Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Decimation of U.S. Naval capability (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Decimation of U.S. Naval capability
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No? Experience indicates that putting a lot of thought into replying to you is a wasted effort. I stick to low hanging fruit.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, I am sincerely curious what resources you think would be associated with launching around 20 nuclear missiles at Iran that would normally in times of crisis be assigned to rebuilding infrastructure.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"*sigh* Yes, noel. It's not an obscure fact. Please look into the actual research. Starfish exploded over the ocean in the late '60s; there are some elements there which do not allow it to map perfectly to an explosion over modern-day Kansas City. "...

And what was the documented radius of EMP?

"But, no, I am not 'beginning to understand the problem.' My position on this has not budged; I have repeatedly pointed out that this is an irrational bugaboo that cannot possibly destroy the United States. "...

I love it when you make declarative pronouncements pulled from ...

I thought EMP required 13 distinct explosions to disable the U.S. power grid. Have you not changed your mind

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is the best justification I can think of. You may even be right that it would happen. Certainly a competent commander in chief would do it, but what if we had another iteration of Barry?
Then, that would happen. The characterization of Obama as incompetent or weak just makes me smile. I don't get it. Never have.

'The game' is changing. Obama seems to get it. I would happily take another few decades under similar leadership and count myself lucky. That said, I don't know if I would have liked Obama in charge if Democrats controlled the house and senate the whole time. It would have smoothed out a lot of things but I also would have gotten a lot of changes I don't want.

I like the direction we have moved since he took office. I like having someone manning the brakes while we go down the tracks though. [Wink]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How would tossing 10 or 20 preexisting, ready-to-go, nuclear primed missiles at Iran divert any resources from domestic recovery, noel?

Try to give specifics: before the counter-attack, you've got maybe 10 submarines that are on average two Trident missiles heavier than after the attack.

How does that change domestic recovery?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald,

"Iran is a long way from deploying any such weapon against a target, and there are steps along the way that will trigger actions by foreign powers that would further delay such an eventuality. So yes, decades is probably reasonable. "...

During the Clinton administration, 1998 to be exact, China could not place an object in Earth orbit. Now they can deliver a nuclear device anywhere in the world at hypersonic velocity thanks to Loral, a defense contractor authorized by Willie to teach them how. Pandora's box has already been opened.

China first developed nuclear warheads in the 1960s and deployed ICBMs in 1975, so claiming they have the ability to deliver nuclear devices anywhere in the world only 50 and 40 years later does not support your argument.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

NH- "Divert what resources from domestic recovery? If anything, nuking Iran would free up resources because there'd be fewer warheads to maintain. '...

Noel- "OMG, did you have to think to come up with that? "

NH- "No" ...

Enough said.

Tom,

"noel, I am sincerely curious... "...

See, you can be sincere when you try. [Wink]

"... what resources you think would be associated with launching around 20 nuclear missiles at Iran that would normally in times of crisis be assigned to rebuilding infrastructure. "...

Launching a nuclear attack against Iran in a last expression of defiance, with or without notice to Russia, would put us on a war footing with Russia (even absent over-flying their territory with ICBMs), and possibly China... which is the last thing we would need while waiting to starve. The cost is not counted in expended missiles, but defending the remnant of a fatally crippled ex-superpower from external entities. Iran understands this, which is they are actively persuing EMP technology.

Average Americans would be more concerned about mere survival.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I have not changed my mind, noel. Please do yourself a favor and look up research not associated with that 2004 finding.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, are you presuming that Iran haa cleared their attack with Russia and China first? Because otherwise I don't see them lifting a finger in Iran's defense following a nuclear strike. And if they were all allied against us, it's worth noting that two of them already have ICBMs.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

"China first developed nuclear warheads in the 1960s and deployed ICBMs in 1975, so claiming they have the ability to deliver nuclear devices anywhere in the world only 50 and 40 years later does not support your argument. "

Your information is wrong. The first Chinese ICBM, the Dongfeng 5 (CSS-4), began production in the mid-1990s, but their guidance system was faulty.

DW,

"The characterization of Obama as incompetent or weak just makes me smile. I don't get it. Never have. "...

You will.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, do you think an Iran insane enough to use an EMP on the US would hit Europe or Russia with their second one? Assuming noel's right and the US suffers miraculous outbreak of restraint and forgiveness.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"No, I have not changed my mind, noel. Please do yourself a favor and look up research not associated with that 2004 finding. "...

So, I have to do your research too? [Wink]

"Noel, are you presuming that Iran haa cleared their attack with Russia and China first? Because otherwise I don't see them lifting a finger in Iran's defense following a nuclear strike. "...

You have not noticed the cooperative relationship between the three during the Kerry deal?

"And if they were all allied against us, it's worth noting that two of them already have ICBMs. "...

Therein lies the rub.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a distinction between a "cooperative relationship" and a military alliance that is willing to overlook one member going off the reservation and starting a nuclear war.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH, there is no scenario in which Iran nukes us OR Europe; they would literally be gambling their country against the mood of a foreign leader. There is a potential scenario in which they provoke Israel into a strike and, claiming self-defense, nuke Israel. But that's still unlikely as long as Israel isn't being run by idiots.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Practically speaking use of an EMP device against the United States, even if nuclear (and there are other means to propogagate a weaponized electromagnetic pulse) would look just like any other day of the year...

The Iranians have extolled the virtues of this concept for precisely that reason. There is no need for a formal "alliance" with Russia, and China.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm very curious why you think detonating a nuclear device above our airspace in a direct military attack on our infrastructure would be "like any other day."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"NH, there is no scenario in which Iran nukes us OR Europe; they would literally be gambling their country against the mood of a foreign leader. "...

... Spoken by someone who, until a few posts ago, did not understand the potential of EMP.

"There is a potential scenario in which they provoke Israel into a strike and, claiming self-defense, nuke Israel. But that's still unlikely as long as Israel isn't being run by idiots. "...

Is Netanyahu an "idiot"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm very curious why you think detonating a nuclear device above our airspace in a direct military attack on our infrastructure would be 'like any other day.' "...

You would be unlikely to even see the blast at the altitude necessary to cover the continental United States.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald,

"China first developed nuclear warheads in the 1960s and deployed ICBMs in 1975, so claiming they have the ability to deliver nuclear devices anywhere in the world only 50 and 40 years later does not support your argument. "

Your information is wrong. The first Chinese ICBM, the Dongfeng 5 (CSS-4), began production in the mid-1990s, but their guidance system was faulty.

you are incorrect noel: China's first ICBM, the Dongfeng-4, began deployment in 1975, and was in design and development from 1966.

That their next generation missile (DF-5) was still problematic as you say, and just goes to show how difficult it is to develop such hardware.

That being said, the DF-5 went through final testing 1980 and was deployed in 1981, a full 15 years before your claim. Maybe you're thinking of the DF-5A.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You would be unlikely to even see the blast at the altitude necessary to cover the continental United States.
You don't think we would know it happened? We went from an event that you are insisting can destroy the country to an event we wouldn't notice?

quote:
Spoken by someone who, until a few posts ago, did not understand the potential of EMP.
Don't be stupid. Even one nuke set off in Pittsburgh would cause the destruction of Iran. And still would not destroy the United States. We would not practice measured retaliation. You know this.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Launching a nuclear attack against Iran in a last expression of defiance, with or without notice to Russia, would put us on a war footing with Russia (even absent over-flying their territory with ICBMs), and possibly China... which is the last thing we would need while waiting to starve. The cost is not counted in expended missiles, but defending the remnant of a fatally crippled ex-superpower from external entities. Iran understands this, which is they are actively persuing EMP technology.

Average Americans would be more concerned about mere survival.

noel, are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the USA has nuclear bombers in the air right now, and probably has a half dozen submarines within striking distance of Iran?

Or that the average American might not even know about the oncoming EMP, never mind feel its effects, prior to the military responding with its own retaliation? Even if the military waited to see exactly what type of ICBM Iran was lobbing towards the mainland, once the results were felt, the military would have responded before civilians on the ground even knew what hit them.

Are you under the impression that a nationwide poll would be taken prior to a military response being enacted within minutes of an ICBM attack?

As for a last expression of defiance - you are so overstating the likely effect of any EMP, especially since the vast majority of the military would be unaffected.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After reading noel's posts I am now afraid that Iran is going to develop a weather machine. Or possibly a Big Dipper machine to steal the water supply.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

"That being said, the DF-5 went through final testing 1980 and was deployed in 1981, a full 15 year... "...

From Wiki :

"An improved variant, the DF (Dongfeng) 5A, was produced in the mid 1990s with improved range (>13,000 km). Currently, an estimated 24-36 DF-5A's are in service as China's primary ICBM force."

No Donald, you are wrong. An ICBM, as the acronym implies, references range. Do you know how long a kilometer is? I will credit you with assigning a "5" rather than "4". That said, my statement is fully accurate.

Tom,

"You don't think we would know it happened? We went from an event that you are insisting can destroy the country to an event we wouldn't notice? "...

I don't think you would know... at least without this discussion. Communications would come to an immediate halt, so you would probably complain about the lack of corporate responsiveness to your needs until you realized no one was listening.

"Don't be stupid. Even one nuke set off in Pittsburgh would cause the destruction of Iran. And still would not destroy the United States. We would not practice measured retaliation. You know this. "...

A sense of "we" would be entirely lost in ensuing institutional dissolution.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
A sense of "we" would be entirely lost in ensuing institutional dissolution.

On the contrary, the surest way to entirely unite America would be to do this. The result of an EMP striking America would be 1) martial law, 2) 100% unanimous support for the government in its retaliation, 3) a state of war and emergency war measures that would facilitate primary structure rebuilding faster than could be done in peacetime. This would all cost a lot of money, and so the debt would balloon a little. But Iran would be gone and the hawks would have a field day.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

"noel, are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the USA has nuclear bombers in the air right now, and probably has a half dozen submarines within striking distance of Iran? "...

I watch the final exercise launch of SAC's B-52 wing from McClellan AFB back in September of 1991, at which time our entire bomber force stood down from nuclear alert. What are you talking about?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"On the contrary, the surest way to entirely unite America would be to do this. The result of an EMP striking America would be 1) martial law, 2) 100% unanimous support for the government in its retaliation, 3) a state of war and emergency war measures that would facilitate primary structure rebuilding faster than could be done in peacetime. This would all cost a lot of money, and so the debt would balloon a little. But Iran would be gone and the hawks would have a field day. "...

I still do not believe you understand the scope of an EMP event, natural, or military.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Communications would come to an immediate halt, so you would probably complain about the lack of corporate responsiveness to your needs until you realized no one was listening.
noel, gas stations would stop pumping, radios would turn off, and many cars would even coast to a halt. It would be obvious within a minute of observation to those in the area of effect that something more than a corporation's failure was the issue. And to those who actually view national radar, i.e. the people able to advise on a retaliatory strike, an airborne EMP would be visible immediately and the records replayable -- so that even if we somehow didn't notice a missile launch, we could go back and look to see if there were a missile in the area of the detonation. It's still possible, of course, that it might not be traced to Iran (depending on their level of cleverness), but any atmospheric EMP that would actually cause us any damage would also be easily identifiable as an EMP.

quote:
A sense of "we" would be entirely lost in ensuing institutional dissolution.
I think this is total B.S., noel.

quote:
I still do not believe you understand the scope of an EMP event.
Just to clarify: these are the EMP events that you don't think we'd be able to recognize as EMPs, right? [Wink]

[ August 07, 2015, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald,

"That being said, the DF-5 went through final testing 1980 and was deployed in 1981, a full 15 year... "...

From Wiki :

"An improved variant, the DF (Dongfeng) 5A, was produced in the mid 1990s with improved range (>13,000 km). Currently, an estimated 24-36 DF-5A's are in service as China's primary ICBM force."

No Donald, you are wrong. An ICBM, as the acronym implies, references range. Do you know how long a kilometer is? I will credit you with assigning a "5" rather than "4". That said, my statement is fully accurate.

What's funny is that you just repeated what I told you, and claimed that was what you meant, and not what I meant.

From the exact same wiki as you quoted from :
quote:
In the 1970s the nuclear weapons program saw the development of MRBM, IRBM and ICBMs and marked the beginning of a deterrent force. China continued MRBM deployment, began deploying the Dongfeng-3 IRBM and successfully tested and commenced deployment of the Dongfeng-4 (CSS-4) limited-range ICBM.
And from the DF-5 wiki:
quote:
The DF-5 was first flight tested in 1971, with final tests into the Pacific Ocean in May 1980.[5] Two silo-based missiles were put into 'trial operational deployment' in 1981.[5] It had a range of 10,000 to 12,000 km which allowed it to threaten the western portions of the United States.
Do you never get embarrassed?

By the way, both the DF-4 and DF-5 are labelled ICBMs. That may be inconvenient for your argument, but ignoring their description does not make the description disappear. If you want to use Wikipedia as a reference, here's the definition of ICBM from the ICBM wiki:
quote:
An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a guided ballistic missile with a minimum range of more than 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi)[1] primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery (delivering one or more thermonuclear warheads).
Given that the Dong Feng 4 has a nominal range of 5,500km, it meets the definition of even your source.

But let's not lose the forest for the trees: your claim was that China was able to develop world-wide nuclear strike capabilities in a short period of time; whereas it is clear based on your own source that China has been designing and testing long range missiles for 50 years, and have also been designing and creating nuclear weapons for over 50 years.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you never get embarrassed?
When noel is backed into a corner and forced to admit wrong, he will stop posting for a couple weeks.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald,

"noel, are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the USA has nuclear bombers in the air right now, and probably has a half dozen submarines within striking distance of Iran? "...

I watch the final exercise launch of SAC's B-52 wing from McClellan AFB back in September of 1991, at which time our entire bomber force stood down from nuclear alert. What are you talking about?

Have the submarines also been dry-docked? Note that not in the air 24-7 does not mean "not in a position to bomb Iran without overflying Russia.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

From this :

"It is a known quantity; we know what they can do, especially in the size and quantity Iran might be capable of generating. Localized difficulty is not civilization-destroying. In order for an EMP attack to seriously disrupt the country, they'd have to hit us at 10 to 15 places at once... "...

... To this :

"noel, gas stations would stop pumping, radios would turn off, and many cars would even coast to a halt. It would be obvious within a minute of observation to those in the area of effect that something more than a corporation's failure was the issue. "...

This does not sound "localized". [Smile] See, you are able to learn... notwithstanding your best efforts!

What would not have been "obvious" to you prior to this discussion is the distant high-altitude "localized" flash that preceded the "obvious" effects which inconvenienced you.

[ August 07, 2015, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

"Do you never get embarrassed?

By the way, both the DF-4 and DF-5 are labelled ICBMs. That may be inconvenient for your argument, but ignoring their description does not make the description disappear. If you want to use Wikipedia as a reference, here's the definition of ICBM from the ICBM wiki: "...

The range is inconvenient for your argument, correct? Exactly when was China able to strike *anywhere* at hypersonic velocity? This was the qualifier in my original statement. China could not threaten the United States until it could threaten *all* of the United States. It is the same limitation North Korea faces.

"Have the submarines also been dry-docked? Note that not in the air 24-7 does not mean "not in a position to bomb Iran without overflying Russia. "...

Is this an admission you were wrong? (finally)

No, Ohio class submarines are not in dry-dock... and your point is?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

BTW, a few posts ago Donald thought an EMP would not disable his cell phone. [Smile]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This does not sound "localized".
*sigh* What do you think is "localized," noel?

You are positing the collapse of social order and the destruction of the United States. I am saying -- and have been saying -- that, no, an EMP pulse would be more localized than that. If you are interpreting "more localized" to mean "will cause headaches to people in a ten-block radius," it is not my fault that you are so incredibly thick-skulled that you are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility that I am well-informed on this topic and do not and have never thought that an EMP would be a minor inconvenience to a few cellphone users. *rolls eyes* That you are a smarmy, patronizing faux-"expert" is not my fault, and I frankly think it's unreasonable of you to expect that I be as uninformed as you are determined to believe that everyone except yourself is. [Smile]

quote:
What would not have been "obvious" to you prior to this discussion...
Dude.
Look, I have had continuous subscriptions to Jane's, OMNI (when it was a concern), Discover, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and a rotating group of news magazines since around 1993 (and in a couple cases, going back to 1988). One of my best friends is a "prepper," which is a flaw I'm willing to overlook because it's mostly harmless. I have heard many, many, many times -- from many, many sources -- what an atmospheric EMP can do. Please do not assume that you have somehow "educated" me on this topic or driven me to research it; quite literally, all you drove me to do was quickly Google to confirm that the histrionic reports from 2004, the ones that are often referenced in the same breath by paranoiacs with Russian "super-EMPs" and the like -- are still generally rejected by the current science and had not been confirmed by other studies since.

noel, please understand this: other people can know things before you talk to them. Sometimes even more than you do.

Are you still a dog-breeding expert, by the way?

------------

quote:
BTW, a few posts ago Donald thought an EMP would not disable his cell phone.
He's actually right. It probably wouldn't. Depending on the pulse, the wires in your typical cellphone aren't long enough to be fried by them. But that would be largely academic, since the towers would be down.

[ August 07, 2015, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"noel, please understand this: other people can know things before you talk to them. Sometimes even more than you do. "...

Wonderful! What would be the effect of a single, high altitude, two-megaton nuclear device detonated over the central U.S.?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe I've actually answered a very similar question from you, on the page immediately prior, and noted that it depends on whom you ask. [Smile]

I even noted that only a fool would pick the central U.S.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"I believe I've actually answered a very similar question from you, on the page immediately prior, and noted that it depends on whom you ask. "...

It was unresponsive when you first said that, which is why I offered a second opening to correct yourself. Whould you care to answer with specifics?

"I even noted that only a fool would pick the central U.S. . "...

Interesting, please elaborate.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, It is true that if the device is small enough it can remain unaffected by EMP, but cell phones are too big to avoid it from a weaponized pulse.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are we discussing a two-megaton weaponized EMP? That we're assuming Iran has been able to develop, or has purchased from Russia?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wonderful! What would be the effect of a single, high altitude, two-megaton nuclear device detonated over the central U.S.?
Would it silence Facebook and Twitter? Like, for good? Please tell me it would.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1