General Tech Ask model specific questions in the appropriate category below. All other general questions within.

Protect your electronics

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 26, 2010 | 02:26 AM
  #21  
67mustang302's Avatar
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
Default

The majority of the population and all major man made infrastructure, yeah. Every square mile of land, no.

There'd be a few survivors here and there and some structures left, but for the most part the world would be destroyed.

Our current(even downscaled) fleet of Ohio missile subs, if properly positioned, can cover enough area with strike capability to put 85% of the world's population at risk of death in 30 minutes. That's a helluva deterrent.
Old Aug 26, 2010 | 10:16 AM
  #22  
08Steeda's Avatar
08Steeda
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 889
From: Brownstown, Michigan
Default

Hey But Manswers said so! So it has to be true, right!!!

JKing!

It amazes me how many Ex and Serving Military is on this forum.
Old Aug 26, 2010 | 12:54 PM
  #23  
MU71L4710N's Avatar
MU71L4710N
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,189
From:
Default

The manswers answer like I said, was to turn the planet into dust. Complete destruction of earth as if it never existed. Which is why I asked the interpretation of "destroy". If destroy just ment kill everything off the planet then yes.
Old Aug 26, 2010 | 01:58 PM
  #24  
67mustang302's Avatar
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
Default

Originally Posted by MU71L4710N
The manswers answer like I said, was to turn the planet into dust. Complete destruction of earth as if it never existed. Which is why I asked the interpretation of "destroy". If destroy just ment kill everything off the planet then yes.
Yeah. Population is concentrated mostly in larger cities in certain regions of the world. But the world has a LOT of land. We could wipe out most of the world's population and destroy most of the infrastructure, but the majority of the area of the world itself would remain for the most part untouched. It's the population concentration that even makes nuclear weapons feasible, otherwise they'd be a hugely expensive waste.
Old Aug 26, 2010 | 05:19 PM
  #25  
JIM5.0's Avatar
JIM5.0
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,404
From: Texas
Default

Originally Posted by MU71L4710N
its not your years in the military making you paranoid. i just separated from 4 years in the air force as an f15 avionics backshop tech on active duty and now i'm a reservist, and probably 25% or more of the members on this forum are serving, or have served, and none of us are worried about our car getting emp'd. i will tell you this much. before your car gets emp'd, someone will have spray painted it, ran into the back of it, side swiped it, stolen it, slashed the tires, shot out the windows, keyed it, or you will have wrecked it before it gets EMP'd.
Funny you only quoted that one sentence as I could have sworn I gave more examples why I am paranoid this way. I remember also saying that EE's I knew in college knew how to make these things, and rather cheaply too.


Originally Posted by MU71L4710N
someone may develope some stupid contraption like that and run around ****ing peoples **** up for fun. but the bottom line is this. it will cost more money to EMP shield your car (plus all the added weight) than it would cost to just replace the electronics that fry IF such an event ever does take place to your car. the odds of your car getting EMP'd are probably similar to you winning the lotto.
I also addressed the lotto chances too. Didn't I say that more people die in car wrecks than even cancer? Look, I know that there are so many other things that will f*** up my car before the EMP, at least for now.
Those other concerns (vandals, other drivers, etc.) are a concern of mine as they are a concern for everyone else with a vehicle.
But I meant this thread to focus on one possible cause of ruining your ride, even though right now, my concern is still an unlikely event.
For those other concerns (vandals, getting into a wreck, etc.), those are best discussed in other threads.

Look, I am not here to bash on a fellow serviceman, much less on fellow Air Force brethren.
You made you opinion known, and I have duly taken note. I just ask that unless you can share you knowledge of EMP shielding, just stop driving your opinion in an abrasive manner.
If you have useful knowledge from our experience about how an Eagle's avionics is shielded, please share. I you don't care too because you think my thoughts are silly, fine, that is your opinion.
Just stop continuing to pound your disdaining opinion; I already get your point.

Again, I ask as one serviceman to another, just give me some mutual respect even though my thoughts and opinion on the EMP issue sounds silly and trivial to you.
Old Aug 26, 2010 | 05:33 PM
  #26  
JIM5.0's Avatar
JIM5.0
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,404
From: Texas
Default

Originally Posted by 67mustang302
Yeah. Population is concentrated mostly in larger cities in certain regions of the world. But the world has a LOT of land. We could wipe out most of the world's population and destroy most of the infrastructure, but the majority of the area of the world itself would remain for the most part untouched. It's the population concentration that even makes nuclear weapons feasible, otherwise they'd be a hugely expensive waste.
Definitely. Nuclear target preparation are primarily based on strategic concerns; the priority of course being military targets, and secondary strategic targets (ports and airfields so the enemy cannot transport men and material to fight the war, factories so more weapons cannot be made, power plants so electricity cannot be fed to the factories to make weapons, infrastructure such as rail, road, and highway hubs so you disrupt the movement or military hardware and also disrupt the movement of parts and components needed to make weapons) etc.

And to attack the electrical infrastructure (electric grid including the transmission lines, electrical stations, etc), that is where you rely on the EMP from the nuclear blast.

And you are right; DARPA has been experimenting for decades on an EMP weapon that does not require a nuclear explosion to generate a very powerful EMP.

For now, EMP devices are little known of. But sooner or later, they will become more prolific as more and more guys learn by one way or another how to make these very troublesome devices.

As the detractors say, your chances of your car becoming F*** up by EMP today is like winning the lottery (say, 1 in over 100 million), but seeing how simple it is to make EMP devices, those odds will become more and more likely. Those chances could drop to 1 in 100,000 in a year, 1 in 1,000 a couple more years after that, until cars sooner or later will be made stock with EMP shielding from the factory.

I know I am sticking my head out and have already received considerable ridicule, but oh well, that is just my opinion from what I have studied and observed in my lifetime.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mrtrodonet
V6 (1994-2004) Mustangs
3
Sep 19, 2020 03:12 PM
piotrek53
4.0L V6 Technical Discussions
3
Oct 13, 2015 06:54 PM
yourmom6990
Archive - Parts For Sale
2
Sep 14, 2015 10:52 PM
Boostaddict
Lethal Performance
2
Sep 8, 2015 09:56 PM
zanemoseley
2005-2014 Mustangs
6
Sep 6, 2015 12:58 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.