What these articles always leave out is what are the US capabilities in this area? Can we destroy the Russian and Chinese power grids by the same methods? Snowden showed that yes, the NSA and other US agencies have pretty much gotten in to everything and the cyber warfare is likely in place. What are our EMP capabilities both nuclear and non-nuclear? Is this a case of something new? The adversaries have caught up? Or someone just wants some more funding?
As it only takes one nuke, my assumption is that anyone with nukes and ICBMs can take out a power grid or grids spanning any region the size of the continental USA.
On that basis, yes, you could also take out the Russian or Chinese grids this way.
North Korea could also perform such an attack.
I assume the UK can too; although I don't know the maximum altitude of a Trident SLBM, the maximum range suggests it could well be great enough for this mode of attack.
Non-nuclear EMPs do exist, but you should probably ignore them at this point unless you're actively working in that field, given all the easier solutions in EW including simple jamming.
A CME event does sound civilization ending, at least for the part of the globe awake when it happens. However the rest of the globe would still be ok, and could quickly ship the necessary hardware over. One hopes that FEMA and the US military do have a DR plan in place for this, because it may happen in our lifetimes.
> The report concluded that, one year after a large-scale EMP or CME, nine of every ten Americans would be dead, from a variety of causes stemming from the attack.
It's wild to me how little people understand how many systems they rely on just to survive. It's only hard to for you to believe the impact because things have been running smoothly so you haven't had not notice the energy infrastructure you're depending on.
The entire electrical grid of the US is destroyed you no longer have the means to provide clean drinking water and food to the nation. You would have immediate and widespread economic collapse. Even the military would be crippled in there ability to help since, per the article, 99% of their power comes from the consumer grid.
You can lose power for a few days and be fine because you are still supported by a massive electrical infrastructure. But a destroyed grid would be catastrophic.
Electrics go down and don’t come back up -> petrol/gas stations stop working -> supply chains break down, including for food -> mass starvation.
Exactly how many people you expect to die will depend on your assumptions. Also on whether it occurs due to a CME (can expect humanitarian aid from the other side of the planet) or military action (other countries probably have more pressing concerns in this scenario).
> or military action (other countries probably have more pressing concerns in this scenario)
I'm starting to think that getting nuked would be preferable to a conventional attack disabling the national grid for prolonged duration. At least for those close to one of the impact sites it would be a faster and more pleasant way to go.
But would it be worse than starvation? I imagine that the two combined would hasten a victim's demise, too, which in this scenario might be desirable to the victim.
An extended grid down event is probably much more serious than you are imagining. It’s not just lights and fridges that stop working, but sewage pumps, water systems, gas stations and virtually every other system you rely on.
What would your plan be to keep you and your family alive? Would you be able to protect your resources from others who also want to keep their own families alive?
Disruption of just-in-time delivery of food, medicine, and other essentials would potentially be a very deadly thing all by by itself. Even if these items are available, the ability to purchase said goods would be difficult with the overwhelming dependency on electronic payment methods used today. Even pulling money from your bank account could be problematic.
90% might be a bit high, I don't know. However, I don't find it at all hard to believe that the casualty rate would be obscenely high and cover a majority of the population.
It basically assumes that nobody will have any problem solving skills and will be reliant on the previous systems to still be running. That assumption is easier to make than to try to figure out how people would actually behave.
currently there isn’t one. We can manufacture about 2 “big” transformers a year, and there are about 120 on the planet. Assume 50% are melted, and even with redirected resources itll take a long time to recover
This has been largely known since the 60s, when the Starfish Prime exoatmospheric nuclear test knocked out all communications and damaged power grids over the Pacific.
