Effects of an EMP on our Infrastructure...

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


How about the 22 airliners flying over Texas anytime during the commuting work week that drop?




posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Like the senator that 'dropped the bomb'. Sorry, there is a lot we are not being told. A person is smart, people are dumb.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


How about the fact that a couple dozen planes were flying under a blast that was over 1 megaton and didn't fall? And didn't fall during any of the other tests, including much bigger ones later, before we understood EMP nearly as well as we do today?



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by esdad71
 


How about the fact that a couple dozen planes were flying under a blast that was over 1 megaton and didn't fall? And didn't fall during any of the other tests, including much bigger ones later, before we understood EMP nearly as well as we do today?


I disagree here. Are you talking about Starfish Prime? (Optimus's brother?) Everything I have read tells me that if there is an EMP, non hardened targets are done if in range. Key word range, yield and altitude. I mean, if I can't use a cell phone during take off it tells me that an airliner is not hardened and if high yield blast at optimum altitude.



During nuclear tests in 1962, EMP disruptions were suffered aboard KC-135 photographic aircraft flying 300 km (190 mi) from the 410 kt (1,700 TJ) Bluegill Triple Prime and 410 kt (1,700 TJ) Kingfish detonations (48 and 95 km (30 and 59 mi) burst altitude, respectively)[28] but the vital aircraft electronics were far less sophisticated than today and the aircraft were able to land safely.


After that test, it was also found later I believe that different altitudes would provide different results which lead to them changing their minds that 'they were not that dangerous' to then harden many targets in the US. So I think you may have it backwards thinking it is no big deal, or am I misunderstanding you?

edit on 13-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Cell phones don't cause the harm that they were once thought to. One of the reasons they made you turn them off is that there was a crash in Europe in the early days of cell phones, that the ONLY thing they could find that MIGHT have caused the crash, was someone left a cell phone on. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, nothing from the pilots about a problem, no bad weather, etc. So they decided it was a cell phone, and that reinforced the "Cell phones can cause aircraft problems" thinking. Aircraft aren't hardened to a military level true, but they're capable of withstanding at least some EMP. So you wouldn't have them all fall out of the sky at the same time. You'd lose a few, depending on where they were in relation to the EMP I'm willing to bet, but you aren't going to see them all fall out of the sky at the same time. You also have to remember the safety features built into aircraft in the event of power loss (but that's a whole different thread)

I'm not saying that an EMP is no big deal, and that it won't hurt us, because it will. I am saying that it's not the "Ohs Noes! We're all gonna dies!" that the media, and certain other people (oh look, he has a new book) are making it out to be.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by esdad71
 


I'm not saying that an EMP is no big deal, and that it won't hurt us, because it will. I am saying that it's not the "Ohs Noes! We're all gonna dies!" that the media, and certain other people (oh look, he has a new book) are making it out to be.


Sigh...
People keep overlooking that the "book" guy, is:



has served: on the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States established by the U.S. Congress (2008-2009); as Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter Weapons of Mass Destruction (2005-2009); on the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (also commonly known as the EMP Commission), established by the U.S. Congress (2001-2008); as Professional Staff on the House Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Congress, with portfolios in nuclear strategy, WMD, Russia, China, NATO, the Middle East, intelligence, and terrorism (1995-2001); as an Intelligence Officer with the Central Intelligence Agency responsible for analyzing Soviet and Russian nuclear strategy and operational plans (1985-1995), where he was formally recognized by the agency for his expertise, groundbreaking research, and his outstanding accomplishments during his 10 years of service; and as a Verification Analyst at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency responsible for assessing Soviet compliance with nuclear and strategic forces arms control treaties (1984-1985).

Dr. Pry also played a key role: running hearings in Congress that warned about how terrorists and rogue states could pose an EMP threat, establishing the Congressional EMP Commission, helping the Commission develop plans to protect the United States from EMP, and working closely with senior scientists who first discovered the nuclear EMP phenomenon. Dr. Pry holds two Ph.D.s (in International Relations and U.S. History) and a certificate in nuclear weapons design from the USAF Weapons Laboratory.

www.empactamerica.org...

Dr. Pry is not just some guy with a book.
He has knowledge. Maybe he knows things we should know.
That is why he is quoted everywhere you see in articles and references.

If we are going to "Deny Ignorance", why would we dismiss a significant source of information?

edit on 4/13/13 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/13/13 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/13/13 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueAjah
 


Because a lot of other people that I trust, and that "have knowledge" contradict him. Why should we buy one source over another, just because we like what he says better, and there are multiple others saying differently?



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I haven't seen anything to contradict him, but there could be differing opinions on anything.
He has been correct about many things so far, from what I have seen.

But - people who know things write books. Books are often written by people who know things.
If we start to discount knowledge, just because it comes from a guy who wrote a book, it kind of undermines the entire basis of our knowledge system.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueAjah
 


It's not the book that bothers so many people. It's the fact that at the time of writing this information was considered at BEST sensitive. I've seen books yanked for rewrites because they had paragraphs someone in a gov't agency didn't like, but all this sensitive information gets through?

The other thing is that he's a former CIA analyst, who supposedly knew all this information for years, but didn't say a word. Now suddenly his book is coming out, and needs publicity, and it's "Ohs noes! We're all in grave danger from the secret North Korean EMP!" What, did he suddenly grow a conscience, about the time that his book came out? Where was he for the last few years? Oh yeah, writing his book. Amazing timing that.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join