U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

45–133 2009

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–156] 

THREAT POSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC 

PULSE (EMP) ATTACK 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 10, 2008 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

MARK E. UDALL, Colorado 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 

RUDY BARNES, Professional Staff Member 

KARI BINGEN, Professional Staff Member 

CATERINA DUTTO, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2008 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, July 10, 2008, Threat Posed by Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack ........................................................................................................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, July 10, 2008 .......................................................................................... 31 

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008 

THREAT POSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Graham, Dr. William R., Chair, Commission to Assess the Threat to the 

United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack ................................ 2 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Graham, Dr. William R. ................................................................................... 35 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

THREAT POSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) 

ATTACK 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, July 10, 2008. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Our committee meets today to receive testimony on the threat of an electromagnetic pulse, EMP, attack. 

I want to welcome our distinguished witness, Dr. William Graham—Dr. Graham, if you would assume the witness chair, we 

would appreciate it—the chairman of this commission that has 

been assessing this threat. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

The potential damage that could be caused by an EMP attack on 

our country is significant, and our committee has long treated this 

matter seriously. It was this committee that pushed for the authorization of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United 

States from EMP Attack as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001. And the committee was pivotal in the re-establishment of the commission in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

My colleague, Mr. Bartlett, ranking member of the Seapower and 

Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, deserves special credit for his 

dogged and determined attention to this issue. 

Our committee held a hearing on this issue in July of 2004, following the release of the commission’s executive report, with the 

commission expected to submit a final report on November the 

30th of this year. We thought it was timely to go ahead and have 

a hearing at this time. 

I want the record to note that we invited the Department of Defense (DOD) to testify today. That offer was declined. The Department indicated that an assessment of the EMP threat will be provided to the commission by the Department of Defense later this 

month. And the Department of Defense prefers to discuss the 

threat following the release of that threat assessment. I am disappointed we couldn’t have them here today, but I understand 

their reservations. Our committee will work to arrange a forum for 

the Department of Defense to present its views. 
2 

With that, I am certainly interested to hear your testimony, Dr. 

Graham. 

And before we begin, Mr. Hunter, ranking member of California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON 

ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for having 

this hearing. 

And I want to commend, also, Roscoe Bartlett for being the father of EMP on this committee and focusing us on this committee. 

And I think the statement that the committee heard from the EMP 

Commission some four years ago in its first report was descriptive 

of the difficulty and the challenge that EMP poses. And the report 

concluded that, and I quote, ‘‘EMP is one of a small number of 

threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences’’—obviously, the ability to impose a great deal of paralysis, both in the economic and security sectors. 

So, Mr. Chairman, like you, I am very interested in hearing from 

the panel. And I want to congratulate Roscoe Bartlett for his enormous dedication to this very important issue. And I look forward 

to the panel’s testimony and our questions after. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. 

We will proceed, Dr. Graham. And we, again, appreciate your 

hard work on this commission, and we look forward to your testimony today. 

It has been suggested—Dr. Graham, excuse me just a minute— 

that, as Duncan mentioned, the father of this commission and this 

issue have a word. 

Roscoe Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Oh, thank you very much. I will take just a moment, because I have a series of questions which I hope will put 

on the record the real threat that we face here. 

Electromagnetic pulse is kind of a spooky kind of thing. And, obviously, there is not very much interest in it, that the seats are 

largely vacant here, and there are a number of seats down there 

vacant. The level of interest does not reflect, in any way, the seriousness of this threat, and I hope that that will be apparent by the 

time this hearing is over. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, Dr. Graham, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, CHAIR, COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES 

FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK 

Dr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, a commission established through the initiative of this committee and strongly supported by your members. 

In accord with the commission’s mandate, we are nine members, 

seven of whom were appointed by the Secretary of Defense and two 

of whom were appointed by the director of the Federal Emergency 
3 

Management Agency. In selecting individuals for appointment to 

the commission, the appointing officials were directed to consult 

with the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. So we have your personal scrutiny, as well. 

Let me introduce the other members of the commission, who are 

here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you get a little bit closer to the microphone, 

please? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would help. 

Dr. GRAHAM. There. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Doctor. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Let me introduce the other members of the commission who are here today. 

On my left, starting with General Richard Lawson, a four-star 

general, retired, from the United States Air Force. 

Next to him is Dr. Gordon Soper, a former member of the Defense Nuclear Agency and other nuclear-related functions in the 

government. 

After him is Dr. John Foster, former director of the Livermore 

National Laboratory and former director of defense research and 

engineering in the Pentagon, among other distinguished jobs he 

has held. 

And next to him is Dr. Robert Hermann, a former director of the 

National Reconnaissance Office and long-time associate of the intelligence community. 

With your permission, I would like to summarize my prepared 

statement and submit the full written statement for the record. 

An executive report produced by the EMP Commission and delivered to Congress in 2004 provided an overview of the EMP threat 

to the U.S., our friends and allies, and our deployed forces. Part of 

the purpose of my testimony today is to introduce a new report produced by the EMP Commission. 

This report presents the results of the commission’s assessment 

of an EMP attack to our critical national infrastructures, sometimes referred to as ‘‘civilian infrastructures,’’ but since they are as 

important to our military capabilities and our national security as 

they are to our civilian economy and citizenship, we chose to call 

it ‘‘critical national infrastructures.’’ 

And our report provides recommendations for preparations, monitoring, protection and recovery from such an EMP attack. The assessment is informed by analytic and test activities executed under 

the commission’s sponsorship, which are discussed in the report. 

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files 

and can be viewed upon request.] 

Dr. GRAHAM. Several potential adversaries have, and more can, 

acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude, nuclear-weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse. A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without 

having a high level of sophistication. 

EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. A well-coordinated and 

widespread cyber attack is another potential example. 
4 

EMP will cover a wide geographic region within line of sight of 

a high-altitude nuclear detonation. The EMP has the capability to 

produce significant damage to our critical infrastructures and, 

thus, to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well the ability of the 

United States, our friends and our allies to project and influence, 

with military power and other means. 

The common element that can produce such an impact from EMP 

is primarily electronics in the infrastructure, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military. Our vulnerability is increasing 

daily, as our use and dependence on electronics and automated systems continues to grow. The impact of EMP is asymmetric, in relation to potential adversaries, who are not as dependent on modern 

electronics as we are. Much of the efficiency of our society is generated through our use of electronics and automated systems, and 

that is also a potential vulnerability. 

The current vulnerability of our critical infrastructures can both 

invite and reward attack, if not corrected. Correction is feasible and 

well within the national means and resources to accomplish over 

the next few years. As detailed in the commission report provided 

today to the Congress, the Nation’s vulnerability to EMP can be 

reasonably reduced by coordinated and focused efforts between the 

private and public sectors of our country. 

The appropriate response to the EMP threat is a balance of prevention, planning, training, maintaining situational awareness, 

protection and preparations for recovery, and doing those in coordination with other potential large-scale threats, such as the cyber 

threat, and even large-scale man-made threats, such as geomagnetic storms. 

In so doing, the U.S. will reduce the incentives for adversaries 

to conduct such an attack on our homeland, our friends and allies, 

and our forces deployed abroad. The cost of such improved security 

in the next three to five years is modest by any standard and extremely so, in relation to both the war on terror and the value of 

the national infrastructures at risk today. 

Although EMP was first considered during the Cold War as a 

means of paralyzing U.S. retaliatory forces and thereby eliminating 

our strategic deterrent, the risk of an EMP attack today may be 

even greater, since several potential adversaries seek nuclear 

weapons, ballistic missiles, and asymmetric ways to overcome U.S. 

conventional superiority, using one or a small number of nuclear 

weapons. 

A high-altitude electromagnetic pulse results from the detonation 

of a nuclear warhead at altitudes above about 25 miles over the 

country or over our forces. The immediate effect of EMP would be 

the disruption of and damage to the electronic systems and electrical infrastructure. This, in turn, can seriously impact important 

aspects of our whole national life, including telecommunications, 

the financial system, government services, the means of getting 

food, water, medical care, trade and production, as well as electrical power itself. 

Given our Armed Forces’ reliance on critical national infrastructures, the cascading failures could seriously jeopardize our military’s ability to execute its mission in support of national security. 

Projection of military power from air bases and seaports requires 
5 

electricity, fuel, food and water. And the coordination of military 

operations depends on telecommunications and information systems that are so indispensable to society as a whole. Within the 

U.S., these assets are, in most cases, obtained by the military from 

our critical national infrastructures and from civilian providers. 

Several potential adversaries have the capability to attack the 

United States with high-altitude, nuclear-weapon-generated EMP, 

and others appear to be pursuing efforts to obtain that capability. 

Long-range ballistic missiles and a high level of technical sophistication are not prerequisites. 

For example, such an attack could be launched from a freighter 

off the U.S. coast, using a short- or medium-range ballistic missile 

to loft a nuclear warhead to a high altitude, and would not require 

accuracy in the placement of that warhead. Terrorists sponsored by 

a rogue state could attempt to execute such an attack, potentially 

without revealing the identity of their sponsors and even themselves. 

Iran has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a 

vessel in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-III ballistic missile, a test mode consistent with 

EMP attack, and described the test as successful. And, just recently, Iran has tested a series of ballistic missiles, including what 

it described as a new longer-range variant of the Shahab-III. 

Iranian military writings explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack 

that would gravely harm the United States. While the commission 

does not know the intention of Iran in conducting these activities, 

we are disturbed by the capability that emerges when we connect 

all of these dots. In fact, I don’t have another explanation for the 

high-altitude detonation of the Shahab-III and some of the Iranian 

tests or the launch off the Caspian Sea, other than to deploy an 

EMP type of attack. 

Relatively low-yield, unsophisticated nuclear weapons can be employed to generate potentially catastrophic EMP effects over wide 

geographic areas. And designs for variances of such weapons, as 

well as more sophisticated weapons, appear to have been illicitly 

trafficked for a quarter-century at least. 

Recently, it has been reported in the press that United Nations 

investigators found that the design for an advanced nuclear weapon able to fit on ballistic missiles currently in the inventory of Iran, 

North Korea, and other potentially hostile states was in the possession of Swiss nationals affiliated with the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network. This suggested nuclear weapons designs may already be in the possession of hostile states that sponsor terrorism. 

It also suggests that it would be a mistake to judge the status and 

sophistication of nuclear weapon programs based solely on the indigenous national capabilities, since outside assistance from 

proliferators is probably the norm. 

EMP effects from nuclear bursts are not new threats to our Nation. What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP 

threats are difficult to deter. They may be may rogue regimes or 

terrorist groups that have no state identity. They may have only 

one or a few nuclear weapons and be motivated to attack the U.S. 

without regard for their own safety. 
6 

China and Russia have considered limited nuclear attack option 

that, unlike their Cold War plans, employ EMP as the primary or 

sole means of attack. Indeed, in May 1999, during the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, high-ranking members of the Russian 

Duma, meeting with the U.S. congressional delegation to discuss 

the Balkans conflict, raised the specter of a Russian EMP attack 

that would paralyze the United States. 

As recently as two weeks ago, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Asian and Pacific Security Affairs James J. Shinn testified before 

this committee that China’s military is working on exotic electromagnetic pulse weapons that can devastate electronic systems by 

using a burst of energy similar to that produced by a nuclear blast. 

Another key difference from the past is that the U.S. has developed, more than most nations, as a modern society heavily dependent on electrical power, electronics, telecommunications, information networks, and an extensive set of financial and transportation 

systems that leverage modern technology. This asymmetry is a 

source of substantial economic, industrial, societal, and military advantage for the U.S., but the critical interdependencies and normally reliable operation of the infrastructures creates potential 

vulnerabilities, if multiple simultaneous disruptions and failures 

can be made to occur, since they almost never occur under normal 

operations of these infrastructures. 

Therefore, terrorists or state actors that possess one or a few relatively unsophisticated nuclear-armed missiles may well calculate 

that instead of, or in addition to, destroying a city or a military 

base, they could obtain the greatest economic-political-military utility from conducting an EMP attack, while experiencing the lowest 

risk of being intercepted or otherwise stopped before they are able 

to detonate the weapon. 

The commission has offered a series of recommendations intended to reduce the risk and consequences of an EMP attack. 

These include pursuing intelligence, interdiction, and deterrence, to 

discourage an EMP attack; protecting critical components of the infrastructure, especially those requiring long periods of time to replace. In particular, the U.S. military needs to determine what elements of the national infrastructure are critical to its continued operations and how to either protect or circumvent failures of that infrastructure. 

Next would be maintaining the capability to monitor and evaluate the condition of the critical infrastructures; then, recognizing 

how an EMP attack differs from other forms of infrastructure disruption and damage, since its effects would not occur under normal 

operation of our generally reliable infrastructure systems. 

Planning to carry out a systematic recovery of critical infrastructures would be very important; and that is a planning function. 

That is not a hugely expensive undertaking, but it is one that requires thought and effort and time; then, training, evaluating, redteaming, and periodically reporting to you and other Members of 

Congress of the status of the country in being able to respond to 

an EMP attack. 

Defining the government’s responsibility to act, because, surely, 

the defense of the country is a shared responsibility between the 

government and the private sector; but defending the country is 
7 

primarily a government responsibility, and providing a normally 

reliable infrastructure is largely a private sector responsibility. 

Recognizing the opportunity for shared benefits in dealing with 

other forms of widespread attack, such as I had mentioned, cyber 

attack or naturally occurring events. Probably something about the 

size of Katrina would be the smallest size that we are considering 

here. 

And, finally, conducting research to better understand the infrastructure systems’ vulnerability to EMP and other threats and developing cost-effective solutions for mitigating them. 

Finally, allow me to give you a preview of the EMP Commission’s 

findings, to date, for its next report, which you have directed us to 

provide and due to the Congress in November, which will assess 

the progress being made to protect the Nation and, particularly, 

our military capabilities from EMP attack. The commission is receiving cooperation from a number of federal agencies and working 

closely with them to derive that information. 

While measures to establish a balance of prevention, planning, 

training, situational awareness, protection, and preparations will 

require a sustained effort, the commission wishes to note an increased focus within the Defense Department since it received the 

commission’s earlier reports and with your continued interest. Our 

report to the Congress, due in November, will address this in more 

detail, as part of our required assessment of the DOD’s progress in 

implementing the steps necessary to mitigate the attack. 

The United States faces a long-term challenge to maintain technical competence for understanding and managing the effects of 

nuclear weapons, including EMP. The Department of Energy and 

the National Nuclear Security Administration have developed and 

implemented an extensive nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship 

program over the last decade. However, no such comparable effort 

was initiated to understand the effects that nuclear weapons 

produce on modern systems. 

The commission reviewed current national capabilities to understand and to manage the effects of EMP and concluded that the 

Federal Government does not today have sufficient human and 

physical resources and assets for reliably assessing and managing 

EMP threats. And the U.S. is rapidly losing the remaining technical competence and facilities that it needs in government, in the 

national laboratories, and in the industrial community. 

EMP attack on the critical infrastructures is a serious problem, 

but one that can be managed at reasonable cost. A serious national 

commitment to address the threat of an EMP attack can lead to an 

integrated national posture that would significantly reduce the 

payoff for such an attack and allow the United States to recover 

from EMP and from other threats, man-made and natural, to the 

critical national infrastructures. 

A failure to do so will not only leave the critical national infrastructures that are necessary for our society to function at risk, but 

will also place our ability to conduct military operations in severe 

jeopardy. 

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you again. And I look forward to an opportunity for myself and my 

colleagues and fellow commissioners to respond to your questions. 
8 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Graham can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Mr. SPRATT [presiding]. Dr. Graham, thank you very much indeed. 

You have a distinguished panel of colleagues sitting behind you, 

and I will take the liberty of presiding at this point and invite any 

one of them who would like to add to your comments to take this 

opportunity to do so. 

Dr. Foster. 

Mr. FOSTER. No, thank you, sir. 

Mr. SPRATT. I didn’t want to get this distinguished panel here 

and not at least give you the opportunity to say something further, 

if you wish. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Mr. Henry Kluepfel has joined us, too, as another 

commissioner sitting there. I didn’t introduce him initially, but I 

would like do that now. Extensive background in telecommunications. 

Mr. SPRATT. I want to turn now to Mr. Bartlett, because he is 

the person who requested this hearing and the reason that we are 

meeting here today. 

And, Roscoe, the floor is yours to ask questions as you see fit. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

I was sitting in that hotel room in Vienna, Austria, with a number of other Members of Congress and three members of the Russian government—Vladimir Lukin, who was the ambassador here 

at the end of Bush I and the beginning of the Clinton Administration; Alexander Shabanov, who I think was the third-ranking communist; and Vladimir Rushkov, a young, aspiring Russian. 

Vladimir Lukin was very angry, and he sat with his arms folded, 

looking at the ceiling, for a couple of days during these discussions. 

We developed a framework agreement, which, about a half a dozen 

days later, was adopted by the G–8 and ended the Kosovo controversy. 

At one point, Vladimir Lukin looked up. He said, ‘‘If we really 

wanted to hurt you, with no fear of retaliation, we would launch 

an SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] from the ocean, 

detonate a nuclear weapon high above your country, and shut down 

your power grid and your communications for six months or so.’’ 

And Alexander Shabanov, the handsome, blond communist, smiled 

and said, ‘‘And if one weapon wouldn’t do it, we have some spares, 

like about 10,000, I think.’’ This kind of puts in context the threat 

that we face. 

I read a prepublication copy of a book called One Second After. 

I hope it does get published; I think the American people need to 

read it. It was the story of a ballistic missile EMP attack on our 

country. The weapon was launched from a ship off our shore, and 

then the ship was sunk so that there were no fingerprints. The 

weapon was launched about 300 miles high over Nebraska, and it 

shut down our infrastructure countrywide. 

The story runs for a year. It is set in the hills of North Carolina. 

At the end of the year, 90 percent of our population is dead; there 

are 25,000 people only still alive in New York City. The communities in the hills of North Carolina are more lucky: only 80 percent 

of their population is dead at the end of a year. 
9 

I understand that this is a realistic assessment of what a really 

robust EMP laydown could do to our country? 

Dr. GRAHAM. We think that is in the correct range. We don’t 

have experience with losing the infrastructure in a country with 

300 million people, most of whom don’t live in a way that provides 

for their own food and other needs. We can go back to an era when 

people did live like that. That would be—10 percent would be 30 

million people, and that is probably the range where we could survive as a basically rural economy. 

Mr. BARTLETT. It is my understanding that, in interviewing some 

Russian generals, that they told you that the Soviets had developed 

a ‘‘super-EMP’’ enhanced weapon that could produce 200 kilovolts 

per meter at the center? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Bartlett. We engaged two senior Russian 

generals—who were also lecturers and authors from their general 

staff academy, who had written about advanced weapons—and actually brought them over to the U.S. and spent a day meeting with 

them and questioning them about EMP-type weapons; and they 

said a number of interesting things. One was that, in fact, the Russians had developed what they called the ‘‘super-EMP’’ weapon that 

could generate fields in the range of 200 kilovolts per meter. And 

we had seen in other open literature that the Russians appeared 

to be using that figure as an upper bound for the kind of EMP that 

could be produced by nuclear weapons. So, we weren’t surprised, 

too surprised, to see it. 

They also told us that both there were Russian and other technologists, engineers and scientists, who were working with North 

Korea and receiving Western wages, they emphasized, helping 

North Korea with the design of its nuclear weapons. 

So, we found it extremely interesting in talking to them. 

Mr. BARTLETT. This is about, what, four times higher than anything that we ever built or tested to, in terms of EMP hardening? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Which means that, even if you were some hundreds of miles away from that, that it would be somewhere in the 

range of 50 to 100 kilovolts per meter at the margins of our country, for instance? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. Over much of the margin, yes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. So, we aren’t sure that much of our military 

would still be operable after that robust laydown. Is that correct? 

Dr. GRAHAM. We just don’t have test data to tell us one way or 

the other. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I also understand that we aren’t certain that we 

could launch, through a series of robust EMP laydowns, that we 

could launch our intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

Dr. GRAHAM. We designed both the missiles and their bases and 

the strategic communication systems during the Cold War to be 

able to survive and operate through EMP fields on the order of 50 

kilovolts per meter, which was our concern at the time, before we 

realized that weapons could be designed that had larger EMP 

fields. 

We added margin to the protection of those systems. And to the 

extent that they have maintained that hardness, they would sur-
10 

vive greater than 50 kilovolts per meter, but I don’t think we have 

any data telling us how much greater. 

Mr. BARTLETT. 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. That Supervisory Control and 

Data Acquisition (SCADA) units in our sub-stations and so forth 

would all be gone. The large transformers would be destroyed. And 

we don’t make those; it would take a year and a half or so to buy 

them from somebody overseas who makes them. 

We would then be in a world, it is my understanding, where the 

only person you could talk to is the person next to you, unless you 

happen to be a ham operator with a vacuum tube set, which is a 

million times less susceptible. And the only way you could go anywhere is to walk, unless you happened to have a car that had coilend distributor and you could get some gasoline to put in it. 

Is that a pretty accurate description of the world we would be in? 

Dr. GRAHAM. We did conduct tests of SCADAs, automobiles, and 

other systems. And while, as a commission, we don’t have either 

the funds or the staff that would be needed to do a comprehensive 

test of those, all of the data we did obtain indicate that your description is accurate. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Your initial report came out about four years ago. 

We have had four years in which we could have been doing something to protect—I am very concerned that we don’t have the equivalent of an insurance policy. It is unlikely my home will burn, but 

I would not sleep well tonight if it did not have an insurance policy. 

I don’t hire somebody to stand there watching for a fire, to yell, 

‘‘Fire, fire,’’ but I do have an insurance policy. That is what I would 

like my Nation to have for an EMP protection. 

We don’t have anything near that, do we? 

Dr. GRAHAM. No, we don’t. 

The commission has been trying for over a year, through working 

with the Department of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council staff in the White House, to look at the 15 canonical 

scenarios they have defined as potential terrorist threats to the 

U.S., which included a nuclear weapon; but it is a nuclear weapon 

going off at ground level in a city, to either add to that as another 

category of nuclear weapon attack or add a 16th scenario of a highaltitude EMP attack. But as yet, we have been unable to obtain 

their cooperation in adding that threat to the homeland security 

threat list. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would just like to end by re-emphasizing what 

you emphasized in your testimony. A terrorist group, not even a 

nation group, but a terrorist group with a tramp steamer and a 

Scud launcher and a crude nuclear weapon, and if they miss by 100 

miles, it doesn’t matter, does it? 

Dr. GRAHAM. No. 

Mr. BARTLETT. And they could launch that weapon and shut 

down, what, all of New England? 
11 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, probably with a Scud-B they could cover essentially all of the East Coast or all of the West Coast. And the coasts 

tend to be where most of the population is. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Which would be Katrina how many times over? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Oh, several times over. 

Mr. BARTLETT. At least an order of magnitude. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Something on that size, yes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The average city has a three-day supply of food? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I think that is about what we estimated. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. 

Well, I want to thank you very much. 

I am very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, that you set up this hearing. 

I think that, as the testimony indicated, I think this is the most 

asymmetric attack that could occur in our country. Am I wrong in 

that? Can you think of any more asymmetric attack on our country? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I think there are very few that go with this. One, 

as I mentioned, was a cyber attack, possibly a very widespread and 

contagious biological attack. But this is one of a very small set and 

very asymmetric. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Doesn’t our very vulnerability invite this kind of 

an attack? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Bartlett. That is our primary concern, that 

if the country does nothing about it, we are essentially advertising 

to a world which already has a good understanding of the implications of EMP and has written about it extensively. Not just from 

the U.S., but in our survey of potentially hostile countries, they 

talk about this extensively in the open literature, and did before 

the commission was even established. And it is a very asymmetric 

situation that we could face. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I have been told that I shouldn’t be talking about 

this because it gives our adversaries ideas. They already know 

about this, correct? 

Dr. GRAHAM. They knew about it before the commission was ever 

established. And that was the first thing we checked. We said, 

‘‘How much can we say without giving away information that isn’t 

available to our adversaries’’? And when we reviewed the literature, why, we found there was an extensive knowledge of EMP 

and its effects widespread. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Why is there so little interest on the part of our 

leadership to do something about this? Is it just too hard? They 

just don’t want to face it? 

Dr. GRAHAM. That is a good question. It might be better to ask 

a sociologist than an engineer and physicist that question. 

But it falls into the category of a problem which hasn’t happened 

yet. Certainly, our ability to predict very unusual and significant 

events, whether it is Pearl Harbor, the start of the Korean War, 

9/11 and whatever—we have, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, 

much to be humble about in our ability to predict these events before they happen. Of course, once they happen, then there tends to 

be a massive response. But somehow it is just not within our character and our society to look for these events before they occur. 
12 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for setting 

up this hearing—and I look forward to the additional questions and 

responses. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Mr. Solomon Ortiz, please. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

This is really—it is scary. Sometimes we think that this is something that might never happen, but I agree with what my good 

friend, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, asked. We would feel a lot better if we 

had some type of insurance or some type of shield that would protect us from dismantling all the equipment that we have. 

But based on increasing dependence on advanced electronic systems, have you, has the Department of Defense and Department of 

Homeland Security adequately addressed or implemented any of 

the EMP Commission’s, the previous recommendations to protect 

the United States from attack? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Mr. Ortiz, the Department of Defense has begun a 

process to address that. 

About two years ago, in response to the mandate of the first legislation establishing the commission, the Secretary of Defense 

issued a directive to the Department with a series of actions he 

wanted to see carried out to address EMP. And the Department of 

Defense has started working down that list. 

I would characterize them today as in the planning stage, trying 

to identify what their requirements are, what the issues they have 

to address are, and trying to set up some kind of an organizational 

structure to address them. 

So, the DOD is early in the process, and I would say that the 

other parts of the government have not yet begun any process. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I know we are looking at what might happen to 

us if they detonate a missile over the United States. But on the 

other side, what can we do to defend ourselves? From what I hear, 

I don’t think we have anything to defend ourselves. Am I correct 

when I say that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. No, I think there are several things we can do. 

Mr. ORTIZ. That is what I would like to hear. 

Dr. GRAHAM. I think the first thing is to recognize the problem 

and let other countries know that we understand what might happen and we are taking steps to mitigate that. 

Another step early on would be to identify those parts of the infrastructure that are most likely to be damaged and, particularly, 

the ones that are hardest to replace and focus on those, to protect 

them. 

Let me give you an example of that. August 13, 2003, a power 

transmission line got hot enough that it sagged down and touched 

a tree and shorted the ground, and that dropped that power transmission line. And for the next hour, 2,000 megawatts of generating 

capacity kept looking for a route to get to the north-central part of 

the United States. And as that power switched from one transmission system to another, it kept overloading them and dropping 

them, as well, until finally the whole Northeast, with very few exceptions, was blacked out. Because the protection circuitry in the 

power system was properly arranged, nothing was damaged in our 

power system during that outage, and within the next two days, 

the country was able to bring back the power to that area. 
13 

The problem with EMP is that protection circuitry itself and the 

protection systems, many of which are based on these SCADA computers, would be damaged. They would be damaged immediately, 

and therefore they could not provide proper protection immediately 

and could lead to the damage of other parts of the system, including things such as large power transformers and switches. 

So, building these small, relatively inexpensive control devices, 

SCADAs, which are changed out every few years, anyway, in a way 

so they won’t fail from EMP, and, particularly, won’t be damaged 

by EMP, is, in our view, an important step and one that we would 

like to encourage the government and the private sector to work together on. And, in fact, the commission has a plan to build a demonstration model of a protected SCADA, so that we can show people it is not either terribly expensive or terribly difficult to do that. 

But recognizing what has happened, since this would be very unusual, is a key to our response. It is quite possible that the system 

operators will do more damage to the system after an EMP event 

in trying to recover the system, if they don’t know what has happened; and it is not expensive to recognize this, but we don’t have 

the means to do that today. 

So, there are a whole number of steps that we could carry out 

that would be very effective and not hugely expensive. 

Let me ask my colleagues on the commission if any of them have 

further comments on that. 

Okay. 

Mr. ORTIZ. My time is up, so thank you so much for your testimony and answering our questions. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McHugh from New York. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sixteen years on this committee, as I was chatting with Mr. 

Bartlett before—we have been honored by many distinguished panelists, and I am being totally serious when I say rarely have we 

been so honored as we are here, this morning, to have gathered 

such a body of distinguished individuals with such a great record 

of service. 

And thank you for taking up such an important issue that no one 

seems to be concerned about. And we certainly are in debt to Mr. 

Bartlett, as others have mentioned, for his leadership on this, but 

you really have really put a fine point to it. 

My friend from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, said it is scary. As you read 

through these pages, you talk about people stuck for long periods 

on elevators, airplanes crashing, no water, no food. The difference 

between this and Stephen King is that Stephen King in Borders is 

in the fiction section; this report is not. And I hope, if nothing else 

comes of it, this helps to focus our Nation’s attention on the unknown. 

I was very distressed to hear that one of the reasons, perhaps, 

the Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded—and 

I realize it is speculation—but that it is a threat unknown to this 

point. That is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, it seems to me, to contemplate and ultimately to take steps 

to guard against the unexperienced, the unknown, such as 9/11 
14 

was to that point. So, if that is their mindset, I trust they will 

begin to rethink it very, very quickly. 

As I was reading through, on page 156, you use the phrase 

‘‘graceful degradation.’’ I like the term. Can you tell me a little bit 

about what it would mean in its application, with respect to protection from EMP? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. We don’t envision the country having the resources to try to protect everything in the civilian infrastructure. 

It is a massive infrastructure, and, in fact, elements of it do fail 

from time to time. But normally, when they fail, it starts at a single-point failure, and the failure is contained, and the system is left 

in a configuration where the infrastructure can be re-established, 

such as it was in that August 2003 Northeast blackout or other 

blackouts we have had. 

We think we could properly protect and contain and design the 

infrastructure protection in such a way that, while the infrastructure might go down for a limited period of time, it wouldn’t be so 

damaged that it couldn’t be brought back into functionality within 

the period of time that people can get along without it. 

And that is our view of graceful degradation: failing in such a 

way that it is not suffering large, permanent damage that can’t be 

replaced within a short period of time, but rather, basically, make 

it so this can be reset and re-established and brought up in a systematic way. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I realize the scope of this challenge is, to say the 

least, multifaceted, and there is no one prescriptive response. But 

the concept of graceful degradation, as I was reading through, 

seemed to be both technologically achievable and, in a relative 

sense, pretty affordable. Am I being overly optimistic, or would that 

be a fair judgment? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, affordability is like beauty; it tends to be in 

the eye of the beholder. But it seems to us that, compared to the 

cost of the infrastructure or the cost of the failure of the infrastructure from EMP, if it were to occur, the cost of the analysis, then 

the planning, then the protection of key elements and the testing 

and exercise and maintaining situational awareness, all of those 

are very modest costs. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Just one final question; I just have a few seconds 

left here. You mentioned you are charged with doing an assessment 

of DOD’s steps in this regard. Do you have a time frame, a calendar on when that will be achieved? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. Our legislative mandate specifies that we deliver to you a report by the end of November of this year. And we 

are well under way working on it now. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, again, gentlemen, thank you so much for 

your service and to Mr. Bartlett for his insight, and look forward 

to your continued efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. 

Mr. SPRATT. Dr. Graham, thank you very much and your entire 

panel for the excellent presentation you have made and for the 

work you have done. 
15 

This is truly the all-time asymmetric threat, but it is also the alltime esoteric threat. It is not widely understood, although it is not 

beyond the apprehension and the comprehension of our most insidious enemies. 

In your work thus far, what can you say about the sufficiency of 

the level of attention amongst our commanders and leaders at the 

national level to this particular threat and to what can be done to 

counter the threat? Is there a sufficient level of national awareness? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I would say there are shining points in our national 

leadership’s interest, but only a few. 

The Secretary of Defense has directed the Defense Department 

to carry out an orderly program. General Chilton, in particular, the 

commander of the Strategic Command, has taken a great deal of 

interest in this and is working hard on the systems under his command and operation to assure that our strategic forces will be survivable and effective under EMP. 

I think it is at the bottom of the list, in many areas, certainly 

in the Defense Department, but it is also in the Department of 

Homeland Security, where this has not yet received much attention 

or much thought. 

Mr. SPRATT. You have given us a message first of the bad news, 

which is a wake-up call, and then the good news, and that is there 

are remedial steps we can take and, for the most part, they are affordable. 

But as you describe the scope and potential of this kind of attack, 

recognizing that it could affect even the telecommunications network and the electric power grid in this country, the cost, just off 

the back of an envelope, would seem to be enormous to protect all 

of these devices. 

You can understand how hardening satellites, and in particular 

future-launch satellites, is within our capability to afford, but the 

entire electric grid, the entire telecommunications system, all of 

these things nationwide, aren’t we talking about some substantial 

financial commitment? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, it would be a large order. There is no doubt 

of that. The work would have the effect of increasing the reliability 

of that infrastructure in the first instance, which is a reasonable 

activity for the providers of the infrastructure and something they 

could ask to put in their rate basis. 

To the extent that we are dealing just with the national security 

aspects, that is a government function. But we found the cooperation and interest in the cooperation between the private sector and 

with the government to be very good. For example, we have worked 

with the North American Energy Reliability Corporation, which 

tries to increase the reliability of the power grid under a number 

of different scenarios, and they are certainly willing to cooperate on 

this with the government. So, if we can arrange for the government 

to contribute to the national security part and the private sector infrastructure to contribute to the overall reliability part, we think 

there is a union of effort that can make this happen in a less than 

extremely costly fashion and do it in such a way that we actually 

ramp up the effort based on knowledge, rather than try to swamp 

the problem with funds. 
16 

Mr. SPRATT. One last question. From where we sit as Members 

of Congress, as the Armed Services Committee, what can we best 

do to extract this kind of commitment and to see that it is followed 

through in a programmatic way? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I think requesting from the Defense Department 

and the military forces their appraisal of potentially vulnerable 

systems and a description of efforts they are undertaking to deal 

with that, along with their programmatic requests for the resources 

necessary to address and manage that, would be a very effective 

first step. 

I think a continued interest on your part, that you have shown 

in establishing this commission, has had a large effect, already, on 

the activities in the Defense Department. And a continued interest 

either through this commission or some other function will continue to keep the pressure on the Administration to work this problem. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you again. And thank you to the entire panel 

for the work you have done. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Franks, please. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Dr. Graham. 

You know, I am reminded, historically, that people such as yourselves have been profoundly important to the success of this country. I know that Dr. Otto Hahn was playing with the atomic bomb 

scenario in Germany a long time ago. And it turns out that one Albert Einstein kind of beat him to the draw, and he happened to be 

on our side, and we can all be very grateful for that. So, I appreciate you and all your colleagues. You are the invisible frontline of 

freedom here, and we are very grateful to you. 

I happen to have been here on the committee when you addressed us some two or three years ago and have been very concerned about the EMP situation since then, and appreciate Roscoe 

Bartlett, or Congressman Bartlett, for his leadership in this area. 

I wanted to ask you a question related to our national security 

space systems. I am sure General Shelton has had many conversations with you about that. Are there things that we can do or 

should do to protect that vital national security asset against the 

EMP capability? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Franks. There are things we can do. In the 

first instance, we need to assess the status of the ground links of 

the space systems we have. That is, on the one hand, satellites that 

are at very high orbits—geosynchronous orbits or even 

semisynchronous orbits—are high enough that the pumping of the 

Van Allen Belts by the exoatmospheric nuclear explosions won’t 

cause much degradation for those satellites. Low-altitude satellites 

that fly into intense parts of Van Allen Belts would probably fail 

after an exoatmospheric explosion within a few days to a week or 

two, and, in fact, that happened after the STARFISH test that we 

conducted in the Pacific in the early 1960’s. But all of these satellite systems—geosync, semisync, low-altitude—use ground links 

to get their information to the users on the surface, and all of those 

ground facilities would be exposed if they are underneath, within 

line of sight of a high-altitude nuclear event. 
17 

And, of course, then we have to trace back from the ground site 

itself to where it gets its power, where it provides its telecommunications, what personnel it needs to be operated, and so on. So, an 

assessment can be made of that, and that can lead to some useful 

steps taken to provide for those after high-altitude nuclear bursts— 

an EMP event, for example. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

I know you mentioned—I think Dr. Bartlett mentioned some discussions with Duma representatives, and they said, you know, if 

we had wanted to—the intent here is a very, very important consideration for those who have the EMP capability. And my concern 

is—and I don’t want to get into anything classified here, and you 

will have to help me to make sure I don’t, even though I know that 

you have said that most people already know so much more about 

this than we have already been aware of for a long time—but intent is everything. My concern is a nation like Iran, with some of 

their advanced missile capabilities that are developing more and 

more all the time—well, what size of a warhead and what heights 

would be necessary for, say, someone like Iran? Are they approaching that capability in terms of their missile capability? And would 

a crude warhead—or what kind of, you know, a kiloton warhead is 

necessary? And discuss the enhanced warhead terminology, so that 

we can understand what needs—you know, is this regular atomic 

warheads? Does this have to be something on the size of a W88? 

Or give us a picture here of what we are really facing and what 

Iran’s potential capability might be against us. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Since one of the members of the commission, Dr. 

Foster, was the director of the Livermore National Laboratory and, 

as far as I know, still has the most advanced nuclear weapon design that we use for one of the types of—one of the aspects of the 

nuclear weapon, and that is after probably approaching 30 or more 

years, I would like to ask him to address the nuclear weapon question. Oh, he left? He had another meeting to go to, unfortunately. 

Okay. I will try to fill in, but not as well as Dr. Foster. 

I will tell you what I have learned from him in this process, that 

you can—you will get potentially catastrophic EMP from even a 

first-generation nuclear weapon. It doesn’t have to be optimized for 

this purpose. So, any nuclear weapon that can be obtained and put 

on a missile, which means that the weight in the one-ton or less 

range for most of the missiles we have talked about, would produce 

the EMP effects we described. There are nuclear weapon designs 

that we know about and that the Russians clearly know about, and 

possibly others know about, which produce stronger and stronger 

EMP fields. And in all these cases, the weapon yield itself doesn’t 

have to be more than 10 kilotons or so. It doesn’t take a very large 

nuclear weapon or a very large yield to produce these effects. They 

are produced by the gamma rays that come out. They come out 

very quickly, and it is the first part of the nuclear detonation process. 

So, any nuclear weapon in the hands of potential adversaries 

would be bad news for us, in this regard. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, sir. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am hoping that the committee 

recognizes that the coincidence of terrorism and technologies, such 
18 

as we are discussing today, represents a grave threat to the human 

family. 

Mr. SPRATT [presiding]. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Dr. Graham. A couple of things—and I 

very much appreciate what your committee is doing—a couple of 

quick questions, and I know they won’t be quick answers. 

I am a proponent of a nuclear Navy to protect—particularly more 

nuclear-powered ships. I would be curious if your commission has 

looked at our surface fleet and determined whether or not a nuclear-powered ship was any more or less susceptible to an EMP 

than a conventionally powered ship. 

The second thing I would like you to comment on is there have 

been recent articles that strongly suggest that part of the traumatic brain injuries that are coming out of the conflicts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan might have been caused by the effects of EMP on the 

brain, in addition to the shock waves. I was wondering—and I have 

only read this article this week, and so I don’t know if your commission had the time to even look at that and if there has been any 

talk amongst your commission, since you are the experts, of how 

we might counter that for the individual soldier. 

Last, without talking out of school, I think it is fair to say that 

several contractors are looking at ways of having a handheld-directed EMP for the purpose of disabling fast boats that are running 

drugs or, possibly, a vehicle-borne IED that is coming at you. So, 

if there are contractors out there looking at them for good purposes 

to protect Americans, it is a pretty safe bet that somewhere in the 

world, someone is also looking at the same thing, which could, for 

example, fry the electricity going to Wall Street and, certainly, 

cause a great deal of disruption, or you can think of any number 

of scenarios. I was wondering if you could touch on those subjects, 

then, that I just posed to you. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Let me take them in reverse order. As a commission, we focused on the nuclear EMP problem, which is a very 

wide-area problem. We did note that devices can be made, and 

don’t require huge power supplies to operate, which can produce intense electromagnetic fields over very small regions; but they are 

regions of the order of tens of feet to maybe hundreds of feet, but 

not miles and hundreds and thousands of miles, like the EMP. So, 

for local effects, it is a possible course to pursue, certainly. 

As far as the brain injuries goes—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sir, if I may, on a one-by-one basis, are you proposing safeguards against something like that, a handheld-directed 

EMP going after America’s economic infrastructure on Wall Street? 

Are you proposing safeguards? And if you are, which agency of our 

Nation should be taking the lead on that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. We have not addressed that directly, because, in 

part, we focused on the high-altitude nuclear problem, and, in part, 

it seems to us that that was an issue related to physical security, 

but one which is in addition to the normal threat of truck bombs 

or bombs or rocket-propelled grenades or things of that sort. While 

the range of the EMP would be—of the conventionally generated 

EMP would be comparable to these other threats, the effects and 

the protection against it would be different. 
19 

And so, for example, electromagnetic shielding would be an important aspect of that, but we have not gone down that path in our 

own studies. We think it is a good issue for high-priority facilities 

to follow. But we did note that in terms of critical infrastructures, 

even the best of them fail. The trouble is they fail at single-point 

failures, and the operators are good at circumventing single-point 

failures. What they don’t practice and don’t know how to address 

is when they have multiple failures over a wide area nearly simultaneously, and that is the problem that the nuclear EMP brings to 

bear. 

Mr. TAYLOR. For traumatic brain injuries, did you look into that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. On that, we did not look into that, and I have no 

information on that, so I am afraid I can’t be of any help. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Are nuclear-powered surface ships being any more 

or less protected? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I have looked at the hardening and protection of 

ships at various times over the last several decades, and my impression is that protecting nuclear-powered ships is certainly no 

more difficult than protecting conventionally powered ships. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Saxton. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Dr. Graham, your description of the threat is certainly sobering 

and, I am sure, accurate. And I am just curious to know whether 

you have—I am sure you have given thought to what our defenses 

against an EMP laydown might be from—back to the nuclear device. I would think we would want to look at a robust missile defense system, and I would also think that the midcourse or boost 

phase would be the place that you would want to be capable, relative to this EMP threat, rather than the phase that we are in now 

that we can accurately use PATRIOT and the aero-type defenses. 

Would you comment for us on that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Saxton. First, there is no magic bullet to 

solving the EMP problem, so I believe we need to look at a large 

number of steps we can take and look for the most cost-effective 

approach with each of them and try to combine them in a useful 

manner. 

Certainly, one of the things we can do is look to the ballistic missile defense capabilities that we have developed and deployed. For 

very long-range missiles that might come over the U.S., the 

ground-based missile defense could have an effective role in intercepting the carrier missile before the bomb goes off and as early 

as possible. And second, even for shorter-range missiles such as the 

Scuds or the Shahab–3s or other short-range missiles to mediumrange missiles that could be fired off our shores, we have a large 

fleet of Aegis ships, and several of those have the Standard Missile–3, which is an interceptor missile designed to destroy offensive 

missiles. And by being able to move those ships around and turn 

on the radars from time to time and see what is going on offshore, 

we could at least increase the uncertainty that any potential 

attacker would have in being able to successfully launch an offshore, ship-based attack. 
20 

That system has proven to be extremely reliable and effective. I 

think the last interceptor did shoot down a satellite, in fact, but it 

can shoot down things at considerably lower altitudes than that. 

So, using our missile defense assets both to deter, dissuade, and, 

if necessary, intercept missiles going over the U.S. and over our 

forces overseas—Taiwan Strait, for example, Persian Gulf, other 

places—could be an extremely useful approach. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson, from Georgia. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Graham, I would ask you to give us your opinion on what 

would be the level of knowledge generally of state and local law enforcement agencies about the EMP phenomenon. 

Dr. GRAHAM. It varies over a wide range of knowledge, from no 

familiarity at all to a few states that have taken this very seriously 

and are making plans of their own. In particular, the State of 

Maryland and the State of Alaska have worked with their National 

Guard units, their adjutants general in their states, their legislatures, and their government to begin implementing plans to understand the effects of an EMP attack and to integrate it in the state’s 

emergency planning functions, and we are trying to work with 

other states, with the adjutants general and others, to expand the 

state knowledge. 

And let me ask General Lawson, who is here, if he has any other 

comments on the state-related activities. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And if you could perhaps speak into the microphone. 

General LAWSON. I think we have discussed, in front of the adjutant generals and the other state emergency action officers, in 

some detail, the kinds of activities that should be included in the 

emergency actions training programs for state police, for state firemen, for other emergency participants. We have presented, three 

times, to Homeland Security our thoughts on some of these preparation activities, and, quite candidly, I would hope that they get as 

much publicity as possible, because that is a part of what many of 

the commissioners think is a vital portion of our response to this 

threat, and that being a clear understanding that we, as a Nation, 

are attempting to develop responses that will minimize the capability itself. We haven’t been as successful in getting that 

prioritized as highly as it should be amongst not only all of the 

states, but even at the national level. 

I think one other action—and it is not a part of the question— 

but one other action that is appropriate to mention: we have had 

a continuing dialogue with the utilities and with the Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission on developing a set of procedures 

that would begin to look at the phase-out of certain portions of the 

electrical grid—in their timely phase-out—to bring in new equipment at those scheduled phase-outs that are more protected to this 

emergency. 

I think, from your standpoint, the one thing that I would mention that is important for the Armed Services Committee is to understand that all of your bases and all of your military forces, all 

of them have a great amount of their power that comes through the 

national grid. All of them have emergency backups, but those 
21 

backups are very short-lived. And so, what happens to that national grid vitally influences all of our Armed Forces. And that 

overlap between Homeland Security and the Defense Department 

needs to be examined very carefully in this particular area, and 

that is an area where the committee could put a little pressure on 

both sides of that coin, to improve that emergency capability for 

the Armed Forces. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Dr. Graham, General Lawson, for your participation in the entire commission. And I greatly appreciate Dr. Roscoe 

Bartlett bringing this issue to our attention in a very thoughtful 

way, raising this issue with the American people. 

As we have discussed the effect, possibly, on the United States, 

what would be the effect, or how can we reduce the effect, if there 

was an EMP attack over the theater of Iraq or Afghanistan? 

Dr. GRAHAM. We have worried about that and tried to address 

it, to some extent. It seems to us the first thing we need to do is 

review the status of our military forces—not just the strategic 

forces, but in the theaters you describe. We also get into the general purpose forces. They are a much more diverse set of systems. 

And we think that rather than try to harden everything in that set 

of systems, having a few key elements to maintain command, control, communications, and having a plan to replace items which are 

failed by the EMP and bring in additional forces and additional 

systems rapidly, would probably make more sense. That is one of 

the items being addressed in the Defense Department’s analysis, 

and the final go at this, we would defer to them. But we think it 

is important that the general purpose forces and the theater forces 

not be ignored in this process. 

Mr. WILSON. And as we think of protection for the American people, recovery in the event of an EMP attack—I appreciate Congressman Spratt raised the issue—what can we do on this committee? What can DOD do? I appreciate Congressman Johnson 

raising the issue of the first responders and the National Guard. 

As we look ahead, what can individual families do, in a prudent 

way, to protect themselves? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I have worked on EMP for an embarrassingly long 

time, Mr. Wilson—over 45 years. About a decade ago, my house in 

Virginia was hit by lightning, and I lost several pieces of electronics. This is almost as bad as an electrical engineer being electrocuted. It is considered bad form in the profession, and I 

shouldn’t have let that happen. 

You can provide local terminal protection for electronics devices. 

The problem is if there is no electric power, most of those devices 

aren’t going to work anyway. More than that—and myself, I have 

my own electric generator that I keep disconnected from everything, so it doesn’t look like it is attached to antennas. Any conductor would be an antenna. I try to keep enough food and water 

around to go for several weeks for myself and my family. And those 

are at least starting steps that can be taken. But to tell you the 

truth, we have not focused on the individual response to this as 
22 

much as we have to the government and industry response. But I 

think it is a good question, and we will go back and reflect on that. 

Mr. WILSON. And indeed, I represent coastal areas like Hilton 

Head Island, where a number of people would have generators. 

And so, inadvertently, we have significant communities across the 

United States that have had power interruptions or threats of 

power interruption due to natural disturbances. 

It was brought up about vehicles, cars, and trucks. Will they operate, or are they permanently inoperable? 

Dr. GRAHAM. There is some experience with both those things 

happening. We tested about 50 vehicles. About 10 of them—and we 

only tested them to 25 kilovolts per meter, which is the kind of 

threat you would get from more ordinary designs of nuclear weapons—about 10 percent of them stopped running when we tested 

them at that level. All but one or two of them could be restarted 

by just switching off the power and then switching on the key 

again. The computer basically stops the car, but it can be reset by 

turning off the power. There were one or two of them that actually 

had computer chip failures in the vehicle and had to be towed back 

to the dealership to have the chips replaced. 

It may not sound too bad, but if you think about what happens 

to the traffic, say, in the D.C. area on a given morning, when there 

are 3 or 4 accidents, you can imagine 10 percent of the vehicles on 

the road suddenly not running anymore. I suspect that would lead 

to a large number of further accidents and incidents. And so it 

would be a while before those vehicles would have good transportation access again. 

But leaving vehicles turned off, parked, is about the best you can 

do with cars you already have, and encouraging Detroit to continue 

to make cars so they are not vulnerable to the transients is another 

good step. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Graham. And to all of the team, great work. Very 

distinguished panel. 

I want to pick up where Mr. Wilson just left off, and that is with 

vehicles. I am reading in your report, quote, ‘‘Police services will 

be stretched extremely thin because of a combination of factors. Police will be called on to assist rescue workers removing people from 

immediate dangers.’’ Failures of automobiles and traffic control systems with the intended massive traffic jams was what you were describing there. If you had a 10 percent failure in Washington, D.C., 

or 1 percent failure in Washington, D.C., you would have a mess. 

But it seems also that you can have your ambulances and the fire 

trucks and the response vehicles themselves would not function. 

And in your example of the cases where you had the computer 

chip—which is everywhere now in every modern vehicle—no longer 

working, you towed it back to the dealer and had a new one put 

in. But in the scenario we are talking about, I am trying to envision how that would work—that you tow it back to the dealer, and 

all the chips in the dealership are destroyed. 

So, if we had an EMP event of the magnitude that Mr. Bartlett 

was talking about and you were talking about earlier, significant 
23 

explosion over Kansas or something like that, isn’t it possible that 

you would have not just stuck elevators, but you would have your 

ability to respond at all, not just because you couldn’t talk, but because you couldn’t drive? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. I think that is the bottom line, Mr. Kline. On 

the one hand, the chips that are still in the part bins, if they are 

not connected to anything else, would probably survive. Wires, circuits, pipes—anything conducting connected to an electrical or electronic device looks like an antenna to an EMP. It conducts the 

power into the device. That is why I keep the portable generator 

I have disconnected from everything else at my home. 

But there are many things that are connected to wires, et cetera, 

that have to be—we did test traffic control device—traffic signals, 

and what we found is those little buttons you push to get the signal 

to walk across the street are wonderful antennas for EMP and take 

a destructive level of signal right into the traffic control unit and 

burn it out. 

During the 2003 blackout, the traffic in Manhattan became a 

gridlock because of traffic signals basically failing from lack of 

power. There was a telecommunications—it is called a telecommunications hotel, a big telecommunications telephone switching station that had four hours worth of battery power on hand. 

The phone company had a plan to take a portable generator and 

connect it to that telephone switching center to keep it going. It 

had to get that generator halfway across Manhattan, and it was 

not able to do so in four hours, and the telephone switching system 

went down. So, that is the kind of problem you are going to see. 

Mr. KLINE. It is a pretty tough scenario. 

Let me follow up again with Mr. Wilson’s thought about the general purpose forces. I know it is used in Afghanistan and Iraq, but 

they ride around in vehicles with chips, as well. So, presumably, 

it is not just their command and control, but you could have the 

vehicles stop. This is the Armed Services Committee. Are there 

things that we should be pressing? Is there a way to harden that 

in the vehicle? Or should the Pentagon be making sure there are 

plenty of chips unconnected, you know, back in the warehouse, so 

they can be replaced relatively quickly? I can see entire battalions, 

brigades literally coming to a halt. 

Dr. GRAHAM. I think having adequate spares in the area would 

be very valuable and not hugely expensive, but, also, the vehicles 

are often designed to be able to withstand a fairly high level of 

EMP—the military vehicles, the Humvees, the Bradleys, M–1 

tanks, and so on. However, normally, they are designed to be protected when they are all closed up or ‘‘buttoned up,’’ as the Army 

says. We have noticed they are generally operated not buttoned up, 

with things open on them. And so we would encourage the service 

to do the test. And when they retrofit these vehicles, which they 

are doing a lot now on the reset programs—refurbishing them, to 

put enough protection in the vehicles, shielding on the wire harnesses, for example—that they can continue to operate even when 

they are not buttoned up. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
24 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I call on Mr. Taylor, let me ask you, Dr. 

Graham, have you thought about—should the unthinkable happen—communications? What would be left communication-wise? 

Who could communicate with whom and over what distance and in 

what manner? 

Dr. GRAHAM. We have looked at the commercial telecommunications system, and we think a lot of the calls in progress or being 

made at the time of the event would stop. Some of the telecommunications equipment would continue, at least as long as its 

power is available. But we can’t predict where the nodes would be 

still functional and where they wouldn’t. 

To get around this problem several decades ago, the idea of diverse routing of packet switch networks was invented as a concept. 

It was actually invented as a Cold War concept, to deal with communications nodes being destroyed by direct attack, in fact. And so, 

at least, my estimate is that the packet switching network that 

provides the carrier for the Internet would be the most likely way 

to sustain some kind of connectivity. But the individual nodes 

themselves are not, in large part, not designed to be hardened to 

EMP. So, it would only be a chance that there was a route through 

the system that would go from you to point B to carry the message. 

There is, also, for the military forces, the Milstar satellite system. And perhaps I could ask Dr. Soper, who worked on that and 

saved it from cancellation at least twice, to talk about that as a 

continuing military communications capability. Take my seat. 

Mr. SOPER. Thank you, Dr. Graham. 

I am Gordon Soper. I spent most of my life and career in the Department of Defense. And the question relates to its command and 

control of our military forces and perhaps, in particular, our nuclear forces. 

We have paid a great deal of attention to that. After all, our nuclear weapons are a linchpin of our national security, and it has 

been uppermost in the Nation’s mind to make sure that those 

weapons are command and controlled through all levels of conflict. 

And to that end, the Department of Defense has developed a set 

of standards—in particular the MIL–STD–188, 125 series, the 

MIL–STD–1269(b)—don’t want to get into the details—to direct 

those people that are responsible for our command and control of 

nuclear weapons know-how to protect against this threat. And in 

its basic form, it is really very simple. It tends to be a shielded volume with a minimum number of penetrations, and those penetrations that you can’t avoid, you protect. And you test it over and 

over again. And the most boring part, but, perhaps, the most important, is that you maintain that protection over the life cycle of 

the system, and that just requires attention to detail, not poking 

holes in the shield, not disconnecting things. 

Fiber optics has been a help in this process. I hope that that has 

helped address the problem. The Milstar system, the Milstar satellite system, was designed to be hardened or survivable against direct radiation—the X-rays and gamma rays that come out of the 

weapons and proceed unabated through the vacuum of space. And 

as Dr. Graham correctly pointed out, one of the more important 

issues, from an EMP perspective, is not necessarily the satellites, 
25 

but, rather, the ground systems that collect the information from 

the satellites and distribute them to the places they need to go. 

Hope that addressed your question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

committee, and I want to thank again my colleague, Mr. Bartlett, 

for making everyone on this committee aware of a very real threat. 

I want to thank the panel. 

Dr. Graham, a couple of things. I was very much aware that 

when it came to body armor, up-armored Humvees, improvised explosive device (IED) jammers, and, most recently, Mine Resistant 

Ambush Protected vehicles, it really wasn’t the DOD coming to 

Congress, saying, ‘‘We need these things.’’ It was because of different circumstances Congress telling the DOD, ‘‘You are not doing 

enough.’’ And I don’t say that happily, but it is a fact. 

In this instance, even though you are going to make a report to 

the DOD, based on those four scenarios, I don’t have a high degree 

of confidence that, for whatever reasons, they are going to come to 

us and say, ‘‘This is what we need.’’ So, what I would ask of you 

as a part of your final report is I would hope that a part of your 

final report is a memo to Congress: ‘‘This is what you, members of 

the Appropriations Committee, members of the Armed Services 

Committee, need to be doing.’’ 

The second thing, I thought you touched on something very appropriate. I happen to have lived down where Katrina hit, saw 

what life without electricity was like for a few weeks. It wasn’t 

pleasant. I was very much interested in your tip to leave your generator unattached to the home. I would think, for the average citizen who is trying to be prudent and is trying to protect themselves 

from something like this, which is a very real threat—although a 

horrible threat, but a very real threat—that you would do this Nation a great service if a similar publication was made available or 

a checklist of what you can do, as an individual, to try to protect 

yourself, should something like this happen. I think that would be 

doing a great service, and then get that into the hands of either 

the Department of Homeland Security or the Northern Command 

or someone, at least, for those folks who would choose to do so, at 

least be made aware of what an individual can do to try to take 

some steps to protect themselves. 

And again, I would welcome your thoughts on this. This is a request that I am making to you. I would hope that the committee 

would back that up, as far as when it comes to what should this 

committee be doing, as far as authorizing funds, and what should 

the appropriators be doing, as far as appropriating funds to address the threat to our Nation. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, thank you, Mr. Taylor. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and I think we could put out something which 

could be of use both to individuals, homeowners, but also to state 

and local authorities and their emergency facilities and so on; and 

we will look to see what is already available and proceed from 

there. 

As far as what Congress can do going forward, this commission 

is a creature of the Congress. In fact, we follow the same rules 
26 

other congressional agencies do, and we owe our existence to you. 

I am struggling with this, because it pains me a little bit to say 

it, but as a matter of fact, there is a provision in the current defense authorization bill that this committee has put forward which 

would extend this commission into the future for some few years. 

I would say that, in my view, Congress and—through the Congress, 

the creation of this committee has been the principal forcing function on the Administration to take this issue seriously, and so, the 

fact that you are proposing to move this forward could have a good 

effect, in that regard. 

We all serve pro bono. I live on the West Coast. I like to say this 

is fun, but it isn’t. Nonetheless, I am sure there are, among the 

commissioners, other members, people who would be willing to continue to serve if, in the judgment of the Congress, that is a useful 

function. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. It is always nice to be reminded that you are our creature, and the champion, of course, on 

this issue is Roscoe Bartlett, on whom I now call. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I really want to express 

my appreciation to the chairman, for calling this hearing, and to 

the commission. As my colleague Mr. McHugh noted, a lot of commissions have sat before us. None of them, I think, have been as 

high of quality as this commission. I am really impressed. 

I just would like a few quick questions, so that we can get some 

things on the record. When you were talking about the selective 

survivability of automobiles, that was at 25 kilovolts per meter. At 

100 kilovolts per meter, they are probably all gone. 

Dr. GRAHAM. We don’t know that for a fact. But the people from 

whom we got the automobiles wanted them back and in working 

order, so we didn’t go higher than that, because we didn’t have the 

budget to buy that many automobiles, in case they all failed. 

I think, in the future, it would be worth Department of Homeland Security carrying out a more thorough set of tests and, perhaps, using some of their own fleet to see what would happen at 

higher levels. If I had to guess, I would say by the time you got 

to—certainly to 100 and possibly to 50 kilovolts per meter, you 

would have quite a few more failures. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Our commercial aircraft are not hardened. So the presumption 

would be all of those that are line of sight would fall out of the sky? 

Dr. GRAHAM. They are not specifically hardened to EMP. They 

are tested against lightning strikes, and, in fact, they experience 

lightning strikes, as I recall, an average of something like once a 

year. So, they do have a reasonably good level of EMP protection, 

as far as flight safety is concerned, and that means, basically, land 

at the nearest airport after you are hit. 

Now, EMP contains some electromagnetic frequencies that are 

not in lightning strikes, so it is no guarantee that the airplanes 

will keep working, and as you know, the airplanes are largely software-controlled today—both the engines and the flight controls 

themselves—so we would probably lose some aircraft. But we 

would have some that would continue to fly as well. 
27 

Mr. BARTLETT. It is my understanding that the usual surge protector does not protect against EMP, because the rise time is in 

nanoseconds, and it is through the surge protector before it sees it 

and responds. 

Dr. GRAHAM. It depends on the specific surge protector. For example, those designed for lightning only don’t have to respond fast 

enough to protect against EMP. Some others are fast enough to do 

that. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The usual surge protector that protects against 

lightning probably won’t protect you against EMP. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Used by whom? 

Mr. BARTLETT. The usual surge protector to protect you against 

lightning probably will not protect you against EMP? 

Dr. GRAHAM. It will not necessarily protect you against EMP. 

When I buy these little surge protection strips for my computers 

and things of that sort, they claim to work to down to a nanosecond, but I have not seen them tested to that range yet against 

an EMP-like threat. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Satellite vulnerability, because it is so expensive 

to put weight in orbit—my understanding is that our satellites are 

usually lower—but satellites are the softest part of this chain—that 

we probably would lose all of those that were line of sight, close 

in, from prompt effects, and the others, as you noted, would decay 

quickly because of pumped-up Van Allen Belts? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. Unless the satellite had been specifically designed to be hardened against radiation, including the trapped radiation that would be pumped into the Van Allen Belts, they would 

all fail within a week or so. 

However, many of the ground stations would fail essentially instantaneously, and so we would be out of communication with the 

satellite even more quickly than the failure of the satellite suggests. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Some 90-odd percent of all of our military communications moves over commercial links, satellite links, is my understanding. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Let me consult my colleagues here. 

Soper, does that sound about right? 

Mr. SOPER. Certainly, the military communications that are not 

critical—I mean, laundry lists and things like that—I don’t mean 

to make light of it—but many noncritical circuits do go over commercial assets. 

Dr. GRAHAM. The most critical piece, which we view as strategic 

command and control, tend to have their own circuits and tend to, 

in the final analysis, use Milstar as a protected system. But that 

is—you are getting down to a very small-sized communication 

channel by the time you get down to that. 

Mr. BARTLETT. You mentioned the asymmetric nature of this 

threat and how we were more vulnerable because we are more sophisticated. If North Korea were to launch a nuclear weapon 

straight up and detonate it, and that would have an EMP effect on 

them and on us, without that, our 30-odd thousand people there 

are probably a match for their million on the other side; is that not 

correct? We think so. 
28 

Dr. GRAHAM. Let us see. I think—several things come to mind. 

One is that the worst EMP in the northern hemisphere tends to 

the south of the explosion point, and that is where South Korea is, 

with respect to North Korea. So, you have picked a particularly 

damaging scenario for the assets in South Korea. Of course, to 

meet the North Koreans, we have assets in Korea. The Koreans, 

South Koreans, have a larger military than we do there. And then, 

we have assets in Japan, Guam, and other places that we might 

bring to bear. Of course, the North Koreans know about all those 

assets. 

But it would certainly cause a serious disruption if they launched 

the attack you described, and they could extend that further if they 

wished. 

Mr. BARTLETT. They are not very sophisticated. They would be 

much less affected by this attack than our soldiers. They would be 

relatively all the same size after this attack, or relatively close to 

it. 

Dr. GRAHAM. I don’t have detailed information on their communication systems, but certainly, their military systems tend to be 

much more primitive than ours and, therefore, would be less affected by this. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Your generator that is not plugged in would probably not survive a 50 to 100 kilowatt—— 

Dr. GRAHAM. Fifty to 100 kilovolt per meter. 

Probably, it would be okay, as long as I didn’t attach any wire 

to it. It is the need for something that looks, to EMP, like an antenna to get in. That would be the most formidable effect. But 

somewhere around 100 kilovolts per meter, it has enough wires inside it that it would start being affected. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah. In closing, I would just like to reemphasize 

the discussion that you previously had, relative to individual and 

family response. I had been concerned that we are paying a little 

or no attention to the old civil defense. I am a child of the Depression, and I remember the Cold War very well, and I remember everywhere there was a fallout shelter. You couldn’t go to any public 

building without having little brochures there to tell you what to 

do, and every family knew what they ought to be stockpiling and 

how they ought to behave in an event like this. 

I am very concerned that if we as individuals and families do not 

know what to do and are not prepared, that every one of us then 

becomes a ward of the state. And are we not enormously stronger 

if we are individually and family-wise self-sufficient during an 

emergency like that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Bartlett. I think there are several reasons—several possible threats, both man-made and natural, that 

could affect us. And having an ability to function in a self-reliant 

manner for some period of time would benefit us all. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you think that you could be effective in encouraging our Homeland Security people to become more aggressive in this civil defense role? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I met with Senator Lieberman yesterday, as the 

chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the other House 

of Congress, and he was very interested in this subject and agreed 

to consider it as part of his purview for Homeland Security. So, we 
29 

will try to continue to work with the Homeland Security functions 

both in the Congress and the Administration and encourage them 

to take useful steps. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would just like to note, Mr. Chairman, that if 

you are preparing for something like this in advance, say, years 

ahead, you are now a patriot, you are stimulating the economy, but 

if you do it hours before it happens, now you are a hoarder, and 

you are doing exactly the same thing; and timing is very critical 

there now, isn’t it? 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bartlett, thank you. 

And, Dr. Graham, thank you, as well as members of your commission. 

Oh, excuse me. Mr. Saxton has another question. 

Mr. SAXTON. I just wanted to take a minute to thank you for 

being here and to ask you if—Mr. Taylor mentioned something— 

actually, Mr. Taylor and I were talking about this earlier this 

morning. I have an article here, which Mr. Taylor made reference 

to, and it brings up a subject which I think is extremely interesting 

and important. 

It talks about brain injuries that result from IEDs that Mr. Taylor also mentioned. And this article suggests that brain injuries 

that have occurred in Iraq seem to be different than brain injuries 

that have occurred over the years in automobile accidents and 

other types of happenings. 

And EMP is one of the areas that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently looking at in terms of 

its potential effect, with regard to brain injuries. I will just read 

this one paragraph to you. I found it very interesting. 

‘‘Ling’s team’’—that is the scientist—‘‘will soon begin studying 

other potential causes of brain injury, such as electromagnetic 

pulses. If EMP from a blast is powerful enough, it can interfere 

with nearby electronic devices. ‘The brain is an electronic organ,’ 

says Ling. ‘If an EMP pulse can take out a radio, why not shortcircuit a brain?’ ’’ 

So, I guess what I would like to just ask or suggest is that, 

maybe, inasmuch as our authorization bill extends your commission, maybe it would be a good idea for DARPA and your commission to work together on this, as much as you have got all this experience with studying this subject. And I am sure you would be 

of great benefit to Dr. Ling and his team. I just mention this to 

you, and I will certainly see you get a copy of this article as a starting point. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Thank you. 

While it is not in our mandate today, it sounds very interesting. 

I would note that I also serve on a National Academy Board called 

a Board on Army Science and Technology, which—and the National 

Academy has the resources of the National Institute of Medicine as 

well as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy 

of Engineering, so it can bring a very diverse set of talents together. And this sounds like the kind of question that might be directed to the National Academies and to the Board on Army 

Science and Technology, to work with the scientists and the government. 
30 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, Dr. Graham, thank you and your commission for your excellent work, not just today, for appearing, but for 

the work that you have done through the months on the commission. And we are most appreciative, and we will be in touch with 

you and the commission again. 

If there are no further questions, the meeting is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JULY 10, 2008 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 10, 2008 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Æ