logo
The reality of a nuclear EMP attack: Why the US needs to be prepared

The reality of a nuclear EMP attack: Why the US needs to be prepared

Yahoo17-02-2025
A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) strike could cripple the U.S. electrical grid, communications, transportation, and other critical infrastructure for months, an expert warned.
Historian William Forstchen, a New York Times bestselling author and an expert on EMPs, discussed with Fox News Digital how the U.S. – and everyday Americans – can prepare for the "existential threat" that the attack poses.
"This is a very real threat," he said. "EMP is generated when a small nuclear weapon, 40 to 60 kilotons or about three times the size of a Hiroshima bomb, is detonated 200 miles out in space above the United States. It sets up an electrostatic discharge which cascades to the Earth's surface, feeds into the millions of miles of wires which become antennas, feeds this into the power grid, overloads the grid and blows it out."
Forstchen, citing Congressional reports from 2002 and 2008, said that 80%-90% of Americans would be dead a year later if an EMP strike happened.
Trump Reverses Biden Crackdown On Lightbulbs And Dishwashers, Returning To 'Common Sense Standards'
While an EMP strike, at first glance, appears to be more science fiction than fact, Forstchen said that the potential for such an attack was recognized decades ago.
Read On The Fox News App
"The thread of an EMP was first realized during the 1962 Starfish Prime high-altitude nuclear test. What happened was that it blew about 500 miles away from Hawaii and 200 miles up," he said. "They were able to bring the system back within a matter of days, but what would it be like if it took a month, six months, a year, or five years to fix?"
The late Peter Pry, a nuclear weapons expert, and former staff director at the Congressional EMP Commission, agreed. Before his death in 2022, Pry warned that Kim Jung Un's launch of a high-altitude ballistic missile was a test of North Korea's EMP capabilities against the United States.
"Cars would be paralyzed," Pry told Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight in May 2017. "Airplanes could fall out of the sky. You'd have natural gas pipeline explosions, nuclear reactor overloads. And worst of all, if you had a protracted blackout, it would be a serious threat to the survival of the American people."
The threat of EMP propelled President Donald Trump, during his first term in 2020, to issue a study with the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
"Just within the last couple of days, the Trump administration is again talking about Israel's Iron Dome but in the United States," he said.
Forstchen shared three ways that the U.S. could prepare for a potential EMP attack.
Calling the current electrical grid "antiquated," Forstchen argued that it needs to be updated for the 21st century.
"It's scary to realize that almost all of our electricity is pumped on systems that are 30, even 40 years old," he said.
Energy Experts Blast Failed Billion-dollar Doe Project As 'Financial Boondoggle,' 'Disaster'
Joseph J. Brettel, communications consultant and former energy spokesman, wrote in a Fox News Digital opinion piece that the electrical grid "is in desperate need of investment and modernization."
"This isn't just an infrastructure problem; it's an economic opportunity," he wrote. "By unleashing vast resources and problem-solving determination toward the grid, the President could solve a decades-long challenge while creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs."
Similar to Israel, the U.S. needs an Iron Dome, Forstchen said.
"Ronald Reagan proposed it in the '80s, it was known as Star Wars," he said. "But that was impossible back then, but with the technology we have today and guys like [Elon] Musk, it's very possible that we could make one for relatively minor cost compared to some other things."
Trump has ordered the construction of an advanced, next-generation missile defense shield to protect the United States from aerial attack. In January, he signed an executive order that tasks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with drawing up plans to build an "Iron Dome for America" that will protect Americans from the threat of missiles launched by a foreign enemy.
Trump Says That Iron Dome Construction Will Be 'Immediate,' Signs Executive Order
In doing so, Trump kept a campaign promise to prioritize missile defense.
"By next term we will build a great Iron Dome over our country," Trump said during a West Palm Beach event on June 14. "We deserve a dome…it's a missile defense shield, and it'll all be made in America."
Forstchen encouraged people to prepare for the potential threat by stockpiling necessities.
"I urge every American citizen to take this seriously and prepare a little bit. I'm not talking about turning your home into a fortress," he said. "I am saying to have a month or two worth of emergency supplies on hand."
As a resident of Asheville, North Carolina, Forstchen said that the devastation following Hurricane Helene has been "horrific," leaving some still homeless months following the natural disaster.
"And this is a small regional event, imagine if it was the entire United States," he said.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense for comment.Original article source: The reality of a nuclear EMP attack: Why the US needs to be prepared
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US-China race takes center stage as Trump defines AI policy
US-China race takes center stage as Trump defines AI policy

The Hill

time5 hours ago

  • The Hill

US-China race takes center stage as Trump defines AI policy

The Trump administration is increasingly framing the race to dominate artificial intelligence (AI) as an existential competition with China to determine the future of the powerful technology. It's a mindset that has permeated the administration's push to define its AI policy, including as it unveiled its action plan on the subject this month. 'The United States is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence,' an introduction to the plan from several key Trump officials reads. 'Whoever has the largest AI ecosystem will set global AI standards and reap broad economic and military benefits.' 'Just like we won the space race, it is imperative that the United States and its allies win this race,' it continues. Outside observers generally say the administration is not overstating either the fact of the intense race or the importance of winning it. They compare the battle to the arms race or the space race in decades past. 'It's an AI arms race,' Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives told The Hill. 'The U.S., I believe, is ahead of China, but China is not sitting on a treadmill.' The new AI model from the Chinese startup DeepSeek was dubbed 'AI's Sputnik moment' by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. Sputnik, the first artificial satellite launched into space by the Soviet Union, took the U.S. by surprise and marked the start of the space race between Washington and Moscow. DeepSeek's highly capable model similarly shook the American AI landscape, raising questions for U.S. tech firms about the need for vast investments in computing power and the prospect that Chinese tech firms could eventually surpass them. 'You risk becoming reliant on other countries, and then in a moment of crisis, you may not have access to the technology or software that you need,' Owen Tedford, a senior research analyst at Beacon Policy Advisors, said of the stakes of the AI race. The Trump administration has approached the growing prospect of Chinese AI by pushing for a focus on innovation over regulation, drawing a sharp contrast with the Biden administration. In its 28-page framework, the Trump administration detailed its plan to win the AI competition, with a focus on removing regulations, expediting the construction of data center and energy infrastructure and exporting U.S. technology abroad. After taking office, President Trump rescinded former President Biden's executive order on AI guardrails, while Vice President Vance criticized 'excessive regulation' of AI while in Europe earlier this year. Trump's AI plan looks to boost innovation by taking aim at both federal and state AI rules, directing his administration to slash federal funding for states with regulations deemed too 'onerous' — not unlike the AI moratorium some Republicans unsuccessfully sought to squeeze into the president's 'big, beautiful bill.' The framework also aims to encourage the adoption of American technology abroad, another key aspect on which the administration is differentiating itself from its predecessor on the AI race. The Biden administration took a more restrictive approach toward the export of American AI, primarily through limits on chip sales that sought to prevent the key hardware from winding up in the hands of foreign adversaries such as China. Biden released the AI diffusion rule in his final days in office, placing caps on chip sales to most countries around the world other than a select few U.S. allies and partners. Trump rescinded the rule in May shortly before it was set to take effect. While some Republicans have urged him to release a new version of the diffusion rule, the president has opted to focus on exporting U.S. technology as a means of boosting AI leadership abroad as opposed to limiting China's resources. He signed an executive order Wednesday directing his administration to create an American AI Exports Program that will develop full-stack AI export packages, featuring U.S. chips, AI models and applications. 'There's a belief that maybe by dominating the AI race, if we are able to be technology leaders, China will end up becoming reliant on us instead of cutting it out and forcing it to create its own domestic alternatives,' Tedford said. 'It's an argument that didn't really seem to have much weight in the Biden administration but seems to be carrying the day much more with the Trump administration,' he added. Ben Buchanan, a White House special adviser on AI during the Biden administration, argued in a New York Times op-ed Thursday that Trump is making a 'profound mistake' when it comes to China. His criticism centers on a key decision made last week by the Trump administration to once again allow Nvidia to sell its H20 chips to China. Earlier this year, the U.S. implemented new licensing requirements that limited Nvidia's ability to sell the chips in China. However, the company recently revealed it was filing applications to sell the H20s after receiving assurances from the Trump administration that its licenses would be granted. Buchanan argued the decision 'threatens American dominance' over AI because 'Nvidia's chips will give China's A.I. ecosystem, and its government, just what it needs to surpass the United States in the most critical arenas.' Trump's approach also risks alienating the China hawks within his own party, who have voiced concerns that it could boost Beijing's AI capabilities. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, questioned the administration's decision to allow for H20 sales to China in a letter Friday. 'As the Trump administration has repeatedly stated, the U.S. must ensure that American rather than Chinese tech companies build the global AI infrastructure,' he wrote. 'At the same time, however, we must also ensure that the world does not adopt Chinese AI models trained on U.S. technology.' Another outspoken Republican, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), is pushing back on the third prong of Trump's AI plan, which seeks to boost the construction of AI data center and energy infrastructure. The administration has repeatedly underscored the infrastructure needs for building out American AI capabilities, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright comparing the AI race to the Manhattan Project. The tech industry has also ramped up pressure, specifically on the energy front. Anthropic argued in a recent report that the U.S. is 'lagging in bringing energy generation online,' while China is 'rapidly building energy infrastructure for AI.' However, Greene warned Thursday that there are 'massive future implications and problems' with Trump's data center buildout given its potential impact on water supply, while also taking aim at the president's plan to target state AI rules. 'Competing with China does not mean become like China by threatening state rights, replacing human jobs on mass scale creating mass poverty, and creating potentially devastating effects on our environment and critical water supply,' she said.

We Study Climate Change. It Endangers You and Your Children.
We Study Climate Change. It Endangers You and Your Children.

New York Times

time6 hours ago

  • New York Times

We Study Climate Change. It Endangers You and Your Children.

We study the effects of climate change on people. We know, from the best available science, that climate change will endanger the health and livelihood of most Americans alive today. After a long and sweeping review, the U.S. government came to a similar conclusion in 2009, when the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued a so-called endangerment finding — a move that signaled a high level of government confidence in the data it was reviewing. The finding established that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause climate change are harmful pollutants. In turn, this meant that these gases could be regulated by the Clean Air Act, empowering the E.P.A. to issue regulations on emissions of these gases from cars, trucks, power plants and other sources, backed by stronger science. Reasonable people will disagree about how best to address climate change. The purpose of America's endangerment findings is to acknowledge that a hazard exists so that the government can protect Americans from it. Think of the finding like car headlights in the dark, helping us see dangers ahead and avoid them. The Trump administration this week took the first step to overturn the finding, by issuing a proposal that claims that the rule is scientifically and legally invalid, as well as unjustifiably costly. After a comment period, the administration could try to finalize the withdrawal of the finding next year. The consequence — and likely goal — of the administration's gamble, if it succeeds against inevitable legal challenges, will be to begin unraveling several regulations that have begun to make a dent in America's contribution to climate change and the hazards it creates. A key element of the administration's proposal is to redefine what it means for air pollution to cause harm. If a pollutant causes climate change, it would no longer count as hurting us. This runs counter to both basic logic and a growing mountain of science documenting direct harms from greenhouse gas emissions via climate change. Why are we so confident in the dangers ahead? Humans are highly adaptable and Americans are particularly so, but the data and evidence indicate that climate change will cause many Americans to die earlier than they otherwise would. High temperatures will kill Americans by stressing underlying conditions, such as heart disease. We expect that intensifying hurricanes, more frequent floods and smoke from more frequent forest fires together will most likely kill millions of Americans in the coming century. In addition to intensifying natural threats, climate change will make households and communities in America more dangerous for their inhabitants. Environmental conditions affect our bodies and minds, particularly how we make decisions and turn to violence. Higher temperatures are associated with more miscarriages and more domestic violence. While perhaps surprising, the link between rape and temperature is one of the strongest findings in our field. We fear that additional heat from climate change will lead to more suicides, murders and assaults. Climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of acute disasters, such as the recent devastating fires in Maui, Los Angeles and Paradise, Calif.; the floods in Texas; and the hurricane damage in Puerto Rico and North Carolina. As health insurance and property insurance become more expensive or access to coverage disappears, coping with these risks will be increasingly expensive. Taxpayers will bear many additional costs when uninsured losses fall to public social safety net programs. Farmers are expected to suffer some of the most serious losses to climate change. Annual crop losses throughout much of the Corn Belt are projected to be significant. Agricultural innovation, which we once expected to compensate for these losses, appears more sluggish than predicted. Losing access to water resources will drive up costs for farmers, and climate change will hurt the value of American farmland. The Trump administration argues that slowing greenhouse gas emissions has harmed the economy and impedes business — but climate change will, too, only more so. Economic growth will slow, food prices will very likely rise, and vast tracts of American real estate will lose value. We predict that workers will become less productive, less happy and more prone to safety errors. Demands on public services will increase while the cost of servicing new debt will probably rise. In contrast, climate change is expected to generally enhance some economic opportunities for Russia and Canada. Parents may feel a growing urgency to warn their children about climate change, since it will reduce their opportunities in life. Exposure to high temperatures in school or regional disasters lowers their ability to learn and perform well on exams. Rising temperatures at home and other climate changes worsen sleep, exercise, mental health and happiness. Learning about the consequences of climate change can feel overwhelming and scary, like staring over the edge of a cliff. Unlike our ancestors who relied on stars, tea leaves and fortune tellers to try to peer into the future, we have data and scientific tools that empower us to understand the results of the different choices in front of us. Previously, the E.P.A. led the world in bringing the best available science to climate policy discussions. Overturning the endangerment finding would bench the agency right when we need the E.P.A.'s tools the most. There are opportunities to push back. The public can comment on the administration's proposal. And when legal challenges to this rollback end up in federal court, judges should recognize the overwhelming evidence on the dangers of greenhouse gases to Americans. Solomon Hsiang and Marshall Burke teach at the Doerr School of Sustainability at Stanford University. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@ Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store