What you need to know about EMP weapons
140 comments
·June 6, 2025ufmace
jvanderbot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
> Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 900 miles (1,450 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights,[1]: 5 setting off numerous burglar alarms, and damaging a telephone company microwave link.[6] The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian Islands.[7]
This was a 1 Mt bomb 10x as far from the surface as the article discusses.
All that to say, it's plausible.
jcrawfordor
It should be understood that the largest impact of the Starfish Prime test, knocking out streetlights, was the result of a very specific design detail of the street lights that is now quite antiquated (they were high-voltage, constant-current loops with carbon disc arc-over cutouts, and the EMP seems to have caused some combination of direct induced voltage and disregulation of the constant current power supply that bridged the carbon disks). The required repair was replacement of the carbon disks, which is a routine maintenance item for that type of system but of course one that had to be done on an unusually large scale that morning. The same problem would not occur today, as constant-current lighting circuits have all but disappeared.
In the case of the burglar alarms, it is hard to prove definitively, but a likely cause of the problem was analog motion detectors (mostly ultrasonic and RF in use at the time) which were already notorious for false alarms due to input voltage instability. Once again, modern equipment is probably less vulnerable.
Many of the detailed experiments in EMP safety are not published due to the strategic sensitivity, but the general gist seems to be along these lines: during the early Cold War, e.g. the 1950s, EMP was generally not taken seriously as a military concern. Starfish Prime was one of a few events that changed the prevailing attitude towards EMP (although the link between the disruptions in Honolulu and the Starfish Prime test was considered somewhat speculative at the time and only well understood decades later). This lead to the construction of numerous EMP generators and test facilities by the military, which lead to improvements in hardening techniques, some of which have "flowed down" to consumer electronics because they also improve reliability in consideration of hazards like lightning. The main conclusion of these tests was that the biggest EMP concern is communications equipment, because they tend to have the right combination of sensitive electronics (e.g. amplifiers) and connection to antennas or long leads that will pick up a lot of induced voltage.
The effects of EMP on large-scale infrastructure are very difficult to study, since small-scale tests cannot recreate the whole system. The testing that was performed (mostly taking advantage of atmospheric nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1960s) usually did not find evidence of significant danger. For example, testing with telephone lines found that the existing lightning protection measures were mostly sufficient. But, there has been a long-lingering concern that there are systemic issues (e.g. with the complex systems behavior of electrical grid regulation) that these experiments did not reproduce. Further, solid-state electronics are likely more vulnerable to damage than the higher-voltage equipment of the '60s. Computer modeling has helped to fill this in, but at least in the public sphere, much of the hard research on EMP risks still adds up to a "maybe," with a huge range of possible outcomes.
aaron695
[dead]
tomxor
> wrap that in aluminium foil, making sure that the ends are folded over and pressed down hard to provide good inter-layer contact
I've tried this many times, it's impossible to prevent gaps without welding it shut. Obviously I wasn't testing with an EMP or nuke, but trying to block 2.4GHz WiFi... But that is well within the E1 range the author states.
I think the problem with folding is it's too uniform, it's still too easy for waves to propagate through the humanly imperceptible gaps with only a few reflections.
The only method I found that worked consistently was to wrap many layers randomly overlapping and crumpling previous layers. My theory as to why this works is through self interference due to creating a long signal path with highly randomised reflections... No idea if that would help cancel out EMP.
Workaccount2
Let me tell you something from first hand field experience with faraday cages...
They attenuate signals, they do not block them. The common verbiage is to say "faraday cages block EM radiation", so people naturally assume that it blocks EM radiation. But I learned the hard way while doing compliance testing that no, they do not block EM radiation, they just weaken it (and it's highly frequency dependent on top of that.)
jerf
"(and it's highly frequency dependent on top of that.)"
Well, sure. Can people inside the cage see outside? (Or a hypothetical person for a small cage.) If so, then clearly, not all frequencies are being blocked. A lot of "Faraday cages" are explicitly designed for radio and deliberately let other frequencies, particularly the visual range, through.
In fact we all have direct experience with that. Our microwaves use a Faraday cage to keep them in. But we can still see through the mesh, and you can tell that the inside can see out because outside light can go in and bounce back out. (That is, while there's probably a light in your microwave, it's obviously not the sole source of light.) Blocks microwaves well, but visible light goes right through the holes.
wat10000
They let out enough to interfere with radios operating around 2.4GHz. They'll attenuate the stuff, quite strongly if built well (the only reason interference is a problem is because the oven is 3+ orders of magnitude more powerful than a typical 2.4GHz radio), but it's not a total block.
washadjeffmad
That seems intuitive, though. EM radiation is either reflected or absorbed, and optimizing for that requires both a pretty complex understanding of RF behavior and generally knowing that materials are generally radiopaque and radiolucent at different frequencies and wattages.
Sometimes we're trying to keep things (eg- information) outside from getting in, and other times we want to prevent things inside from getting out. There are practices to optimize for both that don't rely on "blocking".
tomxor
> EM radiation is either reflected or absorbed
By interfaces yes, but it can also be cancelled out through destructive interference as a side effect of reflection, which is my theory of how a "big ball of crumply aluminium" is so effective compared to less chaotic solutions.
Onavo
Well, I am not sure how you expect redneck prepper types to pick up on enough RF theory to manufacture homemade metamaterials.
ttshaw1
You shouldn't need to prevent gaps entirely. You only need to make sure there are no holes larger than roughly the wavelength of the radiation you're trying to block. Which, for 2.4GHz wifi, is about 125mm. I think what you saw is that a single layer of foil isn't enough skin depths thick to block radiation sufficiently at that frequency.
WalterBright
You can experiment by putting a cell phone in various kinds of faraday cages and seeing if it rings when called.
davidmurdoch
I need to test flaky cell phone connectivity issues and tried the same thing. Aluminum foil did not cause packet loss. But a microwave (not running) in a building with a metal roof in a room surrounded by metal filing cabinets did the job.
downrightmike
Why not try a large Stanley cup? Double layered, top seals shut, pretty easy to get a hold of.
zikduruqe
Your microwave oven is pretty good at attenuating 2.45 GHz signals.
Calwestjobs
1. google how many lightning strikes are there per day
2. google how many millions of miles/kilometers of electric wires is hanging in air all over the world providing people with electricity
3. do not google how many of those millions of lightning strikes PER DAY disabled those billions of miles of wires per day, by applying energy bigger than nuclear EMP. do not google that.
pjc50
Do you want to link your answers for comparison? The lightning strike issue seems to be mostly fuses with occasional more serious events. https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/lpdl/archive/4_Bill_Chisholm_pa...
wat10000
Starfish Prime blew streetlight fuses 900 miles away. I don't think lighting can do that.
nancyminusone
>You can also forget about the inverse square law to protect you
No, you don't get to ignore physics because the source is not a point source
>Very large area of EMP
How large?
>Induces currents in any conducting material
So does a magnet falling off my fridge. What magnitude of currents, at what distance, in what sized conductor?
>During E1 the frequencies are so high
How high are they?
There can be radio waves strong enough to fry a silicon chip. There can be radio waves strong enough to melt glass vacuum tubes. This article provides no parameters by which one can make these calculations.
You might as well say "don't get nuked" which is admittedly sound advice.
ianburrell
My understanding is that nearby nuke and high altitude produce different EMP. The nearby one destroys electronic, but less of concern since close to nuclear blast. The high altitude one covers a large area, but it is more like solar flare, causing current in large conductors and primarily affecting the grid.
The problem is that the recent government studies that say high altitude can hurt electronics are all made by alarmists. When we should be focusing effort on grounding the grid, both for EMPs and for flares.
pjc50
Yeah, this reads like alarmism with no numbers.
It's been a long time since atmospheric nuclear testing, but the US did carry out a bunch of tests to measure such effects, and it would be good to dig up the numbers from them.
jajko
I would expect this depends on yield, distance, any existing shielding (ie rebar in concrete), height of explosion and so on. Article doesn't discuss any specific bomb, hence no need for specific numbers.
lenerdenator
1) Don't worry about it. If one goes off over a NATO country or Russia/China, you'll soon have much, much bigger problems to worry about.
2) There is no 2)
yabones
Yeah, what I've learned from films like "Threads" and "The Day After" is that you very much want to die in the first 20ms of a nuclear war. Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.
southernplaces7
I truly, really, forcefully recommend reading the novel "Warday" by Witley Strieber and James Kunetka It takes place in the early 90s, several years after an accidentally limited nuclear exchange between the United States and the USSR. The story traces the journey of two reporters crossing the devastated country and chronicling the stories of survivors and how they got by, while also slowly developing the journalists' own survival narratives.
In a very well written, visceral way, this novel showcases the barbarities that even such a limited nuclear can unleash on a society, like few others I've read. On the other hand it also underscores the hopeful recovery efforts that people are capable of.
For anyone who appreciated those films, I can't imagine them disliking Warday. It's also delivers an unusually powerful emotional punch with its character development, well above the average for apocalypse literature.
One of the frighteningly realistic elements of the storyline is how it describes the nuclear bombardment as "moderate", at least compared to what was intended by the Soviets. However, because a large part of the fallout completely ruins the agricultural capacity of the country, the resulting development of widespread malnutrition turns a later flu epidemic into something truly murderous, causing far more death on top of what the bombs produced.
wat10000
Finally, someone else who appreciates Warday!
It's really good. And as far as I can tell, as a layman who reads way too much about this stuff, quite accurate in terms of what the sort of limited strike depicted in the book would do in the short and long term. (I have quibbles, such as what happens to San Antonio and Manhattan, but nothing major.)
Highly recommended to anyone who like the genre.
rl3
>Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.
If Sarah Connor's dreams taught me anything, it's that there's an optimal middle ground to be had here.
You don't want to be exposed to the flash nor the heat pulse seconds later, because it's pretty much instant blindness followed by your skin melting off.
What you do want is the blast wave that sends large objects plus the pulverized debris with it in your direction, so you probably just get crushed instantly.
I'd only recommend the lawn chair part if you've got a protective suit and flash blinders, in which case the real question is what you're drinking and/or smoking at the time.
armada651
If there is a chance at survival, no matter how slim I would take it. Even if it brings me suffering at least I tried to escape death. Whether my end was peaceful or dignified is of no relevance to me, because I won't be around to regret my end.
tintor
The problem is how much of your resources and time right now will you spend "prepping" for that "no matter how slim" chance in the future.
NotCamelCase
This discussion reminds me a beautiful sentence I read in 'The Power and the Glory' by Graham Greene: "Hope is an instinct that only the reasoning human mind can kill."
palmotea
> Yeah, what I've learned from films like "Threads" and "The Day After" is that you very much want to die in the first 20ms of a nuclear war. Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.
That's all fine and dandy if you only have yourself to think about...
saltcured
OK, so you'll need a bigger roof and more lawn chairs...
pmontra
I have a nice view of the skyscrapers of a large city some 70 km to the North. Looking at it from my lawn chair probably won't kill me but it could make me blind.
toss1
That sounds like a good idea but the physics mean you have a far greater likelihood of painfully regretting that choice; "It seemed like a good idea at the time" will be no solace.
Using an example of a 350kt airburst on NukeMap[0], the fireball radius is 700m with an area of 1.53 km². The Thermal Radiation Radius with 3rd degree burns is 7.67 km with an area of 185 km². The Light Blast Damage Radius is 13.9 km with an area of 610 km². While the numbers will be different for different yields, the basic ratios will be the same.
This means that your person in the lawn chair is highly unlikely to get to unconscious bliss in 20ms. They are 120 times more likely to enjoy the full experience of 3rd degree burns and ~400 times more likely to get significant injury while still being alive.
It seems far better to take shelter and do all you can to survive intact, and help others. If the situation on the other side is intolerably bad, you'll likely be able to find ways to end your situation far less painfully vs being naked against a nuke blast.
lenerdenator
Funny that you mention "The Day After", I watched that movie in high school then went to lunch in a school that overlooks the Kansas City skyline.
No chance that had anything to do with the panic attack I had when Putin put his nuclear troops on high alert after invading Ukraine. No sir, not at all.
jajko
As we saw puttin' is just empty talk, he is too smart and paranoid to fuck up his mafia empire be built so hard, his survival in some deep shelter with few bodyguards would be very short, person like him doesn't have any reliable true friends.
The problem is the person coming after him - if he will be an extremist nutjob, everything is possible even if only 5% or 10% of soviet missiles still work.
andybp85
yup. "the survivors are the lucky ones" is fantasy.
georgeecollins
It is a well understood phenomena of human nature to say that "I would rather die then go through X" and then when you go through X (or worse) you don't want to die. This is well understood because it happens a lot with illness or accident. Also its a very adaptive trait that we want to avoid terrible situations but most of us don't quit.
spacebanana7
Not all uses of nuclear weapons necessarily escalate to the doomsday maximum exchange scenarios. There are many interesting points of equilibrium in between.
For example - if far right extremists took over Turkey and attacked Russia, then Russia nuked a Turkish airbase, what would the US/UK/France do? It's not actually that obvious.
BuyMyBitcoins
You’re going to see the most strongly worded letter in the history of human civilization.
euroderf
Responding to conventional weapons with a nuke ? Unlikely.
spacebanana7
The USA did it against Japan. Of course those were special circumstances, but all wars have their own set of special circumstances to some extent.
There’s also the argument that using nuclear weapons make sense when a nuclear state has a weaker conventional force that its opponent. Russia still has a pretty strong conventional force, but for example North Korea is in this position against most likely adversaries.
rjsw
Turkey is a member of NATO.
dragonwriter
More than that, Turkey is a member of NATO that participates in US nuclear sharing and has substantial US forces (aside from the nuclear weapons) deployed.
A nuclear attack by Russia on Turkey would not be merely legally and abstractly an attack on the US under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which it would do massive irreparable damage to US credibility to ignore, but would almost certainly be a nuclear attack on US forces in the direct and literal sense.
spacebanana7
That’s the point. In theory Turkey is covered by the NATO nuclear umbrella.
But in practice how many Americans would be willing to go nuclear in support of a Turkish war against the Russians? In circumstances where Turkey was considered the aggressor state.
muzani
But I don't live in any of those places. Also I believe India-Pakistan has nukes too. And possibly Israel-Iran. North Korea too? The peace loving nations are well within fallout range.
My biggest fear with MAD is that it only takes a single irrational leader, and we've seen so many of them lately.
Workaccount2
I don't want to jinx it, but even the most deranged leaders don't want to rule over a nuclear wasteland. And they especially don't want to go down in their history as the worst person who ruined everything for their party.
themadturk
No, but some might have a "take the world down with me" attitude.
jnurmine
I agree about not worrying about it, but one should be aware -- awareness about something is not equal to worrying about something.
Awareness of something is the first step in adapting. One can adapt beforehand, or, one can adapt afterwards; with more limited resources, necessitated by circumstances, under more time pressure, with more suboptimal tools, and so on.
It is unquestionable that an EMP would have an extreme impact in all aspects of society and the lives of people. Preparations on macro and micro level can mitigate some of the problems that would follow. And preparations require awareness.
diggan
I mean, the article is about the EMP wave following a nuclear detonation, I'm not sure there are bigger problems after that, we're already pretty deep into "shit has hit the fan" at that point.
From the first paragraph:
> maybe it's time to look at the damaging effects of the electromagnetic pulse that follows a nuclear detonation.
littlestymaar
> I mean, the article is about the EMP wave following a nuclear detonation, I'm not sure there are bigger problems after that, we're already pretty deep into "shit has hit the fan" at that point.
Sure we are in deep trouble, but at that point, but I disagree with your “not sure there are bigger problems after that”: the following problem would be a nuke exploding in your direct vicinity (instead of in high altitude/space where it caused an EMP).
mikewarot
Given the contemporary rules about RF emissions, fairly robust shielding practices are the norm now. I suspect most consumer electronic devices would be fine.
The exception would be things like HF ham radio, etc.
amit9gupta
The book Nuclear War: A Scenario Hardcover by Annie Jacobsen should be essential reading for all politicians and those profiteering from the Military Industrial Complex
https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-War-Scenario-Annie-Jacobsen/d...
sbierwagen
I read it and was not impressed.
It starts with North Korea launching two ICBMs against DC and a nuclear plant in California. Interceptors fail and the warheads hit their targets. This is unlikely, but possible. The launch is explicitly irrational, the act of a mad dictator.
In response, the US counterstrikes with Minuteman, despite having perfectly serviceable air deliverable nukes. Russia detects the launch, and the imprecision of their own early warning systems along with North Korea being next to Russia, they conclude that the US is attacking them. They do a massive launch, the US does a massive launch, worst possible assumptions for a 10C nuclear winter, four billion dead.
The only thing I learned from the book is that if you roll 1 over and over and over again, the worst can happen. But we already knew that?
jerlam
A similar book of this category may be The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States which describes how a series of events, which have separately happened in the past, may lead to NK launching nukes. But it is not framed as the irrational actions of a mad dictator, but a series of coincidences that suggest NK was itself being attacked.
It was not fun seeing the saber-rattling on Twitter after reading, as Twitter does have a significant part in the story.
BryanLegend
I read it and it's completely biased to a worst imaginable scenario. Not likely to reflect any real world at all.
andybp85
The book says that that's exactly what it's supposed to be, to inspire people to talk about it. But (also from the book) the war games the USA runs around these situations always end in a massive nuclear exchange. Sure, some specific situations, like the Devil's Scenario, I would imagine might not reflect a real war, but the case the book is making is that reality is far more likely to be closer to the worst case than to a "best case" (whatever that means here).
arethuza
I had assumed that if there was a full nuclear exchange that of course both sides would target nuclear power stations in enemy territory - like anyone would be sticking to "rules" in that scenario?
PaulHoule
The remarkable form of nuclear EMP is that an exoatmospheric explosion creates a pulse of gamma rays which ionize the air in the upper atmosphere and create a plasma explosion that creates strong EM fields over a wide area
cogogo
El Eternauta on netflix is an Argentine sci-fi series based on an old comic recently released. It is very well done. Best series I’ve watched in a while. Avoiding any real spoilers it pretty much kicks off with an EMP frying all modern electronics and the grid.
ctippett
Genuine question, what happens to any commercial aircraft in the vicinity of such a detonation? Are they at a high enough altitude to avoid the EMP blast or can we expect them to lose all electronics?
tronicjester
To prevent nuclear war YouTube has now blocked videos related to faraday cages.
imglorp
Not surprised, but is there a source? I guess hiding your electronics from The Man is subversive.
And front page today, Jeff discovered that media servers are also verboten: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/self-hosting-your-own...
Is someone keeping a list of all the various censorship triggers on YT?
null
_nub3
wtf?
hollerith
>The world's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication . . . The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact . . .
No thanks, I'll wait for factual information.
hcfman
Hey don't knock mister Simpson. He's an icon. I'm amazed he's still going.
1970-01-01
Datacenters hate this one weird trick!
I'm not sure about most of this. The great majority of the articles and stories about this I've read trace back to layman speculation and disaster porn fiction written by people who have never claimed to actually be informed about how these things work. There's damn little stuff out there that traces back to actual experiments with real hardware. Probably most of the serious experiments are by various militaries and are highly classified. I've seen some more believable stuff suggesting that most consumer electronics and automobiles are not vulnerable at all to the much-fictionalized high-altitude nuclear EMP.
Either way, the author of this article does not cite any sources or relevant experience, and he doesn't include any biographical information about himself to judge how qualified he is to speak on such subjects. There's not much reason I see to take this any more seriously than any piece of fictional disaster porn you could buy on Amazon.
I don't know the truth for sure myself, but hopefully we all know better than to believe everything we read, especially about subjects like this where there appears to be very little hard science published.