A discussion on a previous blog got some of us into discussing changing military technologies. The subject then was naval navigation, the prevention of ships going aground and what might happen if something, perhaps like a solar flare, took out the GPS satellites which are now integral to many other electronic systems on which modern systems depend. Navies would have to fall back on chronometers and sextants, and I, having been retired 30 years now, wondered whether the U.S. Navy has retained that old technology. Commenter Anson Burlingame then posed the possibility of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), something that can be triggered by a nuclear blast and used to disable both solid-state electronics, electrical power grids and equipment of all kinds.
A little online research reveals that an EMP is not only quite possible but has in fact been demonstrated and studied extensively as a part of early nuclear weapons testing. It is so well known in fact that there is an extensive Wikipedia page on it. Here are a few facts about the EMP threat:
- An EMP is most-efficiently produced by a fission rather than a fusion nuclear blast.
- The effective range of an EMP is proportional to the size of the warhead.
- To be effective an EMP blast needs to be detonated in space, above the atmosphere, which means a ballistic missile launch is required.
- The height of the blast is critical to its range of effectiveness, but that is easily hundreds of miles. In fact, one large blast could disable electrical systems over virtually the entire United States.
- Solid-state electronics, which are vulnerable to EMP, are ubiquitous and include virtually all communications systems, media, electrical power systems, medical devices, and vehicles.
There was a concerted effort at one time during the Cold War to produce military systems that would be less vulnerable to EMP, including miniature vacuum tubes, but while shielding and other methods of defense are known, they appear to have been largely abandoned.
It seems to me that the principal danger of an EMP launch against our country right now is extremely unlikely. The two most unstable potential enemies who might soon develop such a capability are of course North Korea and Iran, neither of which has a launch system capable of reaching the U.S. at this time, although they are surely working on it along with refinement of warhead technology. It would be naive to think that our potential enemies are unaware of EMP technology.
But, there is deterrence. We have the satellite capability to detect and pinpoint the source of any ballistic missile launch and a virtually invulnerable counter-strike system in our Trident missile submarine force which would be remote from the homeland. Let us assume that command launch communications to those mighty boats have been hardened. (Other countries should wonder whether any of the warheads on our submarine missiles are EMP designs.)It is surely in the national interest to deter the less-stable countries from further developing nuclear-tipped missile capabilities, and to that end there is some heartening news I heard recently in a headline.
“Air Force now has 30,000 lb. Bunker Busters.”
As soon as I saw the name I thought of last night’s GOP debate on foreign affairs and the wide disagreements among the candidates over the nuclear weapons threat that Iran poses. By all reports Iran has buried their facilities in hardened sites far underground. However, the “Bunker Buster” described appears to be a viable answer to the threat. It may be no coincidence that Boeing’s bunker buster, more properly named Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), is designed to take out hardened facilities at least 200 feet deep. (I read somewhere that Iran’s are at about 180 feet.)
Which brings me to the recent GOP debate on foreign affairs. As Anson B. mentioned, candidate Gingrich is fully aware of threats like an EMP, and that’s a good thing. I believe Jon Huntsman is as well, with his extensive foreign affairs experience. Romney didn’t flub, but he didn’t shine either. (He seems to think China is the biggest military threat, but China seems to me to be a model of stability compared to three others I can think of.) I surely can’t say the same for the rest of the crowd, including Herman Cain who wasn’t sure what country Libya was, and I submit that in these unstable times the voting public should rank such experience very high on their voting criteria lists.
Probably the most alarming thing I heard on that debate actually had nothing to do with either Iran or North Korea, it was instead what Rick Perry said about Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country which already has proven ICBM capabilities. Perry said he was ready to withhold all “foreign aid” from Pakistan and seemed ready to sever all ties unless they performed more to our liking. This raises the specter of Pakistan falling into the hands of radical, Islamic fundamentalist hands, a likelihood even Bachman understood. That, to me, is the greatest danger of all – a nuclear-armed theocracy. When religion is involved, rationality departs. Why on earth did CNN ask no debate questions about Pakistan? Is that a question too big to ask?