What you need to know about EMP weapons

Perceived nuclear risk and Ukraine context

• Several comments question the article’s framing that we are “on the verge” of nuclear conflict.
• Others link current anxiety to: Russian nuclear saber‑rattling over Ukraine, Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian nuclear‑capable bombers, and recent India–Pakistan tensions.
• Some argue damage to Russia’s bomber leg marginally destabilizes deterrence; others say ICBMs and SLBMs dominate, so bomber losses are more “symbolic” than strategically decisive.
• Doomsday Clock references are dismissed by some as melodramatic or no longer specific to nuclear risk.

Mutually Assured Destruction and rationality

• One side: any use of nukes between nuclear powers is inherently irrational because retaliation is guaranteed.
• Other side: past uses (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) were “rational” in context, and limited use or coercive signaling remains thinkable.
• Debate over whether an isolated tactical use (e.g., by Russia, or in hypothetical Turkey–Russia conflict) would trigger full exchange or stay limited; views range from “game over” for the initiator to “non‑nuclear retaliation is plausible.”

Survival vs. “better to die”

• Some say in a large nuclear war you’d prefer instant death rather than suffering from burns, radiation, famine, and social collapse (influenced by films like Threads and The Day After).
• Others strongly reject this fatalism, insisting people underestimate their own survival drive and that life after catastrophe, while grim, can still be worth living.
• There’s pushback that fictional portrayals exaggerate post‑war social regression; Hiroshima/Germany’s post‑WWII recovery is used as a counterexample, though others respond that modern arsenals are vastly larger and dirtier.

EMP effects: physics, evidence, and uncertainty

• Multiple commenters note the article gives almost no quantitative parameters (field strengths, distances, frequencies), making its warnings hard to evaluate scientifically.
• Distinction is made between:
  • Nearby ground/low‑altitude bursts (destroy electronics but coincide with massive blast/radiation).
  • High‑altitude nuclear EMP, which can cover huge areas but is thought to couple mainly into long conductors (power lines, telecom).
• Historical data: Starfish Prime is cited (Hawaii streetlights and telecom disrupted ~900 miles away). Some emphasize affected technologies were old and modern designs might differ in vulnerability.
• Military EMP work is said to be largely classified; public documents suggest big concern for communications and grid infrastructure, less for small unconnected devices.
• One view: modern electronics with better ESD and surge protection may be more robust than 1980s gear; another: solid‑state systems and dense, grid‑tied infrastructure may still be fragile. Overall risk level remains “unclear.”

Faraday cages and practical protection

• Several users share practical experience: Faraday cages attenuate rather than fully block EM, with performance highly frequency‑dependent.
• Simple aluminum‑foil wrapping often leaks (especially if seams are neat and uniform); crumpled, multilayer, random overlaps seem to perform better in ad‑hoc tests with Wi‑Fi and phones.
• Microwaves, metal rooms, MR scanner cages and band‑limited meshes are discussed as real‑world examples, emphasizing:
  • Hole size must be much smaller than the wavelength you want to block.
  • Even “good” cages leak; doors/gaps are weak points.
• Consensus: for EMP, long external cables and antennas are the main problem; isolated small devices in metal enclosures may fare relatively well.

Critique of the article and sources

• Some dismiss the piece as alarmist “disaster porn,” noting:
  • No cited experiments, models, or author credentials in EMP physics.
  • No clear distinction between realistic, tested EMP effects and speculative worst‑case scenarios.
• Others counter that classified military work and historical tests justify taking EMP seriously for infrastructure, even if civilian small devices aren’t wiped out.
• A few also nitpick SI misuse (units like “Km,” “Khz”) as reducing perceived technical credibility.

Other tangents

• Side discussions touch on: prepping vs. wasting one’s life, nuclear‑war fiction (Warday, One Second After), NATO Article 5 edge cases, and jokes about YouTube “banning Faraday cage videos” or hiding gear in microwaves.