Talk:Nuclear electromagnetic pulse

message: Wer shoudl include this as a possibel source fo EMP and evience as to what happnened with previous incidents i.e. THE Carrington Event 1859: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859 and modern prpearation for it http://www.armageddononline.org/electronic-armageddon-solar-flare-2012.html ALTHOUGH there is nothing preparing for eth nuclear meltdown if we had 100s of power statsions suddenly going critical if there is nothing to stop them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.172.55 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article already includes a note to the effect that geomagnetic storms are sometimes referred to as "solar EMP."  Although there are many similarities between the E3 component of nuclear EMP and the effects of solar storms, calling the effects of solar storms "solar EMP" has caused an enormous amount of confusion. Some of that confusion is reflected in the armageddononline.com article mentioned above. There are many very important differences between nuclear EMP and the results of solar storms. X5dna (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMP from the Sun 

message: What's impressive about this article is that it is written exclusively from the point of view of an American with a presumed audience of Americans. The last "FAQ" is rather amazing in this respect—"America isn't defended!" --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US centric? 

message: Should we add appearances of EMP in movies, books? Matrix, War of the Worlds and Modern Warfare 2 are the 1st to come my mind. OzhanTR (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This keeps coming up over and over again.  There is a separate article called Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture that is specifically for fiction and popular culture references. Please do not use the main article on Electromagnetic pulse for popular culture references.  X5dna (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture references 

message: The broader question is: Where are the authoritative non-US publications about electromagnetic pulse that can be referenced in order to expand this Wikipedia article more broadly beyond U.S. and Soviet experiences and official reports?
  
Many EMP experts have stated in verbal reports that Europe, China and Russia have had extensive civilian activities devoted to EMP hardening.  I have found hundreds of authoritative US-generated documents about EMP, and I have read many of them.  I am sure that other countries must also have published non-classified material about EMP considering the work that they've done.  I've only found a very few such articles, and most of them are not available in English.  Please put any possible leads to authoritative non-US information here. X5dna (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting the US centric problem 

message: How does EMP damage sensitive electrical equipment?
How does it damage power systems?
How does one protect against it? Does shielding help?
Etc.
Gypsydoctor (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of EMP? 

message: This article, and especially the now-archived section of this discussion page, had (for a few years) been a rather chaotic forum-like discussion of questions and answers about EMP effects and EMP protection.  That problem went away for a long time after a link to the United States EMP Commission's excellent Critical National Infrastructures Report was put in the very first paragraph of the article.  The link was removed on 9 August by Cybercobra on the grounds that it doesn't belong there.  (By Wikipedia standards, he's right, and the link is still in the references at the bottom of the page.)  
I'm afraid, though, that we're going to get right back into the same lengthy question-and-answer forum session about EMP effects unless the link to that report is featured quite prominently.  The report is at:
http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
There are many problems with a Wikipedia article about specific EMP effects.  One is that the article would necessarily be extremely long (literally book-length, and a very long book at that).  The concise EMP Commission Critical National Infrastructures Report is more than 200 pages long.  Another problem is that the likely EMP effects change continuously as electronic technology rapidly changes.  Yet another problem is that EMP protection technology is continuously and rapidly evolving.  Although the EMP Commission Critical National Infrastructures Report is a look at the situation in 2008, they were able to take a fairly good snapshot of the situation at one particular time. The report can also be extrapolated, to a large extent, to most other industrialized nations besides the United States. The EMP Commission was also able to do EMP simulator testing to substantiate their statements; however scientists and engineers involved in discussions on Wikipedia talk pages had to make educated guesses based on their individual widely-varying experiences with electromagnetic disturbances. X5dna (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of EMP. Best Available Information. 

message: It has been suggested that the Electromagnetic bomb article be merged into the Electromagnetic pulse article.  I can see nothing of value in the Electromagnetic bomb article.  In fact, the Electromagnetic bomb article contains some important errors.  The Electromagnetic bomb article has always been mostly a repository for rumor and opinion, with some occasional information from popular media articles that contain no scientific references.  The Electromagnetic bomb article contains little valuable information beyond what is in the Electromagnetic pulse article.  I suggest that the Electromagnetic bomb article simply be deleted if others agree with this assessment. X5dna (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some material in "electromagnetic bomb" that was not overlapping and had references, so I merged the articles rather than nominating for deletion.  I left out dubious material, but I did end up pulling over some unreferenced passages.  It's clearly tagged as such, and unless I think unreferenced material is probably wrong, I prefer to leave it around until someone can at least make a good-faith effort to find sources.  Please feel free to yank anything unreferenced which you know is wrong, and I expect some amount of smoothing out will be necessary as the new content settles out.  (But at least now we have one article in need of improvement, instead of two largely overlapping articles in need of improvement.) -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I deleted two sections that were imported from the "electromagnetic bomb" article that contained so many errors that the sections were pretty much beyond repair.  It will take some time to fully integrate and reference the remaining material.  I think that the topic of "Electromagnetic Pulse in Fiction" would be a good one for a separate article.  I have been told that the Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel did a show on how Hollywood gets EMP wrong.  I haven't seen that show, but Electromagnetic Pulse is usually portrayed incorrectly in fiction, although a few recent works of fiction have done a pretty good job. X5dna (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging or Deleting Electromagnetic Bomb article 

message: When discussing weapon yields, I don't mind the parenthetical conversion to terajoules or petajoules, but the repeated use of "kilotons of TNT" or "megatons of TNT," rather than just kilotons or megatons, seems to make this article much harder to read.  It seems to me that we no longer need to continually refer to a 146-year-old chemical explosive that the average reader of this article probably considers to be completely irrelevant to the understanding the topic of this article.  Most readers think of kilotons or megatons as nuclear weapon yields.  Wiki-links, as appropriate, to the "TNT equivalent" article seem more reasonable than the repeated references to TNT. X5dna (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapon Yield Terminology 

message: Would anyone object to the deletion of the External link to the cover article in the September 2001 issue of Popular Mechanics?  The lead-in to that article states, "In the blink of an eye, electromagnetic bombs could throw civilization back 200 years. And terrorists can build them for $400."  This statement has caused confusion in discussions all over the internet since it confuses nuclear EMP with non-nuclear EMP, and leaves the impression that terrorists can build a nuclear weapon for 400 dollars.  This Popular Mechanics article has been responsible for so much misinformation and confusion that I don't believe that the Popular Mechanics article should be linked from a Wikipedia article. X5dna (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to Popular Mechanics 2001 article 

message: Someone has added a description of a video game which includes an EMP to this article.  The video game reference clearly does not belong in this article.  Whenever I can find the time, I hope to create a new page called "Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture," although anyone else is welcome to begin such a page if they have time to start the page before I do.   There was once an article called "Electromagnetic pulse in fiction," but it was deleted back in the days when articles were deleted by Wikipedia administrators for trivial reasons.  That deletion has proven to be a very serious mistake because whenever there is no article for "Electromagnetic pulse in fiction," then fiction will begin to creep into the scientific article on "Electromagnetic pulse."  Misguided Wikipedia policies of the past have led to articles (such as this article on 1 December 2009) which seem to show video game rules as being actually equivalent to real and powerful nuclear weapon effects.  There is a need to have a separate article about the occurrence of electromagnetic pulse in fictional/gaming situations so that it can be clearly distinguished from the occurrence of electromagnetic pulse in reality. (This has been a problem in Wikipedia for many years). X5dna (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electromagnetic pulse in fiction/popular culture 

message: There is now a new article called Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture.   This new article is the place for all fictional and video game references to electromagnetic pulse.  Please do not put fictional references in the scientific article on electromagnetic pulse. X5dna (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New article on Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture

message: I removed the "citation needed" tag after the phrase "Typical modern scenarios seen in large numbers of news accounts and opinion articles . . ." in the "Post-Cold War attack scenarios" section.  A Google search today for "electromagnetic pulse" in news articles shows 2,580 news articles and 17,718 blog postings about electromagnetic pulse for a total of 20,298 possible references that could be used here.  Although not all of these possibilities would be appropriate for references here, a large number of them would be.  Including only the most highly appropriate references would still leave hundreds of highly relevant examples.  Citations are not needed for things that appear in news and opinion articles on a daily basis. These "citation needed" tags for obvious things like this are simply time wasters. X5dna (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed??? 

message: "The E1 pulse is the very fast component of nuclear EMP. The E1 component has an intense electric field that can quickly induce very high voltages in electrical conductors. E1 is the component that can destroy computers and communications equipment and is too fast for ordinary lightning protectors."
This is not entirely accurate. The incident electric field does not induce currents in conductors. In fact, the boundary conditions on an electric conductor dictate that the tangential component of the incident electric field is zero, and the normal component induces a surface charge density (assuming for the sake of academic argument that the electric conductor is perfect - zero resistivity). 
What induces a current in an inductor is a tangential MAGNETIC field. However, because in normal space a time varying electric field is necessarily coupled with a time varying magnetic field that is orthogonal to it, an incident electric field pulse comes with an orthogonal magnetic pulse for free, and this is what induces the potentially damaging currents in electronics. It is nonetheless the incident magnetic field, and not the incident electric field, that is the direct cause of coupled current in electric conductors. 
--173.62.183.174 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the term electric field to electromagnetic field so that it would be technically correct with reference to E1 (since the previous post is correct with respect to some details of the E1 mechanism).  E1 currents can be induced from both the electric and magnetic field components (depending upon a number of factors).  It is important to note, however, that it is excessive voltage that exceeds rated the breakdown voltages of devices and equipment -- and not excessive current -- that initiates most of the E1 damage. X5dna (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMP Mechanics incorrect 

message: The entire section is based in gossip and gossip of gossip, and some sparce information that it is not conclussive.
Sorry but gossip can't be used to fill a incomplete story.
--190.21.162.224 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read technical journal articles and scientific conference reports and other writings about the Soviet K Project and Test 184, and I can't find any justification for the claim that this section of the article is based on gossip.  Although much is unknown about these events, the published reports from various sources, including some not referenced in this article, are all pretty consistent with each other and with known facts about nuclear electromagnetic pulse. X5dna (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet Test 184

message: I put much of the more concise, older version of the introduction to the article back in place.  Most of the material that had been moved to the new and extremely long introduction to the article (for the past two weeks or so) was material that was questionable or confusing anyway.  If needed, that deleted material is readily available from the article history, and can be added back in to the appropriate parts of the article (very carefully) as needed. X5dna (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Would the deliberate use of high altitude nuclear explosions (for EMP effects) have much utility from a military standpoint (terrorism aside) ? During the cold war it was sometimes suggested that a "pure case EMP attack" (i.e without any bombing of military or civilian targets) was possible in order to inflict economic/infrastructural damage on an enemy. However were such an attack to occur it would have likely to have lead to retaliation in kind or escalation to fullscale nuclear warfare. In a cold war scenario it would have been difficult to use EMP in most parts of Europe without affecting neutral and friendly countries as well. Initially EMP might have been regarded as a way to prevent retaliation to a surprise attack by disabling an enemies means of counterattack but as awareness of the phenomenon grew measures were taken to "harden" crucial military hardware against such effects. Therefore the only likely effect of an EMP attack would be to hamper civil defence and recovery/reconstruction efforts after the war is over causing even more difficulty and misery for civilian survivors. 86.112.65.115 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness as a military weapon 

message: Someone has added a paragraph to the article stating that the destruction of consumer electronics would be the greatest danger to the average person from an EMP event.  This contradicts all of the the published studies by EMP experts which have found that the greatest danger would be the lack of food and water.  The food distribution systems in industrialized countries relies completely upon computerized inventory systems, electric and electronic temperature control equipment, and a functioning transportation system.  Water supplies for all but a small minority of people depend totally upon functioning electric water pumps and electrical and electronically-controlled water purification systems.  Consumer electronics are of little consequence to people who are dying because of a lack of food and drinkable water. X5dna (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Addition of 11 August 2010 

message: *  Electromagnetic pulse impact far and wide • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular news (USA Today) 

message: I have removed the "confusing or unclear" tag from this article.  The article has been extensively re-edited since that tag was put in place.  Also, whoever added that tag provided no explanation at all as to why it was added.
Electromagnetic pulse can be a complex subject to understand.  Please put specific areas of confusion on this discussion page.  I'm sure that specific points of confusion can be addressed.  Some graphic animation would be useful, but I doubt if anyone has the time or resources to produce the necessary animation.  Perhaps we can make this a much more easily understood article, though, if readers would address specific points of confusion on this discussion page.  X5dna (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing or Unclear? 

message: Is it pronounced "Emp"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.100.146 (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviation is almost always, although not in every case, pronounced as the three letters separately (E-M-P).  The military acronym HEMP, however, is usually pronounced "hemp" as a one-syllable abbreviation. X5dna (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Editing of this article really needs to be restricted to registered editors.  The vast majority of unregistered users making recent edits are clear cases of vandalism.  The quantity of this sort of vandalism is driving away legitimate editors from Wikipedia altogether. It is tiresome to be constantly reverting vandalism rather than making real improvements to articles. X5dna (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Vandalism 

message: Do EMP's remain in the Earth's magnetic field after a bomb explosion or do it dissipates? I mean, how long do EMP's remain active? When a nuclear missile or bomb explodes EMP's are released, on which distance depending upon the explosion altitude, that much I know but how long does it last. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The high-intensity E1 component of a nuclear EMP is over in less than one millionth of a second.  The longest lasting component is the E3 component, which typically peaks within one minute and the Earth's magnetic field returns to normal within a few minutes. Non-EMP effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion may last much longer.  Interference to radio communications may last for a few hours (depending upon a large number of variables), and artificial radiation belts may last for years.  See that article on artificial radiation belts for more information.  The radio propagation interference and the artificial radiation belts that can destroy satellites are completely separate from the EMP effects, which is why they are not covered in this article. X5dna (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the information, it helped me a lot. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Conceptually and theoretically only (obviously), if several large conducting balloons were filled to high pressure with an insulating gas like sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), were
charged and had large induced magnetic fields, and then were rapidly popped, would this
generate a substantial amount of magnetic flux ?  (Presumably, the surface area of
the magnetic fields would rapidly contract ?)  Is this a decent analogy or metaphor
for the generation of magnetic fields and rapid decrease in it's area ?
Alternatively, is this metaphor misplaced or misleading - for example are there
important features relating to symmetry, or shape or direction of the flow that
are getting lost in such an analogy or metaphor?  If so, how would you describe  
the basic concepts of these physics phenomena to laypeople in a clear manner using simple down to earth metaphors and models ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.56 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question : Concentric Blimp/Balloon EMP ? A decent metaphor for non-nuclear EMP concepts ?

message: Someone recently changed about half of the spellings of "metre" in this article to "meter".  This half-and-half version of spelling standards not only violates the Wikipedia: Manual of Style, it just makes the article look really sloppy.  Also, when there have been other revisions made since the half-and-half change, it is really a lot of work for another editor to make everything consistent again.  As a U.S. resident myself, I prefer the U.S. spellings, but this article has used the British spellings for a very long time now.  If you believe that it is necessary to make a change in spelling standards, please state the reason here, and make ALL of the changes.  Don't just leave the article a jumbled mess. X5dna (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: United States vs. British spelling

message: When I was reading some soviet books on in-space EMP tests, I stumbled at some informations about these tests damaging multiple satellites of that time, both US and russian (and there weren't *that* many at the time.
Anyone got more info about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.225 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effecects on satellites of that time 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bombshock.com/electronics/how-to-protect-yourself-from-electro-magnetic-pulse.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: first paragraph needs to specifically state that it can induce excess currents in electronic devices that are turned ON at the time.
article needs a seperate section to discuss more about methods used for sheilding from emp.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the archives page of this discussion page (linked at the top of this page), you will see that the numerous problems associated with including specific EMP effects have been discussed for years.  A large part of the problem is that any section on EMP effects tends to have numerous EMP myths constantly added.  One of those myths is the belief that EMP only affects devices that are turned ON.  This myth was specifically addressed in a technical report written for Oak Ridge National Laboratories in 2010.  Also, electronics technology is changing so fast that a team of engineers would be required to constantly monitor any section on specific EMP effects. There are already Wikipedia articles on related specific topics such as Voltage spike, Surge protector and Electromagnetic shielding. X5dna (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  first paragraph 

message: The reference cited in the addition of November 4 to the Electromagnetic Pulse article provides no justification for the statements that were added to the article.  In fact, Figure 3 in the reference from the Army Communicator article contradicts the material that was added to the article.  Note that the frequency components of EMP go out beyond 100 MHz according to Figure 3 of the cited reference at:
http://www.signal.army.mil/ocos/ac/articles/fiedler/dfemp.pdf
That article from Army Communicator is from 1987, meaning that it is 25 years old.  A reference to 25 year old electronics technology would generally be inappropriate, but that article is actually pretty good.  Most of the technology described in the article has not been outdated, although better EMP protection techniques are now available.
The problem with the November 4 addition to the Wikipedia Electromagnetic Pulse article is that the magnetic shielding described is designed for frequencies of less than about 300 Hz. and is generally ineffective at frequencies above 100 KHz. So this leaves the frequency components of EMP that are between 0.1 MHz and 100 MHz completely unprotected.  See the descriptions of the frequency range of magnetic shielding alloys at:
http://mumetal.co.uk/faq/
http://www.magnetic-shield.com/faq/interference.html#q5
Also see the Wikipedia articles on Electromagnetic shielding and Mu-Metal.
For additional information about the frequency spectrum of a nuclear EMP, see pages 33 and 34 of the technical report at:
http://www.ece.unm.edu/summa/notes/TheoreticalPDFs/TN364.pdf
X5dna (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous November 4, 2012 addition 

message: what about EMP from an asteroid-impact? i´m pretty sure this effect exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.138.46 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, got any Reliably Sourced material about these nuclear explosion asteroid impacts? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I suspect that the original poster has read speculations about the effects of a small chunk of antimatter hitting the upper atmosphere. Under the right conditions the matter/antimatter annihilation at the top of the atmosphere would release a gamma ray burst that would in turn produce an electromagnetic pulse. I don't know of any reliably sourced information about this either, though. X5dna (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  asteroid-impact 

message: I reverted the revisions made on January 30 by Luisloureiro for several reasons. First, the additions were inappropriate for the introduction to any article, and would have belonged in explanations later in the article.  The addition to the introduction made the introductory section extremely confusing to the average reader.  Introductory sections are supposed to be simple and concise.  Second, the subject matter of the additions applied more to other Wikipedia articles, such as Electromagnetic radiation and health. The top of the current article states that "This article is about the general weapons effect. For other uses, see the more specific topic." 
The nature and effects of bursts of electromagnetic radiation that occur incidentally during the normal course of commercial or experimental activity are not appropriate to this particular article (although they may be quite relevant and important to other Wikipedia articles).  There are other Wikipedia articles about many aspects of electromagnetic radiation.  Finally, the cited reference was added in a manner that did not conform to Wikipedia standards.  In addition, the cited reference was not in English, and therefore not appropriate to the English-language version of Wikipedia without some sort of unusual justification. X5dna (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 30, 2013 Revisions 

message: :An IP deleted some information with a dead link reference, I don't like this ¦-[
:There are reports of "super-EMP" nuclear weapons that are able to overcome the 50,000 volt per metre limit by the very nearly instantaneous release of a burst of gamma radiation of much higher energy levels than are known to be produced by second-generation nuclear weapons.  The reality and possible construction details of these weapons are classified, and therefore cannot be confirmed by scientists in the open scientific literature. 
:Ref: (Statement, Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, EMP Commission Staff, before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security. March 8, 2005 http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_pry.pdf)
:The EMP Commission sponsored a worldwide survey of foreign scientific and military literature to evaluate the knowledge, and possibly the intentions, of foreign states with respect to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. The survey found that the physics of EMP phenomenon and the military potential of EMP attack are widely understood in the international community, as reflected in official and unofficial writings and statements. The survey of open sources over the past decade finds that knowledge about EMP and EMP attack is evidenced in at least Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, Sweden, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.
:Many foreign analysts–particularly in Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia–view the United States as a potential aggressor that would be willing to use its entire panoply of weapons, including nuclear weapons, in a first strike. They perceive the United States as having contingency plans to make a nuclear EMP attack, and as being willing to execute those plans under a broad range of circumstances.
:Russian and Chinese military scientists in open source writings describe the basic principles of nuclear weapons designed specifically to generate an enhanced-EMP effect, that they term "Super-EMP" weapons. "Super-EMP" weapons, according to these foreign open source writings, can destroy even the best protected U.S. military and civilian electronic systems.
:All nuclear weapons can produce EMP as a secondary effect, but the effect can be enhanced by special weapon design.
:--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   6 April 2013 edits 

message: An anonymous editor added several "citation needed" tags to a quotation from a U.S. government report written for Oak Ridge National Laboratories.  That report was already cited in this article along with a web link to the original Oak Ridge report.  I have never before encountered the assertion in a Wikipedia article that an authoritative quotation from a public domain reference should have references within the cited reference.  If someone disagrees with the Oak Ridge government report, they should state why Oak Ridge National Laboratories is not an authoritative source on nuclear physics, or else they should take the matter up with the government laboratory in a different venue.  Actually, many of the misconceptions which the Oak Ridge report was addressing were popularized in earlier versions of this very Wikipedia article, and some the the "Citations needed" can be found above on this very talk page. X5dna (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do references need references now? 

message: In the article, it states that watch are "much too small" to be affected by the EMP.
Earlier above, it says that Hawaii experiment delivered about 5 kV/m pulse strength, which induces about 10 megavolt of electric potential over 500 nanoseconds in 1 mm long conductor parallel to the EMP propagation vector. This far exceeds breakdown voltages of semiconductor electronics, so it may permanently damage all internal circuitry just by irreversibly eroding semiconductors. Additionally, with common resistance of digital chips of 50 kiloohm, this will result in producing thousands of watts worth of heat dissipation energy during this short surge, which is all but sure to melt extremely small internal circuitry. It's worth mentioning that internally, chips also feature significant length of conductors, usually devoid of electromagnetic shielding. It also says that targeted pulse can peak out at 50 kV/m.  Thus even in wrist watches, there's sufficient amounts of conductors to cause permanent damage from EMP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.33.223 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not this article that makes the claim about watches, it is a report written by some of the top electromagnetic experts in the world for Oak Ridge National Laboratories.  If the scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratories are a dubious source of information, perhaps you could suggest a more competent authority.  Your "dubious - discuss" tag is on a direct quotation from a U.S. Government report from Oak Ridge.  If you have questions about their competence, you should take the matter up with the scientists at Oak Ridge and their contractors. X5dna (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I also question the arithmetic of the anonymous commenter.  A pulse of 5 kilovolts per meter yields a maximum induced voltage of 5 volts per millimeter.  X5dna (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch Dying Myth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Nuclear electromagnetic pulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empactamerica.org/solar_emp.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which some editors of this page have been involved. The thread is Dr. Ronald Cutburth.   Your input at ANI is very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI Notice 

message: In spite of the large number of references in this article, there are also a large number of "Citation Needed" tags in this article.  Most of the requested citations are already in information in the listed references.  The "Citation Needed" tags mostly just need to be matched up with proper sections of already listed references.  This is an extremely time-consuming process.  Please do not remove sentences that have had a "Citation Needed" tag for a few weeks unless you are a subject matter expert and know the sentence in question to be inaccurate.  Accurate and verifiable information has been removed from this article in recent months in a manner that amounts to little more than vandalism.  Remember that Wikipedia editors are working without pay, and usually have very busy lives.  Have patience; and use this page to point out sections that are most badly in need of attention. X5dna (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have Patience, and Use Care 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nuclear electromagnetic pulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821200512/http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/effects/ to http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/effects/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125084016/http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/basic_profile.cfm?ident_number=204459 to http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/basic_profile.cfm?ident_number=204459
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've added some new cites in the section "Post-Cold War attack scenarios" to publications in 2016 and 2017 because the section stopped short in 2011. However I found them hard to summarize because they are mainly preparation studies and listing knowledge gaps. Perhaps someone here would like to expand on this a bit, or know more about the larger context? Robert Walker (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Post-Cold War attack scenarios section 

message: I deleted the reference to the failed S.H.I.E.L.D. Act because it is just one of a very large number of failed congressional bills (and proposals to government agencies) to protect civilian infrastructure in the United States from nuclear EMP that have been introduced during the past few decades.  With so many failed efforts, I can see no justification for singling out only one such failed effort for inclusion in this article.  Proposals, laws and other efforts which have been formally accepted for action do deserve a description in the article. X5dna (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Reference to Failed S.H.I.E.L.D. Act 

message: I love how a random master's thesis is inserted between a pair of US Federal government reports as though it's equivalent. Extra Brass. 68.230.153.193 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwin Boston