One of the counter arguments I've heard about the use of HEMP weapons is that while they can cause great destruction, they can not destroy everything. There are regions of the world with mountains and it seems unlikely the energy from an EMP would destroy something hiding in the shadow of a mountain. Both sides know this and would intentionally place some of their own nuclear ICBM's there with additional EMP hardening. So MAD rules again and setting off HEMP weapons would assure your own countries destruction.
Another strategy is to smuggle nuclear weapons into a country and be able to remotely detonate them. No ICBM's or supersonic missiles needed and without knowledge of where they are or how they might be triggered there is no way to stop them. Both the US and Russia have fairly porous borders. And both sides can also install ICBM's at locations outside their borders, so an HEMP strike against one country does not necessarily remove the ability to strike back, unless you're willing to also knock out most of the world (which then becomes a very bad place to live in with everyone in the entire world hating you).
So basically using HEMP as a first-strike weapon still seems to make no sense because of MAD.
I stumbled upon this document by accident today and started reading the PDF out of curiosity, and wow, I had no idea Russia was so far advanced in (NN)EMP tech, and that EMPs plays such a crucial role in the conflict between east and west. I have heard very little about this through the regular news outlets and nothing from governmental sources.
I would love if someone with more knowledge about this topic could put this into context and comment on the feasibility of this cyber-weapon (as it is classified as in the document).
There is nothing particularly "magical" about EMPs. Any competent electrical engineer or physicist can build one given the right budget and resources. Shielding against such attacks is also well understood. Ultimately it is down to culture. Your average user on HN understands that it is a bad idea to hook up critical physical infrastructure to the internet, especially post-Stuxnet. But that doesn't mean the infrastructure providers would implement such best practices as they have a very real financial cost. Same thing for shielding against EMPs and solar flares.
Nothing special about EMPs in that sense. What I did not know was this (qoute from page 4):
> Russia has what they term “Super-EMP” weapons, nuclear warheads specialized for HEMP attack [0]. Super-EMP warheads have very low explosive yield (10 kilotons or less) but very high gamma yield, which is what generates HEMP. According to Russian military and technical sources, Super-EMP weapons can generate HEMP fields of 100,000 volts/meter or higher, greatly exceeding the U.S. military hardening standard for HEMP (50,000 volts/meter).
According to the document, 100,000 volts/meter can also be produced by commercially available products [1] (for much smaller areas) or be built relatively easily by somewhat skilled people, like you point out. The fact that Russia has a first strike weapon potentially rendering Europe and USA defensless is worrying, as this threat is not addressed or taken seriously – according to the paper. Living in a country sharing borders with Russia, I would love to hear that the US actually is in front of this, not lagging behind.
I realise some of the juicy details from the document is not mentioned in the summary on the first page, so I'll quote one of them here (page 13):
>A high-yield warhead (1 megaton or more) detonated for HEMP [0] over the ocean would cover an area 2,200 kilometers in radius, a zone nearly as large as North America, with powerful E3 HEMP that would penetrate the ocean depths and possibly damage or destroy the electronics of submarines on patrol. Submarines would be especially vulnerable when deploying their very long antennae—which they need to do precisely when trying to receive EAMS.
Another strategy is to smuggle nuclear weapons into a country and be able to remotely detonate them. No ICBM's or supersonic missiles needed and without knowledge of where they are or how they might be triggered there is no way to stop them. Both the US and Russia have fairly porous borders. And both sides can also install ICBM's at locations outside their borders, so an HEMP strike against one country does not necessarily remove the ability to strike back, unless you're willing to also knock out most of the world (which then becomes a very bad place to live in with everyone in the entire world hating you).
So basically using HEMP as a first-strike weapon still seems to make no sense because of MAD.