• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • More EMP Discussion Good, but Stick to the Facts

    The mention of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack in the presidential GOP debate hosted by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute has ignited controversy. After a New York Times article called this threat “theoretical,” Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, offered yet another contribution to the EMP discussion, defending candidate Newt Gingrich’s statement that an EMP attack could be one of the biggest threats the United States faces.

    An EMP is a high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy caused by the rapid acceleration of charged particles. EMPs are created by nuclear or non-nuclear weapons (radio-frequency weapons) detonations or geomagnetic storms (often called space weather). Results of an EMP can be devastating: a single nuclear weapon detonated at a high altitude would instantly send the United States back to the 19th century. An EMP would burn circuits and immobilize electronic components and systems. It addition, the EMP would flow through electricity transmission lines and would damage distribution centers and power lines. Millions could die, as basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities would not be available.

    The congressionally mandated Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack concluded that the United States was extremely vulnerable to a catastrophic EMP attack, finding “[o]ur increasing dependence on advanced electronics systems results in the potential for an increased EMP vulnerability of our technologically advanced forces, and if unaddressed makes EMP employment by an adversary an attractive asymmetric option.” The commission also proposed a five-year plan to remedy this situation, but so far Congress has failed to address EMP vulnerability.

    Both short- and long-range nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles can deliver a devastating attack. Fortunately, the United States can develop the means to better protect and defend itself. A robust missile defense system composed of Aegis ballistic missile capable ships; Aegis Ashore, the land-based ballistic missile component; and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle capabilities would offer a degree of protection against such an attack. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has curtailed U.S. missile defense development and killed some of the most promising missile defense programs.

    Both the public and private sectors should harden vital infrastructure to make it more resilient and resistant to the EMP—to prepare for space weather or a deliberate attack. In addition, the U.S. should develop a national plan to respond to EMP emergencies. This would involve educating federal, state, and local officials along with the public about the risks and response options. The time to act is now.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to More EMP Discussion Good, but Stick to the Facts

    1. Here is a real threat that needs attention and the Congress has failed to act. Be informed.

    2. Steven A. Sylwester says:

      America! Hear ye! Hear ye!

      We have allowed ourselves and our children to become stupid. One day, we will be taken out by weapons we cannot understand, much less even comprehend. How can we hope to defend ourselves against such weapons unless we conceive of them first? What can be done? What should be done?

      I offer three solutions: http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2011/12/thhttp://school-usa-proposal.blogspot.com/ http://nasa-academy-of-the-physical-sciences.blog

      All three of my solutions are doable, and all three should be done. In fact, I would say that they all must be done if America wants to remain a great nation during the 21st Century.

      Steven A. Sylwester

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.