Your friendly reminder of potential consequences of starting a preemptive war with North Korea. (Now updated with some East Coast targets.)pic.twitter.com/wJ08sP4Te3
-
Ah, I didn't realize how speculative it was. I'm guessing that map exaggerated the imapact a fair bit?
The EMP literature is half people who say "it's the end of the world" and half people who say "it's nothing at all." There are large uncertainty bars when you're talking about real-life effects on the ground. I don't think a state with limited nukes would risk it.
-
-
(For a state with many nukes, like Russia, sure, why not. But that would be just one of many effects, certainly not the one worth worrying about the most.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Huh, you think they would have measured the effects on electronics at range when they were testing them.
-
The EMPs people are worried about are the high-altitude ones. The number of actual tests of them are relatively limited and haven't happened since the 1960s (a very different world of electronics).
-
I was just working through that myself, that all the open air testing would have been done in a basically pre-computer world, so who cares if it turns off a few lights.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.