Survivalist Forum - Reply to Topic
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Thread: EMP back in the headlines Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
03-20-2019 06:16 PM
CONELRAD ECM and EMP are two different things
03-20-2019 03:24 PM
WilliamAshley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle Scout Survivor View Post
All good information that was pretty much assumed in the past. Only thing I am surprised about is we don't have an EMP based weapon in our arsenal.
The US has airborne systems that can knock out any specific point or widespread points via EWECM systems.

They have advanced electronic warefare suits that when used across a widescale of aircraft can have the same effect as those aircraft fly over a country.

Its not a single weapon that gets fired off and used, it is a little more directed energy weapon scale by targeting specific electrical frequencies.

The idea that the US doesn't have weapon systems to produce EMP effects is just nonsensical.

The US also has manportable RECCE systems that can also produce EMP effects on a smaller area.

Often these systems are also capable of jamming radio communications.

Here is a missile developed by Boeing.
https://www.army-technology.com/feat...mmer-grenades/

Here is a more recent missile project http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheo...-research-lab/

Bear in mind there are tons of systems in the US military arsenal to produce EMPs. CHAMP project is probably the closest to what you are talking about.

Part of the fallout of starfish prime was that the US really isn't interested in researching widespread super EMP systems within the USA due to the threat it poses to its own infrastructure.

Be assured though that while this capability is not considered conventional war arsenal, the capability exists at the special warfare level. The US special weapons capabilities are world ending.

Quote:
Thesis: Incorporating EMP weapon capabilities into the equipment, training, and doctrine ofthe anned services could substantially improve the military's effectiveness on the electronic battlefield.
Discussion: In 1962, miles above a remote atoll in the South Pacific, the United States conducted its l~st above-ground nuclear test. Beyond the scope ofthe nuclear detonation itself, the world was exposed to a unique side effect from the gamma rays it released: an electromagnetic pulse. The detonation, though hundreds of miles removed in both range and altitude, caused marked electromagnetic interference as far away as Hawaii. Although researchers anticipated a similar type of wave propagation, they were stunned not only by the amplitude ofthe wave it created but also by the range at which the interference was detrimental to unhardened circuits. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons research had begun. With modern technology, EMP can be system generated and directed. This technology allows for the creation of deliverable EMP weapons which can be employed at the tactical level, with devastating results. Moreover, the pulse can be formed without a nuclear detonation. While the utility of this type of weapon is unquestioned, it brings to the operating environment a new type of collateral damage. The physical damage the weapon delivers to the target is limited to the intemal electric circuitry, leaving the target's structure otherwise intact. The question then becomes what are the second and third order effects of removing all aspects of electronic support fi·om a 21st century environment. This study does not seek to portray EMP weapons as detrimental to mission success, but rather, while reinforcing their plausibility as a force multiplier, it seeks to examine the nuances involved with their employment.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a603366.pdf

Quote:
EMP weapons can be categorized as primary Command and Control weapons.
Command and Control Warfare (C2W)
03-20-2019 11:53 AM
Justme11 There was a bill or something a few years ago saying the Federal government could sieze almost anything it needed in an emergency.

There was some mild fuss raised then forgotten about like everything else.

I guess this was it. Obama Executive order 13603 “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowe.../#497856382ee9

The executive order 13603, dated Mar 22, 2012.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/.../2012-7019.pdf

Now on President Trumps first weekend in office, I believe he overturned every Obama Executive order he could, so perhaps this is no longer in force.

Wow, looks like he left this Executive order in place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13603
03-20-2019 11:41 AM
franklin
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONELRAD View Post
But what statute? Where in the CFR does it expressly state that property is allowed to be seized?
I was in an executive summary meeting where a sub-group reported that a DHS participant in their meeting mentioned that to them. One of the participants in the executive meeting who has responsibility for systems in Florida confirmed that it happened to one of his facilities. One of the recommendations from the sub-group was that facilities get on a list of critical facilities so they don't loose fuel, etc. (This came from the DHS participant during the sub-group meeting.) And that they get priority when supplies come into the affected area. I'm not sure if FEMA, or CISA manages lists or it's state/local governments.

My involvement is as a technical expert on the equipment and systems so I'm not involved in operations side of planning and practices. I do sit in on the high level meeting to provide systems recommendations.

Understand businesses like ours aren't going to challenge the Federal government. The idea is to work with them so that we don't get regulations dictated to us. And that when disasters occur they view us as prepared and competent to allow us access to areas ASAP to repair our systems.
03-20-2019 09:25 AM
CONELRAD
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post
FEMA has the authority. Possibly some state statues as well. Fuel has been seized in Florida after hurricanes. We were advised of this by Homeland Security and that we needed to get our businesses on their priority list so not only would our fuel be secure from seizure but we would have priority access to their supplies should we run out. One of our participants confirmed that some fuel was "appropriated" from his district in Florida. Our business are communications providers. In some cases to government and other critical facilities.

We Are working with DHS CISA.
But what statute? Where in the CFR does it expressly state that property is allowed to be seized?
03-20-2019 06:36 AM
franklin
Quote:
Originally Posted by country_boy View Post
What statue would that be that allows them to seize fuel? I’ve been in dozens of hurricanes and never seen the us govt seize fuel. Usually FEMA makes great effort to Haul from outside the event horizon. During Katrina, we hauled fuel from Atlanta, til FEMA told us to stop, as the fuel shortage was hitting Atlanta. Eventually they brought it in via ship from St Croix.

I have see the USVI NG steal fuel, and I’ve seen PR police redirect it, but the owner was confident they would get paid quickly and generously. We’ve learned if you don’t own it, and can’t guard it, you can’t count on it.
FEMA has the authority. Possibly some state statues as well. Fuel has been seized in Florida after hurricanes. We were advised of this by Homeland Security and that we needed to get our businesses on their priority list so not only would our fuel be secure from seizure but we would have priority access to their supplies should we run out. One of our participants confirmed that some fuel was "appropriated" from his district in Florida. Our business are communications providers. In some cases to government and other critical facilities.

We Are working with DHS CISA.
03-20-2019 04:43 AM
country_boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post
I'm sure they got compensation a few months later. At the time they took it under force. A FEMA person and a sheriff deputy contacts the owner and cites the statute giving them authority to seize fuel. The businesses didn't resist. An example would be a construction company that had a large fuel supply. Their equipment would be useful clearing roads after a hurricane. They couldn't because they lost much of the fuel they had on hand. In a more dire situation I'd much rather have the fuel than an IOU.
What statue would that be that allows them to seize fuel? I’ve been in dozens of hurricanes and never seen the us govt seize fuel. Usually FEMA makes great effort to Haul from outside the event horizon. During Katrina, we hauled fuel from Atlanta, til FEMA told us to stop, as the fuel shortage was hitting Atlanta. Eventually they brought it in via ship from St Croix.

I have see the USVI NG steal fuel, and I’ve seen PR police redirect it, but the owner was confident they would get paid quickly and generously. We’ve learned if you don’t own it, and can’t guard it, you can’t count on it.
03-19-2019 12:12 PM
franklin
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONELRAD View Post
Not to completely derail the thread, but when you say "seized", do you mean purchased in excessively large quantities or do you mean taken without compensation? I can see local governments doing the former.
I'm sure they got compensation a few months later. At the time they took it under "force". A FEMA person and a sheriff deputy contacts the owner and cites the statute giving them authority to seize fuel. The businesses didn't resist. An example would be a construction company that had a large fuel supply. Their equipment would be useful clearing roads after a hurricane. They couldn't because they lost much of the fuel they had on hand. In a more dire situation I'd much rather have the fuel than an IOU.
03-19-2019 10:28 AM
CONELRAD
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post
During some of the hurricane disasters in the past 10 years or so I'm aware of government seizing gasoline. It would be a good idea to acquire and stash as much as you could in the early stages of SHTF. And be very quite about what you've got.

As I mentioned in other threads I'm involved with some NEMP/CME programs at work. One thing we are recommending is that we are high on the priority list for fuel "redirected" by government authorities and none we already have is seized. I don't hear discussions of seizures from private individuals but there is an expectation fuel is seized from private businesses.
Not to completely derail the thread, but when you say "seized", do you mean purchased in excessively large quantities or do you mean taken without compensation? I can see local governments doing the former.
03-18-2019 01:04 PM
franklin
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolphrowzeebragg View Post
Not trying to start an argument, just asking a question after reading about how Britain clamped down on fuel supplies during WWII. Sounds like a good idea to siphon fuel until every government entity from Feds to local governments decide to use their emergency authority to lay claim to fuel and shoot "looters" who try to siphon fuel out of abandoned cars. How long before cop cars and other government vehicles start to run out of gas, a day or two at most? If a thousand cars crash into each other after an EMP, how are you going to carry away say twenty gallons of gas? It would seem that if an EMP fries the electronics in a car, the engine will stop, but what's left over will look like the world's largest demolition derby.
In the movies, it always seems that the cars just magically freeze in place, but that's not what really happens if a vehicle's engine shuts down. No power steering or power brakes in a big SUV with an automatic transmission and most drivers are just along for the ride.
During some of the hurricane disasters in the past 10 years or so I'm aware of government seizing gasoline. It would be a good idea to acquire and stash as much as you could in the early stages of SHTF. And be very quite about what you've got.

As I mentioned in other threads I'm involved with some NEMP/CME programs at work. One thing we are recommending is that we are high on the priority list for fuel "redirected" by government authorities and none we already have is seized. I don't hear discussions of seizures from private individuals but there is an expectation fuel is seized from private businesses.
03-18-2019 04:40 AM
bilmac We can all hope that it is all just another Y2K.
03-17-2019 08:18 AM
EchoMirage It all depends on where you live. Urban areas, yeah, it'll be gridlock. But right here where I, personally am, lots of secondary roads are empty on a normal day. Closer to town, and headed into the urban areas, yeah it gets more congested. And if you plan on siphoning gas, then you'd have a vehicle that still runs, so you can carry the gas you siphon.

As far as gov vehicles still running.....I was originally talking about a worse case EMP, where nothing but mechanical diesels, or very old engines will work. I doubt the local gov will have many of those on hand. If they decide to declare some kind of martial law....hey, who knows, and you can't really plan on what you can do then. If that happens, hole up with what you've got on hand, see how long the entire thing lasts.

Now if an EMP goes off, and it's NOT as bad as worst case, like we were talking before, ie: maybe most older cars WILL still run, like the mid 90s taurus that they apparently faked the test on. If the grid goes down, but we still have most vehicles/engines, I don't think it'll be total anarchy/SHTF. With some working trucks, cars, gennys, you can still have transportation, power, facilities. Yeah, I'm sure they'll ration gas and electricity, and things will change big time, but personally I don't think it'll be like the books 'lights out' or 'one second after', in that particular case of let's call it a minor EMP event.

It all comes back to the fact that still, we don't know what will happen if some kind of EMP goes off. I'm speculating on several possibilities. It can kill everything from a watch battery on up, or maybe only the most high tech cars/devices, or something in the middle. Only when it actually happens will we find out.

Prepare for the worse, hope for the best.
03-14-2019 01:21 AM
randolphrowzeebragg
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoMirage View Post
i think there will be quite a big of gas/diesel available for the first several months after an EMP, for those vehicles that can still run. as others have already mentioned about gas stations.....what about all the tens of thousands of dead cars covering the road? siphon them, or simply pop a hole in the tank and drain it. the cars will probably be stone dead forever, never to be driven again. the average car should have minimum 5gal in it, if someone is driving it. my suburban holds 42gal. imagine someone driving his after a fill up, an EMP goes off...theres 42 gallons just sitting there. that could go a long, long way in a small genny, or an old vehicle not affected by EMP.

now obviously, fuel will run out at some point, so yeah, unless there is a rebuilding, youll have to walk, animals, bike, etc. but my SWAG says for a year or so, maybe more, depending on the area, people, number of usable vehicles/gennys/etc, gas wont be as easy to come by as going to the station, but itll be available with some work.
Not trying to start an argument, just asking a question after reading about how Britain clamped down on fuel supplies during WWII. Sounds like a good idea to siphon fuel until every government entity from Feds to local governments decide to use their emergency authority to lay claim to fuel and shoot "looters" who try to siphon fuel out of abandoned cars. How long before cop cars and other government vehicles start to run out of gas, a day or two at most? If a thousand cars crash into each other after an EMP, how are you going to carry away say twenty gallons of gas? It would seem that if an EMP fries the electronics in a car, the engine will stop, but what's left over will look like the world's largest demolition derby.
In the movies, it always seems that the cars just magically freeze in place, but that's not what really happens if a vehicle's engine shuts down. No power steering or power brakes in a big SUV with an automatic transmission and most drivers are just along for the ride.
03-13-2019 07:01 PM
EchoMirage
Quote:
Originally Posted by BASS View Post
If the EMP happened and it was wide spread but you have fuel and a vehicle that works where are you going to go? Roads clogged with vehicles that don't work where are you going to go?

Maybe you will to bring a family member to your home or your are going to their home. But the stores are all closed and looted.

You have a working vehicle? You maybe/will become a target of those that don't.

Rather than worry about a vehicle and fuel work on systems that don't depend on gasoline or transportation. Cooking; heating and cooking fuels; water; food preps and the list just continues on......

ADDED COMMENTS:

I just looked back and EchoMirage has it right... There will be millions of gallons of fuel sitting cars and trucks disabled on the roads.

maybe where you live, but out here in the sticks, newp. Hundreds of miles of back roads that on a regular day are empty. If an EMP goes off, what few cars out and about that will be stuck, can be scavenged and pushed aside.

Closer to town, and the entire hampton roads metro area, yeah, THAT will be a gridlock. But right where I am, and the small town I live next to, that can be cleared in a few days.

As far as being a target, thats why you don't prep alone......
03-13-2019 08:02 AM
bilmac
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONELRAD View Post
There’s clearly money to be made preying on public ignorance of EMP.
Bingo. I don't know that will happen to vehicles, I'm not sure anyone else does either. Do you notice that all anyone of the "experts" talks about is home electronics. I bought an EXPENSIVE book about EMP. All it talked about was EMP proofing your home. It did spend a lot of time talking about all the EXPENSIVE STUFF THEIR COMPANY SOLD to EMP proof your house.

I COULD GIVE A RATS A** ABOUT MY CONFUSER AND PHONE AND TV. I want to know about my chainsaw, rototiller, logsplitter, garden tractor, atv, and yea even for sure about my pick up.

If EMP happens I won't have time to be sitting in front of a confuser and the internet will probably be dead anyway.
03-13-2019 06:08 AM
EchoMirage so it still comes down to this........we still dont know what will happen if an EMP actually goes off. could affect everything from a watch battery up, or could do so little as to not be a complete SHTF catastrophe.

taking down the grid would be massive....but if we still have big enough generators, vehicles and tools, we could get by and repair in time. if we DONT have the gennys, vehicles and tools, then thats when SHTF.
03-13-2019 05:11 AM
Justme11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONELRAD View Post
He presents the account of an unnamed official at the WSMR. Evidence or not, the information from the show is bunk. If the vehicle had experienced a surge strong enough to induce current in the vehicle’s electrical system we would have seen the headlights briefly glow brighter before the filaments burnt out.

The EMP commission report which is held up by many as a call to action... cites inaccurate testing? Go figure. I probably wouldn’t agree with this blogger on a lot of things, but I think they’re right on the money with this “threat escalation” stuff. There’s clearly money to be made preying on public ignorance of EMP.

As for this Mac guy... he’s an entertainer and I’m not saying Special Ops are liars as a general rule, but I know many like to “exaggerate.” Besides, he’s the host... an actor... he’s just reading off the lines he’s told to read off. He probably doesn’t know one way or the other. He’s a soldier, not a scientist.
Quote:
Additionally, the official explained that because ordinary fuel is flammable, vehicles cannot go through the simulator without first mixing an additive to the fuel (usually argon), which was not possible for the vehicle used during filming.

That 2nd quote with the bold is why that blogger's info is suspect. Argon does not and can not be "mixed with fuel" It is like saying they are mixing air and steel. They don't mix. What can be done, is to blanket the air space above the liquid gasoline with an inert gas. And there is no reason that this blanketing could not be done on site. All you need is a tank, a regulator and a bit of tubing.

So if his evidence is that phone call, and I point out that there is a major veracity problem with that phone call, I dismiss or at least degrade the quality of anything else in that phone call.

Not sure what you are talking about with the headlights, but the video is as you say, likely made up, since the car was unattended and just sitting there for the test. I believe they made a fake video, but still believe they would have had the integrity to conduct the test, simply with the unattended car running at idle under the EMP device. Then our hero gets in the car and tries to start it.

So I think they did a real test, just not with the car in motion with an occupant. And I believe they shot some argon or nitrogen into the fuel tank to make the tank safe.

They also showed a test with an RC toy that gets disabled, although that is not what they were supposed to be testing.
03-12-2019 09:17 PM
CONELRAD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
OK, here's what I think happened.

They did indeed test the vehicle but at idle and unoccupied under the test rig.
Not hard to believe they could have brought a tank of nitrogen and purged the head space of the gas tank before the test shot.

He presents no evidence that the car was not tested. Just that it was not occupied.
If he accurately quoted the person at the missile range, that person doesn't know diddly, because argon or nitrogen do not mix with gasoline. They are inert gases. Argon is more dense, so would stay in the tank easier and provide a more confident purge. So other than the added cost, it would be preferred over nitrogen. Not pressurized in the tank, simply purged into the tank and the tank recapped.


Quote:
Additionally, the official explained that because ordinary fuel is flammable, vehicles cannot go through the simulator without first mixing an additive to the fuel (usually argon), which was not possible for the vehicle used during filming.
He presents the account of an unnamed official at the WSMR. Evidence or not, the information from the show is bunk. If the vehicle had experienced a surge strong enough to induce current in the vehicle’s electrical system we would have seen the headlights briefly glow brighter before the filaments burnt out.

The EMP commission report which is held up by many as a call to action... cites inaccurate testing? Go figure. I probably wouldn’t agree with this blogger on a lot of things, but I think they’re right on the money with this “threat escalation” stuff. There’s clearly money to be made preying on public ignorance of EMP.

As for this Mac guy... he’s an entertainer and I’m not saying Special Ops are liars as a general rule, but I know many like to “exaggerate.” Besides, he’s the host... an actor... he’s just reading off the lines he’s told to read off. He probably doesn’t know one way or the other. He’s a soldier, not a scientist.
03-12-2019 07:39 PM
Justme11 OK, here's what I think happened.

They did indeed test the vehicle but at idle and unoccupied under the test rig.
Not hard to believe they could have brought a tank of nitrogen and purged the head space of the gas tank before the test shot.

He presents no evidence that the car was not tested. Just that it was not occupied.
If he accurately quoted the person at the missile range, that person doesn't know diddly, because argon or nitrogen do not mix with gasoline. They are inert gases. Argon is more dense, so would stay in the tank easier and provide a more confident purge. So other than the added cost, it would be preferred over nitrogen. Not pressurized in the tank, simply purged into the tank and the tank recapped.
03-12-2019 07:16 PM
Justme11 Wow, I would not have thought a Navy Seal would engage in fraud, but it makes sense. Can't imagine with all the safety rules these days that anyone would allow a human to drive though that much energy.

By the way, the argon (or nitrogen) would not be mixed in the fuel, but simply displace the air (the oxygen in the air), above the fuel in the tank.

Regarding the EMP commission test cars, I read on another thread here that they limited the energy level on those tests so as not to damage the cars. Who knows if that is true or not.

Here is where I read that.
https://www.survivalistboards.com/sh...p+vehicle+test


post #6 by Shoppy:

"The video test I saw killed the car in short order.

Now I don't know, but maybe they drove 10 different cars under that thing and published the one video that had the most profound effect.

"The other vehicle testing I read reports on were not done with the intention of damaging the vehicle. In fact, they pulsed each vehicle several times, each pulse was an increase in amplitude and they stopped when they saw the first effect.
Apparently, the testing scientists were told they weren't allowed to damage the vehicles and would be responsible for any repairs. What the point of that?

"
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net