15 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  JeanieS on May 29 at 8:18 a.m.

  And good cheery morning to you, too, Dave. Eeeek. What a really horrifying report and I think you are right - there is a crisis brewing in Korea and it could greatly impact the entire world. It makes me very nervous. It brings up the fears I learned to bear growing up during the Cold War. Threats of war are terrifying. The situation in Korea is very troublesome and bears critical watching. I am afraid. Very afraid.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 29 at 8:19 a.m.

  Dave,

  I would suggest that there is one over-arching consideration that needs to be the lens through which this whole topic is viewed:

  — In principle, even a new nuclear proliferator could execute such a strike. In practice, however, it seems unlikely that such a state would use one of its scarce warheads to inflict damage which must be considered secondary to the primary effects of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. *Furthermore, a HEMP attack must use a relatively large warhead to be effective (perhaps on the order of one mega-ton), and new proliferators are unlikely to be able to construct such a device, much less make it small enough to be lofted to high altitude by a ballistic missile or space launcher.* Finally, in a tactical situation such as was encountered in the Gulf War, an attack by Iraq against Coalition forces would have also been an attack by Iraq against its own communications, radar, missile, and power systems. EMP cannot be confined to only one “side” of the burst.— (emphasis mine) “Federation of American Scientists, Special Weapons Primer” (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/em…)

  The second point to remember - at least in putting an arguably very real threat and fear into practical perspective - is that nobody *knows* what detonating a large nuclear device in near-earth orbit would actually do. There's theory. And there's anecdotal evidence. But nobody's ever actually done it and then measured what happens. The educated guesses might be very good. They *might* be spot on. But for the moment, they're still only guesses.

  Last but not least, I'd be willing to bet ('I can neither confirm nor deny') that even assuming the worst-case predictions for the deployment of an H-EMP weapon against the United States, those worst-case predictions have been modeled and accounted for in 'certain circles' of the United States military community. Not only would those 'certain circles' NOT be decapitated by such an attack, they WOULD retaliate *at least* in kind. So realistically speaking, the choice for any potential H-EMP aggressor against the United States would be, 'Shall we die together?' (Cold comfort, I grant.)
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 29 at 8:42 a.m.

  To expand on the practical hurdles North Korea currently faces in a bid to deploy an H-EMP weapon against the U.S.: (Note that the Taepodong-2 is the North's only putative 'ICBM' and therefore it's only candidate as a potential launcher for a H-EMP)

  — The next steps in North Korean missile development are the Taepodong-1 and Taepodong-2 (known as Paektusan in North Korea, named after the highest mountain in Korea, which is important in the Korean national origin mythology and the alleged birthplace of Kim Jung Il—he was in fact born in the Soviet Union). The characteristics of neither missile are perfectly well known. The Taepodong-1 is a two stage missile. Based on satellite photographs, the first stage appears to be a Nodong missile and the second stage a Hwasong-6. The Taepodong-1 has been test flown only once on 31 August 1998 as a space launcher; instead of a normal ballistic missile payload, the missile carried a third stage, probably solid fuel, that was meant to inject a small satellite into low Earth orbit. The first two stages appear to have worked but, based on radar tracking data, the third stage seems to have exploded and no satellite entered orbit. (The North Koreans ignore this and officially claim that the satellite is up there.) This one flight test was followed on radar so the United States and Japanese governments probably have good data on its performance. In addition, because the performance of both the Nodong and the Hwasong-6 are well-known, Western open-source analysts believe that they can calculate the performance of the two-stage Taepodong-1, indicating a 25 meter long missile with an initial weight of 21 tons and able to deliver a one ton payload to a range of 2500 kilometers. It is possible that the Taepodong-1 was always meant as a space launcher and it was never intended to be used as a intermediate range military missile.

  Estimates of the performance of the Taepodong-2 are much more speculative. This missile has also been tested only once, in the early morning of 5 July 2006 (still 4 July in the United States) but the missile flew only 40 seconds before exploding. Analysts have speculated on the cause but the timing suggests structural failure due to aerodynamic forces. The aerodynamic force on a missile increases as the speed increases but decreases as the air density gets lower as it rises to higher altitudes. Thus, the aerodynamic force is zero at the beginning of the flight when the speed is zero and it is again zero when it enters orbit and the air density is zero. There is a point in between in the missile’s flight where the combination of speed and density produce a maximum aerodynamic force and that would occur at about the time of failure.

  Because of limited flight test information, analysts must make more guesses about the performance of the Taepodong-2. Based on satellite photography, the second stages appears to be a Nodong missile, that is, the same as the first stage of the Taepodong-1, slightly modified, and the first stage appears very similar to the Chinese CSS-2. Estimates of the performance of the missile are based on the performance of these two components, not on flight tests. If the assumptions about the two stages are wrong, the performance estimates could be considerably in error. —

  [Breaking for space]

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 29 at 8:43 a.m.

  [Continuing]

  Add to this, the following:

  — The North Koreans have tested a nuclear explosive. The yield of their single test was equivalent to 400 tons of TNT, or 0.4 kilotons. This is less than a tenth the explosive power of most first nuclear tests, yet still a large explosion by conventional standards. Nothing is known publicly about the extent to which the explosive has been weaponized, for example, the size and weight of a potential nuclear warhead. Some have speculated that the small yield indicates a failed test, especially given that North Koreans previously alerted some Chinese officials of a test and predicted a much higher yield. Others have suggest that the explosion might not have been so much of a test as an experiment; The North Koreans might have approached the problem from the perspective of fitting a warhead on an available missile, they made due by designing a warhead as large as would fit on the missile, and then tested it to measure the yield. —

  Put the two together and the realities are that in an arena (H-EMP) requiring a reliable heavy-lift launcher capable of lofting a mega-ton yield weapon, the North Koreans can currently field a highly dubious launcher at least arguably capable of lifting a device yielding only 0.4 kilotons.

  Under-estimating the enemy is dangerous, that's certainly true.

  But so is over-estimating.

  Pragmatic realism with a healthy dose of skepticism would be the best way to proceed, in my opinion.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  lewis on May 29 at 8:57 a.m.

  maybe this is the reason The Long Count Calendar of the Ancient Mayans ends at 11:11am December 21st 2012……………..BLAMMO

  Better stock up on some sunblock 2,012 we might need it.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Terry MR on May 29 at 10:27 a.m.

  It's one thing exploding a nuclear bomb underground in “laboratory conditions”. Putting one on a missile, which has never flown successfully and getting it to do what you want is another.

  Chances are we'd know about the preparations for such a launch ahead of time, and a well placed cruise missile would end it pretty quickly.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  JeanieS on May 29 at 3:00 p.m.

  More activity is going on and they fired off a sixth missile today.

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/a…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary D Rhodes on May 29 at 8:28 p.m.

  The only way to make sure rogue nations keep their nuclear weapons well guarded is to make sure they know they will be utterly destroyed if their weapons end up being used by anybody in an offensive manner.

  If the UN has any use at all, it would be making sure WMDs were well inventoried and guarded. They should take samples, or add markers to the plutonium, and ingredients for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons so forensic scientists will be able to exactly determine where weapons came from.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on May 29 at 11:02 p.m.

  Most of the EMP hype comes from DoD folks who are pushing for even more billion$ of taxpayer funds to be thrown down the toilet for missile defense systems.

  Paranoia will destroy ya.

  http://www.dickdestiny.com/blog/2009/…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Dave Laird on May 30 at 5:36 a.m.

  Good morning, Spokelooneh…

  You wrote in part:

  Most of the EMP hype comes from DoD folks who are pushing for even more billion$ of taxpayer funds to be thrown down the toilet for missile defense systems.
  Paranoia will destroy ya.
  http://www.dickdestiny.com/blog/2009/…
  Unquote

  I categorically disagree not only with this opinion but those of the author of the source you just cited. Even as far back as the 1960's, when an atomic bomb was exploded in near-space near Johnson Island, there were several catastrophic EMP effects noted as far away as Hawaii Island (750 miles) and in near-space itself with three low-level satellites that were destroyed by the atomic explosion. A worthy scientific discussion of the effects of EMP are available from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/cas… which was published by NASA. The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from several Johnson Island tests sent power line surges throughout Oahu, knocking out street lighting, blowing fuses, radio transmitters and circuit breakers, and triggering burglar alarms.

  If you browse http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/T… you can see the entire set of upper-atmosphere tests that were performed, and the results for each.

  With just a bit of searching on the Internet, you can find lots of data from authentically-scientific sources that give us a clear picture of the EMP effect.

  Dave

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 30 at 6:04 a.m.

  To get a sufficient EMP pulse a higher yield nuke weapon is needed. Well is there a relationship with the NORKS bringing back online one of their reactors to possibly make plutonium?

  You don't need a sophisticated launch vehicle. You just need to lob the warhead up to about 100KM. Think ship launched missile off one of our coasts. The Iranians have done this in the Caspian Sea. The Iranians attend the NORKS launches and nuke tests. A correlation here?

  BTW AQ has a ghost fleet of container ships.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 30 at 6:39 a.m.

  Dave,

  Once again, I have to suggest the need to remember that nobody really *knows*. There are indeed many theoretical studies grounded in good, hard science. And those studies say that EMP effects are real and therefore pose a genuine threat.

  The unanimity ends however, when scientists try to extrapolate specific effect and thus quantify specific threat from the generally agreed upon theory.

  The oft-cited *STARFISH* test and the Oahu street lights is a perfect example of this.

  — This event was analyzed by Charles Vittitoe, a Sandia National Laboratory scientist, in a report published in 1989 (SAND88-3341, April 1989). He notes that the observed damage is consistent with the magnitude and orientation of the EMP fields impinging on the streetlight strings that suffered damage. More importantly, he notes that the 30 strings of failed streetlights represented only about 1% of the streetlights that existed on Oahu at the time. Thus, the effects were not ubiquitous. —

  So yes; a high-altitude detonation *did* produce a damaging EMP. So yes; there is a genuine threat. Streetlights (and other infrastructure) *were negatively effected to a serious degree.* But not all the streetlights that could have been effected were effected. Why were the 1% that were? No one really knows.

  So *something* happened. That at least is demonstrable and therefore undeniable. And we have a theory to explain the underlying mechanism of that 'something'. But how exactly does that mechanism work in *specific cases*? What will be the *predictable effect*?

  No one really knows.

  Ron,

  All atomic/nuclear detonations produce EMP. It's just that in most cases, that EMP is going to be the least of your worries if you're within the relatively small zone of effect. (Sure, all the circuit breakers in your house might trip - and you might even have enough time to notice that fact before the thermal pulse arrives and your circuit breaker panel bursts into flames… Along with you.) However, for an EMP weapon to be strategic in nature, you do need a sophisticated launch vehicle and a mega-ton-ish warhead. If you've only got a kilo-ton-ish weapon and a tactical level launcher (a SCUD for example) with which to deploy it, you might just as well make it a ground-burst and get a lot more 'bang for the buck.' (The resultant fallout alone will probably cover a larger area than your EMP effect could, and will be a far greater problem for a lot longer.)

  With respect to the North Koreans or the Iranians representing a credible threat for this kind of thing: Perhaps… Maybe… Someday…

  But not today.

  And not for the immediately foreseeable future.

  I submit the important point that must not get lost in all of this being; there's still time for *the world community* to join in common cause against the rabid ankle-biters, accurately sort out what's real from what are distracting, imagined hypothetical fears, get its … 'stuff'… together and then nip this problem in the bud before 'perhaps…maybe…someday…' becomes 'uh-oh…'
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  George Sands on May 30 at 8:17 a.m.

  It should be noted that our Intelligence services, way back in the 70's decided to cease humint for overhead technology.

  That being so, the anal(ysts) have focused on weapons capabilities (as the above posters have bandied on) and ignored the more important part of the Intelligence collection and processing cycle of “INTENT”. You can only bean count so many satellite photographs.

  What we really need to know is what is the intent of their leaders and that only comes from good Human Intelligence. (Of which in a closed society is tough to do),

  Even after the supposed consolidation of the Intell services after 911 there is still wrangling between the CIA and NSA as whose running the show in foreign embassies.

  A 400 ton firecracker doesn't sweat me a bit, its what they want to do with it that does. We can either ignore them as an Atomic Power and or hope to bring them to mental maturity and forestall any bad decisions.

  Unfortunately the UN is ineffective. It's again probably up to us with the other countries just sitting on their thumbs.

  It is interesting that it was reported that China and FSSR were upset with DPRK for causing problems, when the former Countries are attempting to maintain credibility as world powers in their own right.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  lewis on May 30 at 9:15 a.m.

  Jeffery can a EMT be denoted by a airplane? And be effective?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 30 at 1:16 p.m.

  Lewis,

  I remember from my training that any nuclear detonation will produce some degree of EMP damage. But the effects are usually so localized and so secondary when compared to the heat, blast and radiation damage that it's usually not a consideration. Who cares if your computer's chips are fried when the computer itself is a blob of melted metal and plastic buried under several tons of irradiated rubble?

  I'm nowhere near expert enough to say this with certainty, but according to my limited understanding of the physics of EMP weaponry; if all you can do is put a small device on an airplane, you'd probably accomplish far greater destruction by flying the airplane over the city you want to cripple and dropping the weapon at the intersection of 1st and Main.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

« Back to Community Comment