Why Did DoD Just Defund The Congressional EMP Commission?

a reply to: Phage

Fair enough, then more regulation is needed to insure the infrastructure.

Unless there is competition from the market? .......

a reply to: Black_Fox

You do realize that satellites are too high to work as an EMP, right? For an EMP to wipe out our power grid, it has to be at a fairly specific altitude range. Too high, such as orbit, and there's very little effect beyond orbital effects. Too low, and the effect area is reduced.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A couple of hundred miles is about right, actually. Right around where the ISS is, actually.
The Starfish Prime experiment was detonated at about 250 miles.

I would just like to spend a moment looking at the national infrastructure of our country. It is my understanding that a robust laydown, likely to be produced by a single weapon of 200 kilovolts per meter that made it 300 miles high over Iowa or Nebraska, would probably shut down all of our national infrastructure. There would be no electricity.

highfrontier.org...

Right around where North Korea's current satellites are, actually.

a reply to: Phage


Something confuses me on this. Since when a 'Dept.' fund/defund a Congressional Committee?


Two different branches of Gov't, yes?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Commission, not committee.
It was funded by Congress. Not no more, NDAA 2018.

a reply to: Black_Fox

They might or could, but if they wait, it wont matter. They would have to knock them out before the use them.

What is the delivery system that would be used concerning those satellites? If it is 300 miles above earth it could very well create an EMP that would take out most of the U.S.'s power grid, but that is assuming it has a nuclear warhead aboard. It was launched in 2016. That scenario is not improbable.

And I could be wrong about this, but I think the U.S have no capablility to knock out incoming from the southern region of space, i.e Antartica. Again, I could be wrong about that aspect of U.S defense, In fact I prefer to be wrong about that.

Do you think the U.S. should shoot down the satellites?

a reply to: 3daysgone
Good question.
nypost.com...

a reply to: 3daysgone

"Do you think the U.S. should shoot down the satellites? "

Honestly, I don't know.

And i'm glad I don't have to make the decision on that.

There's pitfalls in both decisions.

Some more than others I suppose.

a reply to: Phage

help peacefully develop outer space.

From your post.

I don't believe that is their intention. Do you?

a reply to: 3daysgone

Of course it is.
They want to launch communication satellites so that the citizens of North Korea can have full and open internet access. They also want to launch satellites to study and monitor climate change.

a reply to: Black_Fox

Would it be considered an act of war?

If so, then we would need to take out there entire nuclear arsenal as fast as we could. That will cause a lot of people to react negatively toward that decision, even though it would be the safest course of action for the U.S.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

Of course it is.
They want to launch communication satellites so that the citizens of North Korea can have full and open internet access. They also want to launch satellites to study and monitor climate change.

I could feel your sarcasm through the web.

a reply to: JinMI

Unless there is competition from the market?

What if I told you there are already installations that are EMP protected that are on standby, just for that scenario?

a reply to: 3daysgone

Military installations are indeed EMP hardened. I don't think they produce enough power for the whole mainland though.

a reply to: 3daysgone

Then that may just nullify the need for the EMP action in government. Have a source?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nwtrucker

Commission, not committee.
It was funded by Congress. Not no more, NDAA 2018.

Ah, I see. So I can assume, that if this 'defunding' P.O.'d the right people in Congress they 'could' address this on their own?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

Military installations are indeed EMP hardened. I don't think they produce enough power for the whole mainland though.

True. It will not be enough for the entire nation, but it will be enough to get us back up and running before millions perish.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3daysgone

Then that may just nullify the need for the EMP action in government. Have a source?

Sadly no. I have no source, only the military experience.

a reply to: 3daysgone

Are they installed or banked somewhere?

the answer seems to be right there in your op, the commission is ineffective and a waste of tax payers money.