What America Needs to Know About EMPs

The threat of an electromagnetic attack is real, but preparing for one shouldn't be too difficult.

BY PETER VINCENT PRY | MARCH 17, 2010

In her article "The Boogeyman Bomb," Sharon Weinberger makes several allegations about the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons, and a congressional commission set up to investigate it, that require correction.

By way of background, a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude will produce an electromagnetic pulse that can damage and destroy electronic systems over vast regions of the Earth's surface. A single nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 400 kilometers over the United States would project an EMP field over the entire country, as well as parts of Canada and Mexico. Mother Nature can also pose an EMP threat by means of a solar flare that causes a geomagnetic storm.

EMP is not just a threat to computers and electronic gadgets, but to all the critical infrastructures that depend on electronics and electricity -- communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water -- and that sustain modern civilization and the lives of the American people.

In 2008, the congressionally mandated Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack delivered its final report to Congress, the Defense Department, and the Department of Homeland Security. The commission concluded that terrorist groups, rogue states, China, and Russia are theoretically capable of launching a catastrophic EMP attack against the United States and either had contingency plans to do so or were actively pursuing the ability. Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia have scientific and military research programs dedicated to or supportive of EMP capability, and their military doctrinal writings explicitly describe EMP attacks against the United States.

Based on eight years of research and analysis, 50 years of data from nuclear tests and EMP simulators, and never-before-attempted EMP tests, the commission found that any nuclear weapon, even a low-yield one, could potentially pose a catastrophic EMP threat to the United States, mainly because of the great fragility of the electric grid. One scenario of particular concern is a nuclear-armed Iran transferring a short- or medium-range nuclear missile to terrorist groups that could perform a ship-launched "anonymous" EMP attack against the United States. Iranian military strategists have written about EMP attacks against the United States, and Iran has successfully practiced launching a ballistic missile off a ship and flight-tested its Shahab-3 medium-range missile to detonate at high altitude, as if practicing an EMP attack.

 

Peter Vincent Pry served on the staffs of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, and the Central Intelligence Agency. He currently is director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum and president of EMPACT America.

NORBOOSE

3:33 PM ET

March 17, 2010

Well Argued

You made some very good points. You made a wise decision to focus on rogue states and terrorists, since if China or Russia ever attacks us, their EMP's will only be part of a big, BIG problem. I would argue that states are very unwilling to hand over WMD's to terrorists, largely because even the best of terrorist groups have a poor rate of success in such advanced attacks. This would be a lot harder than hijacking 4 planes on the same day or getting a team of heavily armed people into a coastal city. Terrorist groups could not produce an real EMP on their own. It seems that you tried to make sure that an uncareful reader wouldn't notice that the low-yield rogue nation EMP's are not the same as the Russian ones that could cover the whole damn continent. Not a particulary dastardly tactic, but not totally honest. I wont hound you for that, Ive done worse. Finally, if the costs are really what you claim, we should obviously make those changes. But, I am suspicious, since you seem to mention the solutions very vaguely and cram them into the conclusion. I feel like youre doing some fancy accounting with that 100 million, like only using the cost of the physical parts, ignoring labor, transport, maintenance, and managing. I feel that if the costs were that low we would have done it already, because no one would oppose it. But on the whole, good argument. If the costs are anywhere near that low, we should obviously implement them.

 

ESQ

5:46 PM ET

March 31, 2010

Thank you for setting things straight, Dr. Pry

Thank you for setting things straight, Dr. Pry. I agree with NORBOOSE that you make very good points. In fact, I feel much stronger about it. I understand but disagree with NORBOOSE's questioning of some of Dr. Pry's points. Hopefully, Dr. Pry's information will encourage NORBOOSE and others to take additional steps to better understand the threat and Dr. Pry's information. This is not a subject that is easily understood by everyone, so I appreciate Dr. Pry's help in explaining it and correcting the misinformation of Weinberger and Butt. It's a shame that non-experts like Weinberger (and Butt, who she cites) are published at such a high level without some meaningful disclosure regarding their lack of subject matter expertise or without having some type of meaningful input from the real EMP experts upfront. Most people wouldn't know the difference, or take the time to figure it out. Clearly, all sources of information can't be treated equally. Most people understand that about the Internet, but it's far less obvious when you read something published by Foreign Policy.

I totally agree with Dr. Pry. For the views of real scientists, the best scientists on EMP, everyone should read the EMP Commission reports (see, http://www.empcommission.org/). Clearly, Butt and Weinberger do not know what they are talking about. Why entertain a clear cut case of hot air from opinionated non-experts like Weinberger and Butt, who have no background as defense scientists, versus relying on the nation's best EMP scientists (i.e., EMP Commissioners like Drs. Graham and Foster - and Wood and Soper - etc.)? When you actually look at the EMP Commission reports, it's obvious that the threat from EMP is extremely serious. There's a reason why the EMP Commissioners were selected and kept in place on a bipartisan basis (by both a Republican Congress and Democratic Congress), and why those EMP Commissioners have been so heavily referenced and relied upon by other commissions, scientific reports, national security agencies, and members of the intelligence and military communities. Moreover, at the recent Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing that addressed the threat of EMP (Chaired by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D, NY)), the first witness called to testify was Dr. Graham.

Based upon all that I've learned, it's clear that the threat from EMP (both man-made and natural) is a clear and present danger. We need to have the EMP Commission reestablished immediately so that proper guidance can be given. Thankfully, it appears that the threat of EMP is getting real attention by many of our Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle. The recent subcommittee hearings (Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce) are encouraging, and hopefully comprehensive legislation will be forthcoming to protect the electric grid and other infrastructures from EMP on an "all hazards" basis.

Since Congress appears to be serious about taking action to at least protect the bulk power grid against EMP at some level, it makes sense for it to do so on a more comprehensive basis starting now. The grid is far too precious to leave unprotected (or only partially protected, unnecessarily) when the EMP Commission has already done the research and laid out economical plans to protect it against the full spectrum of EMP threats. Anyone knows that retrofitting later would be far more expensive than just planning properly upfront. Plus, it's unlikley that it will ever be done right if it's not addressed properly now.

On a personal level, I'd sleep much better if I knew that the nation's best EMP scientists were the ones guiding us. Considering the triiions of dollars of damages, and the millions of lives that would be lost, it seems criminal that the US hasn't addressed this problem already. It's not like we haven't been warned, or threatened, multiple times. Even if the solutions cost much more than the estimates, the money that we're talking about is a drop in the bucket, at the national level, and the cost-benefit analysis is easy. We should protect the grid properly, and do it now!

I'd like to thank Dr. Pry and all those who served on the EMP Commission. I hope that awareness and recognition of the EMP threat continues to grow, the EMP Commission is reestablished to continue its work on the civilian infrastructures and the EMP Commission's recommendations are implemented on an expedited basis.

 

YEPPER

3:39 PM ET

April 1, 2010

Groups or Nations

I agree with Pry and ESQ. To hope for hope’s sake that terrorist groups or sponsoring nations would lack the resources or knowledge of nuclear weaponry is a recipe for disaster and the collapse of American society.
The fault in NORBOOSE’s argument is treating North Korea and Iran’s rhetoric as just that, rhetoric – nothing more than saber rattling. In just over a decade we have seen North Korea move from civilian nuclear activities to having the capabilities of producing a couple kiloton weapon and Iran “halting” nuclear weapon production in 2003, to operating some 8700 centrifuges in a once secret facility.
All this knowledge, expertise and equipment came from countries that were once considered unwilling to hand over these technologies – China and Russia. China and Russia were heavily involved in the expansion of the North Korean facilities and its weapon production; now Iran has three resources on which to utilize for even faster expansion.
Furthermore, the world has witnessed Iran’s willingness to support terrorist groups that share or even promote its secular and non-secular agenda. To assume that Iran’s future support, both financial and tactical, would halt or diminish to a point where these groups would become ineffective would be globally irresponsible.
Evidence from North Korea’s expansion should be enough to alarm us, but to include Iran’s quick expansion into the nuclear weapon community should indicate that countries like these will not stop until they achieve their goals – elimination of western (American) societies.
An EMP has been described as tomorrow’s “Pearl Harbor” weapon by other countries. It was our unwillingness to appreciate the known threats and capabilities at that time that cost us dearly. For example, our military was warned about how dangerous aircraft carriers were and that the Japanese were designing and testing torpedoes that would work in a shallow harbor – similar to the warnings about today’s enemies. Let’s learn from those mistakes and be proactive by protecting against these threats today.

 

MOLLY

11:49 PM ET

April 1, 2010

EMP hardening should be this country's top priority

>I feel that if the costs were that low we would have done it already, because no one >would oppose it.

I understand your skepticism, but don't just take Dr Pry's word for it - in 2008 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, that said about the cost of hardening: "With respect to the entire grid, remedial measures to reduce GIC [geomagnetically induced currents] levels are needed and are cost-effective. The installation of supplemental transformer neutral ground resistors to reduce GIC flows is relatively inexpensive, has low engineering trade-offs, and can produce 60-70 percent reductions of GIC levels for storms of all sizes.”

you can read the entire report here - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12507 (the pdf is free)

Plus, it isn't always the case that there is opposition - but rather a difference in priorities: quantity over quality. For example, during the Clinton years decisions were made to spend the $$ differential that would have otherwise been allocated towards hardening on purchasing additional quantities of goods.

But, one clear fact is that it is far less expensive to harden at the time of manufacturing rather than retrofitting. But, that does not mean that we should not also retrofit - we should - but we should also ensure that every vulnerable point in the grid is hardened at the time of installation.

Ultimately regardless of what any of us think about the potential for a man-made EMP attack, the potential for a geomagnetic EMP is very real - and very unavoidable. The solar storm that occurred in 1989 and shut down Quebec's electric grid was the equivalent of a low yield nuclear weapon. Unlike human threats, we have no ability to address the geomagnetic threat through diplomacy or any other means. Our only choice to protect ourselves is through hardening our infrastructure to ensure that it can withstand such an event.

Furthermore, at a time when the American economy is flagging, this can become a very real jobs initiative. Not a fake "make work" initiative, but a real economic development driver. For example, the big transformers that power the grid are no longer made in this country and there isn't exactly a stockpile of "spares" lying around to replace the grid in the event of a wide-scale failure - whatever the cause. To make matters worse, the time horizon from placing an order to delivery is typically 2 or more years.

In contrast, if we resumed building these transformers in the US think how many jobs could be created. But even scaling that back and just looking at the economic investment and job creation that would be generated by a decision to harden our critical infrastructure, we would still pump significant investment back into the US economy and create a significant number of jobs.

Ultimately, quibbling over the finer points of who might initiate an attack, and how such an attack might be undertaken is a little like debating whether the lock on the barn door should be brushed steel or polished chrome. The fact is, the lock is needed - and is needed now.

 

JASON SIGGER

8:08 AM ET

March 18, 2010

Failed Argument

Page 1 - "One scenario of particular concern is a nuclear-armed Iran transferring a short- or medium-range nuclear missile to terrorist groups that could perform a ship-launched "anonymous" EMP attack against the United States."

Page 3 - " The short answer is that an EMP attack could inflict more and longer-lasting damage and kill many more Americans in the long run. Blasting a city cannot paralyze the United States and will leave forensic and other evidence that will virtually guarantee the destruction of the perpetrator. An EMP attack is the only option for a single nuclear weapon that offers terrorists or rogue states any realistic chance of defeating the United States, perhaps eliminating the United States as an actor from the world stage, permanently."

See, right there in those two points, you lose all credibly in your article. Let's get past the ludicrious idea that a terrorist group will charter a freighter and convince the Iranian government to give it a nuclear-tipped Scud missile - considering all of its "vast" amounts of fissile material - and that the terrorist group thinks that its best shot against the United States is to fry its electrons. All this is done without the CIA, FBI, or Coast Guard finding anything out.

What makes you think that the missile, once exploded, will not leave traces of evidence as to its source? that the ship, once launching a ballistic missile, will anonymously slip back into international freight lanes without being intercepted? that the American public will be so panic-striken and unable to function without their Xboxes and cable TV that they will riot in the streets and kill each other for food and water?

EMP is a scientifically observable phenonema, yes. But the hypothetical scenarios and ridiculous consequences you allude to are what makes you Pulsers really seem like fringe lunatics.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

3:43 PM ET

March 18, 2010

The technical side of the EMP

The technical side of the EMP 'threat' and geomagnetic storms also has been discussed recently by an actual scientist....

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1549/1

 

NALA

3:28 PM ET

April 1, 2010

Check Youssaf?

That’s ridiculous. Yousaf M. Butt, being the “real scientist”? Why ask an astrophysicist about EMP when we have actual EMP experts? You might as well ask your proctologist about EMP – wrong discipline, and no real knowledge or experience in the area. Butt should probably stick to matters involving the physical properties of celestial bodies. What does he know about EMP, especially about nuclear and RF/IEMI threats? By the way, I’m sure that few people outside of the military, the intelligence communities and the EMP Commission have unrestricted access to all of the classified information about EMP threats. This threat needs to be taken seriously and not dismissed by people who are clealy either uninformed or misinformed. As an academic “space scientist,” Butt wouldn’t even have access to enough real world information to make a truly educated decision about the real EMP threat.

As pointed out by others, Butt’s clearly no EMP expert. If you think otherwise, you better check Youssaf – it’s time to ‘kick’ Butt. All of the “real scientists” seem to agree with the EMP Commission and the Academy of Sciences. If you want to read more about the geomagnetic threat, I recommend reading the report “Severe Space Weather Events--Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report” (see http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12507 - You can read it online or download it in PDF for free).

 

CHUCKMANTO

6:23 PM ET

March 26, 2010

Balance science, policy and practical steps, e.g. clean power

I was glad to see FP publish a rebuttal so that there might be a balanced discussion on science, policy and practical steps. In this instance, it turns out that solid engineering designs that would protect vulnerable power or communications systems equipment from both the certain 100 year solar storm and debated man-made EMP can be done for nearly the same amount of money as protecting from just one source. So, why do one without the other? This is especially important to realize if protecting vulnerable equipment will reduce the temptation for a terrorist from wanting to try to produce a man-made EMP event in the first place.

The 2008 Sage report on the economic consequences of a regional EMP event showed that man-made EMP is one of the least expensive ways to create the most economic damage while we are unprotected. But, that same report showed that protecting even 10% of the most critical infrastructure would reduce economic damage by as much as 40%. So, why not harden some infrastructure from both geomagnetic storms and EMP and reduce the likelihood of man-made EMP? By deploying that infrastructure protection to cover both the natural and man-made threats, we get the "biggest bang" for our buck.

There is another huge clean energy benefit by working together across the political spectrum on this issue if two other widely endorsed recommendations are followed. If 1), Mission critical facilities owners meet the fire code recommendations outlined in the fire code for business continuity (the NFPA 1600) to mitigate and plan for geomagnetic storms and man-made EMP; And, 2, if they adopt the recommendation of the post-9/11 National Academy of Sciences report "Making the Nation Safer" to produce 10% or so of their own power so that they can survive if the regional grids go down; then, the combination of these would encourage communities to become early adopters of renewable energy systems that could be their local source of power in case of regional grid collapse as long as their local systems were to be protected from natural or man-made EMP.

Why would contemplating any of the regional grid failure scenarios help the early adoption of renewable energy? Because businesses who put off purchasing what they see as more expensive renewable energy systems would be compelled to buy them anyway to protect them from the scenarios in which the cheaper non-renewable sources (such as foreign fossil fuels and the regional grids) became unavailable. Fortunately, smaller systems with fewer conductive wires such as long power lines are even simpler to protect from EMP effects. Even if the only systems protected were the ones used by mission critical users, we could help jump-start much greater growth of renewable energy systems.

I would recommend on-going dialog to see how these interlinked issues can unite instead of divide us and provide benefits far greater than the relatively small costs.

 

AFT BELT

5:19 PM ET

March 31, 2010

Will the Real Bogyman Please Stand

In their responses to Ms.Weinberger's article, connecting the dots from electricity to other critical elements of the infrastructure by Dr. Pry and Dr. Fostchen's depictions of life sustaining dependence on electricity show the true reasons for concern about EMP effects. As other experts point out, we have continued to develop more complex systems and disaster response capablities that are more and more efficient from a cost and management requirement that eliminate wasteful excesses. The irony is that these efficiences have incrased our vulnerability to their loss through dependence on supply chains and a nearly continuous supply of electricity. Citing dated 1987 opinion about the electric grid and failure to recognize the technological changes in infrastructure "the Boogeyman Bomb" makes a puerile attempt to dramatize this issue as a partisan issue. Much of our accomplishment and technical development has been truly ingenious. Do we really think the EMP phenomenon, actually already experienced from natural and manmade sources, can be so summarily dismissed. I have to wonder who is the real "bogyman" (imaginary frightful being) or is Ms. Weinberger talking about a failed male dance (boogey) dancer.