Slashdot Mirror


50th Anniversary of the Starfish Prime Nuclear Weapon Test Today

The Bad Astronomer writes "50 years ago today, the U.S. detonated a nuclear weapon 240 miles above the Pacific Ocean. Called Starfish Prime, it was supposed to help U.S. scientists and the military understand how the Soviets might try to stop incoming nuclear missiles. What it actually did was blow out hundreds of streetlights in Hawaii 900 miles away, damage a half dozen satellites, and create artificial aurorae and intense radiation zones above the Earth. It taught the world what an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) was, and what the effects might be from a powerful solar flare, a nearby supernova, or a gamma-ray burst."

190 comments

  1. Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let's do it again!

    1. Re:Sounds like fun! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know!

      What it actually did was blow out hundreds of streetlights in Hawaii 900 miles away, damage a half dozen satellites, and create artificial aurorae and intense radiation zones above the Earth.

      Sounds like a successful test to me. :-) Assuming they were testing for AWESOMENESS!

    2. Re:Sounds like fun! by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Funny

      I shudder to think of how much atmosphere, ozone, and other vital systems in our atmosphere might have been burned up by these tests.

      After all, Nuclear testing is what killed off the Martians,and made mars such an inhospitable wasteland...

    3. Re:Sounds like fun! by vlm · · Score: 1

      what the effects might be from a powerful solar flare, a nearby supernova, or a gamma-ray burst.

      Might be a good idea to do it every July 4th, but please ramp up gradually over a couple years from "not much, zune rollout level pffft" to "full on mega solar flare" level. That way we can get our gear in line. I believe there was a nuclear program called "swords into plowshares" or something like that dedicated to using nukes to make a new larger panama canal and all that kind of stuff. This testing would seem a pretty good peaceful use of the stockpile.

      Also WRT to the nuclear explosion being called "starfish" this has lead to endless jokes about Taco Bell, McDonalds, resulting in food poisoning, resulting in nuclear level pain in my starfish, etc. Could they possibly select a goofier "code word" for the next test, like maybe the codeword "uranus" test or the codeword "Goat See" test?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Sounds like fun! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are thinking of "Operation Plowshare"... A not-wildly-successful-but-truly-a-classic-of-the-nuclear-optimism-period project. Essentially, team nuclear realized that mankind now had the power to dig very large holes very quickly and proceeded to see what sorts of civil engineering could be shoehorned into being based on very large holes.

      The godless communists, (as is often the case with these cold-war-era things) had an even larger, also not terribly well conceived; but much less euphemistically named project: "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy".

    5. Re:Sounds like fun! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0

      You know atmosphere + sunlight makes more ozone, right? Wait... Martains? WTF?

    6. Re:Sounds like fun! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Also WRT to the nuclear explosion being called "starfish" this has lead to endless jokes about Taco Bell, McDonalds, resulting in food poisoning, resulting in nuclear level pain in my starfish, etc.

      I'm sorry, what?

    7. Re:Sounds like fun! by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone is about to post a picture of the slang definition of 'starfish'.

      Don't click the link.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Sounds like fun! by zlives · · Score: 1

      "named project: "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy" "
      or
      NENE!!

    9. Re:Sounds like fun! by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I won't believe it unless the Mythbusters can replicate it. Not a job for the digital high-speed camera though.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    10. Re:Sounds like fun! by fibonacci8 · · Score: 2

      Duck, duck, goose!

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    11. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know atmosphere + sunlight makes more ozone, right? Wait... Martains? WTF?

      Good catch! You're quite observant. He clearly meant the dinosaurs.

    12. Re:Sounds like fun! by metalgamer84 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dinosaurs aren't real, they were just made up to discourage time travelers.

    13. Re:Sounds like fun! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Um... kay...

    14. Re:Sounds like fun! by necro81 · · Score: 1

      The godless communists, (as is often the case with these cold-war-era things) had an even larger, also not terribly well conceived; but much less euphemistically named project: "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy".

      Is that like the broken window fallacy, writ extremely large?

    15. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Na Doctor Who proved that there are dinosaurs.

    17. Re:Sounds like fun! by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's how crazy of an effect nuclear bombs have had on our atmosphere. Basically, artifacts from the latter half of the 20th century and much of the 21st century will not be able to be reliably carbon dated in the future. Even if you want to include a compensation factor, the concentrations for a given location at different times over the lifespan of an organism and the organism's uptake at different points in its life aren't readily quantified.

      --
      sed "s/SJW.*$/... never mind. I was about to say something stupid, and also, I'm a troglodyte./Ig"
    18. Re:Sounds like fun! by EdIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dinosaurs aren't real, they were just made up to discourage time travelers.

      You ever heard of the redneck Olympics?

      Not everyone gets discouraged so easily....

    19. Re:Sounds like fun! by Antipater · · Score: 2

      It was more like, "Hey! We've got that whole 'Siberia' thing, right? Wouldn't it be great if we could irrigate it and make it do something useful?" "Well, sure, but all the major rivers skirt around it and head south. There's no way to redirect that much water-flow!" "Sure there is! WITH NUKES!!"

      Meanwhile, the Americans had Op. Plowshare, which was basically fracking. But with nukes.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    20. Re:Sounds like fun! by splatter · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, I did not know that.

      The most scary part was intended uses. They figured it could be used for fracking natural gas & wanted to blast the p-canal wider, & a new e-w passage. Can you imagine what panama might have had to say about that?

      And of course fracking caused radioactive gas that was worthless, & we still haven't learned that lesson.

      Sigh... BTW nice name, Good to see other mush heads around friend.

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    21. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy for Make Benefit Glorious Soviet Union of Mother Russia" to give it its full title.

    22. Re:Sounds like fun! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The 'irrigating siberia'(and accidentally killing the Aral sea...) thing was actually another wacky soviet project: The Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature....

    23. Re:Sounds like fun! by A10Mechanic · · Score: 1

      Wow. I totally heard that in the voice of Sterling Archer. I may need to watch less television...

    24. Re:Sounds like fun! by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Your link is a 404...

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    25. Re:Sounds like fun! by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 1

      I blame the nuclear bombs.

    26. Re:Sounds like fun! by kesuki · · Score: 1

      well i just found out it was done several hundred times! http://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY

    27. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the absence of a Mars magnetosphere allowed the solar winds to strip off atmosphere.
      well, that's what Marvin told me.

    28. Re:Sounds like fun! by busyqth · · Score: 1

      Here's how crazy of an effect nuclear bombs have had on our atmosphere. Basically, artifacts from the latter half of the 20th century and much of the 21st century will not be able to be reliably carbon dated in the future.

      Wow what a disaster! If only we had known!

    29. Re:Sounds like fun! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can only assume that half the fun of having enough nukes that you can use them for digging holes is not having to listen to NIMBY sentiment...

      Given that Panama was, in no small part, created as a country in order to facilitate US interests in building the canal the first time around, I suspect that we would have been more than happy to ensure that the CIA provided whatever assistance was required for the free people of panama to make the right choice.

    30. Re:Sounds like fun! by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't know; I've been told we've been able to compensate for whatever caused the Cretaceous extinction.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    31. Re:Sounds like fun! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      During the operation plumbob tests, a 900kg steel plate may have been launched into orbit.

      Seems like in over a thousand tests, we only tested nuclear weapons for their capability to be used as a weapon or to defend against them. I think we shouldn't test any more for that purpose, but testing for awesomeness like "launching stuff into the atmosphere using a nuke"... fuck yes!

    32. Re:Sounds like fun! by mbone · · Score: 2

      Here's how crazy of an effect nuclear bombs have had on our atmosphere. Basically, artifacts from the latter half of the 20th century and much of the 21st century will not be able to be reliably carbon dated in the future. Even if you want to include a compensation factor, the concentrations for a given location at different times over the lifespan of an organism and the organism's uptake at different points in its life aren't readily quantified.

      Well, not quite. There is useful post-bomb carbon dating. Basically, we put a lot more C14 into the atmosphere in the 1950's than the natural background. It's largely gone from the air, but it will be decaying in trees and the like for some time to come, and that, too, can be used for dating.

    33. Re:Sounds like fun! by mbone · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of "Operation Plowshare"... A not-wildly-successful-but-truly-a-classic-of-the-nuclear-optimism-period project. Essentially, team nuclear realized that mankind now had the power to dig very large holes very quickly and proceeded to see what sorts of civil engineering could be shoehorned into being based on very large holes.

      This was one of Edward Teller's attempts to justify his life.

    34. Re:Sounds like fun! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Project Orion was a study of a spacecraft intended to be directly propelled by a series of explosions of atomic bombs behind the craft.

      The Orion concept offered high thrust and high specific impulse, or propellant efficiency, at the same time. The unprecedented extreme power requirements for doing so would be met by nuclear explosions, of such power relative to the vehicle's mass as to be survived only by using external detonations without attempting to contain them in internal structure.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

      The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program and the preceding Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project worked to develop a nuclear propulsion system for aircraft.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    35. Re:Sounds like fun! by physburn · · Score: 1

      Yes, Carbon-14 is scary, especially as it enters the food chain through any plant absorbing it from the air and becomes part of your body after you eat it. Nuclear bombs would ruin food production on earth for decades!

    36. Re:Sounds like fun! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1
      That was referenced in the wiki link I provided. The orion article seems to indicate that it never got to the testing phase, just design:

      Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.[2] The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project.

    37. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link was a mutant hybrid of this and this.

    38. Re:Sounds like fun! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why I get disappointed each time I hear of the new project called Orion that is nowhere near as impressive.

    39. Re:Sounds like fun! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine what panama might have had to say about that?

      Nothing a convenient plane crash can't fix, and if the new guy doesn't play ball you can send in the marines. That worked last time Panama had a gripe with the USA :(

    40. Re:Sounds like fun! by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      the absence of a Mars magnetosphere allowed the solar winds to strip off atmosphere. well, that's what Marvin told me.

      Did Marvin shouldn't have used the the PU36 Detonator!

    41. Re:Sounds like fun! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So I should find another name for my Twitter app?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    42. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they "do the needful", I is happy.

    43. Re:Sounds like fun! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      It isn't like you don't already eat radioactive things already... in fact, Potassium is an essential nutrient and radioactive. You just don't want too much, and also preferably don't drink a vial of heavy gamma emitters like Cesium 137, as that would be bad.

      Every time people panic over nuclear reactor meltdowns I have to laugh... it seems people have forgotten we used to blow up nukes like this one above ground.

    44. Re:Sounds like fun! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was aiming for. WINNING!

    45. Re:Sounds like fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there were a number of prototype concept demos that took place to test the feasibility of the pusher plate design and ablation, which used conventional explosives to continuously propel a model from its base into the air.

      This and the project as a whole is covered in the excellent book "Project Orion" by George Dyson (son of freeman dyson!) as well as a BBC documentary "To Mars by A bomb" which shows film footage of the concept.I have read and watched both and can highly recommend if your interested in this sort of stuff.

      Truly a fascinating idea of its time!

  2. and gave birth to... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    another device for science fiction. Can't even recall the number (high) of books and short fiction where this device has figured in somewhere.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:and gave birth to... by vlm · · Score: 1

      another device for science fiction.

      Also survivalist fiction, typically with no bearing on the reality.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:and gave birth to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a science fiction story with a probe landing on Venus and finding evidence of a nuclear weapons accident destroying what used to be a planet covered by forests.

    3. Re:and gave birth to... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to see a science fiction story with a probe landing on Venus and finding evidence of a nuclear weapons accident destroying what used to be a planet covered by forests.

      More likely to find highways choked with derelict SUVs

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:and gave birth to... by Rei · · Score: 2

      Venus's problem isn't so much that it has a CO2-based atmosphere, as that it has a *90 atmosphere* CO2-based atmosphere. Even if you removed all of the CO2 and were left with a 3.5 atm nitrogen atmosphere it'd still have a major greenhouse effect (nitrogen isn't generally a greenhouse gas, but at higher densities than are found on Earth, due to the higher collision rate, it gains an induced dipole moment; this is seen on Titan)

      As another example, Mars too has a primarily CO2-based atmosphere. But it's a 0.007 atm CO2 atmosphere. Hence, it's frigid instead of burning-hot like Venus.

      --
      sed "s/SJW.*$/... never mind. I was about to say something stupid, and also, I'm a troglodyte./Ig"
    5. Re:and gave birth to... by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hence, it's frigid instead of burning-hot like Venus.

      In fact, it's cold as Hell.

      -- Sir Elton John, probably not FRS

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:and gave birth to... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Pretty poor effort there Jock, if you are going to troll you need to do much better than that. -1 pissweak...

    7. Re:and gave birth to... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It's belived that Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect. It's oceans evaporated, the vater vaopur was split via radiation in the upper atmosphere driving the hydrogen off into space, the free oxygen then bonded with carbon and filled the atmosphere with CO2. This is also belived to be the eventual fate of the Earth somewhere in the next 0.5-1 billion years.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:and gave birth to... by Zanadou · · Score: 1

      Actually, that line was written by Bernie Taupin.

      But, carry on.

  3. "Are you sure this is safe?" by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Sir...We're hundreds miles from anything...what could possibly go wrong?"

    1. Re:"Are you sure this is safe?" by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2

      Everything.

    2. Re:"Are you sure this is safe?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sir...We're hundreds miles from anything...what could possibly go wrong?"

      Afterward...

      "*sigh* Okay, fine, I'll admit, that wasn't enough. So now let's move hundreds of miles PLUS ONE away and try it again..."

  4. Gamma Rays! by Dareth · · Score: 1

    So that explains how the Rock got super powers!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Gamma Rays! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have the original of that?

    2. Re:Gamma Rays! by Dareth · · Score: 1

      Do mean Hulk or Fantastic 4?

      --

      I only look human.
      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  5. Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comparing a man-made nuclear bomb to a gamma-ray burst seems kind of like comparing one pixel on your monitor to the Sun.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Once Again Mother Nature can kick our Asses with out hesitation.

    2. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - "a typical [gamma-ray] burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime". That would get all of the streetlights... on the planet.

    3. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      From what distance?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. I am thinking that most of the geeks have left slashdot and it is now just a stone to grind political axes without any understanding. What happened to the good old days of people building mech playhouses for their kids in the backyard.
      Now that was a whole lot of awesome

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess, the nuclear test would have to be much much closer to register as one pixel vs. the sun, if you want to compare it vs. a type 1a supernova. Maybe 100m from the nuclear blast is about similar to type 1a supernova at 150,000,000,000m, or about where the sun is, and then *maybe* you may compare the two on the scale of one pixel (the nuke) vs. sun in terms of brightness over about 5 seconds.

      A nuclear device can only come close to brightness comparison if you are looking at scales of microseconds or similar. And that comparison only works because of the limitations of speed of light!

      To keep it in perspective, a supernova can blow away Earth's like planet atmospheres over a distance of *light years*. It can irradiate and destroy ozone layers at a distance of hundreds and hundreds of light years, and some at a few thousand light years.

      Some cosmic BOOMs are so large, that they will glow more brightly than the rest of the visible universe combined. And the longer you look, the larger BOOMs are seen :)

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7893771/Nasa-satellite-blinded-by-biggest-ever-star-explosion-seen-in-space.html

    6. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Actually, comparing one pixel on my screen to a class-G star a couple lightyears away seems entirely reasonable.

    7. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Comparing a man-made nuclear bomb to a gamma-ray burst seems kind of like comparing one pixel on your monitor to the Sun.

      mostly because I'd notice if a pixel on my monitor burnt out.

    8. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by russotto · · Score: 2

      What happened to the good old days of people building mech playhouses for their kids in the backyard.

      All arrested for child endangerment.

    9. Re:Not really supernovae and gamma-ray bursts by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Comparing a man-made nuclear bomb to a gamma-ray burst [wikipedia.org] seems kind of like comparing one pixel on your monitor to the Sun.

      Inverse-square law motherfucker, do you speak it?

  6. There was only ONE! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    blow out hundreds of streetlights

    Sounds like an immortal got his head chopped off that day.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:There was only ONE! by zlives · · Score: 2

      really makes you wish... there was only the one :)

    2. Re:There was only ONE! by DroolTwist · · Score: 2

      It was actually a magic missile! They were attacking the darkness!

    3. Re:There was only ONE! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      It was actually a magic missile! They were attacking the darkness!

      So... It's a kind of magic?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. Actually? by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it was supposed to help US scientists and the military understand how the Soviets might try to stop incoming nuclear missiles. What it actually did was

    Thanks for the loaded language; actually, it probably did both. It's nice that now when we know about all the negative effects so we can peer down our nose at the evil scientist puppets of the military but they really didn't know back then. That's why it's called an "experiment".

    1. Re:Actually? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ha, I'd like to hear commentary on the nobility of scientific experiments if/when China does this. I'm sure we would have no problem with them bursting nukes over our heads and knocking out our satellites (oops!)

    2. Re:Actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it's a known scientific fact now, which it was not back then.

    3. Re:Actually? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Ha, I'd like to hear commentary on the nobility of scientific experiments if/when China does this. I'm sure we would have no problem with them bursting nukes over our heads and knocking out our satellites (oops!)

      The previous experiment found out about the harmful side effects 50+ years prior so you think the only reason anyone would complain about worldwide radiation today is because of petty nationalism?

    4. Re:Actually? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually a lot of the data was lost because it went off the charts or the equipment was destroyed.

      The dumb thing was they assumed the Soviets would try it without actually witnessing them testing their own version. When you look at the history of the nuclear stand-off the US looks pretty crazy next to the USSR. I can understand why the US is now so paranoid about countries like Iran getting nuclear weapons - it's because they assume Iran will be as nuts as they were.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and unintended consequences.

    6. Re:Actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's because the US looks sane compared to Iran.

    7. Re:Actually? by lennier · · Score: 1

      it was supposed to help US scientists and the military understand how the Soviets might try to stop incoming nuclear missiles. What it actually did was

      Thanks for the loaded language; actually, it probably did both.

      Right. The results were probably something like "neat, so we can fry the electronics of incoming missiles by launching a high-altitude burst of our own, and we don't even have to get very close... and we can use this to take out satellites, spacecraft, civilian ground systems, all sorts of things... but we better harden all our military systems against the EMP burst. On the downside, we now have to replace about a thousand light bulbs in Hawaii, but hey, Science!"

      On the other hand, there was a reason Starfish Prime wasn't done again, and it wasn't just the EMP pulse. A test ban went into effect the next year, because fallout isn't a nice thing and was showing up in various places it shouldn't, like kids' teeth.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:Actually? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      the US looks sane compared to Iran.

      Number of times the USA has used nuclear weapons against civilians: 2
      Number of times Iran has used nuclear weapons against civilians: 0

    9. Re:Actually? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      number in arsenal/number used would give interesting results. iran would have used an infinite number...

    10. Re:Actually? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Number of times the US has threatened to use nukes against civilians :1
      Number of times Iran has threatened to remove Isreal from the earth:countless

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Actually? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      The US wasn't detonating nuclear bombs as though you had a bunch of rednecks blowing up anthills. Some of the brightest minds in science poured over the data. Else, the bombs wouldn't have progressed at the technological level they had.

      Do you have NetFlix? I highly recommend Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie. It's about the most informative documentary flick I've watched in a while. Nukes in Space - Rainbow Bombs is another one worth watching. Both narrated by William Shatner.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    12. Re:Actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "poured over the data"

      What? It melted their brains?

    13. Re:Actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, back then we DIDN'T know until we ran the experiment.
      Nowadays we DO know, because we ran the experiment 50 years ago.

      Therefore if we now DO know, then so do the Chinese, and of course we can scream like hell when the Chinese do it, because they would do it, already KNOWING the effects, because we ran the experiment 50 years ago.

      (sigh)

    14. Re:Actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was supposed to help US scientists and the military understand how the Soviets might try to stop incoming nuclear missiles. What it actually did was

      Thanks for the loaded language; actually, it probably did both.

      Right. The results were probably something like "neat, so we can fry the electronics of incoming missiles by launching a high-altitude burst of our own, and we don't even have to get very close... and we can use this to take out satellites, spacecraft, civilian ground systems, all sorts of things... but we better harden all our military systems against the EMP burst. On the downside, we now have to replace about a thousand light bulbs in Hawaii, but hey, Science!"

      On the other hand, there was a reason Starfish Prime wasn't done again, and it wasn't just the EMP pulse. A test ban went into effect the next year, because fallout isn't a nice thing and was showing up in various places it shouldn't, like kids' teeth.

      So the nucular test ban was all about "think of the children!!!" All other arguments were nothing but smoke and mirrors. Slashdotters, unite in our campaign to get nucular tests back on track! We'll shove fallout up Iran's ass, bitches!!!

    15. Re:Actually? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      You mean Israel, and the US threatened to nuke a lot of countries, civilians at all - basically the entirety of the soviet bloc during the Cold War. Also the stated reason for dropping two bombs without threat was that they wanted a show of force to prevent a long land war in Japan. The reality is, Japan had offered to conditionally surrender (a month before or something like that), with the condition being the royal dynasty couldn't be touched and the US had refused (and after the nukes? they didn't touch the dynasty). That suggests the real reason was to demonstration the awesome might of nuclear weapons to Russia and keep them from pressing into Europe.

      Incidentally, as I recall, the Qur'an predicts the creation of a Jewish state in the middle east and that Christians and Muslims join together to crush it. Then eventually Muslims conquer Christians. Basically Muslim faith calls for the extermination of Israel, which is why the keep trying to destroy it, so of course they threaten it. That said, Israel has shown time and again that Arabs don't have the organization or cooperation to pull it off. I also think they keep forgetting that they are supposed to enlist Christian help (not that they'll get it, but they aren't following their prophet very well).

  8. This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    ... of the Sea" (With the cool sub that had a giant viewport in the front and could launch a flying saucer like aircraft).

    I seem to remember a nuclear explosion high in the atmosphere causing the ionosphere(?) to ignite(?) and BAD THINGS happening. They are sent to launch a counter missile(?) which will extinguish the "flame". (Sorry, it's late here in Vietnam and I'm too lazy to research.

    Unfortunately, this is probably a good argument against project Orion. Hundreds (thousands?) of tiny nukes going off in LEO would probably also do bad things.

    Was this a factor leading up to the above ground test ban treaty? I mean it wouldn't be good to accidentally wipe out the world's electronics industry. (Now doing it on purpose, that's something else entirely). The test ban treaty probably stopped the development of "shaped" nuclear charges (blasting a city from an explosion in orbit) and other exotic weapons like fission bomb pumped x-ray lasers. Oh well, let's hope the Aliens are friendly!

    1. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by gman003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Was this a factor leading up to the above ground test ban treaty? I mean it wouldn't be good to accidentally wipe out the world's electronics industry. (Now doing it on purpose, that's something else entirely). The test ban treaty probably stopped the development of "shaped" nuclear charges (blasting a city from an explosion in orbit) and other exotic weapons like fission bomb pumped x-ray lasers. Oh well, let's hope the Aliens are friendly!

      Note: I'm going completely off memory here, quite likely to get some details wrong.

      This test (and Soviet counterparts) drove a high-altitude test ban treaty (that might actually be the name). They both rather quickly saw that continuing this would bring only ruin to them both.

      That probably was a major factor in the later above-ground and then comprehensive test bans, proving that the two countries could write and abide by a treaty limiting nuclear weapons in any way. But those were years later.

    2. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're remembering a bad old scifi movie. 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' or something.

      They got the idea from a bunch of morons demanding the 'precautionary principle' before it had a name.

      They also thought atom bombs would blow a hole in the bottom of the ocean and all the water would drain out.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by slew · · Score: 1

      Was this a factor leading up to the above ground test ban treaty?

      Starfish Prime (as I recally the only successful detonation of operation Fishbowl) was in July 1962 so it was probably a factor. More generally the whole expiration of the moritorium on nuclear testing in 1961 (resulting in the US and USSR getting in to a propaganda "pissing contest" with radiation polluting the atmosphere). The cuban missle crisis which occured later in October 1962, however, was probably the primary factor leading up to the Limited test ban treaty which was signed in 1963.

      The test ban treaty probably stopped the development of "shaped" nuclear charges (blasting a city from an explosion in orbit) and other exotic weapons like fission bomb pumped x-ray lasers.

      Probably not, for instance research in to nuclear pumped xray laser for the "star-wars" strategic defense initiative continued well into the 1980's...

      Oh well, let's hope the Aliens are friendly!

      It's quite likely if they if/when the "Aliens" get here they will be in such a fragile craft (because nearly all of the resources of the craft will have been dedicated to interstellar space propulsion) that we won't need any fancy tech like that. However, if by chance they have the tech to super-efficienctly traverse interstellar space they are probably here for our resources (and a few x-ray lasers from us aren't gonna pose too much a threat to them)....

    4. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately, this is probably a good argument against project Orion. Hundreds (thousands?) of tiny nukes going off in LEO would probably also do bad things.

      It means Orion has to be built in space and moved away from the planet on some other kind of propulsion before you can start launching nukes, not that Orion is a bad idea...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      You're remembering a bad old scifi movie. 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' or something.

      At least the Seaview had a secretary in high heels, Barbara Eden, dancing a fast charleston to trumpet by Frankie Avalon. Don't see that on actual subs.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    6. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this is probably a good argument against project Orion. Hundreds (thousands?) of tiny nukes going off in LEO would probably also do bad things.

      It means Orion has to be built in space and moved away from the planet on some other kind of propulsion before you can start launching nukes, not that Orion is a bad idea...

      Except that in this case, you need to put the thing in LEO using several Saturn 5 propellers. And this is so expensive (not too mention the risk) that it basically ruins the whole concept. No, really, I used to like Project Orion too but there's no way it could work. Too dangerous, too expensive. Let's put it to rest, already.

    7. Re:This was used in "Voyage to the bottom... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Except that in this case, you need to put the thing in LEO using several Saturn 5 propellers.

      I don't recall stuttering. I said built in space, not launched into space and assembled there.

      No, really, I used to like Project Orion too but there's no way it could work.

      [citation needed]

      Too dangerous, too expensive.

      Compared to what?

      Let's put it to rest, already.

      Give it a rest, already.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Mythbusters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a Mythbusters segment gone wrong.

  10. Someone's got a case of the "s'posed tas" by AaronGilliland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bad Astronomer makes it sound like they didn't achieve their objective. They learned a hell of a lot. Modern warheads are heavily shielded against EMP, so it's not a great point defense. What's more, setting off EMP over your own territory is a bit like breaking your car so you won't get into a car accident.

    A somewhat similar idea (but not too similar) is the idea of X-ray pindown. To facilitate an attack, the aggressor would detonate a neutron bomb high over the target country, bathing it in x-rays so harsh that the target country's ICBM's would be damaged if they tried to launch in retaliation.

    Another interesting aside (at least I think it is): the early anti-ballistic missile programs, Sentinel and Safeguard, were designed to destroy incoming nuclear warheads by... blowing them up with other nuclear warheads. This had the positive effect of taking out one or two incoming warheads, and the very negative effect of blinding the system's radar to any other incoming warheads.

    Mind your emissions, gentlemen.

    1. Re:Someone's got a case of the "s'posed tas" by TCPhotography · · Score: 5, Informative

      The phased arrays that backed the deployed ABM system would not have been blinded by the interceptor warhead initiations. This was the primary advantage of moving to a phase array system for intercept control duty. There is also the fact that the Spartan missiles would have been doing the intercepts well over Canada, and it is only the SPRINT missiles that would have been doing terminal interceptions. Even with Sprint, a 10-30kt event over your territory is a lot better than a much larger (say 1mt) event that's a ground-burst.

      Presently both the US and the Russians use Hit-to-Kill ABM systems because both nations have too much stuff in orbit that is too expensive to replace that we couldn't afford to pump energy into the van Allen belts on the scale that a nuclear-dependent ABM system would provide.

    2. Re:Someone's got a case of the "s'posed tas" by lennier · · Score: 1

      the early anti-ballistic missile programs, Sentinel and Safeguard, were designed to destroy incoming nuclear warheads by... blowing them up with other nuclear warheads.

      And that's how we got the ABM program known as Atari Missile Command.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    3. Re:Someone's got a case of the "s'posed tas" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's possibly also why those HUGE Antanov transports have a deck full of valve electonics to make up their control systems. While those things are getting on a bit they were designed well after the USSR had access to far more modern electronics.

  11. Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One small nuclear device detonated over the US at about 10,000 feet could make a huge mess of things. Not from the blast damage, not from radiation, but from EMP. Draw some 1,800 mile wide circles on a map and see how large an area can be affected.

    The initial effect of an EM pulse would destroy just about everything attached to the power grid. Huge voltage spikes and induced currents would literally overload and destroy both the grid and things attached. Power delivery would most certainly be disrupted because the infrastructure used to deliver power would be seriously damaged. The power lines would exist, but the transformers, relays and controls would have serious problems. Further, power generating plants would likely be seriously damaged, so there would be no power to distribute. Radio communications would be almost totally disrupted for days, and partially disrupted for weeks. Land line phones would surely be seriously damaged and cell phones would not be useable.

    Don't think that being disconnected from the grid would not mean you are safe. Anything with even a few feet of wire hanging onto it would be subject to serious damage. Most consumer electronics, including cars, cell phones, radios and TVs would likely be damaged beyond repair. Your solar powered home will be as dark as everybody else and those of you with local generators are unlikely to be in much better shape. You will literally find yourself back in horse and buggy days, only with very few horses to be had. Few cars would be running, mostly old ones with old ignition systems and mechanical fuel pumps.

    The real question is how long would it take to repair the grid and get things going? If the east coast storms of last week are any example, one can only conclude that it will be a LONG time. How many people will starve during that time?

    Science fiction aside, this EMP thing is real and more dangerous than using nuclear devices to blow stuff up. Even a small device could cause serious long lasting damage for a HUGE part of the US.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Of course, doing so would also piss off pretty much the entire planet, because it would likely knock out hundreds of satellites and disrupt world-wide communications for weeks or months afterwards, and space travel for (potentially) years. So anyone who wants to pull something like that off has to be willing to face the military wrath of more or less the entire planet afterwards.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be like that. It would be in Star Trek, where there is a panel overload. Basically, electricity flies out of the electronics and everybody flies around the bridge.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    3. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's see, the test was a 1.4 megaton device at an altitude of 400km. While it had some impressive effects 900km away, it didn't destroy all civilization as we know it in the Pacific rim. Yet you claim that a much smaller device at 10,000 feet (3km?) would wipe out an entire continent. Methinks you are full of shit.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no but my mom listen's to Rush limbaugh and she say's that this i's real, there wa's a book written by newt Gingri'ch that was all about this, it would de'stroy the U'S with jus't a pretty small bomb, also i think i heard about thi's on Alex Jone's. alex jone is an expert on this so dont quote any science numbers please. of course you won't learn about thi's in any Government school's.

    5. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Of course, doing so would also piss off pretty much the entire planet, because it would likely knock out hundreds of satellites and disrupt world-wide communications for weeks or months afterwards, and space travel for (potentially) years. So anyone who wants to pull something like that off has to be willing to face the military wrath of more or less the entire planet afterwards.

      well, usually in fiction such device is exploded by someone plotting to incite war for various reasons.
      anyhow, doubt that it would lead to total war if it was just some offshoot operation or by a non major state.

      however, destroying an awful lot of electronics would sure fix the economy for couple of years right up.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by trims · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While the effects you describe are definitely real and a huge issue, significant-footprint EMP really requires a thermonuclear device, not a "small" fission one.

      For maximum EMP damage, 10,000 feet is far too low an altitude. You want a minimum of 50km altitude. So, to do a EMP, you must have orbital launch capability (i.e. Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile or better capability). Loading a nuke onboard a plane and detonating it at 40,000 feet won't work for producing an EMP of any effect.

      Maximum area of the EMP is limited to "line of sight" to the detonation point. So, detonating higher in the atmosphere gives a larger potential EMP radius. However, the higher the altitude, the lower the total amount of radiated energy from the blast converted into EMP. This is primarily due to the atmosphere absorbing a significant amount of the energy before it reaches ground level. And, of course, EMP is not some binary works-or-not; it's a power level, and each device has a different level of interference that it can withstand before frying. So, you're faced with a tradeoff: the higher you detonate the warhead, the larger the potential area of the EMP, but the weaker the EMP is throughout the entire area.

      Realistically speaking, warheads under 100kt don't produce usable EMP. At the minimum effective EMP altitude of about 30km, 100kt produces a useful EMP (one which will fry unshielded simple commercial electronics) directly underneath the weapon detonation, perhaps in a hectare or so. A 200kt weapon (the maximum effective yield of a non-boosted, pure fission weapon) could produce a EMP with maybe a few km or so radius.

      Effective EMP areas require 300-400kt or more, which requires, at minimum, a boosted fission/fusion weapon, which is much more difficult to build than a pure fission weapon. With these, you might be able to get an EMP radius of 50-100km or so. To get the really big EMP, you need a thermonuclear weapon, ideally in the low MT range (2-5MT). These are the weapons that were used in the USA and USSR's Fractional Orbital Bombardment systems you read about in fiction books. They can produce the 1000km+ radius effects.

      Given all the above, to do any real EMP, you need BOTH orbital launch capability, AND boosted fission nuclear weapon ability. At this point, a total of 6 countries (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India) have this ability, with two possibly working on it (Pakistan, North Korea), and nobody else getting there anytime soon (even Israel is unlikely to have the requisite missile capability). In the big scheme of things, not something that we really have to worry about more than general nuclear weapon use, as EMP use is far beyond the capabilities of any non-state actor, and fairly obvious if any state-level attempt is being made to produce one.

      -Erik

      --
      There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
    7. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Newt. Are you still running for president?

    8. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by japhmi · · Score: 5, Informative

      As 'luck' would have it, currently it is believed that an EMP pulse over North America would be worse than in Hawaii due to the difference in the geomagnetic field in the two locations. For example, it is believed that a blast over the Dakotas would mostly cause problems south of the blast vs a circle all the way around.

      Now, I think from my reading that his numbers are wrong (it would need to be higher), but the total kt isn't as important (and a smaller bomb could be constructed to emphasize EMP over blast).

      Check out the US Army's document "Nuclear Environment Survivability." (Report ADA278230)

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    9. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Well, I for one, welcome our godsend Amish overlords!

    10. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      You fail at spoiling our delicious chills of terror. We eagerly await the massive solar storm...

    11. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I believe you are correct that a higher burst would be better, but the size and type of the bomb is not as important as you seem to indicate.

      But my point here is that considering how bound we are to our technology and how unprepared we are for a wide spread disruption of even basic electrical power distribution, an EMP would be a serious problem.

      Puts a whole new face on the missile defense systems....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Don't think that being disconnected from the grid would not mean you are safe. Anything with even a few feet of wire hanging onto it would be subject to serious damage. Most consumer electronics, including cars, cell phones, radios and TVs would likely be damaged beyond repair. Your solar powered home will be as dark as everybody else and those of you with local generators are unlikely to be in much better shape. You will literally find yourself back in horse and buggy days, only with very few horses to be had. Few cars would be running, mostly old ones with old ignition systems and mechanical fuel pumps

      As Mr Nimzicki once said "Uh Mr. President. Thats not entirely accurate"

      Please read the EMP commission report. http://www.empcommission.org/

    13. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You both are wrong. You have no idea how an EMP works. Read up some on the topic before running your mouth. I could explain it, but I'd rather not. And frankly, if you are involved with computers, you need to know this stuff, because, just like static electricty killing your ram, atmospheric electric interference can destroy electronics.

    14. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. It is not limited to the line of sight of the explosion. An EMP is not primarily a nuclear event -- it is a complicated, secondary, etc., reaction.

      It is possible to use smaller weapons to create huge EMPS. So, yes, people ARE vulnerable to a rogue state nuking the electronics to death. Of course, while your explanation is wrong, the physics of scaling is correct. It might take two small bombs to knock out all of the USA -- not one.

    15. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up. This guy knows what he is talking about.

    16. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by tokul · · Score: 1

      Most consumer electronics, including cars

      AK-47s and some cars have something in common. They have zero electronic parts that might control primary tool function.

    17. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1
      Weird Al here we come..... Amish Paradise....

      If you come to visit, you'll be bored to tears

      We haven't even payed the phone bill in 300 years

      But we ain't really quaint, so please don't point and stare

      We're just technologically impaired

      There's no phone, no lights, no motorcars, not a single luxury

      Like Robonson Crusoe, it's as primitive as can be

      We've been spending most our lives living in an Amish paradise

      We're just plain and simple guys, living in an Amish paradise

      There's no time for sin and vice, living in an Amish paradise

      We don't fight, we all play nice, living in an Amish paradise

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Name one car built in the last 30 years that has no electronic parts needed to run.

    19. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe one launch doesn't go exactly right and reaches the required altitude with enough payload.

    20. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      As Mr Nimzicki once said "Uh Mr. President. Thats not entirely accurate"

      Please read the EMP commission report. http://www.empcommission.org/

      What? You mean I didn't read the following correctly?

      EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.

      The common element that can produce such an impact from EMP is primarily electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Our vulnerability is increasing daily as our use of and dependence on electronics continues to grow. The impact of EMP is asymmetric in relation to potential protagonists who are not as dependent on modern electronics.

      The current vulnerability of our critical infrastructures can both invite and reward attack if not corrected. Correction is feasible and well within the Nation's means and resources to accomplish.

      From the Executive report Abstract

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      What? You mean I didn't read the following correctly?

      If you would have read the report you would not be coming back to me wondering what part(s) you got wrong.

      What does the report say about vechicles? Old Vechicles? New Vechicles? What were the results of their testbed?

    22. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by busyqth · · Score: 1

      Of course, doing so would also piss off pretty much the entire planet, because it would likely knock out hundreds of satellites and disrupt world-wide communications for weeks or months afterwards, and space travel for (potentially) years. So anyone who wants to pull something like that off has to be willing to face the military wrath of more or less the entire planet afterwards.

      Well I think we're up for that.
      The first words out of our mouth when everyone else gets angry: Hey we've got a lot more where that came from!

    23. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      We're also bound to our flesh, infrastructure, and ambient levels of radiation. Nuclear devices already work pretty well at disrupting those.
      The threat of nuclear attacks is the same as it been since I was born.
      Ditto for the threat of nuclear missiles.
      The missile defense systems in the works likewise haven't changed much. They're attempts at funneling money to the military-industrial-complex for a product that isn't going to be used and probably wouldn't work well if it was.

    24. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by zookie · · Score: 2

      It's a lot of reading, but the EMP commission report seems to be the most thorough review of the possible impacts of EMP.

      I read "One Second After" which paints the end-of-the-world scenario that the OP posits, and then I read the EMP Commission report. My impression was that the actual impact would be awful, but not as bad as the book proposes. The premise of "One Second After" is that almost everything is totally destroyed... all electronics, power, telecommunications, and modern transportation. In reality, only a subset would be affected. For example, from the EMP Commission report:

      an EMP attack would disrupt or damage a functionally significant fraction of the electronic
      circuits in the Nation’s civilian telecommunications systems in the geographic region exposed to EMP.

      Note that it didn't say *all* telecommunications would be damaged. In fact, it later says that there will still be enough surviving infrastructure to overload the circuits from people making calls. Even just a few operational phone lines would go a long way to facilitating emergency response across communities.

      However, the report rightly notes that all our infrastructure is interrelated and damage in one infrastructure area can impact others. Notably:

      The Commission has concluded that the electrical system within the NERC region so disrupted
      will collapse with near certainty. [...] This loss is very large geographically and restoration is very likely to be beyond short-term emergency
      backup generators and batteries.

      Which means even the parts of the telecommunications infrastructure that survive would be without power to keep it going.

      EMP may not send us back to the dark ages, but it is a very serious threat. Also keep in mind that the report was written in 2008, and our dependence on electronics has only increased since then.

    25. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If you look at their data, they determined that at 25KV/m applied pulse, 3 out of 5 autos would have serious enough issues to stop running. (Note these are autos made before 2005) However, the test is at about 1/2 the expected EMP voltages and I doubt they are really pulsing a car in a full up EMP test range but doing some capacitive discharge pulse looking for upset. Upset testing is just the starting point and if you get upset at these values you will have significant chance of damage at a full pulse.

      I think there will be about 8 out of 10 serious issues with an EMP event which max out at about 50KVm. And about half of those will be in need of repair. But what good is a running car if there is no way to put fuel into it?

      Good news is that trucks fair much better..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    26. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I think it would actually work if not right away eventually.... Why else would our old adversary in Russia be so opposed to such a system being fielded in Europe?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The destruction of the power generation and distribution infrastructure would be enough, which is my point. If you do a good job and destroy a 900 mile radius around Chicago, you could expect that the loop would be dark and the L not running for a long long time. So yes, we'd be back to about 1900 with in a few days and we'd stay there for a long time. It would be New Orleans after the storm, only larger and without all the extra water. It would quickly go from bad to worse once the looting finished because there was nothing left. Problem is, there would be no place to go... Nothing within driving distance would be any better.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    28. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by lennier · · Score: 2

      The first words out of our mouth when everyone else gets angry: Hey we've got a lot more where that came from!

      At least, we used to, but we seem to be having technical difficulties with our ICBM launch control systems right now. Stand by...

      Aw, crap.

      (Sure US military networks are EMP shielded. In theory. How do you go about actually testing a network that big? It was probably last fully stress-tested sometime in the 1960s, and everything not inside an actual missile now is probably routed through some web-app written in Visual Basic on an outsourced Windows server in the Cloud.)

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    29. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      If you look at their data, they determined that at 25KV/m applied pulse, 3 out of 5 autos would have serious enough issues to stop running

      I recommend reading the whole report. Quite interesting.

      37 cars tested up to 50KV/m from 1986 to 2002. No problems for any of those cars off at the time of EMP.

      "The most serious effect observed on running
      automobiles was that the motors in three cars stopped at field strengths of approximately
      30 kV/m or above. In an actual EMP exposure, these vehicles would glide to a
      stop and require the driver to restart them." ...

      "Electronics in the dashboard of one automobile
      were damaged and required repair. Other effects were relatively minor. Twenty-five
      automobiles exhibited malfunctions that could be considered only a nuisance (e.g.,
      blinking dashboard lights) and did not require driver intervention to correct. Eight of the
      37 cars tested did not exhibit any anomalous response."

      Nuisance != "serious enough issues to stop running" ...

      Stop running != stop working until repaired

      I think there will be about 8 out of 10 serious issues with an EMP event which max out at about 50KVm. And about half of those will be in

      No, the TEST maxed out at 50KVm. EMP events don't "max out". What is the basis of 8 out of 10? Can you cite a source?

      But what good is a running car if there is no way to put fuel into it?

      The point is our cars still work after an EMP which is a heck of a lot better scenario than not working at all.

      Few cars would be running, mostly old ones with old ignition systems and mechanical fuel pumps

      "Thus, while it might be expected that increased EMP vulnerability would accompany the
      proliferated electronics applications, this trend, at least in part, is mitigated by the
      increased application of EMI/EMC practices."

    30. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, it is believed that a blast over the Dakotas would mostly cause problems south of the blast vs a circle all the way around

      Uh, check a map - to the north of the Dakotas is a sparsely-populated wasteland. There has to actually be something there to destroy in order for the blast to cause problems.

    31. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if Iran explode such a bomb in high altitude? Will that virtually destroy all spy satellites, and other satellites in the regions and beyond?

    32. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North /\

      South \/

      See the difference, mush-brain?

    33. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by mirix · · Score: 1

      Ladas were carb, mechanical fuel pump, points ignition, and they even had a hand crank to start when the battery was flat. Of course, being gas, it still needs a non-melted coil for spark, which may not be the case after a big EMP event? That and a functioning generator or alt if you want it to run for any length of time - I suppose a generator might be more likely to survive, no silicon involved.

      Many western cars until 1990ish still had carbs, but many had electronic ignition which would have got smoked, presumably.

      If EMP kills even mechanical points ignition, and generators... then I guess we'd need to find something that is both diesel, and hand cranked.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    34. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Dakotas" = BOTH of them.

      Reading comprehension, you fail it.

    35. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Now picture the chaos resulting from every hard disk and backup tape within the pulse radius being wiped.

    36. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      then I guess we'd need to find something that is both diesel, and hand cranked.

      I don't think it was all that long ago when Land Rover dropped the crank from the Defender. Even then you could roll it down a hill.

    37. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I had a '85 Nissan diesel pickup. Given a big hill or a small hill + ether for starting, and disconnecting the fuel pump shutoff solenoid, it would run without needing any electricity. Mechanical fuel pump and being a diesel, no need for spark.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    38. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Macrat · · Score: 1

      One small nuclear device detonated over the US at about 10,000 feet could make a huge mess of things. Not from the blast damage, not from radiation, but from EMP.

      I'm sure the airplanes in the area would have some blast damage.

    39. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Microchips. They didn't have them at the time. If an EMP went off today, just about everything not shielded would have individual gates fried on the silicon chip. You phone, cars ECU, laptop, iDevice, PC, Servers, networking equipment, etc... all fried. That means *bricked* in the true sense of the word. Might as well pull the phone out of your pocket and drop it on the ground. It's deadweight!

      The fact is, technology has made our modern society far and away more vulnerable to the effects of an EMP.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    40. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your logic only makes sense if you seriously believe Russia intends to use its nuclear arsenal. Which is almost certainly not the case.
      Since there is no actual intention to use, the issue is the perception that it might actually work, which can be completely decoupled from whether it actually will work.
      The big problem with a missile defence that _might_ work is that the missiles no longer work so well as a threat and you might be stuck with the choice of using them or giving up instead of getting what you want by threats. For anyone sane, giving up and actually having to use nuclear weapons to get what you want are about on the same level of bad.

    41. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living 1100 miles from the place where a 50 megaton blast was detonated at ~14000 feet, I call bullshit.

    42. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      However, for EMP to be really effective, a bomb a yield of 20 kT (e.g., most fisson-based nuclear bombs) won't work very well even when detonated about 100 miles off the ground.

      Remember, the "Starfish Prime" test used a _1.4 megaton_ nuclear warhead, and the Russians used a 300 kT warhead to get similar results with their K Project (which blew out all the circuit breaker fuses on an instrumented power line during the test). I think there was a reason why the Russians were reluctant to retire the SS-9 (R-36) ICBM--the 20 MT nuclear warhead detonated at 400-500 km off the ground over the central USA would have shorted out every unprotected electrical component over most of country---three such detonations would have crippled the entire continental US electrical grid.

    43. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by mbone · · Score: 1

      Starfish prime knocked out a bunch of satellites, but I believe that that was because of its own radiation, not because of an EMP. I would assume that
      spy satellites and the like are properly shielded for this, and it would take a near hit to take them out. Commercial satellites could be another matter...

    44. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Because the missile shield requires military bases and military involvement in Poland, which is a nice excuse to keep men, guns, and tanks right next door to Russia. You know, to guard the missiles. That's the ticket.

      Also, there's not much use for a missle shield that works eventually. You pretty much have one shot at it. If you screw that up, you're all kinda dead.

    45. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Disfnord · · Score: 1

      Oh, the irony.

    46. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Typical.... So unless we are 100% successful there is no justification for spending money on this effort? I'm not buying that logic. I see benefit in fielding a system that works 50% of the time plus the side benefit from spending money on research and development. It may not be 100% effective, but half a chance is better than the zero chance of doing nothing. My point here is that we may not be 100%, but this will improve as we continue to research and develop solutions to this problem.

      By the way, we already have a HUGE military presence in Europe. This may shuffle the deck chairs some, but apart from providing an additional reason for the US to stay, it's not going to change much. We've been in Europe consistently since WWII and it seems likely we will be there for another 70 years.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    47. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I'm all for R&D. Maybe not for devices that will makes a nuclear armed force worried about their sovereignty and preemptively strike us, or even worse one which makes our own leaders believe they have a counter-measure to MAD.
      But in general, YES, the counter-measure has to actually counter the measure for it to work. Especially if the alternative is complete destruction. You don't get another try. Half a chance is NO BETTER than a zero chance. If they were going to try it, they would send more than one missile. Duh. Now, if you're talking about a SIMULATED success rate, why do we have to buy and build a real version that works half the time? (maybe).

      And if you weren't aware, there's currently "drama" concerning the gas pipelines in Poland and Czech. It moves Russian gas to Europe. It's kind of a big deal for everyone involved and we want a military base on top of it.

    48. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Draw a rectangle that more or less delineates the borders of BOTH North and South Dakota. As this requires drawing somewhat straight lines, it might take you a while. I'll wait.

      Now, what is to the north of the rectangle you drew? What is to the south?

      Class dismissed.

    49. Re:Are you ready for an EMP ?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But the "issue" here is not Russia who likely has enough missile shots to overwhelm just about any system we could possibly field, but the fringe states who would possibly do something stupid. You see, using your logic, anything less than perfect is worthless. I don't agree. Having a system in place that has a 50/50 chance is better than a zero chance when dealing with the fringe states or one off terrorist group funded well enough to try something on their own. It may not catch everything, but the prospect of having only half a chance to score may cause them pause, knowing that an attempt would bring serious punishment, successful or not. Of course it would be better if you have a 100% system, but simply saying you do helps too. If someone believes they will be caught and punished, they are unlikely to try something.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  12. Might not have happened by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Starfish Prime occurred during a sudden burst of testing between the lapse of an unofficial US-Soviet testing moratorium and the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1961-63). If the geopolitical winds had been a little different (i.e., if Khrushchev and Kennedy had respected each other and the French hadn't started testing in the Sahara), there might not have been any exo-atmospheric tests before the LTBT, and we wouldn't know about EMT.

    Makes you wonder if there are any other major effects we and the Soviets missed.

    1. Re:Might not have happened by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Makes you wonder if there are any other major effects we and the Soviets missed.

      Horribly, fiery, radioactive death, for one.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Might not have happened by linear+a · · Score: 2

      Horribly, fiery, radioactive death, for one.

      Hardly. That's the primary and intended effect.

    3. Re:Might not have happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese have some 1st hand experience of what that's like.

    4. Re:Might not have happened by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yes. And, thankfully, the Americans and Soviets "missed" that effect. The Japanese weren't so fortunate.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Might not have happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And look how that turned out... The world has not had one problem with japan since then.

      mission acomplished.

      terrible? yes. effective? yes.

    6. Re:Might not have happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the geopolitical winds had been a little different (i.e., if Khrushchev and Kennedy had respected each other . .

      . . . . you've got to be kidding me! Khrushchev came away from a summit saying "if Kennedy was the best America could do I feel sorry for the Americans!" If someone had told him "Mr. Khrushchev, Kennedy became president because he had a rich father who paid off a Chicago mobster to throw a close election his son's way" he probably would have fallen over.

  13. It didn't hurt the copper market... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EMP "revelation" sold an awful lot of copper...anybody who was around "sensitive" technology in the military in the following couple of decades probably remembers grounding anything that didn't move...or, rather, wasn't moving at the time - and then grounding the grounds.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:It didn't hurt the copper market... by couchslug · · Score: 2
      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. Actually?-Black Holes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why it's called an "experiment".

    LHC: Hey what happens if we turn this on? *SHHLUURP!!*

  15. Some science fact... by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

    EMP cannons (non-nuclear variety) are now no longer fiction...
    Although they still have the fictional variety for our amusement...

  16. what's that... thing? by jjeffries · · Score: 1

    What goes shooting through the frame @ ~39 seconds into the video?

    1. Re:what's that... thing? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      That's the Vogon Destructor ship that released the bomb. They think it's good for the crew's health to fly through the cloud after detonating one of these things.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  17. William Blandy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Slightly offtopic but you won't be disappointed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE06ECcimb8

  18. Re:oh yeah? by Rei · · Score: 1
    --
    sed "s/SJW.*$/... never mind. I was about to say something stupid, and also, I'm a troglodyte./Ig"
  19. EMP Not The Only Way To Ruin Your Day by anorlunda · · Score: 2

    In the 1960s, Defense Secretary Mcnamara said that as few as three nuclear bombs exploded high above the USA could start every structure in North America on fire simultaneously. He was speaking to the point of how hard it would be to make effective defense. You might stop 3000 but if only 3 get through your day may still be ruined.

     

    1. Re:EMP Not The Only Way To Ruin Your Day by phayes · · Score: 2

      Mcnamara was prone to exaggeration, in this case wild exaggeration....

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:EMP Not The Only Way To Ruin Your Day by Carnildo · · Score: 2

      Technically, he was right. My back-of-the-envelope calculation says that you'll need three 500-gigaton bombs, but there's no upper limit to the size of a fusion bomb...

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:EMP Not The Only Way To Ruin Your Day by phayes · · Score: 1

      A single bomb light years away could destroy all life on earth if you are sufficiently lax in your definition of bomb. Theoretical limits & bombs bigger than those that existed in the 60s are not germane to the context.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  20. Re:and gave birth to...r by kesuki · · Score: 1

    including government propos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

  21. Rock, Paper, Scissors, Vulcan... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Tinfoil hat beats EMP 9 times out of 10 according to 19 of 20 conspiracy theorists.

    The trick is to electromagnetically harden your electronic against radiation. Key to this is to individually wrap electronics in tinfoil. For extra protection buy the heavy duty tinfoil.

  22. Re:oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

  23. So it was actually quite useful then by gelfling · · Score: 1

    An awful lot of unforeseen things were learned that way. Way to go science!

  24. Ssubatomic.. by Fatch+Racall · · Score: 1

    Nukes also generate heat and light, plus vast amounts of X-rays and gamma rays – high-energy forms of light – as well as subatomic particles like electrons and heavy ions.
    subatomic ... heavy ions.
    Can we research big words before throwing them out to sound intellectual, please? kthx.

    --
    #include <disclaimer.h>
    1. Re:Ssubatomic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could've been meant as:

      as well as (subatomic particles like electrons) and (heavy ions)

      Y'know, just because 5 out of 6 people are barely-literate dumbfucks doesn't mean you have to assume every ambiguous statement as barely-literate dumbfuckery.

    2. Re:Ssubatomic.. by Fatch+Racall · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, the LHC was used to make heavy ions recently, lead I believe, so it may be a bit of a buzzword to some authors.
      I think the sentence structure is pretty solidly in my favor, too:
      "Generate" starts a list of items, however the way the list is presented is as such: "Light and heat" is 'one' item, followed by "X-rays and gamma rays" as a second item, then "subatomic particles" as the third item
      So, either it's a very poorly constructed list(which to be honest, it is a bit ambiguous), or my interpretation was correct.

      --
      #include <disclaimer.h>
  25. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yeh because bombing 20 countries since WW2 is really sane and peaceloving.

  26. Ah, The Good Old Days by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    You kids don't know what you missed! Back in the day we used to just EXPLODE NUCLEAR DEVICES in the open air! Oh they'll say they were researching this or that, but the fact of the matter, it was just fun! We used to just take spheres of radioactive material and just poke at them! Mostly with sticks. Sometimes with our fingers. Back then, every chemistry set had a vial of mercury and a block of lead in it! Don't eat the lead now, kids! What's that? Oh... A chemistry set was an educational tool by which you could experiment with chemicals to teach yourself chemistry! They used to sell them in "Sears" -- kind of a proto-Walmartean store. I think you can still get them on that newfangled internet thing you're always going on about, but they're kind of lame now. Mostly just salt and food coloring at this point.

    Back in the day we used asbestos as construction material and dioxins as pesticides! We didn't wear helmets for anything! We just rode our bikes down hills with no helmets or anything! The only people you saw wearing helmets were motorcycle riders, and most of them only did it because it was the law! Funnily enough these days everything else requires helmets and motorcycling doesn't. Ahh how times change! Anywhoo back to the story!

    So there we were in this potentially highly toxic and dangerous environment, in a perpetual Mexican stand-off with the Soviets where one wrong twitch on either side could have destroyed the world. It's a wonder any of us survived to make a new generation. You know, "The Good Old Days!"

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  27. nuclear boo-boo by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    You look back now, and from the 40's to the 60's, considering we (those with nukes) really didn't know what they were doing, it's a wonder we didn't blow up each other or the world LOL.

  28. The Only Non-Classified Paper by gishzida · · Score: 4, Informative

    On this date in 1962 my father recorded the detonation and the resulting pulse from a "laboratory" he had set up in his suburban house in the San Fernado Valley {Northwest Los Angelews] The resulting paper "Distant Electromagnetic Observations of the High-Altitude Nuclear Detonation of July 9, 1962" was the only non-classified scientific paper which was published in The Journal of Geophysical Research about the pulse see: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1963/JZ068i006p01781.shtml

    Some where around here I have a 35mm Strip chart negative of the detonation as recorded by the oscilloscope camera... I would donate the film to a university library for preservation but I have no idea who'd be interested in it. At 89 years old my dad now suffers from dementia and does not remember much about his days as a pocket protector / slip stick using Space Scientist / Engineer

  29. Good reason by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    This is why people feel like CERN is unsafe. It's the same "well, I'm sure all it will do is this: ______" mistake as the nuclear test except we know even less about the physics involved.