I seriously believe this is grossly exaggerated. You’re talking “magic bullet” here, and that just isn’t the way technology works.
Yes, it would be hella nasty, but “all computers, gone” is just fantasy talk.
(And my uncle’s old '57 Chevy would not be knocked out, so “All vehicles, gone” is certainly not true.)
Computers would be among the most vulnerable components, since integrated circuits are particularly susceptible to being overloaded by the pulse. What part do you think is exaggerated? The area of effect of the pulse? The degree to which if affects electronics? What in the world do you mean “that just isn’t the way technology works”?
All vehicles made in the last 30 years or so would be dead instantly, as they can’t run without their electronic control units. Units older than that may or may not work depending on how their electrical system works. Much of the wiring in the old cars would be destroyed. Even so, it’s a silly nitpick. Even if the 1% or so of personal cars survive, the vast majority of vehicles, including essential ones for transportation, including all semi trailers, all trains, and 99%+ of consumer vehicles would be inoperable.
Even if my claims are exaggerated, and only half the country lost half its electrical infrastructure, the devastation from that is still several orders of magnitude greater than the partial loss of one city. The US would easily withstand the loss of a city and continue to function. Losing half or more of its vital infrastructure? Almost certainly non-functional with deaths conservatively in the tens of millions.
I guess not:
Georgetown University students serendipitously discover true/r extent of China’s nuclear arsenal.
China arming its stealth subs (Dec 10, 2014).
Chinese communist propaganda on Great Wall underground tunnels system said to house mobile nuclear cache.
Just making the simple point that carriers matter, that China will have a growing capacity in this area (they do have money to spend) and jingoistic U.S. patriots dismissing said war machines whenever it suits their bent doesn’t make such potential threats any less real.
I have no interest in derailing the thread with Chinese Moon colonisation conjecture. Please see who here first broached the subject matter and address them.
If people do not read the attached literature and only respond with their six-shooter, nothing can be achieved.
I was compelled to quote this for the benefit of those who respond based on a glance at a few select comments.
It does indeed sound fanciful on face value until one takes the time to research the premise behind the apparent fear mongering. Unless one has worked in some kind of technical trade (I have), it can be difficult to comprehend that those machine aids we take for granted could all come to a grinding halt in an instant. As I touched on, the electrical infrastructure of the U.S. is a lattice of dilapidated 20th century antiquity and modern day technology – it’s a ramshackle pot pourri of old and new that has ‘evolved’ through decades of imprudence with respect to future-proofing and the subsequent, ballooning prohibitive costs associated with addressing the problem. It’s a series of dominoes that cannot simply be re-stacked if they were to topple.
NB: These aren’t my assessments, but a paraphrasing of the congressional commission into the pertaining threat. I, too, was utterly dismissive before I started tumbling down this rabbit hole.
I’m loathed to find and re-read all the technical gobbledegook relating to the matter right now. However, a precis of what happens to electrical / electronics equipment from an EMP attack (to the best of my recollection) is as follows:
It can thus be garnered that the net result is the entire electricity-reliant infrastructure affected by such an blast would be rendered useless. Couple that realisation with the understanding that said infrastructure in the U.S. (and elsewhere, I’d wager) exists in an anachronistically parlous state and could not simply be switched back on or ‘patched up’, we’re presented with a catastrophic scenario that would make ground-targeted nuclear attacks tame by comparison.
Those links have nothing to do with the fact that the United States has many times more nuclear weapons than China. It’s like if I said that Bill Gates has more money than Elon Musk, and you respond with cites saying that Elon recently bought a much bigger, fancier wallet. The size of a wallet doesn’t demonstrate how much money you have; the existence of tunnels and submarines in China doesn’t refute that the United States has many, many more nuclear weapons than China.
Even in attempts at irony, let’s try to avoid using slurs that are going to provoke reactions not appropriate to this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=iLemming]
Just making the simple point that carriers matter, that China will have a growing capacity in this area (they do have money to spend) and jingoistic U.S. patriots dismissing said war machines whenever it suits their bent doesn’t make such potential threats any less real.
[/QUOTE]
Except my dismissal had zero to do with US patriotic jingoism. I was merely pointing out that your ridiculous over exaggeration of the potential threat is, well, ridiculous. They have ONE Soviet Era retread carrier that is in the process of working up…a process that will take literally years. I realize you don’t get this, but surely you understand that having 1 Soviet CARRIER (with, I believe 3 newer CARRIERS under construction) hardly puts the Chinese on par with the US, which has 11 SUPER CARRIERS and numerous smaller carriers on par with what China has. There are several other, non-US nations who have more carrier power (and certainly more tradition of carrier service in their navies…which means they have more actual working experience with using and supporting carriers in actual operations) than China does or will have this decade.
Then you should have said that right off instead of talking about Chinese moon colonies and slingshot missiles and then rolling your eyes, which made you look ridiculous.
I’m sure China have salvoes enough to satisfy the prerequisites of the ‘MAD’ doctrine. All I was pointing out was that China have more nukes than the ‘measly’ 200-400 they officially avow to and they have / are preparing first-strike capabilities, not that they have more / are better than the ultra mega mighty U.S. of the A.
I get the distinct impression such issues fall into the ‘too hard basket’ in the U.S… As if the dog wagers have deemed it much easier to focus on embarrassingly backward tripe like colour of peoples’ skin and whether every man, women and hormone-fraught tween should be permitted to tote and AR-14 they can discharge whenever the mood takes them.
It’s like the lesser of two or more potential civil inquietudes is being opted for for lack of an angle of approach for the more pressing concerns. Out of sight, out of mind.
[QUOTE=iLemming]
Then why the focus on Chinese military build-up and nuclear weapon delivery systems; systems said to be largely geared towards countering the ‘U.S. threat’? And the sources of this news-reporting and analysis aren’t of the Info Wars, sensationalist variety, either.
[/QUOTE]
Who is focused on it? The US/Western allies military’s? Well, that’s what we pay them for. I don’t see anyone else focused or freaking out over any of this. Hell, China finished it’s retreaded Soviet era carrier in 2012 and have been doing sea trials since, and no one really cares that much, since the carrier is a freaking Soviet era relic and hardly a threat. It’s INTERESTING that the Chinese are building carriers, but hardly surprising, since if you are wanting to do Being a Superpower by the numbers, number 579 is ‘mush have at least one carrier in your arsenal’, so they are just getting around to that now (as opposed to all the other carrier armed superpowers who built the things years or decades ago and are mostly over it now, outside of the US who actually use ours for more than JUST showing we can).
Ah, a tangential ranting screed about the right to keep and bear arms and gun totin’ 'Merikins, ehe? Well played. 
What’s any of this have to do with the discussion, such as it is? Not a fucking thing, but just wanted to trot that out, right?
Or, perhaps you are completely over reacting, not having realized that this sort of Chinese cage rattling has been going on for decades now, and this is simply the latest iteration. I’m going with the simplest explanation on this one.
I am reminded of the joke about a Russian Chinese war:
Day 1: Russian losses, 10,000. Chinese losses: 1,000,000
Day 2: Russian losses, 15,000. Chinese losses: 2,000,000
Day 3: Russian losses, 20,000. Chinese losses: 5,000,000
Day 4: Russia surrenders.
Predatory satiation.
I beg your pardon?
Perhaps I should have multiplied both sides losses by ten, or one hundred.
And still could be now.
France could devastate American civilization an hour from now if they felt like it, and nothing could be done to stop them. Yet the markets remain stable.
France wouldn’t do that.
Who would bail them out of their next World War?
Somehow in this scenario I don’t think that there would be enough of France left to be bailed out of anything.
Observe–the Chengdu J-10
It was started in 1988. It wasn’t ready until 2005.
It is comparable to the F-16, introduced in the 1970s, no better.
It has been troubled by crashes.
Chinese claims about technology should be taken with a grain of salt.
The J10 is a poor example as it was overcome by events. Firstly, the Pakistan-China Jf17 which was supposed to be in essence a cheaper version of the J10 gained a lot of capability before it’s introduction making that plane less attractive and the Chinese also at the same time began investing in their next generation fighters, like the J20.
Moreover, the F16 is a bad example, the 1970’s era F16 Block 15 is a lot less capable than the modern Block 60. The J10 is about as capable as a Block60.
Perhaps the U.S.'s power projection is more worthless than some have portented:
What frightened the USS Donald Cook so much in the Black Sea?
[url=]Pentagon: Russian fighter flies provocatively close to USS Donald Cook
Also makes an EMP attack that much more attractive…
I wouldn’t accept those claims without something besides that site to back it up.
Well, given the source, the seamen resignations and the subsequent noli me tangere the Russian waters purportedly became, I guess it probably is more bunkum than fair dinkum. Having said that, it’s still interesting that we’re back at this Cold War level of militarian misinformation and propaganda.