"We've been EMP'd!" your commanding officer screams over the noise of incoming gunfire. "Electronics are down!"
This may sound familiar if, like me, you're a fan of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" -- a hugely popular first-person video game based in a fictional near-future when the U.S. goes to war with Russia. But if you've been following the GOP presidential campaign recently, you might think one or two of the candidates are out of touch with the not-so-fictional near future.
In particular, it seems Newt Gingrich has been playing too much "Call of Duty."
Gingrich has been a long-time worrier about the threat of an attack on the U.S. from a rich terrorist organization or rogue nation -- such as North Korea or Iran -- that could cripple the nation, killing "millions" of citizens. But how could such a dastardly deed be accomplished?
Citing the specter that has been hanging over us since the Cold War, he believes the U.S. is vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse -- or EMP for short.
A nuclear weapon could be detonated above North America, reasons Gingrich, and the resulting electronic interference would render the nation's power grid, satellites, computers etc., useless. Death and mayhem would ensue. It would be a bit like "Mad Max," but with less '70's hairdos.
"Without adequate preparation, we would basically lose our civilization in a matter of seconds," he said during a 2009 conference.
The situation is apparently so dire that Gingrich co-wrote a doomsday book on the topic, called "One Second After."
Although game developers take the effect of EMP damage for granted, what are the realities of a space-based nuclear detonation?
NEWS: What It Takes to Make a Nuclear Bomb
Supporting Gingrich's argument, the impact of high-altitude nuclear tests during the Cold War proves that detonating nuclear bombs is a bad idea all-round.
In 1962, the U.S. detonated a 1.4 megaton nuke 200 miles above the Pacific Ocean to, you know, see what would happen.
Although situated 900 miles from the blast site, Hawaii felt the impact from the famous "Starfish Prime" explosion. Streetlights were knocked out, telephone communications were blocked and household alarms were triggered.
Beautiful equatorial auroral displays also lit up the sky. The event was nicknamed the "rainbow bomb."
The nuclear blast had caused all kinds of upper-atmosphere turmoil that generated rapid and powerful changes in the Earth's magnetic field, producing a pulse throughout the atmosphere below. The resulting induction of electrical currents shorted unshielded electrical supplies, like Honolulu's streetlights.
Radiation also surged above the atmosphere, causing indiscriminate damage to a number of satellites. The world's first commercial communications satellite Telstar was also badly bruised by the incident.
ANALYSIS: Will You Survive A Nuclear Attack?
In the same year, a similar test by the Soviets -- using a smaller warhead over a populated region of Kazakhstan -- generated an amplified EMP effect due to the stronger geomagnetic field at that latitude, causing a power station to fail and catch fire.
Some of the effects of an EMP are analogous to a geomagnetic storm, when the solar wind and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) interact with the Earth's magnetosphere. Although not as localized as a nuclear explosion, there are worries that an intense solar storm could generate huge currents across the Earth's atmosphere, shorting entire power grids.
In 1989, for example, the Hydro-Quebec power company in Canada was caught unawares by a huge solar eruption that generated intense atmospheric disruption, overloading the power supply, impacting thousands of customers. Solar flares and CME's regularly cause global communication outages and sometimes even turn satellites into "zombiesats."
OK, so the physics is there, Gingrich's concerns appear to be well-placed. Or are they?
Although Cold War tests have proven that there is some impact by a high-altitude nuclear blast to assets on the ground via an EMP, the result is far from certain.
Commenting in The Space Review last year, Yousaf M. Butt, a nuclear physicist and consultant with the Federation of American Scientists, said, "If terrorists want to do something serious, they'll use a weapon of mass destruction -- not mass disruption. They don't want to depend on complicated secondary effects in which the physics is not very clear."
(UPDATE: As noted by readers' comments below, Butt's opinions on the impact of an EMP attack were rebutted by a follow-up article in The Space Review. Despite this, it is still my opinion that an EMP attack by a terrorist group or rogue state is far less likely than other types of attacks.)
Like an intense solar storm, although the worst-case scenario could inflict damage on satellites and national power grids, there's no certain way of knowing the impact of any given solar event. The same goes for a hypothetical EMP attack. The target is indiscriminate and the outcome is far from certain.
Surely, if a rogue state or terrorist organization had a nuclear warhead, they'd much rather find new and ingenious ways of rolling it into Washington, D.C. undetected rather than strapping it atop a rocket and blasting it into space?
Besides, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has got that scenario covered if anyone was stupid enough to send any projectile toward the U.S.
According to Pentagon spokesman Richard Lehner, downing an incoming missile would be pretty straightforward. There's an arsenal of interceptor missiles just waiting for the opportunity to take out an EMP threat before it explodes.
"It doesn't matter if the target is Chicago or 100 miles over Nebraska," he said. "For the interceptor, it's the same thing."
Alas, Gingrich's EMP concern is, at best, misplaced.
In my opinion, the threat of a solar flare-induced disaster is far more serious than a megalomaniac or rogue state flying a nuclear warhead into space. And what about asteroids? There's lots of those floating around just waiting for the opportunity to drop into some unsuspecting gravitational well. There are plenty of real space-based threats out there that could be added to political wrangling without having to make one up.
Unfortunately, real space threats aren't politically "real" until a meteorite flattens a city.
CORRECTION: The source of this article misstated the affiliation of Yousaf M. Butt. He used to be with the Union of Concerned Scientists, but is now a consultant with Federation of American Scientists. The article has been corrected.
Source: New York Times
Image: A high-altitude detonation of a nuclear warhead - undated. Credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory
This is a real threat.
All it takes is one nuke and it could cause serious issues. Nuclear weapons are becoming easier and easier to make.
It's nice to hear the government is doing something about it, but they could probably do more. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this author is against missile defense.
That's why you Americans stop starting a war with hostile countries so that you will not be EMP'ed.
A rocket capable of placing a nuclear weapon approx. 200 miles above the East or West Coast of the USA could easily be launched from a container ship near such coastlines. Also, Iran has launched TWO "satellites" into space within the last year. What was the actual payload??? A telescope used to view the stars? Communications? Hmmmm. Considering how the leadership of that nations speaks about their desire to crush the Infidel and Israel, it's a good bet that those satellites aren't just for research.
Also, although not mentioned here, an EMP of sufficient magnitude could easily disable the cooling infrastructure of the majority of the 104 nuclear powerplants located in the USA, thereby causing that many Chernobyl/Fukushima meltdowns nationwide. In fact, if a Coronal Mass Ejection of sufficient size from the Sun were aimed at the Earth, we could easily experience what has already happened once in the recent past, the 1859 Carrington Event, that would fry ALL satellites and electrical power production/distribution world-wide. Again, nuclear power plant melt-downs only this time world-wide and the end of ALL life period.
This is MUCH bigger than most people understand. We're talking about the possible end of ALL life on Earth. Interesting that WE, the "smart" humans, would be directly responsible as well, eh?
Then again, maybe Newt IS just playing too much Call of Duty. Maybe we have nothing to worry about and should go back to our fat lives. Put our heads back in the sand. These crazies have been talking about this end-of-the-world crap for years now and nothing every happens. Everything is gonna be just fine, always is. Yeah, just have another beer and watch another game. Maybe some Xbox?
...
... !!! China !!! ...
...
I'm not going to play scientist but will assume an EMP strike by Iran if successful, would be "bad" as well as a conventional nuclear attack on say New York. Which one would be worse? I guess it depends on whether you were in New York when the bomb went off...
I hate to introduce common sense to all this scientific argument but it seems like launching a big ICBM from Iran towards the United States with an EMP weapon might, just maybe be an unwise thing for Iran to attempt. Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't that trigger a massive U.S. nuclear retaliatory strike? and I think it seems like we have the ability to intercept a single missile launched from Iran...
On the other hand, it would be extremely easy to get a nuclear device across our porous Southern Border, just like another bale of marijuana... getting it to mid-town Manhattan would be a 3 day car ride. And... when it went BOOM! We would have no idea who did it and with the present administration there would be years of court cases to convict someone of doing it... No nuclear counter strike, not even a couple cruise missles (Obama doesn't like those since he's afraid to make Iran mad, but he DID ask them to give our airplane back)
So from a common sense point of view, I don't think Iran would even think of an EMP weapon when a standard nuke smuggled in from Mexico would do the job and avert retaliation.
...
... !!! China !!! ...
...
Ian -- Please check your facts. I believe Newt only wrote the introduction to "One Second After" - he did not co-write the book. If you didn't bother to fact-check that simple detail, you probably have not even cracked the book and are just commenting on it based on what you have read from other people. This has become a criticism of journalists and bloggers lately, that they are in too much of a hurry (or too lazy) to do their own research and it is easier to just parrot each other. Getting the co-authorship wrong casts doubt on the rest of your comments.
Also, although the book paints a doomsday scenario based on a nuclear EMP ettack, the results would be the same or probably worse from a major solar event, which is far more likely to happen within our lifetime. Please do a search on "solar EMP events" to learn about these cyclical events. The U.S. is woefully unprepared and un-protected for a wide-spread long-term power outage and we need to create public awareness and a call to action right now.
If I had responsibility for the nuclear missile programme of what America sees as a rogue state, I would put proximity detection connected to any warhead carried. On detection of any attempt to destroy the missile, the warhead would be detonated and with luck create an E.M.P.. It might not achieve the original goal, but it would hardly be said to be a good thing.
Having said that, I would be pushing for delivery in the boot of a car. Battlefield nuclear weapons are delivered courtesly of155mm (about 6 inches) artilary shells, so they are not very big. Give me twenty of those cranked up to maximum yield and I will have the U.S.A. belly up before I have used half of them.
Anyone interested in another EMP disaster scenario should check out this graphic novel:
http://www.arcana.com/view_title.php?id=202
Newt may not have paid attention during science class but the U.S. military certainly did. Millions (if not billions) have been spent by the DOD emp harding sites and equipment. Should we believe that this has all been money wasted?
Remember in 1962 most cars did not have "computers" telling the engine how to run. If it happens now you won't be able to drive to the local Easy Mart to get milk for you kiddies.
Were I the planner I would go for crippling the entire country rather than a city. Iran is working on the weapon and the delivery system. The author reminds me of an osterich.
Norm and other readers...
There is a somewhat entertaining DVD from National Geographic that explains the science of our atmosphere and protective magnetic field in relation to solar storms and manmade EMP. It is called "Electronic Armageddon" and can be acquired online from National Geographic. It might surprise you and soften your criticism of the former Speaker of the House.
Ian only needs to do more homework and see the current studies from the US Academy of Sciences, NERC, FERC, the US EMP Commission and the Congressional Research Service. It might also help to review the economic impact assessment on EMP to see that it is one of the less expensive ways to cause the greatest economic damage. That study also showed that protecting 10% of the most critical infrastructure could avoid 40% of the economic loss.
The same protection would work against extreme solar weather. In fact, if everyone made 20% of their own power with local renewable energy, we wouldn't be able to blame the feds or the utilities when we lose the grid to any threat including cyber attack or coordinated physical attack.
Once he has a chance to review the literature, he may come around to a more reasoned approach, though it might wind up being less partisan than some of his readers may prefer.
Chuck Manto, CEO
IAN, LLC
The European Missile Defense was never meant to stop ALL Russian ICBMs or IRBMs. The idea is/was to stop a couple of incoming Iranian warheads for hitting Europe or North America. The Russians still have a couple of thousand nuclear warheads. To stop a full launch, even more thousands of interceptor missiles would have to be available. You can't shoot down two thousand warheads with even two hundred interceptors!
It is obvious, based upon this article, that Newt Gingrich never paid attention, in science class. Every grade school student knows that planet Earth is protected from a wide variety, of radiation, including solar, and, YES, Nuclear, radiation, by a nasty little sphere, which we call the Ozone. This is Earths "First Line of Defense" against ALL radiation, from space, whether from orbit, or from deep space. Even *I* learned this, in grade school. The only way for a nuclear attack to destroy Earths surface, is if the warhead explodes **inside** the atmosphere. This is a known, scientific, *fact*. Just ask any reputable scientist. Maybe, Mr. Gingrich should become part of "No child left behind", since his education seems to be lacking, in basic, planetary, information. As for the question of if another **could** attack America? I ask "Why not??" After all, America has invaded two nations, already, and there are plans in the works, for the invasions, of up to **five** additional, nations, including Pakistan, and others, whose names I do not know how to write, correctly. Remember that, for eight, very dark, years, George Walker Bush kept saying "We *must* attack, first, to prevent **potential** attacks, on U.S. soil" Check your history books to find out who else, from the 20th century, used these same words.
Seasons Greetings
your blog is malfunctioning... it says to limit to 5000 characters and far less than that is not being uploaded.
For this to happen you need to obtain an 18 kill streak :P
Liberals love “science” .. unless the “science” doesn’t support a particular political policy then it gets “murky” and “hazy”, full of unknowns and competing experts.
The fact is the threat from a EMP, whether it be from a high altitude detonation or a solar flare is a very real threat with a well understood mechanism.