A postwar replica of the 'Little Boy' nuclear weapon, which was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in ... [+]
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought renewed attention to the danger of a potential nuclear war. Some have warned of worst-case scenarios, arguing that that if Vladimir Putin doesn’t get his way in Ukraine, Russia could employ nuclear weapons against its enemy, perhaps drawing more countries into the conflict. However unlikely that may feel at the moment, Western nations should recognize that if the stigma against using nuclear weapons is somehow broken, the situation could quickly cascade into something much larger and more menacing.
Beyond traditional uses of bombs, nuclear weapons could be deployed in a tactical manner against energy and communications systems. The US government has explored how an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack could occur by detonating a nuclear weapon in the mid-stratosphere. If such a bomb were set off over America’s heartland, it could unleash an EMP large enough to destroy electronics and knock out power across much of the continental United States. This sounds less threatening than a nuclear bomb going off in an American city, but the long-run effects could bring similar—or worse—devastation. An EMP attack could even be a complement, rather than a substitute, to a nuclear assault on American cities.
An EMP attack was the topic of a bestselling novel called “One Second After” by William Forstchen. While a work of fiction, the book described a possible sequence of events that could follow an EMP attack on America. The pulse would immediately fry electronics across the country and shut down large swaths of the American power grid. Some might die in the first moments after the attack, for example as automobile electronics stop working, causing people to drive off roads. But these relatively few initial deaths are likely to pale in comparison to those that would follow in the weeks and months after the high-altitude explosion.
Without automobiles, food stocks at supermarkets would dry up and without refrigerators, food would begin to spoil. Seniors in nursing homes would go without necessary medications. Looting would set in. Even those with the foresight to set aside food, weapons or other provisions in preparation for a calamity would quickly find themselves under siege from those who had not made similar preparations.
Today, only a few countries have the capabilities to launch an EMP-style attack on the United States. Russia and China could, as they have nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile technology to deliver them. It’s not hard to envision smaller countries like North Korea or Iran developing similar abilities, as well as eventually terrorist organizations.
Of further concern is that with EMP warfare, there is a strong incentive to attack first. Because the initial blow can be crippling, the first striker has a huge advantage. This makes EMP strategy more like cyber warfare than Cold War nuclear strategy. During the Cold War, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. relied on the principle of mutual assured destruction. Neither was reckless enough to launch a nuclear attack on the other because it would result in a devastating counterattack. This logic may not work with EMP attacks if the initial strike is sufficiently ruinous.
Individual citizens can take some limited precautions. Electronic devices can be hardened, backup transformers can be stockpiled, and backup electronics can be stored in Faraday protection cages. It may also be reasonable to keep a supply of food on hand that won’t spoil.
But these individual efforts will have limited impact if the entire power grid is blacked out for an extended period of time. Some estimates suggest that a successful EMP attack could knock out power for over a year, in some ways sending America back to pre-industrial revolution technology for a time.
The federal government has taken some limited steps to address the issue, but has not done much that is serious. Former President Trump signed an executive order aimed at studying the issue. A commission created by Congress existed for a number of years that produced some detailed reports. Some are classified, but what is public is still concerning. The current power grid is likely not equipped to fully withstand an EMP attack, and with recent military setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, our enemies may feel emboldened.
Some argue that the U.S. need not worry too much about an EMP attack, in part because the main threats come from Russia and China, who are unlikely to attack us. The problem is that as the threat of nuclear war rises, threats from risks that accompany nuclear war rise as well, including that of an EMP attack. Thus, as the situation in Ukraine raises the prospect of nuclear war generally, this should draw our attention to other risks, too.
Risk analysts often point out that the risks of nuclear war breaking out, while small in any particular year, are large when one considers them cumulatively over time. For example, if the annual probability of nuclear war is 0.4 percent, the cumulative probability over a century is around one-third. If the annual risk is modestly higher, it may be more likely than not that another nuclear bomb is detonated in a battle in our lifetime.
Moreover, these annual probabilities probably aren’t independent. In other words, if a nuclear attack occurred last year, the risk another will happen this year is likely higher than it would be otherwise. So one catastrophic event can cascade into another, triggering a chain reaction of calamities, each of which on its own might seem a remote possibility.
While we can’t protect against all risks, some are within our power to mitigate. Some estimates suggest that the total cost of hardening the electric grid against an EMP attack could be as little as a few billion dollars annually, which is small when one considers what the U.S. federal government spends, along with the trillions in blood and treasure that are at stake.
Given the rising nuclear threat, we should be asking ourselves what we are doing, individually and collectively, to protect our civilization, including the energy infrastructure we all rely upon. Our focus should be not just on averting nuclear war, but also on averting those other risks that could make a nuclear war so much worse.
