Blogbat: Moving Forward on the EMP Threat

« Je Suis Napoleon Bonaparte Ruler of Iraq! | Main | PLANET MORONIA: Backward as Leningrad »

December 07, 2005

Moving Forward on the EMP Threat

Reagan Administration Former Assistant Defense Secretary Frank J. Gaffney Jr. has a new book out. The book, “War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World”, describes what Gaffney and numerous other experts are saying is the most serious tactical danger to the future survival of the United States as a sovereign and prosperous nation, let alone a world power. According to the former assistant secretary of defense (see an excerpt from his new book here via The World Tribune), that danger comes from an electromagnetic pulse (EMT) attack, which Gaffney describes as nothing short of an “electromagnetic tsunami”.

Frank Gaffney has been traveling the country and doing the media circuit recently and I had the chance to hear him speak in May at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Dallas on this subject, along with former CIA director R. James Woolsey.

Why would such an attack be the preferred method for an enemy state or organization? In a word: maximum damage with maximum efficiency.

Damage: The damage from such a device, if executed properly, would utterly devastate America’s current electrical and electronic infrastructure. Everything from modern cars to computers to heart defibrillators would be internally damaged or destroyed. But never mind this, because so would the power grid and as such there would be no electricity to power these devices even if they were protected from the pulse by hardening or some other mitigating element.

Efficiency: The technology and delivery system (and therefore the total cost and investment) in such a weapons system are relatively low. The ingredients include a primitive nuclear explosive device delivered and detonated at about 300 miles above the target (such as the continental United States).

The device’s explosion will send ahead of the fireball an electromagnetic pulse sufficient to wipe out most power grids and electronics in the area the size of the Continental United States.

And, EMCC (a German electronics testing group) has indicated that since many modern electronic components are no longer shielded by metal form factors but by pastic etc., their components are further vulnerable:

Aircraft to road vehicle bodies are increasingly made of plastics instead of metal. A real lightning problem has come up with the substitution of metal hulls with carbon, as protection by the Faraday Cage was lost and lightning induced currents are flowing across cables and electronics: close to all LEMP tests show "positive" results. The photo [ABOVE] shows LEMP test on a sensor cable loom.

The delivery system can be something as cheap as any system capable of reaching this altitude, such as an old scud missile (delivered from sea or from one of our nearby “neighbors”), or a cheap satellite (we should be especially concerned about Iran and other less-than-friendly powers around the world and in this hemisphere seeking both to acquire satellite and satellite delivery system technology). Gaffney points out that Iran (often funded and supported by Russia and China incidentally) “In addition to their successful ship launched Scud missile test, the Iranian military has reportedly performed tests of its Shahab 3 medium range ballistic missile in a manner consistent with an EMP attack scenario.” Gaffney also mentioned in May that several former Soviet EMP scientists have been employed by North Korea.

For a more limited, but nearly as devastating effect, a single nuke could be flown by small plane or other aircraft over the eastern seaboard (or other important region) with such a bomb on board and detonated, creating a regional catastrophe with nationwide ripples.

An even more limited (but still in many ways effective) tactic would be to employ an EMP device over a strategic military asset or ally.

More bold would be an attempt to do this over several regions at once. Such a move as this one would be as destructive or more than a single, high-altitude bomb over the US mainland, while also compounding the psychological effect of it (though, at such a point, a calamity of the scale of a national EMP attack would already be too extensive for most to truly comprehend, so the effect would probably only be fully appreciated by historians).

Even as Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld speaks publicly about a “lean” fighting force, heavy on electronic technology and light on manpower, Gaffney quotes one Chinese military strategist,

As soon as its computer networks come under attack and are destroyed, the country will slip into a state of paralysis and the lives of its people will grind to a halt. (Su Tzu Yun, World War: The Third World War — Total Information Warfare, 2001.)

The Chinese and North Koreans are already known to have invested large sums in battlefield applications of EMP technology and the Chinese are also on record at least as far back as 1999 in calling for total, asymmetrical warfare.

But even if a nation’s military infrastructure is hardened and survives EMP attacks, if her homeland civilian assets are wiped out, then that military’s ability to fight for any length of time is also eliminated (which is pretty much warfare 101). Troops would soon run out of equipment, parts, weapons and food – and would likely need to be recalled in any event to keep and maintain order in the homeland. In sort, as the song goes, “Turn Out the Lights, The Party’s Over”.

Of course, being suddenly relegated to (really less-than) 19^th Century status without the benefit of 19^th Century infrastructure and with three times the population nationally (and many more times that in urban areas) of our 19^th Century great-great-grandparents would wind up killing far more Americans than a single direct nuke attack of an American city. It would probably also pave the way to American vassal status, as undoubtedly we would face a coming loss of sovereignty, our freedom and all which we have built and shared with the world in the way of American ideals to an opportunistic foreign power.

The essential fact that the hostile powers with sufficient manpower would not stand still and wait while we re-gathered ourselves should not be lost on anyone. We might be surprised with who suddenly jumps over to that list of hostile powers once there was perceived a mortal wound. For many long-standing allies of weaker status, such a shift in global power would be terrifying and no doubt lead to their silence or even complicity with the subsequent global superiority grabs by the remaining major powers. Whether to be living in the continental US or anyplace else in such an environment might be a Hobson’s choice of high order.

But in any case, Gaffney (and others) are right to point out now that a comprehensive strategy must be devised and implemented to prevent an EMP attack here.

But we must also help our allies prepare to defend against such an attack. An EMP attack on one of our key allies could also affect us economically and strategically.

Such a strategy would include hardening electrical infrastructure and electronics, improving tactical defense and intelligence capabilities and waging an effective diplomacy campaign (this includes an economic aspect, as Reagan understood with the Soviets, and as others have ascribed with respect to all contemporary powers of concern). The question will be whether such a strategy will be implemented in such a way as to discourage (or prevent) such an attack on our territory, assets and interests.

EMP Commission Report Executive Summary

Congressional Record: Statement of Dr. George W. Ullrich Deputy Director of the Defense Special Weapons Agency

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.'s Bio

Asymmetric Warfare - National Defense University

China's Space Capabilities and the Strategic Logic of Anti-Satellite Weapons

Asymmetrical Warfare Cuts Both Ways

For the science bug: A (slightly different and less ominous) application and example of electromagnetic power

Posted by Martin at December 7, 2005 06:46 PM

Comments

I agree with your assessment. We face three mortal threats. Authoritarian China, North Korea, and Iran. Of the three, I would say that the latter two are the most immediate, as North Korea probably has nuclear weapons and is developing a delivery system.

The administration's answer is to attempt to pay additional bribes (in the form of oil and food aid) in exchange for a promise to behave themselves. (I remember Clinton going down that road.)

Mysteriously, we continue to give the Mullahs of Iran the same Free pass that we've given them since 1979. Is it any wonder why they ignore us?

Our solution to Authoritarian China is to continue our policy of "engagement" in the forlorn hope that their regime will ultimately fall "Soviet Style"

The problem with that theory is that the Russian Army historically was reluctant to fire on its own people (as in 1917 and the late 80s-early 90s) The Chinese Army, on the other hand, has amply demonstrated its ability to murder large numbers of unarmed citizens.

Currently, the Chinese are pointing nuclear weapons at us.

This worries me most.

Posted by: EdWonk at December 8, 2005 11:42 PM

I agree, Ed. Enter Cold War II.

The other problem with hoping the Chinese communist government will fall soviet-style is that first the US needs to apply the same policy it did under Reagan towards the Soviet Union. Far from engagement, we completely pulled the economic rug out from under them. Soon enough their socialist system failed them.

Sure, China watched that all happen and thinks it's much too clever to fall like the Soviets. The problem is that right now, China doesn't *need* to be clever, because the US has blithely fallen into the same foreign policy malaise it did towards the Soviets during the Nixon era, when we fed them grain and technology in hopes that we can (as Churchill stated and Reagan later restated) "go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat [us] last".

The same in a sense applies to North Korea and Iran, though there is only one ring-leader and I think many of us know, or at least suspect, it is China.

Posted by: Martin at December 8, 2005 11:58 PM

Right, NK is China's bluff that keeps us busy. What do you think the response to such an attack would be? If it came from NK or Iran, US subs could launch similar attacks not just against the culprits but their sponsors in China & Russia also. So an EMP attack could quickly become thermonuclear war.

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 9, 2005 03:08 PM

I agree, it wouldn’t be pretty. And it must be deterred with the threat of nuclear war (and I think we can fairly well bank on the fact that it is – assuming we haven’t elected any idiots prior to such an engagement).

Since any foreign action that directly threatens domestic life or property (from nuke attacks to the blockading of ports) is generally considered an act of war, China (or Russia) would be seriously remiss if it were to have any part in such an attack. Clearly, if any state targets the US with an EMP, it will face an equal or greater response. If other parties are somehow complicit (including lending material support through knowing arms sales) in such an attack, our response would probably range from full-scale nuclear retaliation to immediate diplomatic disengagement and the cessation of economic ties as possible precursor to hostilities.

But then, we don’t exactly have the best ground intelligence these days, do we?

If the US is sufficiently weakened through peripheral engagements and attacks by terrorists, a country such as China (or Russia) could gain an economic upper-hand. Not only would we become a very needy country ripe for vassal-hood (as some thinkers in China et al wish), we would in the very least no longer be involved in global policy. Whether or not any of our enemies would get to be around to see it would be another story:

Of course there is something worse for our enemies than our direct retaliation, although they may not know it. Assuming we faced the chaos that comes with being suddenly tossed back to the era of chamber pots and mules, replete with desperation for food and shelter, the US may become an unstable nuclear power; quite a non-productive development for any of her adversaries. In the very least, the US may not be able to guarantee the security of her nuclear assets; making rumors of nuclear technology exiting the Soviet Union after its fall seem rather dull by comparison. The conflagration that might then follow would probably also make for a very bad day for environmentalists. :p (On the other hand this might, in the right – but rather unlikely – climate, justify and allow for some sort of pre-emptive UN-style “intervention”, which we would probably not care for either.)

Clearly, even an official “controlled” nuclear response by the US to an EMP attack will make our enemies wish they had not been born. Those in China escaping underground would not be able to stay there for a thousand years (the length of time it takes radiation from some bombs to dissipate). So those powers probably wouldn’t be around to see our future destabilization, assuming that 1. we destabilize and 2. Our intell allows us to take out all parties involved.

Nevertheless, tyrants famously aren’t known for their thorough forethought or deductive reasoning, therefore it would be wise that we prepare an adequate defense to any EMP threat.

Posted by: Martin at December 9, 2005 05:38 PM

Right, wasn't there a Chinese general who recently spoke insouciantly about writing off China's Western cities in the event of a nuke-off?

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 9, 2005 08:24 PM

They stand to lose more than a few west-China cities; also, if we went to war it would certainly be with the objective of decapitating the regime.

CCP leaders are known to occasionally blithely offer sacrificing their civilians for nuclear "victory". But name any area where they care about the lives of their own people - so it isn't shocking. So a decapitation would likely face some popular support.

Posted by: Martin at December 9, 2005 09:22 PM