Sir:
Mr. Hayden presented an outstanding, almost-verbatim review of the commission reports. After having read in the last few months both of the reports, I sought to find as much corroboration of them as I could find. My motive for doing further research was pretty elementary and is simply stated: “This is a government commission, right? Since when have I believed the contents of a government commission?” (I am a former and long-time employee, now retired, of a technology-heavy government agency, and so I am naturally skeptical when I read any government report.) That research has led me into some pretty technical and sometimes jargon-filled essays and writings that at times I was challenged to understand.
I came upon some, however, that were easier for me to read, and that offer direct challenges to the EMP Commission report. One tacitly accuses the commission of being secretive in the release of its numerical data to the extent that independent reviews might find it very difficult to duplicate its findings. Another challenges the findings regarding automobiles and trucks, stating that the simulator used by the EMP commission generated much lower kV/m values than those we would likely see in a realistic attack. Thus, many more cars and trucks might be affected in a real event than what is stated in the latest report. Who is right? I surely do not know, but I am learning more as I read more.
See the excellent article at “The Space Review” [1]. This essay is pretty technical in places, for the subject lends itself to technical explanation, but I found that its presentation was logical and overall very understandable.
Note that E1, E2, and E3, as I interpret them, are the respective electromagnetic yields of a given event from the strongest to the weakest; but not necessarily in their major effects upon large areas of infrastructure. According to the author, a solar event, while considered to be primarily an E3 event, might have much greater consequences to the infrastructure than an E3 (or even E1 or E2) event caused by some lower-yield thermonuclear devices.
I encourage blog readers to peruse this as well as other independent studies for additional knowledge over-and-above what is provided in the EMP commission reports.
Thanks to Jim Rawles for the “chalkboard” upon which we are at liberty to express, and even to “screech” out, our thoughts. – “Two Dogs”, Lt.Col. USMCR (retired)