An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack can be triggered by a nuclear warhead detonated at high altitude over America. The resulting blast will create an EMP, a shockwave that can "cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure." Even if a high-altitude EMP kills nobody at first, it would paralyze a large section of the United States. The lingering practical and economic effects would take anywhere from hours to years to resolve: when secondary effects are considered, an EMP could be even deadlier than a direct nuclear strike against the mainland. As Rep. Roscoe Bartlett has written: "Where the terrorist airliner attacks of 9/11 killed thousands, a terrorist EMP attack could indirectly kill millions and conceivably cause the permanent collapse of our entire society."
Currently our country is unprepared to deal with the threat of EMPs. This section examines the impact that an EMP attack would have on the United States, as well as defensive measures that the U.S. can take. One measure is hardening our infrastructure against such an attack. But the most vital step is development of an adequate missile defense system.
The Wall Street Journal Opinion
Newt Gingrich's rise in the polls has brought attention to his various "big ideas," and plenty of derision from other GOP Presidential hopefuls and the media. Among the most undeserved targets is the former Speaker's concern about an electromagnetic pulse (or EMP) attack.
In speeches and articles over many years, Mr. Gingrich has sounded the alarm about this vulnerability. A single nuclear explosion high in the Earth's atmosphere would create an electromagnetic pulse that could do enormous harm by destroying electronic circuits on the ground. "Such an event would destroy our complex, delicate high tech digital society in an instant and throw all our lives back to an existence equal to that of the Middle Ages," he wrote in an introduction to "One Second After," a 2009 science-fiction novel by William Forstchen. He has returned to this theme during the campaign. More...
Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack
William R. Graham, John S. Foster, and Defense Department
January 1, 2008
This report is an essential reference for this topic.
It analyzes the effect of an EMP blast on critical American infrastructure (i.e. electrical power, food infrastructure, and emergency services), and offers recommendations for insulating the sector from harm.
"Because of the ubiquitous dependence of U.S. society on the electrical power system, its vulnerability to an EMP attack, coupled with the EMP's particular damage mechanisms, creates the possibility of long-term, catastrophic consequences. The implicit invitation to take advantage of this vulnerability, when coupled with increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, is a serious concern." More...
This was a groundbreaking report that received a great deal of attention in homeland security circles. More...
"Although EMP was first considered during the Cold War as a means of paralyzing U.S. retaliatory forces, the risk of an EMP attack may be greater today than during the Cold War, as several adversaries seek nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and asymmetric ways to overcome U.S. conventional superiority using one or a small number of nuclear weapons."
"The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon which American society depends. Their effects on critical infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the Nation." More...
"[W]hile HEMP weapons are large in scale and require a nuclear capability along with technology to launch high altitude missiles, HPM weapons are smaller in scale, involve a much lower level of technology, and may be within the capability of many non-state organizations." More...
"Determined terrorists could inflict lasting, if not actually permanent, damage on the United States' electrical and other computer-based systems by employing small nuclear or non-nuclear devices that generate what is known as electro-magnetic pulse (EMP)."
"The U.S. military, which used to pay serious attention to the question, largely stopped doing so after a moratorium was imposed in 1992 on all nuclear testing (including that done for EMP effects). Since then, the vulnerability of the armed forces' satellites, communications gear, and other hardware has become largely a matter of conjecture, if it is addressed at all. Matters are infinitely worse with respect to civilian electronic equipment, essentially none of which was designed with the costly features that would protect against EMP." More...
After discussing the physical effects of an EMP blast, Spencer offers multiple scenarios in which an EMP could be used against America's interests.
In closing, he offers recommendations for Congress to combat the threat, including holding hearings, establishing a commission, and "pressing the Administration to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technologically possible." More...
Spencer sounds the alarm on the relative inaction in the previous decade on protecting our infrastructure. "[S]ince the end of the Cold War, U.S. military and civilian systems have become increasingly dependent on advanced electronics that are potentially more vulnerable than older electronics to EMP attack--a trend that will likely continue."
He prescribes a list of actions that the United States could take to decrease its vulnerability. More...
The article also exposes Congressional disinterest in combating the EMP threat. More...
"Where the terrorist airliner attacks of 9/11 killed thousands, a terrorist EMP attack could indirectly kill millions and conceivably cause the permanent collapse of our entire society." More...
It includes a complete reproduction of Volume 1 of the 2004 Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack, and dozens of other military and government documents and reports, as well as relevant testimony from Congressional hearings. More...
President Barack Obama's administration recently threatened to veto the defense budget, citing "serious concerns" over provisions that limit the U.S. missile defense know-how that the White House is permitted to share with Moscow. This is the sort of information that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in his earlier days, would have assigned his spies to steal. Through its single-minded pursuit of "resetting" relations with Russia, the Obama administration may simply be willing to hand over this information and, in doing so, weaken U.S. national security. MORE...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said recently in Thailand that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the U.S. will offer allies in the Middle East a "defense umbrella" to prevent Iranian intimidation. That's a fine sentiment, but it raises the question: Are we capable of doing so?
The answer is more complicated than most people think. MORE...
To the Editor:
Re "Terror Creeps Into the Heartland" (column, July 23):
Nicholas D. Kristof makes a strong point when he writes that "Pakistan should be President Obama's top foreign policy challenge." Pakistan, the world's sixth largest country, is nuclear-armed and is facing a serious challenge from radical Islam in several manifestations - Al Qaeda and the Taliban being the best known. More ...
"On February 2, 2009, Iran successfully launched a satellite into orbit using a rocket with technology similar to that used in long-range ballistic missiles. On May 20, 2009, Iran test-fired a 1,200-mile solid-fueled ballistic missile. North Korea attempted to launch a satellite on April 6, 2009, which, while failing to place the satellite in orbit, delivered its payload some 2,390 miles away in the Pacific Ocean. This was followed by a North Korean explosive nuclear weapons test on May 25, 2009. The ballistic-missile threat to the U.S. and its friends and allies is growing. Under these circumstances, common sense would dictate that the Obama Administration support full funding for the U.S. missile defense program..."More...
As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.
Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable. More...
"[W]hat is concerning is that this extending range [of Iran's ballistic missiles] is much farther beyond anything that they would need in a regional conflict with Israel, because a missile that is capable of even 1,300 or 1,500 kilometers could encompass the Israeli country as well as -- the country of Israel as well as the U.S. bases in the region." More...
"Although the program was eliminated by the Clinton Administration, the concept of Brilliant Pebbles remains among the most effective means of ballistic missile defense." More...
This assessment and explanation is useful in understanding the current missile defense technology that is available. More...
"The Army is seeking nearly $986 million for developing and procuring the Patriot and related systems. More than half that total will go toward buying 108 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptors, which are designed to counter short- and medium-range missiles near the end of their flights. The Patriot anti-missile system is the only one that is battle-tested, and the results were mixed." More...
"Congress will not and should not fund a [missile defense] system until testing has proven that it works, and that testing will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest," said Wendy Morigi, a spokesman for Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Rogin writes, "Democrats have also consistently cut funding for the [European missiles] project, estimated by the Congressional Research Service to cost a total $4.8 billion, in an effort to steer it towards more oversight and accountability." More...
An EMP attack has the potential to completely devastate "America's electric system and telecommunications from coast to coast, the system could not be restored for a long time."
"The best protection might be a combination of air defense against cruise missiles, ballistic-missile defense and relatively cheap measures to reduce the vulnerability of the electric system and to accelerate its recovery."
"[W]hat has been implemented to avert such an apocalyptic ending of our nation? Nothing has been implemented." More...
Such an attack would cripple the transportation industry, food supply, public health, and could create widespread fires that could cause further death and destruction.
The threat is worsened by the fact that "al Qaeda is believed to own about 80" freight vessels, from which such a weapon could be launched into the atmosphere above an American city. More...