EMP

You can bet if anyone launches any sort of shit at the US...especially a nuke...that the country that sent that shit already had dozens if not hundreds of nukes heading towards it with no hope of shooting them all down.

By the time we realized what happened the war would already be over.

It's more of a threat to the people that set it off. Especially if it's performed by detonating a nuke over the U.S. Whatever country that did it is not just getting it's government knocked over like we did to Iraq, they are getting fucking erased.

File: 763ca4d599bfc5d377637f355c5cf626.gif (505KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 500x281px

>>31982736
The United States should do a preemptive nuclear strike on the Sun.

Honestly this is my dream scenario. Knock out all the power generation coast to coast. Would pretty much bring America to it's knees for years.

>>31982854

Mine too. I would love to see all the technoslaves lose their shit.

>>31982736
I understand that, however I was wondering whether or not the grid is actually protected or they have failsafes in place. I've heard that the newer power lines are protected from electromagnetic interference.

>>31982977
Grids are mostly protected. Things like solar flares put out way more energy and are much more common than EMPs. You only ever here about the massive failures and even those are fairly rare.

>>31982699
1) Nuclear EMP is probably overblown as a threat. This is the most hotly debated issue, though.

2) Solar EMP could be a lot worse, but we just don't know, because it's only happened once since the invention of electrical devices, and it was so far off the scale then that we have no idea just how powerful it was.

3) There are other ways to take down the grids. Cyber attack is becoming possible thanks to smart meters and the ridiculous Internet of Things. Physical attack still works, too; shoot up the right transformers at the right substations, or blow them up, or cut the lock, walk in, and pour gas all over the transformers and toss a match--whatever works.

Remember the northeastern blackout a decade ago? A small market blacked out, and the power being sent to it had nowhere else to go, so it overloaded the next higher grid, which tripped the substation breakers and knocked *it* out--operators got behind the curve and couldn't match supply to demand as the problem snowballed. Could they do it today, against an attack designed to physically destroy key equipment?

Finally, the consequences. If a rural grid goes down for a week, people mostly survive. If an urban grid goes down for a week, people start dying. If a regional grid (East/West/Texas) goes down for a month, the casualty rate could approach 90% in some urban areas. If 2 or 3 regional grids go down for a month, it goes over 90% in most urban areas and the rule of law completely breaks down.

So, whatever the odds are, the consequences are pretty serious.

>>31982699

Not a very big one.

As has been stated a thousand times over in this board: the threat if an EMP attack on the United States has been grossly overstated. It would be nearly impossible to do the amount of damage "predicted" with any feasible warhead.

The Earth, specifically the western hemisphere, has already been hit by a solar flare that would make any nuclear weapon look like a firecracker. You could see the Aurora Borealis in parts of northern Texas. The only real damage was the loss of power to most of Quebec, some transformers were blown and power lines melted. However, these happened because many of the lines and transformers were improperly grounded and even places that were grounded happened to be over a large bedrock shield that prevented adequate diffusal of excess electricity into the ground.

Is it possible? Maybe. Will some areas be without power after an EMP attack? Some, yes, but power will be restored in days at most, not weeks or months. Will there be an effect on the military? No, most US military infrastructure has been hardened to EMPs.

If you want to destroy US power grid infrastructure with nukes, your hest bet is to nuke power plants directly. At that point you might as well commit to a direct countervalue or counterforce strike, which means we are back to "conventional" nuclear war, which has been extensively discussed by many well informed people.

>>31983105

>90% in some areas

No, absolutely not. Especially if it is only regional. Even if someone managed to say, turn all of the Texas grid off, the outside aid would compensate to keep the overwhelmingly massive majority of people alive.

>>31982977
The actual transmission wires are the most vulnerable part of the grid, due to their length.

Things like transformers and so on will probably be compromised if they're connected to the grid and in use at the time of the attack.

Iirc, one EMP bomb can, at most, affect about 20-25% of the US grid. That's at an optimal height AGL, etc.

So, figure an EMP attack could hurt the US but not take us out of the equation. It's not going to be that 98% casualties wank fest that the EMP commission came up with.

Recovery will take us years, and we'll lose some percentage of our population in the affected area.

How to prepare? Build up a deep pantry, at least 18 months worth. Build up a deep reference library, of every topic you can possibly imagine. Secure access to a water supply. Know how to treat water. Learn farming and frontier skills. Get to know your neighbors. And so on.

>>31983180

>years to recover

Just like 1989 right? I remember that time. We were in a dark place for a long, long time.

No, recovery would take less than a month definitely, most places would take days.

>>31983193
>years to recover

Depends on the magnitude, location, and type of EMP event. Let's assume a single warhead, at optimum height and location over the Midwest.

The most noteworthy effect would be that thousands of miles of transmission lines would smoke, glow, and collapse. That's the damage that will take time to recover from. You don't rewire the grid for 1/4 of the country in a few months.

There may also be significant fires when the lines go incandescent and drop. depends on local conditions.

Recovery will take a while.

>>31983378
Did you not read the parts about
>several times more powerful than any nuke
and
>most damage was due to improper grounding

Fuckin' amateur hour.

>>31982939

>he says, on 4chan

>>31983378
>The most noteworthy effect would be that thousands of miles of transmission lines would smoke, glow, and collapse. That's the damage that will take time to recover from. You don't rewire the grid for 1/4 of the country in a few months.

That would be an interesting scenario. Consider how much trouble there is building new electrical infrastructure today. I wonder how conflicts over things like permits, funding, labor rules, contracting, etc. would play out in a situation where it has been attacked and has to be repaired/rebuilt as soon as possible. I wonder if it would make a difference whether it was due to a natural event or an attack on the country.

>>31982854
>300 millions of americans with more than 300 millions of guns that are competing for food, water and won't trust their fellows.
> Anarchy because the governement loses all medias and powerplants
> China, Russia and Islamists/Sects taking advantage of this mess

Anon, I have bad news.

>>31982977
Ya know we've been expecting nukes since the 50s right. The wall only came down in 89 ffs

File: images.jpg (11KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 282x179px

>>31982699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_(TV_series)

shitty show that'S kinda related.

>>31983844
>Fuckin' amateur hour.

Do you not understand that natural causes (solar flares, etc.) only produce E3- type EMP energy? Purpose built nuclear devices produce E1, E2, and E3 EMP energy.

Here's a source for you to educate yourself.

http://www.futurescience.com/emp/emp-myths.html