How realistic is an EMP attack on the US (Red Dawn movie...)

[FedRebel]

In reality, I doubt someone would do an EMP attack on the US and leave it at that with the rest conventional. It makes no sense. A more likely scenario is it would be the first shot of a general nuclear exchange. The old fashioned World War III/End of the world scenario.

That approach is unwise as the aggressor state would give themselves away before doing any meaningful damage, they're basically telegraphing their punch and the full weight of the American deterrent (what little is left) would be brought to bare. Better for the aggressor state to just launch a proper nuclear strike with minimal warning, that way at least a portion of the American deterrent would be caught on the ground.

HEMP as a terrorist weapon is more likely, since it would cause civil disorder and anarchy.

Unless we dismantled a big chunk of our military so they thought they could do that WITHOUT getting the same (or worse) done to them. But as it is now, that's not the case.

Our nuclear "capable" bombers are defanged and will take 2 weeks minimum to be nuke ready (though the recent history the USAF has had as a result of poor training and understaffing...and doing anything they can get away with to rid themselves of the aircraft, doesn't inspire confidence.) On top of that recent treaties with Russia call for a modest downsizing of the fleet (compared to the current force strength, compared to SAC strength it's embarrassingly feeble.)

Our ICBM force is limited to one warhead per missile and of course are pointed at the ocean with an advertised 20 minute re-target lag.

We're almost there, the SSBN force is really the only thing credible, anonymity of the sea and all that.

The US -- don't hit them. You'll just make them mad.

IF WW3 happened in the 50's or 60's...yes, a 10-1 strategic advantage and a preplanned 30 day nuclear strike campaign, the first wave being a prompt few minute long response from American missiles in Europe and a swarm of bombers in under 2 hours...kind of redefines "overkill"

These days, the earliest response would be a ~few hours and would be from whatever SSBN is in the most geographically appropriate location (don't want missile tracks too close to Russia or China) as for the damn bombers, they're out of play thanks to the defanging and laughably small numbers.

[Simon_Jester]

You're missing something.

In a realistic world, first strikes do not come as a "bolt from the blue." Countries don't routinely attack each other for no reason, and the reasons they choose to fight over are predictable in advance.

Even 'surprise' attacks like Pearl Harbor work by achieving tactical surprise, not strategic surprise. The Eighth Fleet gets surprised when suddenly Japanese planes bomb it, but the Eighth Fleet was in Pearl Harbor in the first place because the US was already anticipating high tensions and possibly war with Japan!

During the Cold War the US had a serious adversary and it was at least credible that they would try a first strike, so keeping the entire US nuclear force ready to launch on 10-30 minutes' notice made a lot of sense, even though it heightened tensions and arguably made war more likely. Today, not only do we not expect an attack, there is no reason to expect Russia or China to want to attack.

If a nuclear war occurs, it will almost certainly be after a warning period of days or weeks of escalating diplomatic tensions and (possibly) conventional skirmishes. This gives us a lot of time to retarget nuclear weapons, reverse field modifications to weapon systems, and possibly even to hold extensive drills and training programs as the strategic situation between (say) the US and China gets worse.

This is what concepts like the DEFCON system are for. An intelligent military bases a lot of its preparations on how likely war really is. Measures that would seem absolutely vital at a time when war is imminent can be actively dangerous if war is unlikely and no one has an incentive to start one.