Army Guy Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 How well do you think you could adjust to no food, or to crazed, desperate people killing you for what you do have? I'm hoping that it won't come to that, but if it did i'm hoping my military training will give me a slight edge over crazed joe citizens.... Don't get me wrong I am not out in my back yard digging a bunker, I will be taking my preparations a look over, and seeing if they can be tightened up alittle... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 And that is the major fault of the article.......launching a ballistic missile from a vessel brings about a whole host of complexities....launching a ballistic missile and being able to deploy a thermonuclear device into low Earth orbit to generate a NEMP is even more complex .......as I said, you can count on one hand the nations States that are able, and can afford, to do this. I know that you can get EMP from a nuclear wpn going off, and well i'm not an expert, but I thought there was already a device out there that produces EMP without a nuclear explosion.....with out a thermal nuclear device..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 I know that you can get EMP from a nuclear wpn going off, and well i'm not an expert, but I thought there was already a device out there that produces EMP without a nuclear explosion.....with out a thermal nuclear device..... Without a doubt you can, but its effects are limited by the size of the device and the height in which it was detonated....theoretically, several large hydrogen bombs detonated over North America would have the results as discussed in the OP. And yes again, there are non-nuclear based weapons in development, at great cost, by several nations, but then they too are very limited in their scope, and better categorized as tactical battlefield munitions and a furtherance of modern electronic warfare.......not a threat that will send North America back into the 19th century. Quote
Argus Posted February 4, 2016 Author Report Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) No, because spending a fortune on addressing a remote problem is a waste of money, money that would be better spent on far more likely threats. How do you figure a 12% chance of a Carrington Event in the next ten years constitutes a 'remote chance'? That is way, way higher than the chance your house burns down in the next ten years but I bet you have fire insurance. It is way, way higher than the odds you would have any use for 6 years of food you say you've stockpiled, yet you're spending the money to stockpile it. Edited February 4, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Without a doubt you can, but its effects are limited by the size of the device and the height in which it was detonated....theoretically, several large hydrogen bombs detonated over North America would have the results as discussed in the OP. And yes again, there are non-nuclear based weapons in development, at great cost, by several nations, but then they too are very limited in their scope, and better categorized as tactical battlefield munitions and a furtherance of modern electronic warfare.......not a threat that will send North America back into the 19th century. Starfish pretty much proved this true. You wouldn't even need 'several'...Starfish Prime was a single megaton device (1.44 mt). Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 How do you figure a 12% chance of a Carrington Event in the next ten years constitutes a 'remote chance'? Today's infrastructure is vastly more protected than what was found in the 19th century.......somehow, we've managed for the last ~150 years. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Starfish pretty much proved this true. You wouldn't even need 'several'...Starfish Prime was a single megaton device (1.44 mt). Starfish Prime, from ~350-400 miles away from Hawaii (about the distance from LA to Phoenix) screwed up Hawaiian telecom, which was only slightly more advanced than coconuts and string, but didn't knockout the Hawaiian power grid............The extrapolation to send North America back into the stone age, more and bigger bombs than Starfish Prime. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Starfish Prime, from ~350-400 miles away from Hawaii (about the distance from LA to Phoenix) screwed up Hawaiian telecom, which was only slightly more advanced than coconuts and string, but didn't knockout the Hawaiian power grid............The extrapolation to send North America back into the stone age, more and bigger bombs than Starfish Prime. I guess we'd actually have to see it in action...gulp. I'm not sure if the old Cold War scenario of detonating H-Bombs over targets to produce crippling EMPs is even feasible with shielded ignition systems and such. From what I understand, location of the detonation in relation to the Earth's magnetic field greatly affects the initial E1 pulse's actual strength at the power grid. While yield size is also a factor, the amount of gamma rays and escaped neutrons actually produced is the key, it seems. Neutron bomb... The weak link seems to be some of these aging systems that can't just be replaced overnight by a few dedicated crews. Substations and such from the mid 20th century. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) I guess we'd actually have to see it in action...gulp. I'm not sure if the old Cold War scenario of detonating H-Bombs over targets to produce crippling EMPs is even feasible with shielded ignition systems and such. The use of a NEMP device wasn't intended to knock out protected military equipment, but to disrupt military communications, radars etc temporarily, during the ensuing nuclear strikes......knocking out civilian infrastructure was but a bonus..... From what I understand, location of the detonation in relation to the Earth's magnetic field greatly affects the initial E1 pulse's actual strength at the power grid. While yield size is also a factor, the amount of gamma rays and escaped neutrons actually produced is the key, it seems. Neutron bomb... And that is why its both a remote threat at best, and would require more than one device, something in the realm of only a very few nations.....simply put, there is no definite answer, as there has never been a full scale test. The weak link seems to be some of these aging systems that can't just be replaced overnight by a few dedicated crews. Substations and such from the mid 20th century. Again, its a rather moot point, as repairing said infrastructure will be of little concern after a nuclear strike. Edited February 5, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 The use of a NEMP device wasn't intended to knock out protected military equipment, but to disrupt military communications, radars etc temporarily, during the ensuing nuclear strikes......knocking out civilian infrastructure was but a bonus..... And that is why its both a remote threat at best, and would require more than one device, something in the realm of only a very few nations.....simply put, there is no definite answer, as there has never been a full scale test. Again, its a rather moot point, as repairing said infrastructure will be of little concern after a nuclear strike. The worry is an EMP in this scenario...not an exchange of nuclear missiles. North Korea will develop the H-bomb as well as the N-bomb...as well as ICBMs/Cruise Missiles to carry them. It is more a matter of material availability than it being any great secret as to the workings of tritium and a spark-plug. Making them tiny...that's the real trick. In the 1960s (et al), few vehicles used ignition shielding until TV broadcasters started complaining heavily about signal interference. Plus the vast majority carried an AM receiver with a nice long whip antennae to catch both pulses. Bzzzzt. Now though, things are much different... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 The worry is an EMP in this scenario...not an exchange of nuclear missiles. I know, and its an unfounded worry. North Korea will develop the H-bomb as well as the N-bomb... And North Korea won't commit National Suicide by exploding a nuclear weapon over the United States and not expect a nuclear response......... As I said, I'd be far more concerned with the prospect of a terror group smuggling something nasty into a major US city, then a nuclear power launching an attack on the United States. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 I know, and its an unfounded worry. And North Korea won't commit National Suicide by exploding a nuclear weapon over the United States and not expect a nuclear response......... As I said, I'd be far more concerned with the prospect of a terror group smuggling something nasty into a major US city, then a nuclear power launching an attack on the United States. Oh goodness, yes. The real worry is a LARGE Ivy Mike type device in a standard storage container. A say....3mt device...even a fair distance offshore...makes one heck of a mess. Folks can't imagine 3mt...they see Hiroshima and the ol' brain says: "so that's a nuke" and leaves it at that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud#/media/File:Nukecloud.png Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Oh goodness, yes. The real worry is a LARGE Ivy Mike type device in a standard storage container. A say....3mt device...even a fair distance offshore...makes one heck of a mess. Folks can't imagine 3mt...they see Hiroshima and the ol' brain says: "so that's a nuke" and leaves it at that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud#/media/File:Nukecloud.png They wouldn't even need a large hydrogen device, a stolen tactical nuke or dirty bomb detonated inside a container in a major port (or offshore) would do the trick and send the entire World into a panic. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 They wouldn't even need a large hydrogen device, a stolen tactical nuke or dirty bomb detonated inside a container in a major port (or offshore) would do the trick and send the entire World into a panic. If you use a simulator, even a 10 kt detonation along the Hudson River would produce unbelievable mayhem. The worry of a megaton device is that it needn't enter the harbor (and face inspection or what-not) to do its job. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 If you use a simulator, even a 10 kt detonation along the Hudson River would produce unbelievable mayhem. The worry of a megaton device is that it needn't enter the harbor (and face inspection or what-not) to do its job. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Oh even a dirty device exploded offshore would create havoc and fear, even if it resulted in little or no deaths. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Oh even a dirty device exploded offshore would create havoc and fear, even if it resulted in little or no deaths. The simulator covers that, too...plots fallout etc. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Posted February 7, 2016 Today's infrastructure is vastly more protected than what was found in the 19th century.......somehow, we've managed for the last ~150 years. That's interesting that you say that because according to everything I've read today's infrastructure is vastly more vulnerable to a Carrington Event and getting more vulnerable every year. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 That's interesting that you say that because according to everything I've read today's infrastructure is vastly more vulnerable to a Carrington Event and getting more vulnerable every year. And the entire World is "vulnerable" to an asteroid or super virus.........yet, nobody is calling to invest trillions into combating said "threats"... Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 And the entire World is "vulnerable" to an asteroid or super virus.........yet, nobody is calling to invest trillions into combating said "threats"... Well...until those JPL types in lab coats inform us of impending doom, anyways. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/small-asteroid-to-pass-close-to-earth-march-5 Close calls happen all the time...nuthin' we could do without some serious technology. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted February 8, 2016 Author Report Posted February 8, 2016 And the entire World is "vulnerable" to an asteroid or super virus.........yet, nobody is calling to invest trillions into combating said "threats"... We're talking about an event a NASA scientist projects as having a 12% chance of happening in the next decade. Why do you continue to insist it is a something extraordinarily unlikely? We almost had one just a few years ago. We are actually spending an awful lot of money watching and charting asteroids, by the way, far more than would be needed to harden our more important systems. And you can't protect against a super virus until it shows up. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 8, 2016 Author Report Posted February 8, 2016 Well...until those JPL types in lab coats inform us of impending doom, anyways. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/small-asteroid-to-pass-close-to-earth-march-5 Close calls happen all the time...nuthin' we could do without some serious technology. But that's not the case for protecting against a Carrington Event. There is a LOT we can do. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 8, 2016 Report Posted February 8, 2016 .... We are actually spending an awful lot of money watching and charting asteroids, by the way, far more than would be needed to harden our more important systems. And you can't protect against a super virus until it shows up. "We" are ? So just how much is Canada spending to watch and chart ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 8, 2016 Report Posted February 8, 2016 We're talking about an event a NASA scientist projects as having a 12% chance of happening in the next decade. NASA is projecting there will be a solar flare powerful enough to knock out the World's power grid within a decade? Do you have a source? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.