What is the likelihood of an EMP attack?

  • News
  • Thread starter moonman239
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Likelihood
In summary, the chances of someone getting away with an EMP attack are slim to none. The US has taken measures to protect against such an attack, including shielding critical areas and already having EMP protection in many military systems. While a nuclear detonation is not the only way to generate an EMP, it is the only way to generate a large scale one that would disrupt large areas. The risk of an EMP attack is low, but with extremist states like Iran and Pakistan possessing nukes and ICBMs, the possibility is higher. However, it is unlikely that a terrorist would choose an EMP attack over a nuclear attack targeting a large city, as the goal of terrorism is fear and a nuclear attack would create more immediate devastation.
  • #1
moonman239
282
0
I was wondering -- what are the chances of someone getting away with an EMP attack? What measures is the US taking to prevent such an attack?

The way I see it there are three scenarios that are more likely to happen: a) the attacker attempts to fly into the United States, the US sees an airplane that is not authorized to enter US airspace, then either shoots the attacker or uses neutrinos b) the attacker attempts to place the bomb onto an airplane, but the bomb is then found and quarantined by the TSA c) the bombis successfully loaded onto a US airplane, however someone catches the bomb being loaded. That person then calls the police, then the police relay the message to the armed forces.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
moonman239 said:
a) the attacker attempts to fly into the United States, the US sees an airplane that is not authorized to enter US airspace, then either shoots the attacker or uses neutrinos

Uses neutrinos? To do what? Not interact with him/her and the aircraft?
b) the attacker attempts to place the bomb onto an airplane, but the bomb is then found and quarantined by the TSA

c) the bombis successfully loaded onto a US airplane, however someone catches the bomb being loaded. That person then calls the police, then the police relay the message to the armed forces.

Umm, you do realize how you produce a sizeable EMP? It's not simple and you'd be looking at something along the lines of a nuclear detonation - not easy to produce, let alone perform.

Put simply, the chances are slim to none and it's so low you really don't need to do that much to protect against it.

Shielding can be applied to critical areas if necessary, but let's face it, if there's an EMP along the lines you're talking about, I'd be more concerned about what produced it and if that's a threat to me (in other words, where's the nuke gone off).
 
  • #3
While a nuke is not the ONLY way to generate an EMP, it IS the only way to generate a large scale EMP that would disrupt large areas.

My opinion is that the risk of an EMP attack is so low that there is effectively no need to do anything to protect from it. Note that many things in the military already have EMP protection thanks to the arms race with the USSR back in the day.
 
  • #4
You may want to re-evaluate your positions as with Iran getting the ICBMs from China and developing nukes within the next two years, paired with the suicidal nature of radical Muslim beliefs the EMP threat is growing. Just a small nuclear device optimized for gamma emission detonated at 30-300 miles above Kansas would decimate the power grids of most of the USA, detonated over Virginia would remove power from all of the most dense population centers in the USA. Everyone predicates prevention on the other side wanting to live through it, what if they don't?
 
  • #5
As for a terrorist EMP attack:

I hardly believe that any terrorist who gets his hand on a nuclear device of considerable size would skip the chance to incinerate a large city just to cripple the energy supply and most of the consumer electronics in one country.

The point of terrorism is fear. I think the disappearance of a city with millions of inhabitants is way more frightening to the population than living in the fifties again for a couple of months / years.

Plus it's probably MUCH harder for any terrorist to detonate his bomb in the sky and generate a sufficient impulse than loading it into a truck and parking it next to a cities townhall.


So, don't fear EMP terrorism. It's probably rather unlikely. But as for extremist states with nukes such as Iran and (maybe soon) Pakistan - who knows. The possibility there is certainly higher.
 
  • #6
You mean the 1850's? remember. no electricity means no gasoline pumps. No gasoline/diesel pumps means no trucks, no trucks, no food and other supplies. Maybe 50% of the cars not working, no refrigeration. Go turn off the main switch in your house for a week, and live there, then come back and tell me it wouldn't induce terror. it would bring the entire USA to its knees, not just one city.
 
  • #7
clancy688 said:
As for a terrorist EMP attack:

I hardly believe that any terrorist who gets his hand on a nuclear device of considerable size would skip the chance to incinerate a large city just to cripple the energy supply and most of the consumer electronics in one country.

The point of terrorism is fear. I think the disappearance of a city with millions of inhabitants is way more frightening to the population than living in the fifties again for a couple of months / years.

Plus it's probably MUCH harder for any terrorist to detonate his bomb in the sky and generate a sufficient impulse than loading it into a truck and parking it next to a cities townhall. So, don't fear EMP terrorism. It's probably rather unlikely. But as for extremist states with nukes such as Iran and (maybe soon) Pakistan - who knows. The possibility there is certainly higher.

perhaps you haven't been following the news lately. Iran has purchased ICBMs from China. Their other brothers in terror already have the bomb, and probably in a small enough package to fit that Chinese ICBM. You take out one city, let's say Atlanta, you get 7 million dead. We morn, we put up danger signs around the crater and in one year we get on with it. You do an EMP attack and you will get several times that number of dead over the first few months and will reduce the USA to third world status instantly. That status will last several years because we don't manufacture the needed transformers to rebuild the infrastructure here in the USA and they have an 18 month lead time.
 
  • #8
PrepperMike said:
You do an EMP attack and you will get several times that number of dead over the first few months and will reduce the USA to third world status instantly.

But you need an EMP covering the whole country, not just one area, to achieve that.

So you shouldn't compare it with nuking just one city. It's more like nuking every large city in the country.
 
  • #9
Put a nuke on an ICBM and loft it to 300 miles high you got the whole USA in your sites for an EMP

detailed EMP article
 
  • #10
Don't forget that that we can destroy a missile headed towards the US. Also, where would they deploy this missile from? Surely you are not suggesting that they can fire a missile from Iran and have it land in the middle of the US? It can't even get close.

Based on reports received by the Green Experts of Iran, the range of the missiles, produced by the Ministry of Defense Industries, has also been boosted and can now travel a distance of 2,000 miles

With a range of 2000 miles, they give Iran the capacity to strike the capitals of Western Europe and can easily reach Moscow.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/31/iran-nuclear-warheads/#ixzz1piKYToF6

Once you know the facts, you realize that there is no threat to the US.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Not if it launches from a freighter right outside the international limit. Or from a container ship, or an oil tanker...
 
  • #12
PrepperMike said:
Not if it launches from a freighter right outside the international limit. Or from a container ship, or an oil tanker...
And the possibility of this is?

I know you are a good person, but you are needlessly scaring yourself by reading improbable scenarios on scare mongering sites.

Perhaps this will ease your mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense#Components
 
Last edited:
  • #13
And you're living in a fantasy world with Unicorns and friendly elves...who would have given odds on terrorists stealing 3 commercial airliners on the same day and then flying them into US buildings?
 
  • #14
PrepperMike said:
And you're living in a fantasy world with Unicorns and friendly elves...who would have given odds on terrorists stealing 3 commercial airliners on the same day and then flying them into US buildings?
No, I understand reality. Read the wiki link in my previous post. Please remember that we have rules here against overly speculative, baseless posts. I'm truly sorry that you needlessly live in fear of such things. I can't tell you what to believe but I will try to point you to the facts so you can decide for yourself.
 
  • #15
During the cold war I read an article in Scientific American that the Soviet Union's best strategy in attacking the US would be have the first missiles explode high in the atmosphere, reducing the warning time for a counter attack, creating an EMP and pinning our missiles down. Successive missiles would explode at lower and lower altitudes.
 
  • #16
A question for anybody. Let me get this straight. The detonation of a nuclear device some kilometers above an area (not that I'm particularly worried about that happening wrt my area, or any area, for that matter, in the foreseeable future) can fry electrical/electronic stuff?
 
  • #17
ThomasT said:
A question for anybody. Let me get this straight. The detonation of a nuclear device some kilometers above an area (not that I'm particularly worried about that happening wrt my area) can fry electrical/electronic stuff?
Well the obvious point is that they can't reach us to begin with.
 
  • #18
skeptic2 said:
During the cold war I read an article in Scientific American that the Soviet Union's best strategy in attacking the US would be have the first missiles explode high in the atmosphere, reducing the warning time for a counter attack, creating an EMP and pinning our missiles down. Successive missiles would explode at lower and lower altitudes.
Please post the sources that say they had the ability, you should know the rules by now.

This is why the US was concerned about Cuba allowing the Soviet Union to build bases there. Distance, distance, distance.
 
  • #19
Baseless?

1. Iran bought ICBMs capable of reaching the US
2. North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else has nukes are if they could get a suicidal country like Iran to take us out, they would
3. Iran is perfecting mobile launch platforms, retro fitting a truck or railroad car based system into a ship is easy
4. Getting a ship to within 50 miles of the US coast is a piece of cake, especially if it is bringing oil.

It really doesn't even have to be accurately guided as long as it reaches an altitude of around 300 miles and is roughly over the USA heartland.

The question asked was how likely an EMP event would be, any answer is speculative in nature.
 
  • #20
skeptic2 said:
During the cold war I read an article in Scientific American that the Soviet Union's best strategy in attacking the US would be have the first missiles explode high in the atmosphere, reducing the warning time for a counter attack, creating an EMP and pinning our missiles down. Successive missiles would explode at lower and lower altitudes.

The missile sites, communication equipment for them, and missiles here in the US are EMP shielded and already have targeting information loaded. Once the first missile is discovered, or even after it detonates, it is as simple as sending out the commands to launch to the crews in the launch facilities.
 
  • #21
PrepperMike said:
Baseless?

1. Iran bought ICBMs capable of reaching the US
2. North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else has nukes are if they could get a suicidal country like Iran to take us out, they would
3. Iran is perfecting mobile launch platforms, retro fitting a truck or railroad car based system into a ship is easy
4. Getting a ship to within 50 miles of the US coast is a piece of cake, especially if it is bringing oil.

It really doesn't even have to be accurately guided as long as it reaches an altitude of around 300 miles and is roughly over the USA heartland.

The question asked was how likely an EMP event would be, any answer is speculative in nature.
You need to post valid sources for your claims before you post again.
 
  • #22
PrepperMike said:
Baseless?

1. Iran bought ICBMs capable of reaching the US

2,000 miles is much to short a range to reach the US. If your claiming that they could launch from a ship just offshore, then there's no point in the discussion, as they could simply smuggle it into the country and blow up and entire city. The fact is that the use of nuclear weapons is a large area of discussion with a great many details to account for. Claiming that someone "could" do something is near meaningless.
2. North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else has nukes are if they could get a suicidal country like Iran to take us out, they would

Unlikely. Much of the world is dependent on the economy of the US. Taking us out, while not catastrophic, would be a severe blow to their economies.
 
  • #23
And if the country that launched the attacks leaders believe that the way to reach heaven is to destroy the USA? What exactly does that capability gain us? You can't defend against someone who is willing to die to destroy you. People keep equating us with them, if their goal in life is to die for their religion then by killing them you are playing into their hands. These are people that teach their kids to play suicide bomber in school and you expect them to react the way we do?
 
  • #24
PrepperMike said:
And you're living in a fantasy world with Unicorns and friendly elves...who would have given odds on terrorists stealing 3 commercial airliners on the same day and then flying them into US buildings?

Considering terrorists have been hijacking airplanes for decades, the odds were pretty good.

Also, one thing you need to realize is that Iran would never nuke the US. Why? The same reason gangs don't run into a police station and try to kill everyone. If they did, their entire world would cease to exist as law enforcement went after every single thing that looked gang related and bring it to jail or kill it.

If a nation nuked the US, that nation would cease to exist within the next few days. Look what happened with 9/11. We lost a few buildings and we respond by taking over an entire country whose government supported the terrorists. Then, just for the heck of it, we invaded Iraq too. If we were nuked, we could probably retaliate by destroying large sections of a continent while the international community goes "yeah, that sounds about right".

It's the same reason North Korea is probably never going to invade South Korea. The consequences would be tremendous.
 
  • #25
Evo said:
Well the obvious point is that they can't reach us to begin with.
Yeah. They'd need a nuclear device, then a way to get it to and detonate it at a certain altitude. And the probability of both of these possibilities seems quite minimal.

My guess would be that if terrorists actually had a nuclear device, and could get it into the US (or build one in the US), then they'd probably just detonate it in some heavily populated, important, area, like NYC or DC. Why would they bother with the EMP thing?

Anyway, what I was wondering about was whether a nuclear detonation, some kilometers above and away from my area, causing no physical damage to my area, could actually fry my computer ... and how that works (the physical mechanism).
 
  • #26
PrepperMike said:
And if the country that launched the attacks leaders believe that the way to reach heaven is to destroy the USA? What exactly does that capability gain us? You can't defend against someone who is willing to die to destroy you. People keep equating us with them, if their goal in life is to die for their religion then by killing them you are playing into their hands. These are people that teach their kids to play suicide bomber in school and you expect them to react the way we do?

Which is why such extreme importance is placed on keeping nuclear weapons from proliferating. The consequences if this were to happen are horrendous.
 
  • #28
PrepperMike said:
Do I really need to prove an oil tanker or container should could house a missile launcher or launchers?

No one is arguing that this can't happen. The argument is over the possibility of it happening, which is very remote currently.
 
  • #29

What is an EMP attack?

An EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack is a deliberate release of high-intensity electromagnetic energy that disrupts or damages electronic devices and infrastructure, leading to widespread power outages and communication failures.

What is the likelihood of an EMP attack?

The likelihood of an EMP attack depends on various factors, including the intent and capability of a potential attacker. While there have been instances of natural EMP events, the chances of a deliberate EMP attack are difficult to determine as it is a relatively new threat and highly dependent on political and military circumstances.

Who would be most affected by an EMP attack?

An EMP attack would have the greatest impact on countries with a high reliance on technology for their critical infrastructure, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. However, the effects could also be felt globally due to the interconnectedness of modern technology.

What are the potential consequences of an EMP attack?

An EMP attack could result in widespread power outages, communication disruptions, and damage to electronic equipment, including vital systems such as transportation, banking, healthcare, and military operations. It could also lead to social and economic chaos, making recovery and rebuilding efforts challenging.

What measures are being taken to prevent an EMP attack?

The government and military are continuously researching and implementing measures to protect critical infrastructure from an EMP attack, such as hardening electronic systems and developing contingency plans. However, it is also vital for individuals and communities to be prepared for such an event by having backup power sources and emergency plans in place.

Similar threads

Replies
62
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
920
Replies
109
Views
53K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
674
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top