Semi-related tangent: During the early 1990's I developed a star chart and ephemeris for the (momentarily) fashionable Windows Mobile platform called "Pocket Stars" that calculated one's geographical position from three or more sextant observations, mainly as backup for offshore sailors should their GPS system fail. For reasons I still can't fathom, a contractor for the Israeli military purchased many copies, apparently so their tanks and troops could remain oriented after all other electronic systems failed. My 15 minutes of Dr. Strangelove entanglement.
For reasons I still can't fathom, a contractor for the Israeli military purchased many copies, apparently so their tanks and troops could remain oriented after all other electronic systems failed.
EMPs are a fantasy. Absolutely and unreservedly a complete fantasy. ZERO have ever been tested, and there’s literally a better use for a nuclear warhead. Not only is it a a completely hypothetical attack, it would look identical to a normal nuclear ICBM attack, and absolutely would result in a traditional retaliatory attack. Why would anyone trade an EMP for all their cities? Literally doesn’t make sense. No one in the nuclear arms control world takes it seriously. It’s a boogeyman for defense contractors and grifters, but I repeat myself.
All that said, GPS denial is a very real thing, and has been repeatedly demonstrated in an operational context. It’s relatively trivial to do. You just need a regular ground based antenna, and not a particular strong transmitter because satellite signals are weak. Just broadcast a different timing signal and voilà! You now tricked someone into thinking they’re 50 miles away from where they really are.
Wait what? There were specific nuclear EMP tests. And sure, in any realistic nuclear war scenario EMP is just an unpredictable byproduct like your link says, but that doesn't make it fantasy I believe?
No. That’s not what I mean. I’m talking about big boogeyman of an EMP attack that destroys the either the North American electrical grid and assorted electronics or merely all electronics in a city.
There is no nonnuclear EMP weapon. Every proposed EMP attack is literally a hydrogen bomb delivered via an ICBM and detonated at extremely high altitude. That is the only way to deliver one to the proper place and the only way to deliver the required energy. That’s just the physics. Even then, the actual effect at ground level, is unpredictable because of simple shielding and atmospheric turbulence. But the undetermined effects aren’t what makes an EMP fantastical. It’s fact that it’s delivered by an ICBM!
The premise of an EMP attack is that somehow the attacker could surprise their enemy and land a catastrophic knockout blow near instantaneously (where “instantaneous” is defined as “between 10 and 30 minutes” (i.e. the flight time of either an SLBM or ICBM)) with little to no retaliation. A Launch on Warning policy (i.e. launch a retaliatory strike when an incoming missile is detected in the air) along with ground and space based surveillance systems makes attempting to execute an EMP attack suicidal.
Missile launch detection systems have been operationally deployed and maintained since the 1960s. They work. Launch on Warning has been the policy of the United States since the 1960s. Implicit in a LOW policy is that the retaliatory strike order is given in minutes from a detected launch. This means the retaliatory nuclear weapons are already sent on their irreversible course before any incoming detonation occurs. This is the defense posture a hypothetical EMP attacker is lobbing an ICBM into. This isn't fantasy. This isn't just math. It’s the explicit nuclear posture of the United States for the past 60 years. It’s what makes Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) work, and arguably has maintained peace between nuclear states for 70 years.
If an attacker has decided to launch a nuclear laden ICBM they just started a full on nuclear exchange, because that’s the response. No one is waiting to see where it goes. It’s “The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah.” Now. Given that you’re in an inevitable nuclear exchange, is it reasonable to waste a nuke on a roll of the dice on whether it actually do anything when you could actually blow something up? Nay! Knowing that you are being blown up?
On a related note, this is the exact situation why the proposed Prompt Global Strike weapon is suicidal. An ICBM armed with high explosives, looks exactly like an ICBM armed with nuke. Similarly, a kinetic energy hypersonic glide vehicle is not suicidal specifically because it doesn’t travel on a ballistic arc.
>EMP ran to thousands of amps, damaged at least 570 km of telephone lines, 1000 km of buried power lines, and caused the destruction of the Karaganda power plant.
A 300kt blast at 290km was able to induce 1.5 to 4.5kA in the unshielded power line buried underground at 2m, over the area hundreds of kilometers across. Imagine what it could do to the areas that are a bit more populated than Kazakh steppes in 60's.
So yeah, while the nuclear EMP is probably not going to be used as a primary weapon in a global nuclear strike as you said, it's not a huge stretch for one of the warheads to be dedicated for the EMP over some large but less important area, not necessarily as a decapitating strike, so preparing for it makes sense. Besides, there would be at least local EMPs in the area after the "ordinary" nuclear strike, which can be really disabling if unprepared for.
Yeah. So you are probably correct that it is unlikely that someone only sends a single warhead to do an EMP attack. What I don't understand is why you would think that it is unlikely that they send their whole volley, and some warheads are programmed to hit targets while some others are programmed to detonate to maximise EMP damage.
Sure there is MAD, but if you are a military leader would you like to hang your hat entirely on that? After armageddon when you climb out of your bunker would you like to be the one who still has tanks to command, or the one who can't command anyone because all your radios have fried?
Regarding your other comment: why wouldn't a high-altitude detonation, even outside the atmosphere cause an EMP? I feel like the gamma photons emitted in space will eventually hit the atmosphere and with that cause electrons to spiral along field lines. Isn't the question just one of intensity?
Or is it largely dependent on multi-photon interactions to impart enough impulse on the electrons?
> Why would anyone trade an EMP for all their cities?
ICMBs were a theoretical threat. Cold War doctrine had a more realistic (and less apocalyptic) WWIII that would be fought by tactical nukes and tanks through Europe.
We will have countries against each other fighting for their borders but world war is v unlikely in our lifetime.
We love our cheap goods, cheap-ish energy and ability to change presidents and prime ministers.
Yes China, North Korea and Russia banding against the rest of the world is a real threat but China has shown it is selfish too and cares more about its economy.
WW1 was a pretty inefficient war, WW2 got better weapons and communication infra, but modern war fare is seriously destructive.
Intercontinental missiles fired from stealth submarines with nuclear payloads that break apart in air into 20 little payloads that then destroy an entire city 1000s of kms.
Modern warfare doesn’t need armies of millions of men. Whoever can best see their enemy via satellites and oceanic array, direct the most destructive energy using missiles and drones decapitates their enemy.
One nuclear warhead possesses multiple times the energy spent on both world wars combined.
> Yes China, North Korea and Russia banding against the rest of the world is a real threat but China has shown it is selfish too and cares more about its economy.
I really want to believe that. But the same logic did not stop the first world war.
In that case, why both sides of the Cold War spent fortunes on conventional forces along the Iron Curtain?
Like yes it is playing with (nuclear) fire, and maybe they were wrong, but there plenty of professionals who, maybe biased by their positions, who felt the need to get ready for limited nuclear war. And I'm not really convinced either side would want to risk destroying human civilization over Frankfurt.
> Also, there is no difference between a tactical and strategic nuke from an escalatory perspective. Once the genie is out, it’s out.
I mean, why? Why shouldn't tactical and strategic be separate steps on the ladder?
There are people who argue that there are ways to keep limited nuclear warfare limited. [0] I think the RAND institute also published some study on it not outright rejecting the idea but I can't find it atm.
"unique radio-electronic weapons based on new physical principles" sounds an awful lot like the breathless tales of secret Russian Tesla death rays that have been circulating since the 80s, if not earlier.
If Russia could "neutralize entire armies with just one short electromagnetic impulse", or even just "disable missile warheads and onboard aircraft electronics miles away", don't you think they'd be using that capability against Ukraine?
The author of that paper was obsessed with the idea of EMP weapons,[1] so I'd take it with an entire shaker full of salt unless you can find solid supporting evidence elsewhere.
> don't you think they'd be using that capability against Ukraine?
No, and that's entirely the point.
Their non-use of their advanced weapons systems is as equally interesting a subject as their forward-deployment of expendable, less advanced systems.
The Russian military certainly have their inefficiencies - as all modern militaries do, including "our own" - but they also have capabilities that are going to be more important to use against NATO/USA, than Ukraine.
The Russian mindset appears to support the idea that World War Three is well and truly under way and has been since the West illegally invaded Iraq, in 2003. Ukraine is merely the latest in this conflagration that has been rendering 'lesser nations' asunder, for two decades already. The whole world has been watching not only American/NATO, but also Russian doctrine in play for decades.
So I guess the doctrine is, don't play your best hand first .. and reserve your big muscle for when you fight big muscle.
NATO is adding its muscle to Ukraine, no question. But I wouldn't expect to see Russian - or NATO - advanced weapons systems in use until there is actually direct, open conflict between Russia and NATO.
Only then would non-nuclear EMP's, and indeed tactical ("micro") nukes, and other such more 'advanced' weaponry end up on the battlefield, if there is even one after the first few hours of 'real war'.
Russia have thrown everything they have at Ukraine over the last year-and-a-half. Cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, their best troops and naval assets.
Now they're buying equipment from Iran (!?) and North Korea.
Russia, in their deep USA envy thought they'd have their own Shock and Awe! 3 day SMO.
Instead they overestimated themselves, and massively underestimated Ukraine.
The cupboard is empty. The only thing they have left is nuclear weapons, which they're quite rightly terrified of using. All that remains now is a long slow and grinding defeat as Putin expends every available Russian male in his desperate attempt to remain in power and not back down.
>Russia have thrown everything they have at Ukraine over the last year-and-a-half.
I don't believe that's the case. Russian military doctrine has always been to reserve the best systems for the end-game, and front 'fodder' in the beginning stages of things.
I see Russia's war theatre manifest also in Syria, where the very same tactics are utilized to suppress the field.
"Shock and Awe" is a US doctrine. Russian is more "Shake and Hold".
"Massively overestimating themselves/underestimating themselves", is very difficult to contextualize, if you don't actually speak Russian.
>The cupboard is empty.
I'm sorry, I really don't agree. You might want to take a deeper look:
>> Russia have thrown everything they have at Ukraine over the last year-and-a-half.
> I don't believe that's the case. Russian military doctrine has always been to reserve the best systems for the end-game, and front 'fodder' in the beginning stages of things.
This still doesn't explain the BMP-T's, the T90's and S300's that are deployed to Ukraine and destroyed in Ukraine.
If you keep that device off and shielded it should survive the attack. Then you switch it on. Power should come from the tank, plus the internal battery for how long it lasts. If the tank can't power on after that attack it's useless anyway.
There was an article from several years ago where the US Coast Guard was teaching US Navy personnel how to do celestial navigation, since this was lost institutional knowledge in the USN but retained in the USCG. The purpose was for navigation in GPS denied areas.
I wasn’t around for the 90s edition of windows phone (at least not enough to understand any of the tech) — i guess for lack of a camera and compass +gyro, would the observations be done out of band and just put into a form?
