September 22, 2004
With a single nuclear warhead and a ballistic missile capable of delivering it to the upper ionosphere over the American Midwest, the continental United States could be electronically incapacitated and primitivized by a phenomenon called an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.
As the "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack" reported to Congress this July, a "high-altitude" nuclear explosion would generate an extraordinary electromagnetic surge which would overwhelm electric conductors, damaging and destroying electronic devices and the very electrical grids. In an instant, 21st Century society would regress technologically to the 19th Century.
Ironically, experts believe that such a destructive nuclear explosion would have no direct effect on humans, but given our dependence on electricity, the indirect effects could be catastrophic. Airplanes in mid-flight would be stranded with inoperable instruments. Electronic medical equipment including life support systems would fail. America's high-tech military -- although it has taken some steps to immunize its electronics to an EMP -- would be dangerously degraded. Police forces and emergency responders would lose communication abilities. Water utilities would shut down. Modern food production, which depends on electricity to enable 2 percent of the population to feed the other 98 percent, would be incapacitated. Refrigeration would quit. Electrical heating in winter or air conditioning in summer would be useless. Telephone, radio, television, and internet communication would break down. Commercial satellites would be disabled. Financial services from stock exchanges to local banks, which conduct business electronically, would be discontinued, causing innumerable problems and losses. The repercussions of an EMP attack would resemble an apocalyptic nightmare.
Opponents of Ballistic Missile Defense argue that ballistic missiles are not necessarily required for a practically infinite number of attacks including even nuclear attacks, and 9/11 proved that plane tickets and "box cutters" were enough to collapse America's tallest buildings and destroy part of the Pentagon. But an EMP attack would require a nuclear detonation in the ionosphere, and that would necessitate a "delivery vehicle" capable of attaining altitudes of between 25 and 250 miles. Plus which, the radius of the EMP attack increases with the altitude of the nuclear detonation: The higher the nuclear explosion, the wider the electromagnetic pulse. Commercial aircraft have maximum altitudes of about 8 miles; military jets are restricted to about 17 miles; and even cruise missiles have ceilings of about 15 miles. Spacecraft, experimental aircraft such as the scramjet, and ballistic missiles can operate in the extreme low-oxygen altitudes necessary for delivery of an EMP attack, especially a more widespread one. So an EMP attack would in all likelihood be delivered by ballistic missile.
In the debate over Canada's policy on the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense program, the threat of ballistic missile-delivered EMP attack deserves consideration as a matter of Canadian national interest. An EMP attack massive enough to span the continental U.S. could not be expected to halt at the Canadian border, and regardless of the scale of the attack, Canada's economy and way of life are so dependent on the United States, and North American power grids and satellite networks, etc. are so interconnected, that even a localized attack would necessarily have a crippling effect on Canada. In an EMP attack intended for America, Canada would be collateral damage.
BMD is said to constitute a "weaponization of space," but the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the ionosphere would be a true weaponization of space, and BMD is intended precisely to prevent such a thing.
As for the concern that BMD might commence a new arms race, there should also be some concern that the lack of missile defense might allow an EMP attack, particularly given the presumable attractiveness to terrorists of such an attainable means of bringing America to its knees. The U.S. has offered to share missile defense technology with Russia to demonstrate that it has no anti-Russian designs and to help preclude an arms race. And, as BMD presently proposes to defend only against limited attacks such as by rogue elements or stray, accidental launch -- not against the massive missile volleys of a superpower -- the "Mutual Assured Destruction" principle deemed so vital during the Cold War would remain intact, albeit anachronistically.
The notion that a working missile defense system is an impossibility is reminiscent of "If humans were meant to fly, we'd have wings." Successfully defending against ballistic missiles is certainly a challenge, but if America could build a working airplane in 1903 and put a man on the moon in 1969, then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that in the 21st Century it will be able to strike down offensive ballistic missiles.
In any event, as Canada is not being asked to bear the costs and challenges of America's Ballistic Missile Defense project -- let alone sacrifice soldiers -- then at least we can be spared the more usual arguments against Canadian action on defense.
Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma
Published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald
With a single nuclear warhead and a ballistic missile capable of delivering it to the upper ionosphere over the American Midwest, the continental United States could be electronically incapacitated and primitivized by a phenomenon called an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.
As the "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack" reported to Congress this July, a "high-altitude" nuclear explosion would generate an extraordinary electromagnetic surge which would overwhelm electric conductors, damaging and destroying electronic devices and the very electrical grids. In an instant, 21st Century society would regress technologically to the 19th Century.
Ironically, experts believe that such a destructive nuclear explosion would have no direct effect on humans, but given our dependence on electricity, the indirect effects could be catastrophic. Airplanes in mid-flight would be stranded with inoperable instruments. Electronic medical equipment including life support systems would fail. America's high-tech military -- although it has taken some steps to immunize its electronics to an EMP -- would be dangerously degraded. Police forces and emergency responders would lose communication abilities. Water utilities would shut down. Modern food production, which depends on electricity to enable 2 percent of the population to feed the other 98 percent, would be incapacitated. Refrigeration would quit. Electrical heating in winter or air conditioning in summer would be useless. Telephone, radio, television, and internet communication would break down. Commercial satellites would be disabled. Financial services from stock exchanges to local banks, which conduct business electronically, would be discontinued, causing innumerable problems and losses. The repercussions of an EMP attack would resemble an apocalyptic nightmare.
Opponents of Ballistic Missile Defense argue that ballistic missiles are not necessarily required for a practically infinite number of attacks including even nuclear attacks, and 9/11 proved that plane tickets and "box cutters" were enough to collapse America's tallest buildings and destroy part of the Pentagon. But an EMP attack would require a nuclear detonation in the ionosphere, and that would necessitate a "delivery vehicle" capable of attaining altitudes of between 25 and 250 miles. Plus which, the radius of the EMP attack increases with the altitude of the nuclear detonation: The higher the nuclear explosion, the wider the electromagnetic pulse. Commercial aircraft have maximum altitudes of about 8 miles; military jets are restricted to about 17 miles; and even cruise missiles have ceilings of about 15 miles. Spacecraft, experimental aircraft such as the scramjet, and ballistic missiles can operate in the extreme low-oxygen altitudes necessary for delivery of an EMP attack, especially a more widespread one. So an EMP attack would in all likelihood be delivered by ballistic missile.
In the debate over Canada's policy on the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense program, the threat of ballistic missile-delivered EMP attack deserves consideration as a matter of Canadian national interest. An EMP attack massive enough to span the continental U.S. could not be expected to halt at the Canadian border, and regardless of the scale of the attack, Canada's economy and way of life are so dependent on the United States, and North American power grids and satellite networks, etc. are so interconnected, that even a localized attack would necessarily have a crippling effect on Canada. In an EMP attack intended for America, Canada would be collateral damage.
BMD is said to constitute a "weaponization of space," but the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the ionosphere would be a true weaponization of space, and BMD is intended precisely to prevent such a thing.
As for the concern that BMD might commence a new arms race, there should also be some concern that the lack of missile defense might allow an EMP attack, particularly given the presumable attractiveness to terrorists of such an attainable means of bringing America to its knees. The U.S. has offered to share missile defense technology with Russia to demonstrate that it has no anti-Russian designs and to help preclude an arms race. And, as BMD presently proposes to defend only against limited attacks such as by rogue elements or stray, accidental launch -- not against the massive missile volleys of a superpower -- the "Mutual Assured Destruction" principle deemed so vital during the Cold War would remain intact, albeit anachronistically.
The notion that a working missile defense system is an impossibility is reminiscent of "If humans were meant to fly, we'd have wings." Successfully defending against ballistic missiles is certainly a challenge, but if America could build a working airplane in 1903 and put a man on the moon in 1969, then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that in the 21st Century it will be able to strike down offensive ballistic missiles.
In any event, as Canada is not being asked to bear the costs and challenges of America's Ballistic Missile Defense project -- let alone sacrifice soldiers -- then at least we can be spared the more usual arguments against Canadian action on defense.
Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma
Published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald
No comments:
Post a Comment