Y2K vs NEMP Event - Parallels

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Back in the 80's a lot of thought was given to the consequences of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse event (NEMP), and the effect it would have on the nation's infrastructure, by the DoD and various emergency management (OEM) agencies. Simply stated, NEMP occurs when a nuclear weapon is detonated above the earths' atmosphere. The gamma radiation from the burst ionizes, or knocks loose, electrons in the atmosphere, causing them to spiral down until they reach ground potential, an effect called "Compton Scattering". The passage of vast numbers of ionized particles creates huge currents, and hence voltage surges, in any conductor, be it power lines, pipelines, communications antennae or other metallic objects. The induced voltage of the pulse can easily destroy unprotected electronic equipment, especially the more modern devices using cmos devices. At the time that this first began to be bruited about in DoD/OEM circles, the 'cold' war looked like it was going to be anything but, and a lot of contingency planning was going on. At the time, it was expected that, even without a follow-up continental nuclear assault, the detonation of a single 50-megaton device would be sufficient to almost totally cripple the infrastructure by taking out communications, fuel production, and the power grid. I was involved with OEM contingency planning at that time, and can tell you that the parallels between the effects of both NEMP and Y2K are quite chilling. The advantage we have with Y2K is that we know when it is coming, a luxury for the most part unavailable with an NEMP event. Even more interesting than the technical similarities between the two events are the psychological parallels between them. While DoD made some modest efforts to shield its equipment and C3I structure against such an event, the emergeny management community did little more than shrug its shoulders. Few in OEM wanted to spend their budgets on things like NEMP-rated arrestors for their comm facilities, or TEMPEST-level shielding on their computers, much less consider the plight of masses of people who would be left without food, fuel or electricity. The attitude back then was, "it won't happen, and even if it does, what could we do about a nuclear attack?". My opinion was, and still is, that an agency charged with the public welfare should do more than throw its hands in the air when confronted by a dangerous, albeit unlikely, event. I am still involved with OEM, and hear the same comments about Y2K that I heard voiced about NEMP. Not encouraging, and even less understandable given the fact that the rollover is not a possibilty, but a certainty. Incidentally, there still exists the possibility of an NEMP attack on this country. Don't discard your preparations if Y2K is no more than the now-proverbial 'bump in the road'... communism may be dead, but not all communists are.

EOF

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), January 14, 1999

Answers

EOF,

Granted an EMP event (or actually a series of them - even optimized, the effects of one single 50 MT device would still have definite geographical limits) could cause the equivalent problems of Level 10 Y2K result, but that isn't the only possible Y2K outcome. Even a moderately awful (say a 7 or an 8) y2k outcome will still leave some functional elements of technology - whereas EMP would be a much more universal elimination of technology - or at least all non-TEMPESTed technology...which is why some of us are also insuring that we have nice faraday cage type storage containers for our spare radio, battery charger, etc, etc.

If you are expecting to plan solely for a nontechno oriented TEWTWAWKI, then yeah, I suppose the results are identical, but I'm not at all convinced that's the only possible outcome...and good grief I think I've finally found someone who makes *me* sound like a pollyanna!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 14, 1999.


That is an excellent post. I'm not going to jump on my possible nuclear war soapbox, just suffice it to say I went and bought a shortwave reciever today. After testing it I packed it in an army surplus ammo can, and packed that in a steel garbage can with a steel lid. Do you think that will be adequate Farady protection?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 14, 1999.

Considering that the EMP scenario would knock out all exposed electronics over a large area of exposure, while the Y2K embedded controller problem is not estimated by even the worst pessimist to involve over 7% of equipment containing such controllers, I must argue that Y2K should produce a much smaller problem. OTOH - I did have lightening and static arrestors on all my antennas when I was into shortwave - nothing like feeling secure.

A through wrapping of equipment in metal foil should produce a pretty good Faraday cage. That is pretty much how electronics are shipped - only the metal is plated over plastic for ease of handling.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.


Paul -

adequate protection against a static discharge is NOT the same as the protection neccessary against EMP...

which is why:

Nik -

you need positive metal to metal contact across all seams with NO GAPS of any kind... The ammo box doesn't provide this, as the gasket in the top (obviously) eliminates metal to metal contact in that area. In the same manner you would want to insure that your trash can had sealed (welded) seams and that there was metal to metal contact all the way around the lid...I dunno considering you've got the radio in another container inside the trash can, I might suggest putting the lid on the trash can and then running a solder bead between the lid and the trash can itself in order to insure a good seal...

probably want to throw in some dessicant before you seal it up too...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 15, 1999.


Thanks Arlin, I think I will run some sheet metal screws through the lid into the can itself around the circumference of the lid, and remove the gasket from the ammo can and do the same with it. On a side note a friend of mine recently told me he worked on a retreat home for a VERY wealthy Dalls resident who's name I will not give. Then entire home is encased in copper mesh with it's own internal off grid system, and is loaded with high tech communications gear. Hmmmmmm.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 15, 1999.


About the sealed trash can idea. If there is good metal to metal contact between the lid and the body, and especially if there is an overlap between the two parts, you don't need to solder the thing closed. But soldering a ground strap between the two parts and also putting a ground cable from the can to a really good earth ground is a smart idea.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 15, 1999.


Much research was done back in the 80's on just what level of protection was needed by electronic equipment. NEMP characteristics differ from lightning strikes in the faster rise time of the surge, and much lower induced current.

Tests run by the NBS (National Bureau of Standards, the precursor agency to NIST) and the DoD determined that, even with antennae connected, there was minimal damage to communications equipment. A spare 'front end' for the radio involved was the only precaution deemed necessary, and its replacement would be needed in only a small fraction of cases. A small portable radio would almost certainly survive, even with its attached telescoping antenna fully extended. Also, small photovoltaic arrays were also undamaged by NEMP.

The situation was much bleaker for the utilities and telephone companies, as their continent-spanning cables and pipelines for were subject to much greater field potentials, with corresponding greater damage. Tests and models indicated an overall failure of the electrical and telecommunications grids, with repair costs in the billions of dollars.

EOF

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), January 15, 1999.


WW -

my recommendation concerning the solder was that the contact would not be unbroken around the circumference of the the lid...the grounding strap is an excellent idea, though I'd want it attached something that was well grounded and away from any underground pipes or wires.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 15, 1999.


Nicoli-

It's a radio. Turn in on inside the can. If it receives, it isn't shielded well enough.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), January 16, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ