* Posts by ChuckManto

1 publicly visible post • joined 26 Jul 2009

Electropulse weapon fear spreads to UK politicos

ChuckManto

you can't shoot down a solar storm -- this is bipartisan

You can't shoot down a solar storm. The electromagnetic effects of a large solar storm are similar to those of a high-altitude nuclear burst and now thought to be just as dangerous according to new projections from the National Academy of Sciences, NASA and NOAA who recently released their new projections of a 100 yr solar storm that predict the potential of a global one year blackout due to damage of the largest power grid transformers. It is also a significant issue addressed by the Niagara Falls conference on September 8-10 from those who see EMP and solar storm mitigation as an issue that stands totally on its own without reference to the missile defense debate. (It is also an issue for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who asked Congress in a hearing on cybersecurity last week for emergency power to compel utilities to take action to harden their facitites.)

This is a game changer. Previously, advocates of ballistic missile defense, often right wing politically but not always, saw high-altitude EMP as one of a number of reasons to harden against EMP while proposing a missile defense system as another needed tool in the government's tool kit. Those who don't want to see a missile defense system, either because they doubt its effectiveness or value, still admit that the EMP issue should be addressed by hardening critical infrastructure. However, that issue gets obscured by many such opponents of missile defense since they see the EMP issue as a Trojan horse to get missile defense. That is a shame for their own position since if hardening against EMP were to be accomplished, missile defense opponents could argue that hardening mission critical assets would diminish the need for missile defense.

On the other hand, now that the worst case solar storm (ranging from a 30 yr to a 100 year event based on solar storms in the 1800's and one such storm in 1921) is projected to be 10 times worse than previously thought, the need for hardening against electromagnetic pulse events is more urgent than ever. Fortunately for those on both sides of the issue of missile defense, hardening against a super solar storm can be done in such a way that it also hardens against manmade EMP.

Protecting against a solar storm can not be construed as a Trojan horse for missile defense unless someone thinks they can shoot down a solar storm.

The last issue is one of timeliness. In recent discussions in the US on manmade EMP events, some who do not prioritize it highly often speak of waiting for an "imminent" threat until it should be considered important or urgent. That approach would play right into the hands of the most hawkish personalities. Since it takes roughly 5 years for a sizeable country to build out EMP hardening and be protected, any threat that is anywhere close to 5 years would by definition be "imminent" unless you are only considering a massive pre-emptive military attack. Sloppy thinking and laziness may push societies to unnecessary military options because they have not minimized the threat potential in the first place. Furthermore, the possibility of a 100 year storm in any given year is one percent-- for a 30 year storm, three percent. That makes this combination of a manmade EMP or a solar storm a low frequency and high impact event as opposed to a low probability and high impact event. Given time, it is 100% likely.

This particular conference, though organized by a number with EMP and missile defense familiarity is also supported by those who care about the solar effects as well. There are no pitches for missile defense while there are headlined discussions on solar storms by those who have participated in the National Academy of Sciences work and a FEMA projection of the financial impact of such a storm. This is the same work supported by the Space Forum, a group of federal agencies who look at space weather (NASA, NOAA, Department of Energy).

This would be a great conference for those on opposing ends of missile defense to come together and learn how to take pre-emptive defensive measures, such as hardening mission critical civilian infrastructure. This conference, instead of extolling the virtues of missile defense, will show what local governments and businesses are doing to take cost effective and prudent measures. This includes research on projects I have led through my company Instant Access Networks, LLC and received support by the University of Maryland that include the hardening of renewable energy systems from EMP effects of either manmade or natural sources. Those on both sides of the missile defense issue would be welcome to attend. I would love to see a break-out session on this very issue.