If you detonate a nuclear weapon above a city, no matter how far above, you will call upon you a nuclear response. There’s no difference between an EMP attempt and a nuclear strike. So why would you attempt an EMP attack when that means giving up most of the destructive force to maybe burn out powerlines, and guaranteed surface nuclear response on your territory?
My high school physics says that’s BS, but EMP scare tactics does make for a great info-war weapon. It’s quite the boogeyman if you don’t have much science background.
Stuxnet like attacks are way way more plausible and likely.
It comes across as somewhat condescending and naive to refer to a HS class as having a notable amount of science background. And a reason to dismiss other sources of information.
Sources that invalidate foundational theory? It’s like claims that cell radios cause molecular damage in humans; that probably requires proving Enstien’s Nobel prize winning work on the photoelectric effect is wrong.
You shouldn't be down voted. Non-nuclear EMP devices exist but due to the inverse square law (which we learned in high school physics) we know that they have short effective range. And they require a large conventional explosive to generate the pulse. So they work but are not a major threat worth worrying about.
What does actually work and have been operationally used are graphite bombs designed to short out electrical equipment. Those are much cheaper and more effective than EMP weapons.
Buddy you’re gonna have to learn that sometimes your teachers are just wrong. Just because they’re in some position of authority doesn’t automatically qualify their credentials
What are you talking about? Google 'explosively pumped flux compression generator'. LANL wrote a paper on how to do this in the '70s and did real world tests. You output to the antenna or right into the grid.
The film Threads (which strived for accuracy) had a full scale nuclear attack on the U.K. preceded by a high altitude nuclear detonation over the North Sea, in order to knock out as many systems as possible with an EMP. And from the Starfish Prime test, we know that such events also create an unusual coloured light display.
I don't think you can say EMP weapons don't exist. I know what you're trying to say, but attacking a city with an EMP strike will be seen international ly as far more favorable than an actual strike.
Also, an EMP strike can be detonated really high in the atmosphere where we would have zero chance to intercept and is more economical for non first world countries.
If you detonate a nuclear weapon above a city, no matter how far above, you will call upon you a nuclear response. There’s no difference between an EMP attempt and a nuclear strike. So why would you attempt an EMP attack when that means giving up most of the destructive force to maybe burn out powerlines, and guaranteed surface nuclear response on your territory?