What would the US do if....

[Exsubmariner]

This happened:

EMP attack (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453711.9284722223.html)

I have been thinking about something similar to this for a little while, primarily concerned with a feasable response from the US if attacked with a single nuclear weapon. My conclusions to date have been that a nuclear war with another superpower would not be winnable, but we damn sure could win one with Iran.

Considering the prospects of having the single nuke used on us in the above manner, I'm not sure I would be itching to have that fight.

If this happened, the only purely logical response would be retaliation on a scale that would put everybody else in the world in the same boat as we were. That would be the only way I could forsee stopping the armies that would almost certainly be deployed to carve up the continental US.

Thoughts/Comments/Discussion?

Perhaps an alternative to nuking the entire rest of the world would be to accept aid from NATO and our other allies, while pounding the [censored] out of whoever attacked us?

[Exsubmariner]

Have you ever considered why they are our allies? It's because we've been able to whip the tar out of everyone who was ever a threat to them. Change that dynamic and they might not be so friendly anymore. All it would take is for the Mexican army to march into California and the land grab would be on! The mineral wealth of North America is temptation enough but throw that in with the biggest arable land area in the world and you've got wonderful motivation to turn on your ally who can no longer coordinate a defense.

BTW- What do you mean by pounding the [censored] out of whoever attacked us? Do you mean paving Mecca and Medina with glass in that statement?

[BluffTHIS!]

You need to check the altitude of the atmosphere. The prediction in that article about the effect at 300 miles is ridiculous because it is out in space. Furthermore, detonating an airburst nuke like that at a specific altitude requires more technical "rocket scientist" ability than it does to produce a nuke in the first place.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to check the altitude of the atmosphere. The prediction in that article about the effect at 300 miles is ridiculous because it is out in space. Furthermore, detonating an airburst nuke like that at a specific altitude requires more technical "rocket scientist" ability than it does to produce a nuke in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

An EMP attack would be way out in space. Its not ment to physically blow away a tragent, just to destroy all their electronics. (Haven't you seen godleneye before?)

[Exsubmariner]

Yes, you are correct. The atmosphere is not 300 miles thick. I am aware of that. But, all you would need would be to have a weapon of sufficient power to generate ionization in the atmosphere over the continental US. That is a simple problem of power. Making a more powerful nuke was easier for the russians than guidance systems for their missles. That's how they compensated for having such inaccurate missles. All you would need to know would be the amount of ionization in terms of coulombs needed to produce an EMP of the desired strength and calculate the I squared R ratio backwards. I bet I could probably find that information on the web within about an hour of intense search. Then, you just build a bomb powerful enough to give off the desired level of gamma burst to produce that amount of ionization.

You could very easily overcome the "rocket Scientist" aspects by calculating the speed of your rocket and putting a timer on it to go off at the proper altitude. It doesn't need to really be that accurate for it to work.

You are right, however, that it would be much simpler to deploy a weapon to this effect just outside the atmosphere. It would have a much smaller footprint and cover an area say the size of New York State. Getting it right the first time would be crucial in this type of attack because whoever it was would certainly not ever get a second chance.

[BluffTHIS!]

I know what an EMP attack is. My point is that the atmosphere could mitigate most if not all of its effects if detonated in space.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Either way, it's pretty funny.

An EMP attack by a rogue state would, at most, take out one coast. I feel very comfortable trusting that half our army could quite easily defend us from marauding Mexicans. In any case, we'd still have all our sea-based nukes as another line of defense.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by pounding the [censored] out of whoever attacked us? Do you mean paving Mecca and Medina with glass in that statement?

[/ QUOTE ] Depends on the situation, and what our intelligence could come up with. If we were 100% sure that an attack was sponsored by the Saudi government, I think we should rename Saudi Arabia as "New Iowa." If the military planners think that would be best accomplished using nukes, I think that would be justified.

[Exsubmariner]

I was half way joking and this is a serious tangent, but, we can't protect our border from Mexicans without guns or jobs right now. How can we possibly expect to do it after we have no cell phones?

I think it would be pretty easy if the military were actually deployed to stop people, and we were in a war scenario where we were allowed to shoot them on sight.

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm all for trying it out 3 miles over Tehran or Pyongyang to gather empirical data. We could then extrapolate the results to see if an entire continent could be put at risk.

[Brom]

The empirical evidence for these detonations exist. I can't remember exact dates but it was on a PBS special I saw. The US was conducting high altitude detonation tests in the south Pacific and ended up destroying electronics in much of the southern Pacific islands, Hawaii, and a good portion of the eastern coast of Australia, causing hundreds of millions in damage.

[lehighguy]

If nuclear weapons were used on the US, and we could identify the attacker, it would require a nuclear response.

If the attackers were a terrorist group whatever countries they operated out of would be subject.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If this happened, the only purely logical response would be retaliation on a scale that would put everybody else in the world in the same boat as we were. That would be the only way I could forsee stopping the armies that would almost certainly be deployed to carve up the continental US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Step 1 would be to use our sub-based ballistic missiles to anihilate the country from which the EMP weapon was launched.

Step 2 would be to give a stern warning to all nations of the world that they too will be anihilated if they try to take advantage of the current situation.

Stu

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
My conclusions to date have been that a nuclear war with another superpower would not be winnable, but we damn sure could win one with Iran.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a nuclear exchange --- define win?

[Exsubmariner]

Win a nuclear exchange with Iran = Large portion of US economy, tax base, ability to make war firmly intact. Iran's economy, tax base, ability to make war completely destroyed.

[Brom]

[ QUOTE ]
If nuclear weapons were used on the US, and we could identify the attacker, it would require a nuclear response.

If the attackers were a terrorist group whatever countries they operated out of would be subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you attack a country just because a terrorist group decided to launch their missiles from there? I'm talking from the point of view that the host country was not accomodating to the terrorists, and were probably largely unaware. If some terrorist group managed to launch one of the US's nukes at another country would that country be justified to nuke the US?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If some terrorist group managed to launch one of the US's nukes at another country would that country be justified to nuke the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

They would because they couldn't take the risk of a second strike. And any country that is supposedly so "unaware" of a group moving into and then launching ballistic missles from inside its borders can realistically expect no different response.

[lehighguy]

You are, to a certain extent, responsible for what happens in your country. Most of the hijackers were Saudi, but we haven't gone after Saudi Arabia. But 9/11 was not a nuclear attack.

The only way to make clear that such attacks will not be tolerated, and that nations have a responsibility to control what goes on in thier borders, is to raise the stakes so that our survival means thier survival.

[Rick Nebiolo]

In the eighties I remember we captured an "advanced" Soviet fighter jet that had vacume (sp?) tube electronics. There was laughter until some expert pointed out that the tubes were far more resistant to EMP.

~ Rick

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
In a nuclear exchange --- define win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opponent loses.

Duh.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for trying it out 3 miles over Tehran or Pyongyang to gather empirical data. We could then extrapolate the results to see if an entire continent could be put at risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think someone already did this to Pyongyang.
http://www.activatechat.net/earthnight.jpg

The difference between N. Korea and S. Korea is amazing.