you have no idea how big of a nuke they can use or how exactly they'll use it, but you still said it would be better to LET IT EXPLODE which would for sure kill everyone so don't risk the "complete distruction of every computer in the city" - you think that won't happen if it goes off?

what specific details do you know about city wide EMP ranges and it's effects?

"just a bomb"

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Morrison]

Originally posted by Morrison
you have no idea how big of a nuke they can use or how exactly they'll use it, but you still said it would be better to LET IT EXPLODE which would for sure kill everyone so don't risk the "complete distruction of every computer in the city" - you think that won't happen if it goes off?

It's going to be a ground explosion, which cuts down the blast radius dramatically. It in turn would cut down the EMP blast.

I admit that the EMP of the nuke would make the point moot, but I was speaking from the POV that this may happen. If there isn't a nuke going off, then there's no reeason to have an EMP blast. I'm worried about going off half-cocked.

Basically, what I was saying was that setting off the EMP and then not having a nuclear blast could be just as bad as having a nuclear blast.

what specific details do you know about city wide EMP ranges and it's effects?

The same amount as you.

word it that way next time instead of implying it would be better to let it go instead of disabling it and suffering electrical issues as opposed to everyone being killed because that's exactly what it sounded like

Originally posted by Morrison
word it that way next time instead of implying it would be better to let it go instead of disabling it and suffering electrical issues as opposed to everyone being killed because that's exactly what it sounded like

By electrical issues, I was alluding to the deaths that result from it, not a lack of TV

I didn't mean a lack of TV either, but you still don't know 100% what would happen in a situation like that

Originally posted by Morrison
I didn't mean a lack of TV either, but you still don't know 100% what would happen in a situation like that

it would cause chaos, that's 100% certainty there

Originally posted by Morrison
I didn't mean a lack of TV either, but you still don't know 100% what would happen in a situation like that

it would cause chaos, that's 100% certainty there

Originally posted by Morrison
I didn't mean a lack of TV either, but you still don't know 100% what would happen in a situation like that

it would cause chaos, that's 100% certainty there

Originally posted by Morrison
I didn't mean a lack of TV either, but you still don't know 100% what would happen in a situation like that

it would cause chaos, that's 100% certainty there

The effects of an EMP can be shielded by a simple Faraday cage. Warships, and many military bases are protected by this. In the event of nuclear war the first strikes would be high altitude nuclear blasts that create an EMP. Without protection a first strike could eliminate our ability to respond.

An EMP wave can be targeted much like a lazer beam. An EMP does not have to cause wide spread eletrical disruption. They have been conducting tests on EMP weaponary for at least 12 years that (I) know of. The very base of an EMP wave is similar to the freqency wave of a cobalt lazer etc they are using some sort of High Band Microwave transmission adjusted to the natural clock speed of most electronics. Essentially you get a very powerful static shock. There are satellites that are capable of repeating an EMP signal already in orbit. A high power transmission source on the ground fires the modulated (safe) signal to the satellite which in turn (tunes) the signal to the damaging Freq Rate for the EMP to be effective as a countrer weapon, then simply bounces the signal to the disired target and bing-o. High power EMP wave with a focal point of about 1 yard radius.

So no city blocks being wiped out, no great loss of electrical sub systems or transit being affected.

Think this is not real ? A great loop hole in the (no weapons in space debate)

IF the satellite is not the generation of the (weapon) then it can not be termed as a (space weapon) but a transitional means of a ground based weapon to cover a larger area. ie Ballistic Missile is a ground based weapon that uses space as a transitional medium to achieve its target. So therefore such an EMP weapon system using Satellites for relaying the signal to the target is also allowed.

Originally posted by robertfenix
An EMP wave can be targeted much like a lazer beam. An EMP does not have to cause wide spread eletrical disruption. They have been conducting tests on EMP weaponary for at least 12 years that (I) know of. The very base of an EMP wave is similar to the freqency wave of a cobalt lazer etc they are using some sort of High Band Microwave transmission adjusted to the natural clock speed of most electronics. Essentially you get a very powerful static shock. There are satellites that are capable of repeating an EMP signal already in orbit. A high power transmission source on the ground fires the modulated (safe) signal to the satellite which in turn (tunes) the signal to the damaging Freq Rate for the EMP to be effective as a countrer weapon, then simply bounces the signal to the disired target and bing-o. High power EMP wave with a focal point of about 1 yard radius.

So no city blocks being wiped out, no great loss of electrical sub systems or transit being affected.

Think this is not real ? A great loop hole in the (no weapons in space debate)

IF the satellite is not the generation of the (weapon) then it can not be termed as a (space weapon) but a transitional means of a ground based weapon to cover a larger area. ie Ballistic Missile is a ground based weapon that uses space as a transitional medium to achieve its target. So therefore such an EMP weapon system using Satellites for relaying the signal to the target is also allowed.

Of course, we would have no idea where the nuke is, so we'd have to zap the entire city

Originally posted by Esoterica

It's not an "electrical problem". It's the complete destruction of every computer in the city. That'll wreak havoc on hospitals, water supply (my biggest concern), communications, etc... We saw what happened with the Northeast Blackout, and that was a simple power grid failure. An EMP would screw up much more than the grid.

i was part of that blackout, in detroit, michigan. we were just about the last to get power back out of everywhere... granted we still had communications (over radio) and hospitals. but we didn't have water, or traffic lights, or phones (for the first two days). the news was reporting no higher rate of deaths or crime. in fact, i think crime in the area actually went down a bit that week... if anything it brought my community a lot closer together.

Originally posted by falcon
There has also been some news dealing with the possiblity of a airline attack again there are several plans that I am aware of that have been talked about in the news over the last 2 years one of them was the possiblty of a airliner being used to crash into a power plant these plans dealt mainly with nuclear power plants.

the reactors were designed to take a nuclear warhead detonating right on top of them, i'm sure they could take an airliner. if anything, the best way to knock out power would be to fly a light plane of sorts into the transformer wires... and that could be done at ANY power plant.

but that's all just my two cents.

Originally posted by alternateheaven

I was just thinking about it, and one of the best defenses against a nuclear weapon could be the very afterefect it produces (EMP). Say a nuclear weapon was discoevered and the timer was counting down, instead of trying to disarm it and possible cause a premature detonation, wouldnt a emp weapon work better to shut down all the electrical circuts of the bomb before it can detonate?

an emp device uses a nuclear blast do from the wave so u would set off bothe nukes causing more destruction