Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Frightening subject.

  1. #1 Frightening subject. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    I have one statement. "enhanced" EMP thermonuclear weapons. How stupid are we for ignoring this threat to the world as we know it? There are 3 countries that are known to have this capability, and the thouroughly disturbing problem? If you can build a nuclear warhead, all you need to build an enhanced EMP weapon, is honestly the knowledge. That last statement scares me so badly that I now know that if a single terrorist gets a hold on that bomb, we have no ability to stop it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    What exactly is this EMP enhanced nuke?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    81
    Scarier still are cobalt bombs, made specifically for radioactivity and fallout, and nuclear holocausts in general. But I suppose blackouts nationwide would make for a better horror movie, indeed. Lead-casing things seems to help, however, and Gauss's law has something to do with this kind of thing.
    Nuclear weapons in general are frightening. I have not heard of that kind of nuclear weapon, but it seems the range of a single regular bomb in space could cause trouble all over the entire US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 in reply to question 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    An enhanced EMP nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude to create a massive Electro-Magnetic pulse (EMP). the truly terrifying part is that regular ruggedizing does not fully stop damage. the effects of a regular nuclear missile detonated at high altitudes is in the vicinity of 1/10 of the effect described in several designs. yes i said designs. which means that regular ruggedizing barely slows it. basically the bomb separates electrons from atoms in the upper atmosphere. this normally would not be a problem if you were being nuked, and in about 1/10 of a second anything close enough to feel the effects of the small EMP it does produce is already vaporized, melted, or if all else fails, blown away from the detonation point faster than the speed of sound. however, the next generation of bombs are aimed at making significantly smaller explosions, but far more vast EMP's. and in a vacuum like space, with no magnetic fields, the particles would just dissipate. however, for a brief fraction of a second, these electrons interact with our magnetic field making them go at a right angle to the geomagnetic field, which produces the actual pulse. otherwise the electrons aren't really dangerous. a normal (and i say normal, though we haven't even come close to detonating enough of these to know) EMP would, at a guessed altitude over earth of 36,000 Km, cover maybe 5 or 6 states, with this new weapon, you might cover the entire united states, if not part of europe and asia. lead coating would help, however the amount you would need to even slow the current reduction in your circuits is so much it wouldn't be worth it. radiation is a painful way to die, but i guarantee that not knowing when or if you will die is worse. and radiation dissipates, and life can go back to a semblance of normality. not with these weapons, any car, radio, power transformer, computer, phone, appliance, TV that was running, would no longer work. knowledge is power, without it, what does that make you? powerless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron
    Scarier still are cobalt bombs, made specifically for radioactivity and fallout, and nuclear holocausts in general. But I suppose blackouts nationwide would make for a better horror movie, indeed. Lead-casing things seems to help, however, and Gauss's law has something to do with this kind of thing.
    Nuclear weapons in general are frightening. I have not heard of that kind of nuclear weapon, but it seems the range of a single regular bomb in space could cause trouble all over the entire US.
    the bombs aren't in space, if they were, it might wipe the entire power grid out. i mean every single thing on earth. good sir, search enhanced-EMP nuclear Weapons on google.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    the bombs aren't in space, if they were, it might wipe the entire power grid out. i mean every single thing on earth. good sir, search enhanced-EMP nuclear Weapons on google.
    Doubtful our grid isn't connected at the national level.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    Quote Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron
    Scarier still are cobalt bombs, made specifically for radioactivity and fallout, and nuclear holocausts in general. But I suppose blackouts nationwide would make for a better horror movie, indeed. Lead-casing things seems to help, however, and Gauss's law has something to do with this kind of thing.
    Nuclear weapons in general are frightening. I have not heard of that kind of nuclear weapon, but it seems the range of a single regular bomb in space could cause trouble all over the entire US.
    the bombs aren't in space, if they were, it might wipe the entire power grid out. i mean every single thing on earth. good sir, search enhanced-EMP nuclear Weapons on google.
    Why on Earth would you believe Google ? Real EMP data is fairly highly classified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 reply again XD 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    yes, it is, but seeing as how only the actual data received from the use of-not the creation of- these weapons is classified, there are several documents that go deeply into detail as to why these are far more devastating the the U.S. commission for EMP safety or whatever their name is says it is. what was the last time they downplayed these things? i am thinking pearl harbor, and that didn't turn out so well for us, now did it? you can search google for Enhanced EMP thermonuclear weapons on google, and there are links to a few reports done by a man from the commission. if the government agency says its bad, assume it is worse. it is only simple logic, keep the warning level subtle, and people don't panic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    the bombs aren't in space, if they were, it might wipe the entire power grid out. i mean every single thing on earth. good sir, search enhanced-EMP nuclear Weapons on google.
    Doubtful our grid isn't connected at the national level.


    i wouldn't doubt it. but the chances of the EMP affecting things on the opposite side of the world are rather dim. however, if this EMP does reach even the edges of europe and/or asia, it means either a long power outage, or a damage that is permanent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: reply again XD 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    yes, it is, but seeing as how only the actual data received from the use of-not the creation of- these weapons is classified, there are several documents that go deeply into detail as to why these are far more devastating the the U.S. commission for EMP safety or whatever their name is says it is. what was the last time they downplayed these things? i am thinking pearl harbor, and that didn't turn out so well for us, now did it? you can search google for Enhanced EMP thermonuclear weapons on google, and there are links to a few reports done by a man from the commission. if the government agency says its bad, assume it is worse. it is only simple logic, keep the warning level subtle, and people don't panic.
    Data for creation of nuclear weapons is usually classified Secret-CNWDI or above.

    Data related to response of weapons to a nuclear environment is usually classified Secret-Restricted Data or above.

    Have you ever participated in instrumented, full-scale, threat-level EMP tests ? I have.

    The major vulnerability to EMP comes from failure to recognize a threat and doing nothing. Once a threat is recognized, effective protective measures are available, and not difficult to implement.

    The most critical infrastructure system vulnerabilities can be reduced below those levels that invite attack or cause a national catastrophe."-- Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

    http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf

    An EMP attack might be devastating to those to whom I-phone access to their Twitter account is essential. That might not be so bad in the larger scheme of things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 ... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    again with the comparison to currently used weapons, please read this publication: http://www.nipp.org/Publication/Down...November07.pdf downplaying this event to a minor inconvenience is not accurate. without these enhancements in the first place it is devastating anyway, because anyone in a position of power refuses to see the issue. i knew you were credible in this subject the first time you posted. your indignation said you knew more than you let on. as for this data, id assume this classification is only for the United States' data. we are powerful, but not powerful enough to cover all data. look at other obviously capable countries: russia, most likely china, a good chance for Iran, perhaps a couple others. and now acting completely on assumption, if you HAVE participated in an EMP test, you would have to have heavily ruggedized equipment, probably if this was most likely nuclear, some form of blast protection, and a way to record gamma radiation,if not more for other items of interest for this test. if you created a FULL-scale EMP test, in the sense that i am talking about here, you would potentially cause damage to infrastructure across several states, if not more.
    some people say the best weapon is one you never have to fire, i respectfully disagree. the most powerful weapon is the one you only have to fire once. thats how dad did it. thats how america did it, and its worked out pretty well so far. -Tony Stark, Iron man
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    Quote Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron
    Scarier still are cobalt bombs, made specifically for radioactivity and fallout, and nuclear holocausts in general. But I suppose blackouts nationwide would make for a better horror movie, indeed. Lead-casing things seems to help, however, and Gauss's law has something to do with this kind of thing.
    Nuclear weapons in general are frightening. I have not heard of that kind of nuclear weapon, but it seems the range of a single regular bomb in space could cause trouble all over the entire US.
    the bombs aren't in space, if they were, it might wipe the entire power grid out. i mean every single thing on earth. good sir, search enhanced-EMP nuclear Weapons on google.
    Why on Earth would you believe Google ? Real EMP data is fairly highly classified.
    Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. What's the point in building a really destructive bomb that is intended as a deterrent and then not telling anyone what it is capable of? I would think that would be the one thing we really wouldn't want to classify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Why on Earth would you believe Google ? Real EMP data is fairly highly classified.
    Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. What's the point in building a really destructive bomb that is intended as a deterrent and then not telling anyone what it is capable of? I would think that would be the one thing we really wouldn't want to classify.
    1. The purpose of nukes is not necessarily EMP.
    2. The EMP characteristics of a nuke tell you a lot about the nuke.
    3. Most EMP specs deal with EMP as a threat to our systems and telling the other guy specifically what you can withstand is not a good idea.
    4. It is pretty easy to build protection against HEMP. Probably a lot easier than you think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 hmm. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    please explain how it is easy to protect against it? if a "normal" EMP is fired and it causes current reduction at such a high rate, then how, if the bomb is designed to create the same effect x4 at least, it is easy?
    some people say the best weapon is one you never have to fire, i respectfully disagree. the most powerful weapon is the one you only have to fire once. thats how dad did it. thats how america did it, and its worked out pretty well so far. -Tony Stark, Iron man
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    4. It is pretty easy to build protection against HEMP. Probably a lot easier than you think.
    A high yield HEMP weapon would have a very low casualty rate, possibly even zero, but then surrender could be obtained with an offer of Twinkies.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 hmm. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    8
    case in point. there would be no casualties, but there would also be no warning for any further attacks.
    some people say the best weapon is one you never have to fire, i respectfully disagree. the most powerful weapon is the one you only have to fire once. thats how dad did it. thats how america did it, and its worked out pretty well so far. -Tony Stark, Iron man
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    Surrender of the opposition is victory, better than detente.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: hmm. 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    please explain how it is easy to protect against it? if a "normal" EMP is fired and it causes current reduction at such a high rate, then how, if the bomb is designed to create the same effect x4 at least, it is easy?
    A current reduction is not much of a problem at all.

    EMP does not cause a current reduction.

    A EMP is basically a short duration, high field strength, radio wave.

    Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or do you just like to panic ?

    I have stood in the test area when we triggered several full-scale, threat-level EMP pulses. I had forgotten a cheap calculator in my pocket. The calculator was just fine afterward. The system we were testing had some VERY sophisticated electronics on board, and the protective measures were effective.

    Go rent "Scary Movie" .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    A Nuke is an excessive method for generating an EMP. A small local EMP can be generated with scavenged parts from, preferably an old microwave oven, any large TV from the last century, and a car battery.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: hmm. 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Veniteo
    please explain how it is easy to protect against it? if a "normal" EMP is fired and it causes current reduction at such a high rate, then how, if the bomb is designed to create the same effect x4 at least, it is easy?
    Probably easy to protect military resources against.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Why on Earth would you believe Google ? Real EMP data is fairly highly classified.
    Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. What's the point in building a really destructive bomb that is intended as a deterrent and then not telling anyone what it is capable of? I would think that would be the one thing we really wouldn't want to classify.
    1. The purpose of nukes is not necessarily EMP.
    2. The EMP characteristics of a nuke tell you a lot about the nuke.
    3. Most EMP specs deal with EMP as a threat to our systems and telling the other guy specifically what you can withstand is not a good idea.
    4. It is pretty easy to build protection against HEMP. Probably a lot easier than you think.
    When you describe it that way, I can clearly see my mistake. I guess the EMP aspect of a nuclear war is the part you can win/survive. No real deterrent value in that anyway. The "assured" part of mutually assured destruction is lacking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •