Blog

In 2004, the congressionally mandated Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack released an unclassified executive report on its broader study of the U.S.’s vulnerability to EMP weapons strikes.[1] In 2008, the commission released a follow-up report that detailed the vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructures of the U.S. to EMP strikes.[2] Taken together, these two reports make it clear that an EMP attack could inflict severe damage on the U.S. As the initial report stated, “EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences.”

Congress should not let the Obama Administration ignore the commission’s findings. Instead, it should mandate an updated assessment of which countries may be pursuing EMP weapons and associated delivery systems and platforms. Further, Congress should demand that the Administration develop, test, and ultimately field defenses against EMP attacks, including improved ballistic missile defenses capable of countering short-range ballistic missiles that can carry EMP warheads.

What Is EMP?

EMP is triggered by the detonation of a nuclear weapon at a high altitude over the earth. As a result of this detonation, an electromagnetic field radiates down to the earth, creating electrical currents.

These fields cause widespread damage to electrical systems–the lifeblood of a modern society like the U.S. In turn, the damaged electronic systems can cause a cascade of failures throughout the broader infrastructure, including banking systems, energy systems, transportation systems, food production and delivery systems, water systems, emergency services, and–perhaps most damaging–cyberspace.

Effectively, the U.S. would be thrown back to the pre-industrial age following a widespread EMP attack.

What Congress Should Do

The lack of public awareness regarding the disturbing implications of an EMP attack may prompt the Obama Administration to set aside proposals for addressing this problem. Congress should not let this happen. Specifically, Congress should take the following three steps:

Step No. 1: Require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to Produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Describing Which Countries Are Capable of Launching an EMP Strike. The NIE should review not only the weapons systems themselves but the delivery systems and platforms capable of carrying the weapons. Additionally, Congress should obtain from the NIE the intelligence community’s assessment of how EMP-capable countries are incorporating those weapons into their broader military strategies.

The latter assessment would permit the President and his advisors to determine how the U.S. could respond to EMP threats as they arise. Such planning is an essential part of providing an effective defense against these threats.

***

Read the full web memo at Heritage.org.

The Obama Administration is finally doing something that is likely to lessen the threat posed by an aggressive Iran. It is following the lead of the George W. Bush Administration and looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf.

This is according to a January 31, 2010 article in The New York Times. This step has many advantages for the United States and its friends and allies in the region regarding the Iranian threat. Reflective of a “protect and defend” strategy, it offers a defensive solution that serves to demonstrate the aggressive intent of Iran. The alternative is to give the Iranians a first strike option. It also does not require the global consensus that has been holding up the imposition of effective sanctions against Iran. This is not to say that this step should substitute for the diplomatic effort to impose sanctions on Iran, only augment it.

Third, it provides direct reassurance to U.S. friends and allies in the region and strengthens security ties there. Fourth, it will serve to lessen the pressure on the friends and allies there that do not have nuclear weapons to seek them in the future. Likewise, it will lessen the likelihood that the friends and allies that may have nuclear weapons will be put in a circumstance where they would compelled to use them. This last point is critical. Last fall, The Heritage Foundation ran a series of exercises based on an abstract of Middle East regional setting, where all the nation-equivalent players were presumed to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The exercises demonstrated that pursuing a defensive option resulted in fewer nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a nuclear conflict broke out when the player equivalent to the United States simultaneously relied on nuclear retaliatory options, pursued a policy of nuclear disarmament and chose not to pursue defensive options.

The Obama Administration, however, needs to close the circle on this productive step. The plan is to place the Patriot missile defense batteries in four Persian Gulf states and Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors on Navy ships in the Gulf. These steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles. The problem is that these current systems will not provide a defense to the United States or its friends against the longer-range missiles that Iran is seeking. This will permit Iran to focus on threatening the United States directly in order to drive a wedge between the United States and its friends and force the United States out of the region. It is an obvious window of vulnerability that the Obama Administration must close.

The Obama Administration can close this window of vulnerability by taking three steps. The first is to upgrade the sea-based missile defense system to make it capable of countering longer-range missiles. This sea-based system could also be used to protect the United States against an Iranian launch of a short-range missile off the coast that carries and electro-magnetic pulse nuclear warhead. Such an upgrade program should be put on the fast track. The second step is to restore the larger number of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors that are designed to counter long-range missiles that were proposed by President Bush. The Bush Administration proposed placing 44 such interceptors in Alaska and California and ten in Poland. President Obama, last year, made the unwise decision to scale back the number to be place in Alaska and California to 30 and cancelled the agreement with Poland. The most powerful step the Obama Administration could take to close this window of vulnerability is to announce that it will revive a proposal of the Reagan Administration and the George H.W. Bush Administration to put missile defense interceptors in space. This is a missile defense program that will serve to put the Iranians on the defensive.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano writes about electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks in his Washington Examiner column: “An EMP attack: Thinking the unthinkable.”

A nuclear weapon detonated high over the U.S. would produce something called the EMP effect, a blast of electromagnetic waves that would short-circuit electrical components such as power grids and circuits that allow you to start a car. Carafano further describes the effects:

“In addition to thermal, radiation, heat and concussive force, an atomic detonation throws off an incredible amount of electro-magnetic energy…Picture a massive tsunami, but with lightning instead of water. And, like the surge produced by lightning, electrical systems act like antennas sucking down a rush of electrons that fry circuits and burn out micro-chips.”

A nuclear weapon detonated 200 miles above the earth isn’t the scenario most people associate with such weapons. A deliberate EMP attack, says Carafano, would have a devastating impact on its target.

“Just keeping modern-day America fed would be virtually impossible without working transportation or communications systems,” he writes. “Water pumping and sewage treatment plants would be off-line. Modern medical care would be virtually non-existent. Even if the rest of the world mustered the largest humanitarian mission in human history, the suffering would be unprecedented.”

EMP attacks may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but they are not. Carafano warns that our Departments of Defense and Homeland Security must give the possibility of EMP attacks higher priority and plan for such a disaster. The Obama administration has proposed to cut the missile defense budget by 10 percent. This seems to indicates that an EMP disaster is not a high enough priority. History can and will repeat itself.

“The idea that someone would attack the U.S. with jet airliners once seemed unthinkable. An EMP attack may seem today just as remote. But it’s time to play it safe — and start figuring out how to deal with it.”

 
Writing for the American Spectator, Brett Joshpe explains the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks.

A blast of EMP waves would short-circuit electrical components such as the power grid and electronic circuits that allow you to start car. Joshpe said he attended two lectures on EMP and believes the topic should be discussed more. An excerpt:

“Unlike past blackouts, such as the one that occurred in the summer of 2003 and left much of the northeastern U.S. without electricity, the lights would not come back on for years potentially. The U.S. would be plunged into a primitive state in which people scrounged for food and water to survive. Money would be worthless, our economy would revert to bartering, and one’s most valuable assets would be guns and ammunition.

“So, how likely or plausible is this sort of attack? More so than we would like. In 2004, the Electromagnetic Pulse Commission, which Congress established, issued a Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. It concluded that ‘EMP is one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold our society seriously at risk and might result in defeat of our military forces.’ The Commission issued another report in 2008 in which it concluded that ‘The electromagnetic pulse generated by a high altitude nuclear explosion is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences.’”

Joshpe notes that the Department of Homeland Security provides some information on its web site about EMP effects but misleads readers into believing EMP will harm only “pacemakers or other implanted electronic devices.” Read the full text of the article for more information.

 
A nuclear weapon detonated high over the U.S. would produce something called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect, a blast of electromagnetic waves that would short-circuit electrical components such as power grids and circuits that allow you to start a car. One minute we’re an advanced high-tech society; the next, we’re plunged back into the 18th century.

Military historian Bill Forstchen has a written a book titled, One Second After, a fictionalized account of what would happen in the aftermath of an EMP attack on the U.S.

Forstchen appeared on Pajamas Media TV to talk about his book. See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

 
What sounds like something straight out of a Stephen King novel is what the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano describes could happen if a nuclear bomb, unseen and unheard, was detonated over North America.

Electrical systems and computers would shut down, and not just those in our home. Everything that requires electricity to work, from traffic signals to gas tanks, would cease to work. Chaos, everywhere. You don’t have to read fiction to imagine such a scenario. The reality is more probable than you think. Cafano writes:

“This scenario may sound like the plot of a science-fiction movie, but Bill Graham, former science adviser to President Reagan, says it’s a realistic portrayal of what would happen to the United States after a massive electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear explosion.

“The former deputy administrator for NASA now chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. In July 2008, Graham testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the commission’s latest report. Only a handful of the committee’s 60 members showed up for the hearing.

“‘It’s obvious that there’s not very much interest,’ sighed Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., a committee member who pushed for the commission;s establishment. In a radio interview, another committee member actually derided the subject as ’science fiction.’ Such mockery and indifference could very well come back to haunt the commission.”

If you think electromagnetic pulse devastation is far-fetched, remain skeptical at your own peril. As Carafano notes, massive mutual destruction-type attacks are less of a concern to the U.S. these days. More troublesome are the schemes of rogue states like Iran and North Korea with ballistic missile capability and terrorist groups that like to blow up people. Read the full text of Carafano’s article for examples of credible nuclear threats.

What naysayers and skeptics need to understand is that countries like Iran and North Korea clearly believe long-range ballistic missiles are worth having, and they’re committed to investing in and developing them. While they may not be capable of mass destruction, they grow closer to it every day.

Our Congress has demonstrated a lack of concern over the nuclear threats we face. Carafano notes:

“That indifference carries over into budgeting. Congress spends as little as it talks about missile defense. In the last appropriation, Congress cut the missile-defense budget and allocated a paltry $5 million to study the problem – about as much as it dedicated to “wood-utilization research” in the past fiscal year.

“For years, the common argument against missile defense was simply that it’s infeasible. However, technology has advanced steadily. Dozens of tests have been conducted successfully in recent years. Gen. Trey Obering, commander of the Missile Defense Agency that oversees the Pentagon’s missile-defense programs, says, ‘They used to say that you can’t hit a bullet with a bullet. Well, now we can hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet.’

“Another frequent complaint was that missile defense would cost too much. ‘Missile defense comprises less than one-70th of what the nation is spending each year for defense,’ writes missile defense expert Robert Pfaltzgraff. ‘And defense spending represents only about 4 percent of our national wealth as an expression of GDP. By reasonable standards, missile defense is a modest national security investment.’ Pfaltzgraff adds that those calculating the costs of missile defense should also add up the cost of a devastating missile strike in America.”

Days after North Korea launched a long-range missile, the Obama administration proposed $1.4 billion in cuts to missile defense. A five-year-old could see how counterintuitive that is. Why can’t the leader of the free world? Read the rest of Carafano’s informative and well-researched article at Legion.org.

(Image by Metatech)

Not only is nuclear terrorism a threat because of the associated radiation and sheer explosive power, but a nuclear warhead could be used simultaneously to commit an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

An EMP attack occurs when the strong electromagnetic pulse associated with the detonation of a nuclear warhead significantly disrupts infrastructure by damaging power grids and electronic signals. The Heritage Foundation’s Jack Spencer detailed how EMP attacks were capable of committing a substantial blow to America by stifling the ability of the military, first responders and critical infrastructure to operate and respond to public needs. As the threat of nuclear terrorism increases and Iran continues to engage in nuclear grandstanding, so does the threat of these types of attacks.

States are recognizing the threat of these EMP attacks and making preparations. Last year, Alaska made the decision to add an EMP attack to its emergency response plan. Other states have followed suit. These decisions are the right move for states at risk for such an attack and are the right move to decrease the over-federalization of disaster preparedness.

The threat of EMP attacks highlights the need for a robust, resilient infrastructure that is equipped to continue operation, even after such an attack. America must not continue to rely exclusively on measures aimed at preventing all attacks but must ensure that in the event of an attack America is not crippled to extinction.

In his job at The Heritage Foundation, Jim Carafano (left in photo) coordinates research on national security and foreign policy. Making movies isn’t his thing. But last week he flew to Los Angeles to do just that. Here’s a report he filed from 30,000 feet:

It’s my task to make sure “33 Minutes” is technically accurate and “fair and balanced,” but I also go stuck with a cameo roll. It’s my job to explain the impact of a nuclear weapon delivered by a ballistic missile.

We started filming in New York to demonstrate what would happen in a missile attack on the Big Apple. In Los Angeles, I talked about what would happen if a nuclear weapon, instead of being detonated over a city, exploded at a very high-altitude above the center of the United States. The short answer is we would all be victims, New York, Los Angeles, and everyone across the 3,000 miles of the United States.

We would all be victims of EMP — Electromagnetic Pulse, a force so powerful it would fry every electronic device in America from the electrical grid to iPods.

While in Southern California, the filming took me to the home of Dr. Bill Graham, former chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack and the former national science adviser to President Ronald Reagan. Graham was just in Washington last week testifying to Congress about the EMP threat.

The taping in Los Angeles couldn’t be more timely with all the news about Iranian “saber-rattling” missile tests, negotiations with North Korea over nuke inspections, and riveting testimony on the Hill over the threat nuclear weapon generated EMP. They serve to remind us how important it is to tell this story.