It would throw our country back into the stone ages. If you haven't read One Second After, read it. It's a fictional event of what would happen in the event of an EMP burst.Would pretty much devastate us, but it's not worth addressing as the cost is too high.
It would throw our country back into the stone ages. If you haven't read One Second After, read it. It's a fictional event of what would happen in the event of an EMP burst.
Doesn't that always seem to be the case?“The problem is not the technology,” Pry said. “We know how to protect against it. It’s not the money, it doesn’t cost that much. The problem is the politics. It always seems to be the politics that gets in the way.”
That was an interesting book. While they were pointing out all of the things that would be affected, I kept thinking of all the people I knew who would be dead within weeks. For instance, my mom has diabetes. Once her supply of meds ran out, there would be no refill.It would throw our country back into the stone ages. If you haven't read One Second After, read it. It's a fictional event of what would happen in the event of an EMP burst.
So has Mrs. Reb, which brings up another interesting point of discussion. There will be literally millions of people who will start to physically suffer when their meds run out. Medical assistance won't be available and there is no telling how long they will be without those medications. We who love and care for them will be faced with a grim decision of what to do about their suffering.That was an interesting book. While they were pointing out all of the things that would be affected, I kept thinking of all the people I knew who would be dead within weeks. For instance, my mom has diabetes. Once her supply of meds ran out, there would be no refill.
Y2K was a possibility, one way or another an EMP is an eventual reality.This sounds almost as terrible as Y2K!!!!
Unless of course "someone" just happened to have at their disposal a large enough aircraft (say, for instance, a Boeing 777-200 that was previously assumed to have crashed into an ocean) that was stripped out and reloaded with a nuclear bomb.Y2K was a possibility, one way or another an EMP is an eventual reality.
That said, I've spent a few years off and one reading up on EMPs and quite frankly, the size required to do the damage this article envisions is only possible from a CME, imo. The Russians are the only people with the current tech to detonate an EMP high enough and powerful enough to destroy the US infrastructure, and they can't get it there without us knowing.
:icon_bs: What about North Korea? :rofl:Y2K was a possibility, one way or another an EMP is an eventual reality.
That said, I've spent a few years off and one reading up on EMPs and quite frankly, the size required to do the damage this article envisions is only possible from a CME, imo. The Russians are the only people with the current tech to detonate an EMP high enough and powerful enough to destroy the US infrastructure, and they can't get it there without us knowing.
A 777 can't get anywhere near high enough to do more than localized damage. To hit half the US you'd need to achieve 220 miles altitude with a high yield nuke.Unless of course "someone" just happened to have at their disposal a large enough aircraft (say, for instance, a Boeing 777-200 that was previously assumed to have crashed into an ocean) that was stripped out and reloaded with a nuclear bomb.
LOL, see above - NK doesn't have there launch tech or the yield to hit more than a small portion of the US. If someone wants to bring the electrical grid down (for which the HV transmission lines would be nice antennae) they'd have to hit a large pert ion of the US, which means high altitude (HEMP) and therefore much higher yield.:icon_bs: What about North Korea? :rofl:
I took it as poking fun of the producers casting NK as the bad guys in the Red Dawn remake. I couldn't laugh though ... I am still to mad at them for such a horrible remake of one of my favorite childhood movies.LOL, see above - NK doesn't have there launch tech or the yield to hit more than a small portion of the US. If someone wants to bring the electrical grid down (for which the HV transmission lines would be nice antennae) they'd have to hit a large pert ion of the US, which means high altitude (HEMP) and therefore much higher yield.
Ahh, never saw the remake.I took it as poking fun of the producers casting NK as the bad guys in the Red Dawn remake. I couldn't laugh though ... I am still to mad at them for such a horrible remake of one of my favorite childhood movies.
I believe an airliner's cruising altitude is limited only by it's ability to maintain cabin pressure and it's time of descent in case of an emergency. Now if you don't need those things.....A 777 can't get anywhere near high enough to do more than localized damage. To hit half the US you'd need to achieve 220 miles altitude with a high yield nuke.
Uhh, no - you need oxygen for the turbines and enough airflow to lift the airframe. An airliner will not get remotely high enough to cause widespread damage via a HEMP.I believe an airliner's cruising altitude is limited only by it's ability to maintain cabin pressure and it's time of descent in case of an emergency. Now if you don't need those things.....
Yep, it's very scary. People on dialysis, those that have pacemakers or on other life support mechanisms would be dead quickly. The part of the book when they are in the elderly center is eye opening as well. It makes you sick and feel completely helpless for those folks.That was an interesting book. While they were pointing out all of the things that would be affected, I kept thinking of all the people I knew who would be dead within weeks. For instance, my mom has diabetes. Once her supply of meds ran out, there would be no refill.
Think about it like this. A 777 can only fly a little higher than the distance between you and coumbiana (your closest city, right?). While CA is talking about the distance between you and Gulf Shores. (It is easier for me to visualize just how close to the surface planes fly, relatively speaking, when I think of it this way.) It is not a small technical difference we are talking about; it is many orders of magnitude more technically challenging.I believe an airliner's cruising altitude is limited only by it's ability to maintain cabin pressure and it's time of descent in case of an emergency. Now if you don't need those things.....