I just love it when Gov types show up…

jerrytbg on February 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Sorry for the disinformation. Looks like you’ve got it all figured out.

If the idea is to ignite global nuclear war and bring about the return of the 12th (or is it 13th or 14th?) Imam, does it really matter what part of the US you hit? The continental US is a pretty big target. I would think just about anywhere would do.

SKYFOX on February 4, 2009 at 5:18 AM

You’ve touched on the reality of nuclear weapons. While they are capable of massive damage to physical things, this is no longer the effect desired by those that want to sit at the nuclear table. Nukes have eclipsed their value as “bombs”, and have become political weapons. The mere possession of one affords the holder immense power on the politcal stage, regardless of the true state of the holders’ economic or military capability.

I may have mis-spoke earlier about the idea of igniting a global nuclear war. Even the loonies in Iran are aware that the first shooter is also the first loser.

The threat of a nuclear war (global or limited) is what will force the major world powers to deal with the rogue nations as equals, and contain their enemys for them. This is Iran’s intent.

This theory is only true for state actors. The huge unknown, and therefore the greatest threat, is the non-state actor (Al Qaeda) who cares nothing about power or “equality”. Nukes are just a really big hand grenade to them.

Good information. I’m wondering: What is the absolute worst-case scenario EMP attack for a single low-yield warhead? Can it be made much worse, or only a little worse, by detonating it higher or lower in the sky?

RD on February 4, 2009 at 5:11 AM

Not sure what you mean by “worst case”. Generally though, the closer you (or, your electronic device) is to the blast, the more likely it will be destroyed.

(this is relative to the EMP effect only)
A small blast at high altitude is not as harmful as a large blast at high altitude. A low level or ground burst of a large weapon is not as harmful as the same weapon at high or medium altitude.

The Ruskies plan was to detonate on the order of a dozen or so extremely large weapons at high altitude spread across the US to achieve the maximum effect of EMP. High altitude bursts also play havoc with the ionosphere, which interupts radio comms for a considerable length of time; sometimes it can last for days. The EMP wave is present (at a specific point) for nanoseconds.

To have any sort of strategic value, an EMP attack has to be large and nearly simultaneous (minutes to hours apart, not days apart), and the weapons used have to be absolutely huge. Otherwise, a small burst will have a small radius, and the effect will be nothing more than a localized power outage (although mostly permanent).

BobMbx on February 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Good information. I’m wondering: What is the absolute worst-case scenario EMP attack for a single low-yield warhead? Can it be made much worse, or only a little worse, by detonating it higher or lower in the sky?

Ah…yes and no. EMP is certainly a problem and will have the effects you detail, but not on a global scale. The effect is constrained by many factors (size of the weapon, altitude, air density, moisture among others). To have any sort of strategic value, an EMP attack has to be large and nearly simultaneous (minutes to hours apart, not days apart), and the weapons used have to be absolutely huge. Otherwise, a small burst will have a small radius, and the effect will be nothing more than a localized power outage (although mostly permanent).

BobMbx on February 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM

BobMbx – There was something published in one of the major science mags .. Popular science or something like that. The gist was that EMP can also be done with a conventional explosion. I forget the exact principle but it could supposedly be done.

I’m just a little worried that the iranians might be thinkinng outside the box. ie. like the germans looking at the Maginot line “Hey Hans, ve vill get Killt attacking dis” “Manfred. Vy Don’t ve go around it??”

With obama castrating the CIA by appointing a 1st lt who has a daughter who pals with chavez, I’m a bit worried.

You are absolutely right about the effects of a Nuke. When we were in florida after Andrew I think, I told my wife that it would have taken dozens of nukes to do the damage the hurricaine inflicted. Only diff was the radiation and the lack of fires.

I’m about 10 miles outside a major city and, if there was a 10k ground burst, I might not even realize it right away. Now, something like the Tsar Bomba and we’re talking a different ballgame.

Thanks for the info on the localization of an EMP. I guess I had been reading something that was a little overblown. There are some other scenarios for the use of a nuke that are scary as well.

Too bad we can’t build a series of Waveguides around the country so that any attack would get massive microwaves sent back to the middle east and north korea. Unfortunately line of sighg and the fact that it’s a dumb idea would stop that idea.

First of all, do you understand the implications of an EMP strike… BANG.. 2 seconds later we are a midieval society. the majority of electronics/electrical stuff ceases to function. Medicine goes back to the 1700’s … Air traffic stopp as airliners fall from the sky. Communications fail across the board.

Ah…yes and no. EMP is certainly a problem and will have the effects you detail, but not on a global scale. The effect is constrained by many factors (size of the weapon, altitude, air density, moisture among others). To have any sort of strategic value, an EMP attack has to be large and nearly simultaneous (minutes to hours apart, not days apart), and the weapons used have to be absolutely huge. Otherwise, a small burst will have a small radius, and the effect will be nothing more than a localized power outage (although mostly permanent).

I’m no rocket scientist… but do you really need to be that accurate with a NUCLEAR weapon???

dominigan on February 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Yes, actually. The largest “weaponized” nuclear bombs have a blast radius no more than a few miles. These are the extremely large weapons both in explosive weight (~9 megatons…the Ruskies have bigger ones, but they’re few in number and designed to produce EMP at high altitude). Most of our inventory is much smaller in explosive weight; thats due to the accuracy of our delivery systems. And BTW, an earlier poster is correct: nukes are heavy. The bigger the bomb, the shorter the range.

Stay with me here….the accuracy of a weapon is measured as a function of CEP (Circular Error Probablity). The most accurate ballistic weapons have a CEP on the order of…well….not far. Earlier designs had CEP on the order of miles (some in the 10’s of miles). The Iranian MRBMs and SRBMs are really nothing more than SCUD missiles of Desert Storm vintage. Quite frankly, without gravity these missiles would miss the planet completely.

Now, if the intent is to “take out” a target, you need to get close. If your intent is to merely detonate a weapon in somebody’s yard, who cares how accurate the delivery vehicle is, as long as it goes over the fence. This is Iran’s intent. They want to throw a nuke into Israels’ yard. And, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, no matter where it actually ends up, it may as well have been in downtown Tel Aviv, New York, London, or Moscow. The genie will be out, and Israel will not hesitate for a millisecond in launching a massive retaliatory strike. Believe it or not, this is what Iran is counting on. They know Israel will launch, as do the US, UK, and the rest of the nuclear club. It is the nuclear countries that will be forced to stop Israel from launching. Don’t forget, not everybody in the nuclear club likes Israel. I can think of 2 members who may launch their own strike on Israel soon after Iran launches.

Most “lay persons” have the image of an absolutely devastating explosion and fire and damage and fire and some more fire when a nuke detonates. They’re not as “big” as most people think. They’re big, but not the Hollywood big you might be familiar with.

Another hilarious set of postings. So Iran developed this missile since January 20th alone because Obama started talks with them? They are fast workers! It’s definitely less likely that the vast majority of the technological advancement Iran has acquired occured under Bush and, fairly or unfairly (and I think unfairly) is part of his legacy. Obama has to now DEAL with a soon to be ICBM capable Iran.

DeathToMediaHacks on February 3, 2009 at 9:30 PM

First of all, do you understand the implications of an EMP strike… BANG.. 2 seconds later we are a midieval society. the majority of electronics/electrical stuff ceases to function. Medicine goes back to the 1700’s … Air traffic stopp as airliners fall from the sky. Communications fail across the board.

We had a choice in November between a man with experience and judgement or a member of the chicago thugocracy with no experience.. We may have chosen our own doom.

GWB did a remarkable job going from an instant peacetime to wartime footing. He has been hampered by the fifth column of liberal nutcases and a pansy assed media, not to mention congress members who should have been brought up on treason charges.

Iran is running amok because they believe we will be weak. We have a prez with the worst combination of woodrow wilson, jimmah “I love dictators” cahter and Willie “Let the young interns play with my willie” Clinton. They are like a shark who smells blood in the water.

Let’s just pray that we don’t suddently experience a LIGHTS OUT situation. Mad Max would become reality.

It’s at least 60 pounds, the reported weight of the satellite. While there are a couple of warhead designs that are in that weight class, they are advanced, sub-kiloton ones that would (presumably) require testing.

By comparison, the lightest “simple” gun-assembly weapon fielded by the US, the W19 280mm artillery shell, weighed 600 pounds with a designed 15-20 kiloton yield (on order with the weapons dropped on Japan in WWII).

steveegg on February 3, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Check out the Davey Crockett. IT was a recoiless rifle with a 280MM 10ton warhead.

The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield of 10 or 20 tons (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead) up to 0.5 kiloton. The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5 kg). It was 31 in. (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11 in. (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the back of the shell was actually inserted into the launcher’s barrel for firing. [1]

That was 1950’s technology…

One thing about the weight estimate.. The DU or other shielding for re-entry plus guidance would add a lot of weight. However, an emp burst would probably not add that much..

One message that should go to achmadinnerjacket is something like the one in the patton youtube vid “WHat exactly is the temperature required to turn sand into glass” and “Do you know how many extra nukes WE have.”

I think they’ll get an EMP one of these days from the adherents of the religion of peace in iran….

then those libs will wish global warming was true…oh well, elections have consequences….

right4life on February 3, 2009 at 5:41 PM

First thing I thought when I read this was EMP.

The other thing is I just came across something about the Germans having a plan for a suborbital vehicle that would ’skip’ over the atmosphere to be able to drop a nuke on NY. Like most ‘wonder weapons’ it never got off the boards.

Anyway, the “Iran is a tiny country” is the type of idiocy that proves whe should have put an adult in the whitehouse.

Most people in this country couldn’t survive an EMP strike. Hell, the Boy scout manuals don’t even cover basic fire building skills any more. “You don’t need a fire, use an eco friendly gas stove”..

O

Ma