Live data from Hacker News

What you need to know about EMP weapons

aardvark.co.nz

121–130 of 213 posts

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#121
post #113

I'm not sure about most of this. The great majority of the articles and stories about this I've read trace back to layman speculation and disaster porn fiction written by people who have never claimed to actually be informed about how these things work. There's damn little stuff out there that traces back to actual experiments with real hardware. Probably most of the serious experiments are by various militaries and…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime > Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 900 miles (1,450 km) away f…

It should be understood that the largest impact of the Starfish Prime test, knocking out streetlights, was the result of a very specific design detail of the street lights that is now quite antiquated (they were high-voltage, constant-current loops with carbon disc arc-over cutouts, and the EMP seems to have caused some combination of direct induced voltage and disregulation of the constant current power supply that bridged the carbon disks). The required repair was replacement of the carbon disks, which is a routine maintenance item for that type of system but of course one that had to be done on an unusually large scale that morning. The same problem would not occur today, as constant-current lighting circuits have all but disappeared.

In the case of the burglar alarms, it is hard to prove definitively, but a likely cause of the problem was analog motion detectors (mostly ultrasonic and RF in use at the time) which were already notorious for false alarms due to input voltage instability. Once again, modern equipment is probably less vulnerable.

Many of the detailed experiments in EMP safety are not published due to the strategic sensitivity, but the general gist seems to be along these lines: during the early Cold War, e.g. the 1950s, EMP was generally not taken seriously as a military concern. Starfish Prime was one of a few events that changed the prevailing attitude towards EMP (although the link between the disruptions in Honolulu and the Starfish Prime test was considered somewhat speculative at the time and only well understood decades later). This lead to the construction of numerous EMP generators and test facilities by the military, which lead to improvements in hardening techniques, some of which have "flowed down" to consumer electronics because they also improve reliability in consideration of hazards like lightning. The main conclusion of these tests was that the biggest EMP concern is communications equipment, because they tend to have the right combination of sensitive electronics (e.g. amplifiers) and connection to antennas or long leads that will pick up a lot of induced voltage.

The effects of EMP on large-scale infrastructure are very difficult to study, since small-scale tests cannot recreate the whole system. The testing that was performed (mostly taking advantage of atmospheric nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1960s) usually did not find evidence of significant danger. For example, testing with telephone lines found that the existing lightning protection measures were mostly sufficient. But, there has been a long-lingering concern that there are systemic issues (e.g. with the complex systems behavior of electrical grid regulation) that these experiments did not reproduce. Further, solid-state electronics are likely more vulnerable to damage than the higher-voltage equipment of the '60s. Computer modeling has helped to fill this in, but at least in the public sphere, much of the hard research on EMP risks still adds up to a "maybe," with a huge range of possible outcomes.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#122
post #28

1) Don't worry about it. If one goes off over a NATO country or Russia/China, you'll soon have much, much bigger problems to worry about. 2) There is no 2)

Yeah, what I've learned from films like "Threads" and "The Day After" is that you very much want to die in the first 20ms of a nuclear war. Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.

I have a nice view of the skyscrapers of a large city some 70 km to the North. Looking at it from my lawn chair probably won't kill me but it could make me blind.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than that, Turkey is a member of NATO that participates in US nuclear sharing and has substantial US forces (aside from the nuclear weapons) deployed. A nuclear attack by Russia on Turkey would not be merely legally and abstractly an attack on the US under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which it would do massive irreparable damage to US credibility to ignore, but would almost certainly be a nuclear attac…

> A nuclear attack by Russia on Turkey would not be merely legally and abstractly an attack on the US under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty In the given scenario above, Turkey attacks first, in which case Article 5 would not apply to a retaliation.

The text of article 5 doesn’t distinguish whether the attack on the NATO state was justified or even whether the NATO state attacked first.

This lack of blaming is partly why Turkey and Greece had to sign at exactly the same time, so that neither could take advantage of being able to attack the other whilst being themselves shielded by NATO.

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” -

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#124
post #15

> wrap that in aluminium foil, making sure that the ends are folded over and pressed down hard to provide good inter-layer contact I've tried this many times, it's impossible to prevent gaps without welding it shut. Obviously I wasn't testing with an EMP or nuke, but trying to block 2.4GHz WiFi... But that is well within the E1 range the author states. I think the problem with folding is it's too uniform, it's still…

Why not try a large Stanley cup? Double layered, top seals shut, pretty easy to get a hold of.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#125
post #15

> wrap that in aluminium foil, making sure that the ends are folded over and pressed down hard to provide good inter-layer contact I've tried this many times, it's impossible to prevent gaps without welding it shut. Obviously I wasn't testing with an EMP or nuke, but trying to block 2.4GHz WiFi... But that is well within the E1 range the author states. I think the problem with folding is it's too uniform, it's still…

You shouldn't need to prevent gaps entirely. You only need to make sure there are no holes larger than roughly the wavelength of the radiation you're trying to block. Which, for 2.4GHz wifi, is about 125mm. I think what you saw is that a single layer of foil isn't enough skin depths thick to block radiation sufficiently at that frequency.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nuclear attack by Russia on Turkey would not be merely legally and abstractly an attack on the US under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty In the given scenario above, Turkey attacks first, in which case Article 5 would not apply to a retaliation.

The text of article 5 doesn’t distinguish whether the attack on the NATO state was justified or even whether the NATO state attacked first. This lack of blaming is partly why Turkey and Greece had to sign at exactly the same time, so that neither could take advantage of being able to attack the other whilst being themselves shielded by NATO. “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europ…

> The text of article 5 doesn’t distinguish whether the attack on the NATO state was justified or even whether the NATO state attacked first.

Arguably, the text of Article 5 doesn't have to, since an act of aggression breaches the obligations of Articles 1 and 2, as well as the pre-existing obligations which the Treaty explicitly does not alter under Article 7.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#127
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow I don't see those as related. Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality. That's the utter stupidity behind this belief in MAD keeping us safe.

Exactly, there is no official communication that the attack on nuclear capable planes is revenged with a nuclear attack. What has been very clearly communicated though is that the attack on the personal transport trains has been counted as a terrorist attack and now Russia is about to declare Ukraine leadership as a terrorist organisation. A change from special operation to a terrorist hunt involves various changes.

Those are just empty names russian tv is making up to amuse less bright part of population. Its just another war, has been since 2014, nothing more and nothing less.

Lets not forget in first hours of 2022 invasion there were numerous hunting squads deployed in Kyiv with explicit orders and training to execute all Ukraine's high command, including Zelensky and all his family, and cause chaos on civilian and military infrastructure. There are numerous videos how those guys failed, were caught and mostly executed since they expected a very different situation on the ground (which is valid even as per Geneva convention, as non-marked combatants behind enemy lines would often face). One of many FSB and GRU's failures.

If we want to talk about terrorism, list of items on russian side is very, very long and new items are added every day. As I said, empty words and all know it. The closer you look at russia these days at all levels the more similarities with nazi Germany you will find. History really keeps repeating itself with sometimes stunning precision.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#128
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(and it's highly frequency dependent on top of that.)" Well, sure. Can people inside the cage see outside? (Or a hypothetical person for a small cage.) If so, then clearly, not all frequencies are being blocked. A lot of "Faraday cages" are explicitly designed for radio and deliberately let other frequencies, particularly the visual range, through. In fact we all have direct experience with that. Our microwaves use…

They let out enough to interfere with radios operating around 2.4GHz. They'll attenuate the stuff, quite strongly if built well (the only reason interference is a problem is because the oven is 3+ orders of magnitude more powerful than a typical 2.4GHz radio), but it's not a total block.

Anyone interested can test this with an RF bug finder, even the homebuilt ones that just increase the intensity of an LED when near a source will work to demonstrate the leaks.

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#129
post #94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is how much of your resources and time right now will you spend "prepping" for that "no matter how slim" chance in the future.

Its like working out in the gym - if you see it as a chore and a must, it is or becomes painful very quickly. If you make it fun and self-motivating (and ie get into hiking and camping in the wilderness, or practice shooting on targets, or training martial arts, some people really enjoy gardening and so on), the time is not wasted but enjoyed. But I agree thats hardly a mindset of typical US redneck prepper. Although…

> hunting skills are sort of essential to cut costs.

That's the first time I have heard of marauding post-apocalyptic biker gangs being called "costs"!

Re: What you need to know about EMP weapons

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text of article 5 doesn’t distinguish whether the attack on the NATO state was justified or even whether the NATO state attacked first. This lack of blaming is partly why Turkey and Greece had to sign at exactly the same time, so that neither could take advantage of being able to attack the other whilst being themselves shielded by NATO. “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europ…

> The text of article 5 doesn’t distinguish whether the attack on the NATO state was justified or even whether the NATO state attacked first. Arguably, the text of Article 5 doesn't have to, since an act of aggression breaches the obligations of Articles 1 and 2, as well as the pre-existing obligations which the Treaty explicitly does not alter under Article 7.

I see what you mean - although articles 1 & 2 seem to be treated more like guidelines rather than rules.

Otherwise I struggle to understand how any NATO member could’ve engaged in any of the overt or covert expressions of military force in Iraq 2003, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Egypt, or Algeria to name but a few.

Post reply on HN