[LMB] OT: Tech marches on
marc.wilson at gmx.co.uk
Tue Dec 14 11:17:06 GMT 2021
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:27:32 +0000, Matija Grabnar via Lois-Bujold
<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/12/2021 00:15, Fred wrote:
>> assuming a submarine was 1000 ft underwater, I wouldn't think EMP would be
>> too much of a problem.
>That is a big assumption. Yes, submarines, when in operation, spend most
>of their time safely underwater.
>However, in the scenarios where a submarine is likely to come under
>attack from a nuclear weapon, it is either in port, or it has surfaced
>to communicate/resupply (water protects from so many things, but it also
>blocks radio, fuel and supplies).
Or (more grimly) to fire.
>In both of those scenarios you still want the submarine to be
>operational after the EMP.
>Remember that the EMP travels much farther than the blast effects. I
>understand that one of the EMP scenarios is a high altitude/LEO blast
>that takes out electronics in a huge area that would not feel the blast
>at all, just see a flash.
YouTube conspiracy videos: Science fiction for people who don't
understand they're watching science fiction. - John Oliver
More information about the Lois-Bujold