ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE AND AMERICAN SECURITY By Eric Hannis http://www.afpc.org/files/february2012.pdf
One of our nation’s most glaring national security “Achilles Heels,” the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) incident, has received new attention of late in the popular media as well as the Republican presidential debates. This focus is certainly welcome, but it is far from typical; beyond a small circle of think tanks and policy wonks inside the Washington Beltway, few people even know that this threat exists. So what is an electromagnetic pulse? An EMP is a burst of electromagnetic radiation that is usually caused by either a very high yield explosion-such as a nuclear detonation - or by a natural solar eruption that periodically emanates from our sun. If the explosion or solar burst is strong enough, the resulting high energy electromagnetic fields can produce electrical voltages so intense that they can destroy electrical components used in everyday items, such as computers and communications equipment, as well as large infrastructure equipment and transformers used in our electric grid. New salience The EMP threat has been known for some time. During the Cold War, we were aware that the Soviets maintained an EMP attack plan in their portfolio of nuclear options. Our primary deterrent to such a Soviet EMP attack was the same as for other scenarios at the time: simple nuclear retaliation. We knew that were this attack to be used, it would likely be only one adversary launching it. It was an effective and logical deterrent. But in the intervening decades, we have become ever more dependent on our information technologies (IT) and computer-based infrastructure systems, thus making us an even more appealing and likely target for an EMP attack. In addition, since nuclear and missile technologies have spread to even more unpredictable and “rogue” nation states, relying solely on a strategy of nuclear deterrence is increasingly insufficient. The stakes are grave indeed. One successful high altitude EMP detonation has the capability to disable electronic systems that could result in our population plunging back into the 18th century overnight. While immediate and direct deaths from an EMP detonation would be minimal, associated long term mortality would be very high. Multiple successful detonations above the continental United States could potentially result in the entire nation becoming completely incapable of utilizing any Eric Hannis is Executive Director at Etherton and Associates, a defense consulting firm, as well as a Lt Col in the Air Force reserve. Previously, he was the Military Legislative Assistant to Rep. Randy Forbes, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Readiness Subcommittee. technologies dependent on electricity. Very quickly, our just-in-time and highly efficient infrastructure systems that supply food, energy, and transportation would be rendered inoperable. Hospitals and emergency services could be incapacitated. Water would not flow, vehicles would not run, and food would spoil and go undelivered. The result would be starvation, disease, and lawlessness on a scale not experienced in modern times. The capability to deliver an EMP attack, moreover, is expanding. Whereas decades ago only a handful of states possessed the capability to create an electromagnetic pulse event, today the associated knowledge has become more diffuse - and the ability to do so more widespread. Two of the three nations that were named by the Bush administration as members of the “Axis of Evil,” North Korea and Iran, are known to be developing capabilities to launch EMP attacks. North Korea is developing several technologies that could allow it to launch an EMP attack.1 These include long-range nuclear-capable missile technologies, according to recent testimony to Congress by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Moreover, according to South Korean military officials, North Korea is in the process of finishing the development of a "Super-EMP" nuclear warhead. Although it lacks an ICBM capability, Iran too could cause devastating harm to the U.S. through a ship-launched EMP attack. The Iranian regime is known to have conducted missile launches off surface vessels in the Caspian Sea - tests that bear a striking resemblance to EMP launch exercises.2 But EMP attacks need not be launched directly by an adversary nation-state. Iran, or another rogue state, could use a proxy organization to launch a missile from a freighter in the Atlantic. Moreover, we also have known for some time that non-state terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda have been urgently trying to acquire nuclear weapons. However, an attack is not the only way that an EMP event could happen. Many scientists believe there is a strong chance that impending solar eruptions, called “coronal mass ejections” (CME), have the potential to cause the same effects as an EMP detonation on terrestrial systems. In fact, many scientists believe the question is not “if” such storms will occur, but “when.” Solar storms of strong magnitude erupt in 11-year cycles, and our sun’s solar storm activity is expected to peak in 2013. One of the biggest threats from a CME event is the potential damage it could cause to our electric grid. Power surges caused by solar particles can destroy giant transformers. The costs from the loss of power to our most vulnerable east coast cities for even weeks or months could easily reach the billions of dollars. And even if the CMEs that occur between now and next year do not cause massive disruptions or damage to our electric infrastructures, our continued and increasing reliance on electronic systems One successful high altitude EMP detonation has the capability to disable electronic systems that could result in our population plunging back into the 18th century. overnight. means that we will be even more vulnerable during the next 11-year cycle of solar storms. A lagging response While we clearly are aware of these current EMP threats, both natural and man-made, what have we done to prepare our nation? The answer, unfortunately, is very little. The United States first began to seriously address the current EMP threat through the establishment of a formal commission (known as the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack) back in 2001. Following years of study, this blue-ribbon panel produced a thorough analysis of the potential effect of EMP attacks, and provided the government with concrete steps needed to safeguard our nation.3 Yet to date, very few of the Commission’s recommendations actually have been implemented. In its recommendations, the Commission focused its attention on a quartet of basic steps necessary to prepare for and deter an EMP incident. These include: Infrastructure hardening Hardening our infrastructure systems and post-incident planning will allow our most important systems to function after an EMP incident. It will also make us a less appealing target, signaling to hostile nations that they would only be able to hamper us temporarily - and then only at potentially catastrophic retaliatory cost. Unfortunately, however, the federal agencies charged with post-incident planning and hardening of our electric grid have failed to move beyond the theory and discussion phase. The Department of Energy (DoE), likewise, has done little to prepare for an EMP incident. While hardening our entire electric grid is unrealistic, DoE could do much to mitigate the effects of an EMP incident by establishing plans, in coordination with industry, on how to most efficiently restore electric power after an EMP incident. Yet it has failed to do much of anything in this regard. This is true even though experts estimate that it would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars to protect our 300 largest transformers, and less that $1 billion to harden an additional 3,000 smaller transformers - a comparatively small price to pay in order to stem the potential loss of life and destruction of our infrastructure and economy that would result from an EMP attack. Communicating during an EMP event The responsibility for developing civilian protocols for command and control in the event of an EMP attack largely falls on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Since its inception in 2001, the EMP Commission has provided many actionable recommendations to DHS in regard to planning and incident response. DHS, however, shows no indication of working to develop solutions to the shortfalls specified in the recommendations. In fact, an EMP threat scenario has not even been included in the Two of the three nations named by the Bush administration as members of the “Axis of Evil,” North Korea and Iran, are known to be developing capabilities to launch EMP attacks. DHS’s “National Planning Scenarios,” its list of the nation’s most critical threat scenarios, despite the potentially catastrophic nature of such an event. Hardening of defense and space systems Unlike DHS and DoE, the Department of Defense (DoD) has begun to undertake many of the steps recommended by the EMP Commission, particularly the hardening of electronic components used in critical weapon systems. In particular, DoD has been making investments in hardening our strategic weapons systems, such as the nation’s nuclear forces.4 In addition, it has started to invest in enhancements that provide for electronic hardening during upgrades of existing conventional weapon systems such as bombers and fighter aircraft.5 However, these steps are still early ones; much of our conventional force still remains vulnerable to an EMP attack. And the military’s increasing use of commercial electronic technologies, which have no hardening characteristics, make vulnerability to EMP an escalating problem. Defending against EMP and EMP-capable attack A key component to our EMP defenses is the ability to intercept incoming ballistic missiles. The Commission correctly asserts that a viable missile defense system is our nation’s best deterrent to an EMP attack. While neither the Bush nor Obama administrations did enough to harden our infrastructure, the differences on missile defense are starker. During the Bush administration, our Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capabilities advanced through several programs with the capability to protect the homeland from an EMP attack (including the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and the Airborne Laser). The Obama administration, by contrast, has done considerably less. Despite unveiling a new four-phase missile defense plan in September 2009, it began to make large cuts to the missile defense budget beginning in FY2010. In addition, the Obama administration has cancelled or delayed the fielding of systems that held much potential to defend against EMP attacks. The DoD’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, released in early 2010, indicates that the Obama administration is retreating on the fielding of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) systems to defend the U.S. and Europe against potential ballistic missile attacks. While the Bush administration planned to field 44 ballistic missile interceptor systems in the U.S. and 10 in Europe, the Obama administration is planning to field just 30 systems in the U.S. and none in Europe.6 In addition, the ABL program was cancelled by the Obama Administration back in 2009. Lastly, the Obama administration, via the New START Treaty, has limited our future missile defense options as part of its attempted “reset” of relations with Russia. Steps toward a solution Over the last few years, responding to these deficiencies, Congress has fielded several legislative initiatives to address our shortfalls in EMP incident preparation and infrastructure hardening. As of yet, however, no EMP-focused bill has yet been sent to the President for signature. The so-called SHIELD Act (Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act) is one of the better plans currently under consideration. It would amend the Federal Power Act by encouraging cooperation between industry and government to mitigate vulnerabilities in the electric grid and develop solutions to current shortcomings associated with a major EMP event. The SHIELD Act, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), calls for the establishment of protection standards and hardware fixes (such as the hardening of large transformers and other key elements of the nation’s power infrastructure). Another attribute of the SHIELD Act is that it does not rely solely on government for a solution, but rather depends on a partnership of government and industry to achieve its goals of protecting American electric infrastructure. If passed, the legislation would eliminate many of our vulnerabilities to an EMP event, whether caused by an attack or by nature. Moreover, the SHIELD Act’s bipartisan list of supporters shows that threat of an EMP attack is one of very few issues that unites both Republicans and Democrats in this highly-polarized Congress. Time to act Our federal government, through the EMP Commission, has now studied the threat posed by EMP for over a decade. Policymakers in Washington now need to move beyond theory, and into practice. This means expending the appropriate resources to harden our military and civilian infrastructures. It also requires building the redundancies and communication capabilities that would make it possible for America to weather an EMP event more or less intact. The proposals outlined in the SHIELD Act provide a blueprint for doing so. We now need our federal government and agencies to at long last take the EMP threat seriously, and begin to protect against it. ● 1 U.S. Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, February 2010, 4-6, http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.p df. 2 Dr. William R. Graham, Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, July 10, 2008, http://www.empcommission.org/docs/GRAHAMtestimony10JULY2008.pdf. 3 See Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic (EMP) Attack, vol. 1: Executive Report, 2004, http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf. 4 Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Operation and Maintenance Overview Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Estimates, February 2011, 131. 5 Department of the Air Force, “Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget Estimates,” Justification Book Volume 3, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force, Volume III - Part 1, February 2011, 46, 48, 49, 647. 6 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, 16. ========================================== (F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
