What happens if the power goes off?

[Argus]

How hard is it to set off a nuke a few hundred kilometers up? Not so very hard. North Korea could do it. And if that happened it could fry almost all the unprotected electronics over a continent wide area. Everything from computers to cell phones to transformers would have to be repaired or rebuilt. Which could take months - or longer without power. So what are we doing about it? Well... pretty much nothing, as you might expect.

Edit: I spent some time trying to find a legitimate source which would say this was wildly exaggerated and why, but failed.

North America would be under blackout. And it would be a long blackout. Many power transformers and other major devices would need to be rebuilt – which would take a number of months, even years. Emergency generators only have fuel to survive for around 72 hours. And North America only has a food supply to feed people for a couple months.

“We estimated that given the current fact that the grid is unprotected, if something like this were to happen we could lose up to 90% of the population in a year... 9 out of 10 north Americans could die as a consequence.”

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/30/canada-vulnerable-to-major-attack-ex-cia-analyst

Edited January 31, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

How hard is it to set off a nuke a few hundred kilometers up? Not so very hard. North Korea could do it.

I did a little bit of digging too see if this was being exaggerated. It does appear to be a real threat equivalent with solar storms that knocked out the grid in Quebec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm). That said, the experience in 1989 Quebec was limited to Quebec so it is possible that the such an EMP's effects would be more geographically limited than the article suggests.

That said, if an EMP this was so effective at destroying infrastructure without killing people then why wasn't it a weapon of choice during the cold war?

Edited January 31, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

I was reading a little while ago about the possibility of a cascade effect on power distribution from a hacking attack on any one power company in North America. Apparently they are all connected and it wouldn't take much for malicious code to spread. Same timeframe for getting back up to speed, according to the article. Months to years.

[Bonam]

It's fairly easy to shield electronics from EMP. Electromagnetic inteferece (EMI) is a common problem in electronics design and shielding against EMI is a common design criterion, the degree of shielding varies on the intended operating environment of a device and how important the uninterrupted operation of the device is. All you do is encase them in a grounded metal box. Basically, anything inside a metal structure that is connected to earth ground will be fine. Most critical systems are safe (for example, many medical devices have to pass a standard for EMI protection), as are many industrial systems because they are made of metal anyway whether or not it was done with the specific intent of shielding them from high levels of EMI. Most consumer gadgets are not shielded and might get fried, but that's not a death stroke to the nation - personal computers may be vulnerable but most large cloud/server farms where bank/insurance/personal/etc data are stored are in shielded grounded metal racks that should protect them from EMP and are protected from spikes in the power grid by surge protectors.

The grid would likely go down but all the major structural elements (power plants, transformers, transmission lines, etc) would be physically intact and it would just be a matter of repairing a few damaged points (grids are designed so that there are known weak spots, i.e. a part that is designed to break first and by breaking protect the rest of the system, like a fuse on a much larger scale) and restarting the thing.

Aircraft should be largely unaffected except in very close proximity to the detonation - they are designed to take direct hits from lightning which can be millions of volts, and also generates a lot of EMI.

The 90% death rate in a year from a single EMP strike is unsubstantiated fearmongering.

[TimG]

I was reading a little while ago about the possibility of a cascade effect on power distribution from a hacking attack on any one power company in North America. Apparently they are all connected and it wouldn't take much for malicious code to spread. Same timeframe for getting back up to speed, according to the article. Months to years.

The 2003 east coast blackout was an example of the cascade effect caused by operator failure in one utility. The same effect could, in theory, triggered by a hack. That said, the utilities have been working to isolate their systems from that kind of event so I would expect the effects of such an attack to be more geographically limited today. Edited January 31, 2016 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

90% of the population seems a little on the high side, and more along the lines of the aftermath 1 year+ nuclear exchange with the Soviets.

Furthermore, vehicles with carburetors, minus electronic ignitions (~early 70s and older or some newer diesels), or gas powered gen sets or tools (with pull starts) would also still function.....as it mentions though, fuel sources would be the major concerns, but then there will roads full of cars parked forever more...anything electronic will be toast, not that they can't be repaired, but parts would be seized by government to return transport trucks and trains to service etc...

In essence, it would be a return to the 1800s, and anyone that survives the first ~month, would have the same expected lifespan (or better) as those 120 years ago.

Could it happen? You bet. Would it alter the world forever? Likely, and not just the worldwide economic collapse that would following, but the nuclear counter strike(s) launched by the Americans onto anyone they think could be involved.

[Derek 2.0]

That said, if an EMP this was so effective at destroying infrastructure without killing people then why wasn't it a weapon of choice during the cold war?

It was (see FOBS), by all sides, but would be followed up by a nuclear strike against key military, government and industrial targets.

[Derek 2.0]

Aircraft should be largely unaffected except in very close proximity to the detonation - they are designed to take direct hits from lightning which can be millions of volts, and also generates a lot of EMI.

That's subjective, and is why the military hardens its aircraft.

The 90% death rate in a year from a single EMP strike is unsubstantiated fearmongering.

I agree.

[Guest]

The 2003 east coast blackout was an example of the cascade effect caused by operator failure in one utility. The same effect could, in theory, triggered by a hack. That said, the utilities have been working to isolate their systems from that kind of event so I would expect the effects of such an attack to be more geographically limited today.

True, but that was operator error, correct? Not an attack designed to cross boundaries and do the maximum damage possible. I tried to find the article and found a few similar ones but not the one I remember. I think it might have been on the radio.

[TimG]

True, but that was operator error, correct? Not an attack designed to cross boundaries and do the maximum damage possible. I tried to find the article and found a few similar ones but not the one I remember. I think it might have been on the radio.

I would say that type of an attack is implausible given the multiple layers of security that are present at every installation. The most obvious attack would trigger a system wide emergency event but the systems are supposed to be designed in way that interconnecting grids will disconnect themselves rather than render themselves inoperable for days as happened in 2003.

[bush_cheney2004]

North America would be under blackout. And it would be a long blackout. Many power transformers and other major devices would need to be rebuilt – which would take a number of months, even years. Emergency generators only have fuel to survive for around 72 hours. And North America only has a food supply to feed people for a couple months.

“We estimated that given the current fact that the grid is unprotected, if something like this were to happen we could lose up to 90% of the population in a year... 9 out of 10 north Americans could die as a consequence.”

This is complete nonsense....especially for Mexico ! More "north Americans" die each year from other causes than would die from one "EMP" event.

[Derek 2.0]

I would say that type of an attack is implausible given the multiple layers of security that are present at every installation. The most obvious attack would trigger a system wide emergency event but the systems are supposed to be designed in way that interconnecting grids will disconnect themselves rather than render themselves inoperable for days as happened in 2003.

How do you come to this conclusion, which runs completely counter to the findings of the US Senate's EMP Commission findings......which finds even a low yield device would be devastating, and not measurable compared to any damage from accidental fault or a hacking.

[Derek 2.0]

This is complete nonsense....especially for Mexico ! More "north Americans" die each year from other causes than would die from one "EMP" event.

Though I agree the 90% figure seems far fetched, like a nuclear strike, the deaths would result from the aftermath......namely from starvation and dehydration, then "third world" diseases.

[TimG]

How do you come to this conclusion, which runs completely counter to the findings of the US Senate's EMP Commission findings......which finds even a low yield device would be devastating, and not measurable compared to any damage from accidental fault or a hacking.

I was not talking about an EMP. I was responding to bcsapper's suggestion that a hacker could cause a system wide grid failure.

[Derek 2.0]

I was not talking about an EMP. I was responding to bcsapper's suggestion that a hacker could cause a system wide grid failure.

Mea culpa

[bush_cheney2004]

Though I agree the 90% figure seems far fetched, like a nuclear strike, the deaths would result from the aftermath......namely from starvation and dehydration, then "third world" diseases.

Still not buying it...how many people died from Hurricane Katrina.....about 2,000 ? How many deaths were related to power outages and other "grid" failures ? Far less....

Even a direct "nuclear strike" will not kill 90% of North America's population. I was in the business of doing such things and it is a lot harder than many people realize. During all of WW2, about 8% of Europe's population perished.

Edited January 31, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Still not buying it...how many people died from Hurricane Katrina.....about 2,000 ? How many deaths were related to power outages and other "grid" failures ? Far less....

Its apples to oranges. In both examples, there still is outside supporting infrastructure to contend with said disaster/blacked-out areas.

Even a direct "nuclear strike" will not kill 90% of North America's population.

Not the strike itself, but fallout, disease, starvation, dehydration and the major tear in the "social fabric" in the aftermath would seal the fate of most in the months and years following.

(By nuclear strike, I mean an exchange with a peer like the Soviets, not a one-off in a major city)

Edited January 31, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[bush_cheney2004]

Its apples to oranges. In both examples, there still is outside supporting infrastructure to contend with said disaster/blacked-out areas.

Certainly a factor, but much of the support remained available from impacted areas.

Not the strike itself, but fallout, disease, starvation, dehydration and the major tear in the "social fabric" in the aftermath would seal the fate of most in the months and years following.

(By nuclear strike, I mean an exchange with a peer like the Soviets, not a one-off in a major city)

No, it would just reset the "social fabric" clock back to an earlier, simpler time when earlier deaths and disease were normal, but the population still grew.

[Derek 2.0]

Certainly a factor, but much of the support remained available from impacted areas.

And, per the DHS/Senate commission, upwards of ~70% of the North American electric and telecommunication grid would cease the second a medium yield device was detonated over central North America.

No, it would just reset the "social fabric" clock back to an earlier, simpler time when earlier deaths and disease were normal, but the population still grew.

And said reset would entail the deaths of a goodly sum of the population.........Darwinism at its finest.

But 90% after an EMP attack does seem far fetched.

[bush_cheney2004]

And, per the DHS/Senate commission, upwards of ~70% of the North American electric and telecommunication grid would cease the second a medium yield device was detonated over central North America.

No, it would not "cease"...there would be prolonged outages and recovery of grid resources over a period of time. Some would not be lost at all because of design hardening and unaffected redundancies.

If it was that easy to knock out an entire continent, the U.S. could have saved trillions of dollars.

And said reset would entail the deaths of a goodly sum of the population.........Darwinism at its finest.

But 90% after an EMP attack does seem far fetched.

Just an incremental increase over existing death rate(s). "90%" is alarmist nonsense....just like "climate change" will destroy the Earth.

[Derek 2.0]

No, it would not "cease"...there would be prolonged outages and recovery of grid resources over a period of time. Some would not be lost at all because of design hardening and unaffected redundancies.

And said "period of time" is the key factor, and the ensuing economic damage, to determine the end result.

If it was that easy to knock out an entire continent, the U.S. could have saved trillions of dollars.

The Soviet military was without a doubt EMP protected, furthermore (through to the 80s), much of the Soviet economy was still heavily reliant upon manual labor and mechanical output not relying upon electronics.

[Topaz]

A nuke war or a the Sun send down a flare can do the some thing and all new cars with computers would stop, basically, any thing electronic would die.

[bush_cheney2004]

And said "period of time" is the key factor, and the ensuing economic damage, to determine the end result.

Still nothing like the alarmist nonsense described in the OP.

The Soviet military was without a doubt EMP protected, furthermore (through to the 80s), much of the Soviet economy was still heavily reliant upon manual labor and mechanical output not relying upon electronics.

U.S. defense contractors began compliance with mil-spec EMP hardening requirements before that, all the way down to integrated circuits and discrete components. Going back to vacuum tubes was not an option.

[bush_cheney2004]

A nuke war or a the Sun send down a flare can do the some thing and all new cars with computers would stop, basically, any thing electronic would die.

No, anything electronic would not necessarily die. More electronics are impacted by ordinary lightning strikes and power surges each year.

[Argus]

That said, if an EMP this was so effective at destroying infrastructure without killing people then why wasn't it a weapon of choice during the cold war?

While looking for information which would dismiss this information one of the things I kept finding was that since the cold war our systems have become much more vulnerable to this type of thing. Everything is electronic now, and the electronics are more sensitive, not less. An EMP in the 50s or 60s would not have had nearly the same impact as one today. Just to start with, everything is run by computers now. When their innards get fried everything stops working.