can't argue with you there. I don't think that America is scared for America however, I think the US government is scared for Israel. If Iran was to actually Nuke sombody, my guess it would be Israel as number 1 on their list.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   


posted by lombozo

Actually that is a great point. Now, let's say that the Nukes are under megatons of rock, and are "shielded". Would the electronic guiding systems and or firing mechanisms be affected? [Edited by Don W]



I know what EMP stands for. Electro-magnetic pulse. It is the consequence of “shaking” a lot of atoms very quickly, very hard! It is visible in photographs of bombs exploding, when the resulting shock wave “jumbles” nearby atoms which are excited into luminescence.

Obviously, an atom bomb will do more of this excitation than any other form of explosive of the same size. If the bomb bursts fairly high in the atmosphere, say 30,000 feet, then the lower density of the air will diminish the corona effect. The second factor to keep in mind is that any form of radiation diminishes according the to inverse square of the distance from the source. A doubling of distance quarters the effect.

I believe the EMP theory is based on the concept the early experimenters in electricity noticed, that moving a conducting wire in a magnetic field produced an electric current, and the contrary, a current in a conductor produced a magnetic field. A battery, a piece of wire and a compass will demonstrate the latter, but to reproduce the former with the same basic equipment, you have to be able to move your arm fast as heck.

So how much or how strong a magnetic field do you need to be able to produce the adverse effects proponents of EMP seem to want? I don’t know. OTOH, one poster averred the Iranian Armed Forces will have “hardened” their equipment. So what is this “hardening” thing, anyway? To put it in its most simplistic terms, it means grounding your wires. Vacuum tube experimenters have done that for 75 years. Many RF - radio frequency - components will have a woven wire cover or shroud around it, connected to ground. Unwanted radio sources (a/k/a static) will be diverted away from the component you are protecting.

In short, I rank EMP to be equal with SDI. Sci-fi in the Pentagon.




[edit on 8/29/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join