The PRC is envisioning low-yield nuclear weapons that generate an electro-magnetic pulse designed to knock out the sensitive electronic equipment of US aircraft carriers, according to a declassified report:
“For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) … to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland,” the report said.
The report, produced in 2005 and once labeled “secret,” stated that Chinese military writings have discussed building low-yield EMP warheads, but “it is not known whether [the Chinese] have actually done so.”
The report said that in addition to EMP weapons, “any low-yield strategic nuclear warhead (or tactical nuclear warheads) could be used with similar effects.”
“The DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile has been mentioned as a platform for the EMP attack against Taiwan,” the report said.
According to the report, China’s electronic weapons are part of what are called “trump card” or “assassin’s mace” weapons that “are based on new technology that has been developed in high secrecy.”
Planning to toss around nukes in the event of a local conflict – even low-yield nukes – would be a hilariously bad idea, were it not for the fact that it lacks any trace of hilarity. The risk of miscalculation in proportionate response is significant.
Strategic weapons, as the Chinese ought to know, are designed to guarantee national survival, and the distinction between a tactical nuke and a strategic weapon is chiefly one of perspective: If yours lands on him, it’s tactical. When his reply lands on you, it’s strategic.
Which, with the current Administration, would probably result in an outcry from P.Bo about
terrorismman-made disasters being the world’s business…cause we’re so done with fighting that sort of thing.That said, there is that whole SSGN thing somebody was yacking about earlier on. There might be room for one of those in the response.
Then there is deterrence, which can be defined as “one of yours lands on me, all of mine land on you”,
which, given the reaction time available with an SLBN launch from close in, and the number of warheads dropping in when an SSBN force offloads, say half the lot through all the muzzle doors, make the whole idea
a really bad one.
Hit a bird farm, lose your 100 largest cities and every military facility big enough to rate flush toilets and a septic tank. To the first volley. Duck here comes the second one!
Minuteman fields and the bombers might empty first on the use ‘em or lose ‘em theory. Oops, there goes another century’s hard work.
REALLY. BAD. IDEA.
That’s why I’ve never considered China to be a real threat to the US. They’re a useful zombie apocalypse for our military planning, but as long as we maintain a credible nuclear deterrent their military buildup is no threat.
That being said, I wonder what would happen if Obama orders the military to start decommissioning our nuclear arsenal on Nov. 7, 2012.
I would bet that we undertake the decommisioning process so slow that it would be at least one election period before we are ready to dispose of the first nuke…
Well, in the FWIW category,
When it was first being discussed, I opened that if the Chinese were to actually deploy the DF-21, that we would HAVE to consider it as a nuclear-armed system, and react accordingly. There is simply no way that any US commander could consider the launch of any ballistic missile like that to be conventionally-armed.
Now with this revelation of EMP devices, the whole DF-21 program becomes a lot more clear. You would need a fairly accurate delivery system to deploy such a weapon, and as a “carrier-killer” an ECM weapon would certainly fit the bill, especially with our de-emphasis on hardening our systems against EMP effects.
So now we have a whole new player in the ball game, and one which I would suggest we take very seriously. The PLAN has never made, to my understanding, any sort of statement removing a first-strike plan from the table. Considering the state of their Navy, I would have to consider that they would plan their initial offensive actions to begin with a first-strike. After all, it worked for Japan initially. Their flaw was the failure to destroy US manufacturing and delivery systems. I doubt that China will need to do that, as we seem to be taking care of that part for them quite nicely.
Lex,
The key mistake you make there is believing that our politicians have the stones to make and then back up the threat. I would bet a lifetimes salary that if the ChiComs popped atoms over a CVN and disabled it with EMP, we would do…. nothing. We’re not going to risk a full scale nuclear war with China over Taiwan. And to that end we won’t even have a CVN near by if things start to hot up.
You or I might think that a threat to a CVN deserves a full court press response… but to politicians in DC who likely never served a day… meh.
Our political class isn’t worthy of our military or the civilians they defend.
China may have a surprise. I did two simulated EMP testing trials at sea with EMPRESS II, NAVSEA PMS-423′s seagoing EMP simulator.
Cro points out our current weakness in the will of our NCA. I have much less worries about properly verified EAMs being carried out.
Which, I thought we had an ongoing program to EMP “harden” our ships and planes, CBG elements especially. Am I mistaken?
I realize that a large enough detonation may surpass a threshold, or that the weapons designed to emit microwaves and effect the “human systems” may be deadly for their own reasons, but I’m inclined to think that it would be a reckless action on the part of the PRC to detonate tactical nuclear weapons, in the interest of using the EMP to cripple adverary forces, when they’re not even sure if it will work? And that it would open the Pandora’s box of nuclear reprisal?
Bob, a program is supposed to be in place today, and was extant in 1994. Because of the nature of EMP, what works in one area of concern, with certain design elements, can also work for EMP. NAVSEA has this somewhere in it’s checklist. EMP attacks were ruled unlikely by higher-ups in DOD in 1992, so NAVSEA dismantled the unique sea-going EMP simulation test platform.
I have no current knowledge of NAVSEA, but the program used to protect ships against EMP was tangentially mentioned several years ago in a CDR Sal thread. FWIW, a test at high field strengths was conducted. Results were promulgated.
Thanks NaCly Dog.
I doubt those EAMs would go out, as does Cro. They’d have to come from the White House (or down the chain if that’s a smoking crater), and the current occupants just don’t have the guts do send them.
By protocol, a number of bombers will automatically launch, SSBNs will go deep, CBGs disperse to tactical nuclear warfare formation, etc., but not much more.
Certainly no weapon is going to be dropped on the ChiComs unless MAYBE they nuke Chicago (after all, that would make it personal for the O’Bummer in chief).
Sorry, Lex, but PRC is definitely emboldened by our Great Leader’s insistence on removing “ambiguity” from our nuclear retaliation policy.
The idea of detonating an “atmospheric” that causes no casualties, and might even be in international airspace, is now squarely in a gray area. If the PRC thinks, in order to avoid total commitment, we will not respond strongly, then we will see the DF-21 employed in the low-order/high yield role. And we will see Iran’s Revolutionary Guards furiously scribbling down notes. With Kim Jong Il’s generals translating them into Hangul.
You are right, it is indeed a dangerous game China is playing. It is still very dangerous, but much more for us than them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
Aren’t there technologies that might be able to generate an EMP pulse **without** a nuclear detonation? If so, then this is even scarier, due to the reduced psychological impact by not crossing the nuclear threshold, which would seem to further embolden some future Chinese leader to actually do this.
David, we have those weapons. We have used them. ‘Nuff said.
A deliberate attack by another country which sinks a Carrier Strike Group, even if non-nuclear, is an incredible risk for the attacking country. Even with a non-nuclear response, the US can significantly damage the attacking country. That country could have no major electrical power generation remaining, no intact dams, a lose of communications facilities, command and control center hits, and lots of damage to military bases, just in the first wave. Then the US gets seriously destructive.
I posted on another thread that either Popular Science or Mechanics ran an article in the early 90s about a conventional EMP weapon. You might be able to find it online.
There are some really nice affordable plans for farraday cages online. I’ve already got several for the critical stuff – the solar array electronics, the pump for the well, the security system, the generator. figure I might have enough time to cover the tractor and the old 94 suburban. The old Chevy will be fine as it ain’t got nary a chip in it. Don’t bother with ones for the cell phones and laptops as there won’t be any grid!
EMP = poor man’s equalizer.
The big deal with EMP, as I understand it, is when the electronics are turned on. That’s an open circuit to the pulse. An additional defense, beyond turning the electronics off (I’m eliding the hardening of circuits to intercept and shunt the pulse before it gets to the good parts), is to unplug them, which disconnects them from the enormous antenna that is the power grid.
I anticipate that my modern, state of the art laptop will be fine in an EMP attack, if I’ve managed to turn it off and unplug it before the pulse (and disconnect the wireless NIC).
Eric Hines
The problem with EMP, as I understand it, comes from electrical connectivity with the target circuits (I’m eliding hardening, which intercepts and shunts the pulse–which is a form of interrupting that connectivity). Assuming some advance warning, turn the stuff off during the pulse. Gain even greater protection by unplugging the equipment (and disconnecting wireless and wired NICs in your computers and phones), and thereby isolating your equipment from the enormous antenna that is the power grid.
Eric Hines
Unless your equipment is surrounded by a grounded shield, and EMP will kill it. The EMP is strong enough to use the circuit’s normal wiring as an antenna and produce a large enough spike to kill the circuit.
Faraday cages are where it’s at, and there are materials available in roll form that can be quickly and easily applied to form a Faraday cage.
Sorry to say that the minute one nuke is used by anyone, low yield or good old fashioned over-the-top big bang, the game is over as far as restraint on using them. Let us hope the CHI-COMs never get that stupid as they need us as their primary consumers of goods.
The biggest challenge with EMP, IMO, is that it is non-discriminating. Pretty much like a lightning strike. Omnidirectional and omnipotent, especially the high altitude stuff. If the Chinese or anyone else are stupid enough to fry their own electronics, then they’re stupid enough to get their a$$es kicked.
FWIW, it would be a great opportunity for IOWA and the Big Badger Boat to get pulled back into service and go get some. More tin-foil hat thinking says build a 21st Century CA class of Cruiser. There’s a whole mess of PRC coastline that’s target rich for guns. Uh huh…
Was Iowa scrapped? I don’t think they repaired the busted turret. I know they didn’t on the Newport News after something cooked off in turret 2. That was still in commission when I was on Sylvania.
The Armorer posted a pick of some 16″ guns that had been scrapped. I don’t know what ship they came off of.
IOWA hasn’t been scrapped, and is sitting in the Sacramento River at the Suisun ‘Rusting Hulks Fleet’.
The busted turret is still busted, not being cost effective to repair, but I’m hearing she’s being considered as a museum donation.
Were it my decision in a tin-foil hat moment, I’d:
–>Remove #3 turret on both ships and replace with a large VLS array; repair IOWA’s #2 using #3 guns
–>Re-engineer the engineering spaces for gas turbine power
–>Overhaul the ship’s services infrastructure
–>Upgrade combat systems
–>Make war, not peace, baby
Lex, definitely great food for thought!
By the time the People’s Republic of China would ever launch a nuke on a U.S. carrier, however, exchanges by Iran, Pakistan, Israel and Uzbekistan may have made low yield nuclear exchanges somewhat passé. Just a thought.
The will of any adversary to use an EMP weapon is unknown, as is the will of our current leadership to respond.
However, the effects of EMP on a CVBG are worth serious scrutiny and war gaming should be done to figure out what the heck could happen.
My take is that virtually everything that uses electronics would be fried (asuming it is not one a variant that also microwaves living things, and things controlled by said electronics cease operating. Comms, reactor controls, every flying thing in the sky, on the flight deck, or below decks, all refrigeration and ventilation gear, radar, ecm sensors, GFCS, missile guidance, vehicles, etc will all instantaneously stop working. I really don’t know how big a radius is at risk, a couple of miles of a few hundred?
So, what could we do with several uncotrollable hulks drifting in the Pacific? What if any launch on a CVBG is accompanied by several EMP weapons destined for CONUS? WOuld we be able to recover the crews or repair the gear? Would we risk another CVBG (if we even have any within a few weeks steaming time) to a similar fate, or are we limited to ICBM type options only?
Of course, all that could really mess up the Chinese balance of payments (hugely in their favor) and destroy the value of much of what they already, or soon will, own in CONUS.
Not a pretty picture, and unfortunately not totally impossible. Frankly, scary as heck.
John, It’s not that dire. EMP is a 10 nanosecond rise time pulse. By contrast lightning has a 100 nanosecond rise time. EMP is much less energetic than lightning (higher field strength for a shorter time). The more specialized the electronics the more sensitive to the fast pulse. Transistors are pretty resistant, while integrated circuits can be very sensitive.
The energy pulse that does the damage has to be picked up by the electronics. This means that the multitude of wires need to be the correct orientation to gain the energy. This energy then has to get inside the ship. If there were no hull penetrations a warship is a Faraday Cage, inherently protecting everything inside. There’s some other protective details out there, but I’ll omit them from this discussion.
To get a large area spread you need to be exo-atmosphere for the nuc burst. This produces Compton effect electrons over a large area. This effect is sharply dampened in the atmosphere, so a missile equipped with an EMP warhead inside the atmosphere would be within the SM-3 or SM-2 envelopes.
FWIW, during the full-strength simulated EMP ship test I was unprotected and adjacent to the antenna array sending out the electronic energy. My digital watch would blank at each pulse, then reset to default settings. Aside from my hump, the odd twitch, and some neato-keeno super powers, I was totally unaffected.
They don’t have to launch a weapon. They’re poisoning us slowly (with shoddy craftsmanship and faulty parts that we’re becoming reliant on). What about all the technical hardware the entire military is reliant on from computers to personal blackberries? They’re all made in China….seems a bit easier to start there with our open invitation than a low-grade nuke.
Strategic weapons, as the Chinese ought to know, are designed to guarantee national survival….
As the Chinese also know, though, as did the Romans vis-a-vis the Carthaginians, the utter destruction of the enemy–which is a role of strategic weapons–also guarantees national survival. EMP followed by conventional/nuclear strikes make a fine first strike capability.
The US’ response? Assume arguendo that the present NCA responds properly and promptly. What could we do? There was a study published in Scientific American back in the 70s when that Cold War was in full throat that looked at the national effects of a total nuclear war between the US and the USSR, following the USSR’s plan of a prolonged nuclear war, not just a one-time ejaculation of each side’s arsenal. The study indicated that the USSR would recover to pre-war conditions years before the US–and along the way occupy us and win the war–because we have so much farther to fall. And our dependence on our superior technology would have prevented us, having recovered to the USSR’s condition in pretty much the same amount of time, from effectively resisting the invading forces. It’s the same with the PRC. They aren’t as advanced, and they have a lot of “empty space” with which to absorb damage. And a lot of numbers.
We can’t just respond. We have to defend effectively, and we have to hit much harder and much more broadly: our respective target sets are not symmetrical.
Eric Hines
As a follow-on, Erc, I can’t get my hands on it now but wasn’t within the last year some semi-official statement made by a group of generals in one of the PLAN’s official journals/publications say that an all-out nuclear war would cost themselves 600 million KIA but would essentially eliminate all 300 million of us thru direct blast and/or starvation and thus such a war would be a good trade-off as there would still be 600 million give or take of them left, but we would be almost totally eliminated as a society or potential future adversary. And their rationale for seeking war NOW is that they believe the slow “commercialization” of Chinese society via capitalist economics being currently practiced will inevitably cause them to lose their grip on power, so the sooner the better in order to forestall such events. Of course, the answer to that kind of thinking is to very publicly let them know we are targeting the nomenklatura–the PRC leadership cadres. (The nomenklatura of the party faihtful of both the PRC and Russia doesn’t give a damn about the deaths of hundreds of millions of peasants anyway) But of course this line of reasoning is why both they and the Russians have long been burrowing party cadre hidey-holes into mountainsides–building bunkers that makes Cheyenne Mountain look like a sand-pile covering tinker-toys..
Against such an adversary, I’m not sure it’s useful–except to target their personal senses of survival–to target the cadre. We used to have the weapons numbers, but my target list would include making radioactive rubble out of their coastal cities and estuaries, then destroying all of their major population centers, then destroying all of their arable land.
As Liz points out above, they’re already warring on us with their poisoning of our babies and our homes. And they’ve already broadened that war with their cyber attacks and who knows what planted cyber time bombs. That last is quite detailed and broad: a laptop I bought from a major assembler of same (not Dell) was shipped to me direct from the assembler’s Shanghai factory, complete with Trojan already installed.
We can’t afford to give quarter in a struggle for national survival. Rome understood this.
Eric Hines
One addendum: such a war–as envisioned by the PRC, which you describe–also would go a long way to solving their demographic time bomb.
Eric Hines
“but my target list would include making radioactive rubble out of their coastal cities and estuaries, then destroying all of their major population centers, then destroying all of their arable land. ”
The good thing is that with China those are all within a few hundred miles of one another.
The biggest mistake I can see in the PRC analysis is they assume ethnicity and culture are the same. Yes in the aftermath of a major war there would only be scattered remnants in low-population density areas in both countries, and yes the Chinese peasants are probably more adept at low-tech farming than your average Iowan, but I highly doubt the Chinese peasants will recreate the PRC, while the Iowans have a much stronger cultural tie to the US.
Ahem:
There is a reason there is a contest and award for Boomer Radiomen (yeah, I know, another bad idea) in the fine art of Manual Morse code. Or was, I pray God that didn’t get transformed, too.
Salt water in bulk is an extremely good substitute for a Faraday cage.
Along the line of EMP diabling electronics, it seems the Chinese bullet train accident was caused by one train being struck by lightning, loosing power, and being rear ended by the next train.
What ever happened to all the talk about EMP hardening that was all the rage some 30 years ago? Was it ever implemented? Does it even work?
I think it died long ago with MILSPEC power supplies. Could be wrong.
The hardening worked. For ships it was based on turning items like masts into Faraday cages. One piece of technology that helped was fiber optic lines. These do not carry EMP energy. Equipment using integrated circuits required specific modifications to harden them at the circuit board level, and these also worked.
Obviously, COTS items are not as hard as those that met the MILSPEC standards.