In response to:

A World Without America

cchuba Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 1:11 PM
Wouldn't an EMP attack require the detonation of a nuclear weapon at an extremely high altitude? Also, how would Iran survive a counter-strike of about 100 to 150 nuclear bombs (saving the rest of our arsenal for another possible enemy). The would be asymmetric war alright, we would completely destroy Iran while losing perhaps a thousand people.
Bondman60 Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 12:58 PM
A few points, cchuba: If North Korea can put a satelite in orbit, it can sell Iran the means to detonate a high-altitude nuke. Iran would not survive such a counter strike, but there are two problems: Would the U.S. government, still apologizing for its use of nukes in WWII, really launch nukes against Iran after an EMP attack? And if Hagel has his way, that 150 missile counter strike, if it could be done at all, would mean using fully HALF of our arsenal. Unreported by the MSM, Boeing successfully tested an EMP weapon last year. I think once Iran has an EMP, we, or Israel if we lack the 'nads, should hit Iran with one first. Once we get hit with one, retaliation will be difficult and futile. We'd still be screwed. Cont...
Bondman60 Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 1:00 PM
But most of all, cchuba, Iran's Mullahs are not afraid of the U.S. or the U.S. retaliation. First, they believe, probably correctly, that we don't have the stomach to use our nukes even in retaliation, and second, they see any nuclear holocaust as a way to bring the 12th Imam, a rough parallel to a messiah for the Muslims. They are not deterred by the threat of our nukes.
Brian953 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 2:57 PM
It would not have to be an extremely high altitude, and it wouldn't have to have a huge yield.

Once something like this goes off, there is some uncertainty as to whether we would retain the communication ability to mount a retaliation.

But Iran's leaders do not yearn for the continuance of their country so much as they wnat the success of their understanding of Islam. That is why, despite the "blow back," they are willing — eager! — to nuke Israel.

Perhaps we would win this vignette. But even then, the world would be seriously downgraded. This is to be avoided if at all possible! We must oppose this as if there IS no fall-back position.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 6:47 PM
Sorry,but EMP is most effective when the nuke detonates above the atmosphere at 100-300 miles alt.
for in-air detonations,the EMP effect is limited to the blast radius of the nuke,which is FAR less than exo-atmosphere detonations.
Wiki has an excellent page and map of EMP effects with altitude.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 2:49 PM
Iran has been testing SCUD launches from containerships,with HIGH altitude detonations characteristic of an EMP attack,and not usable for attacks with conventional warheads . This type of attack is not needed for Israel,Iran's IRBMs already can reach Israel. But with the US crippled or destroyed,Iran is free to do as they please,without any other Western nation able or willing to interfere with them.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 2:54 PM
If Iran launches an EMP missile from a containership off the US coast,and then scuttled the containership,there's no way of tracing the weapon back to Iran. We won't have isotope-ratio signatures for Iran until after they detonate their first bomb.

Read One Second After by William Forstchen to get an idea of the impact an EMP attack on the US would have. it's chilling.
Milt37 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 2:20 PM
cchuba,

An EMP attack does require the detonation of a nuclear weapon at a high altitude. I'm not sure how sophisticated the weapon has to be, but pointing of missile could be pretty crude. Just over Colorado, with a big enough impulse could take out most of America.

That would mean most cars with computers in their engines, all cell phones, all personal computers, radios, TV's, etc. Even though a lot of modern military electronics are supposedly EMP-hardened, most of our ballistic missle systems are fairly archaic. So we probably couldn't mount an effective counterstrike.

I'm not sure how accurate the post-EMP scenarios are, but its a more clear and present danger than global warming while we have such an anti-American president.
Brian953 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Computerized cars and aircraft would almost certainly be fine, as would hand-held electronic devices. The metal of the car or an aircraft would cause the whoe machine to be at the same electrical potential at any instant, for the duration of the event.

It is the long strings of wire in the air that would suffere large voltage spikes. (Undergound wires would not contribute to that.) So electrical power supply systems, cell towers, microwave equipment — those sorts of things would suffer.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 6:45 PM
sorry,but autos and commercial aircraft are NOT hardened against EMP.
the EMP will induce currents in the body of the aircraft itself;it's a conductor. since the AC is not completely sealed in it's metal shell,the EMP will induce high voltages in the AC wiring.

your cars are goners.

the EMP induces voltages at 50-100 KILOvolts -per meter- of conductor.

I was an electronic technician for 21 years.
RyanM Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 1:27 PM
(saving the rest of our arsenal for another possible enemy)

Why stop there? In for a dime, in for a dollar, I say. Nuke China and Russia as well!

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that "a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable." While that sentiment won't be embraced in President Obama's inaugural address next week, all other things being equal, it seems likely to be the practical effect of his second term.

Of course, Iran's regime seeks a world literally without America. More to the point, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Tehran are working tirelessly to secure the means by which to accomplish that goal. Specifically, they have or are developing the ability to engage in devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, biological warfare...