Non-lethal microwave-blasting missile knocks out electronics(wired.co.uk)
wired.co.uk
Non-lethal microwave-blasting missile knocks out electronics
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/24/microwave-missile-fries-electronics
44 comments
The cd was thrown because it was spinning inside the drive (ie being read). The eject motor didn't eject any harder than usual.
The real question is were the computers destroyed or did they just reboot. I've got a welder in the garage that made my "garage computer" reboot whenever the arc is struck, but it caused no harm. Grounding the metal chassis of the old box (to a real earth ground) fixed it right up in any case.
The real question is were the computers destroyed or did they just reboot. I've got a welder in the garage that made my "garage computer" reboot whenever the arc is struck, but it caused no harm. Grounding the metal chassis of the old box (to a real earth ground) fixed it right up in any case.
Where I work we use Faraday cages [1] to stop radio emissions from leaking out and interacting with scientific experiments. The thing is about the size of an industrial freezer with a large door. I guess you could use the same idea but in reverse for very sensitive things.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
If you have a small computer or electronics that need sheilding you can just place them inside a microwave (obviously not one turned on) as by design they are faraday cages designed to sheild against microwaves leaking out. They also work to sheild microwaves getting in. Cheap, simple solution.
There again most milatary equipment and the like are generaly made to counter EMP type exposures so I do wonder what this new toy's feild of play will actualy be.
There again most milatary equipment and the like are generaly made to counter EMP type exposures so I do wonder what this new toy's feild of play will actualy be.
The camera that recorded the video of the computers had to be shielded.
That was pretty funny, and yes if your room was in a faraday cage it would be impervious to this particular threat. But your wall paper (if you did it as wall paper) might catch on fire :-)
hehe. Foil I guess is a better word, but I didn't think of it at the time when I posted my comment.
I remember reading a review on EMP weapons in Nature magazine some time back. The conclusion was, that it is nearly impossible to reliably knock out equipment without precise knowledge of the setup, weather conditions, etc...
Here's the original article: http://www.nature.com/news/microwave-weapons-wasted-energy-1...
And a quote from it: "... a prototype non-lethal crowd-control weapon that emits a beam of microwaves at 95 gigahertz. Radiation at that frequency penetrates less than half a millimetre into the skin, so the beam was supposed to deliver an intense burning sensation to anyone in its path, forcing them to move away, but without, in theory, causing permanent damage. However, the day of the test was cold and rainy. The water droplets in the air did what moisture always does: they absorbed the microwaves. And when some of the reporters volunteered to expose themselves to the attenuated beam, they found that on such a raw day, the warmth was very pleasant."
Here's the original article: http://www.nature.com/news/microwave-weapons-wasted-energy-1...
And a quote from it: "... a prototype non-lethal crowd-control weapon that emits a beam of microwaves at 95 gigahertz. Radiation at that frequency penetrates less than half a millimetre into the skin, so the beam was supposed to deliver an intense burning sensation to anyone in its path, forcing them to move away, but without, in theory, causing permanent damage. However, the day of the test was cold and rainy. The water droplets in the air did what moisture always does: they absorbed the microwaves. And when some of the reporters volunteered to expose themselves to the attenuated beam, they found that on such a raw day, the warmth was very pleasant."
And that's what I'd really love to see - EMP that detonates roadside bombs, rather than knocking out equipment. I understand that IEDs usually have some electronics, right?
It looks like there've been some efforts to develop these "The Air Force Research Laboratory developed an HPM system called MAXPOWER to detonate roadside bombs remotely, but it was the size of an articulated lorry — too unwieldy to be deployed in Afghanistan. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the defence department's bomb-fighting agency, declined to discuss the system, citing classification issues. But it did say that, as of 2011, it was not funding MAXPOWER.", but again, largely unsuccessful.
I imagine that it is too wasteful to EMP roadside bombs with explosive magnetic pulse sources. And non-explosive sources are too bulky...
It looks like there've been some efforts to develop these "The Air Force Research Laboratory developed an HPM system called MAXPOWER to detonate roadside bombs remotely, but it was the size of an articulated lorry — too unwieldy to be deployed in Afghanistan. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the defence department's bomb-fighting agency, declined to discuss the system, citing classification issues. But it did say that, as of 2011, it was not funding MAXPOWER.", but again, largely unsuccessful.
I imagine that it is too wasteful to EMP roadside bombs with explosive magnetic pulse sources. And non-explosive sources are too bulky...
So it's non-lethal to people with pacemakers and dialysis machines?
Interesting thought.
Though:
1) According to the animation they can target specific buildings (so i guess a strategic building of the enemy's army would be chosen, no hospital)
2) It's the risk one takes in war. If you think about it all non-lethal weapons bear that risk (for example Pepper Spray on the elderly or people with lung problems || stun guns on people with heart problems). Still better than to shoot them or to just blow the building up.
Though:
1) According to the animation they can target specific buildings (so i guess a strategic building of the enemy's army would be chosen, no hospital)
2) It's the risk one takes in war. If you think about it all non-lethal weapons bear that risk (for example Pepper Spray on the elderly or people with lung problems || stun guns on people with heart problems). Still better than to shoot them or to just blow the building up.
You can make the same argument against tasers. But if the choice is getting shot by a 9mm or a taser, I'll take the latter. By the same token, if the choice is getting microwaved a bit or attacked by a 500 lb smart bomb, I'll take the former.
That's what's known as a false choice. In practice, equipping police with tasers lowers the bar to using force (it's supposed to be non-lethal so there's not so much pressure against being trigger happy). Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased.
By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. Setting off a bomb will get everyone's attention immediately, whereas this device would silently disable electronics and could even become standard operating procedure for things like SWAT teams.
By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. Setting off a bomb will get everyone's attention immediately, whereas this device would silently disable electronics and could even become standard operating procedure for things like SWAT teams.
>That's what's known as a false choice.
No it isn't. The fact that some officers abuse their equipment doesn't mean the choice doesn't come up. It comes up all the time.
>Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased.
Oh yes, it was probably just harsh language going through Jean Charles de Menezes's brain pan. You say the wrong thing and splat. Brains everywhere.
>By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb.
In the first gulf war the US dropped bombs that contained graphite filaments in an effort to take power plants offline without destroying them. Didn't work too well, so a few days later conventional bombs were used.
In another instance the Iraqis put a command and control installation in a bunker full of civilians. We took that bunker out with a smart bomb. An EMP device sure would have come in handy.
No it isn't. The fact that some officers abuse their equipment doesn't mean the choice doesn't come up. It comes up all the time.
>Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased.
Oh yes, it was probably just harsh language going through Jean Charles de Menezes's brain pan. You say the wrong thing and splat. Brains everywhere.
>By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb.
In the first gulf war the US dropped bombs that contained graphite filaments in an effort to take power plants offline without destroying them. Didn't work too well, so a few days later conventional bombs were used.
In another instance the Iraqis put a command and control installation in a bunker full of civilians. We took that bunker out with a smart bomb. An EMP device sure would have come in handy.
One problem with this technology is that it is more harmful for advanced militaries than it is against guerilla forces. If the tech ever gets into their hands, modern militaries have much more to lose since they currently rely heavily on electronic devices.
Military hardware has been systematically hardened against this since at least the 1980s in the US. I'm sure most other modern militaries have taken similar precautions.
Guerilla forces would be more exposed because they would likely be using repurposed consumer or obsolete military equipment, neither of which is likely to be hardened against this type of attack.
Guerilla forces would be more exposed because they would likely be using repurposed consumer or obsolete military equipment, neither of which is likely to be hardened against this type of attack.
I can't find any information about the power level or wavelength, so it's hard to say to what extent devices can be shielded from this, but it's safe to say that civilian electronics will be more susceptible in general than military equipment.
I'm sure there are easier ways to take out blackberry messanger. Though the prospect of hoodies out of tinfoil could provide for some comedy moments.
BSG should be required watching for all future military leaders. Just in case.
Anyone else notice a CD drive open during the test and the CD come flying out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O...
I only noticed that once people here pointed it out, and I'm somewhat baffled. Can someone explain? My thought would be that something in the attack happened to trigger the "open CD tray" operation in the computer, but then why would the CD jump out? Is it possible that the microwave sent the motor into overdrive? I'd love to hear possible technical explanations for this.
My interpretation was that the CD was spun up, so when it was pushed out by the tray, it had a lot of extra energy.
Ah! Of course! Thanks!
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4695275
but let's see - maybe this time people will be interested :)
I think it's very interesting, since it's not only theoretical, it already works.
This could be one of the key technologies used by the US military in the next war they'll fight in.
but let's see - maybe this time people will be interested :)
I think it's very interesting, since it's not only theoretical, it already works.
This could be one of the key technologies used by the US military in the next war they'll fight in.
Or against the US... http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/07/22/Report-China-deve...
Plus, I hear we don't practice the same kind of map-in-hand training that would be useful after an effective EMP.
Plus, I hear we don't practice the same kind of map-in-hand training that would be useful after an effective EMP.
Thanks for the link - interesting.
Though i don't think US' next war enemy will be China ;)
What kind of "map-in-hand training" - needed to use such a weapon effectively - are you referring to?
What kind of "map-in-hand training" - needed to use such a weapon effectively - are you referring to?
Navigation without electronics. With a compass, a map, and your wits. And maybe the Antikythera mechanism.
They are not knocking out a city, but buildings.
Some military buildings knocked out, everything not underground or specially shielded shuts down, has to reboot - this combined with a military strike...
You don't need soldiers equipped with compasses to do this.
It's not like electric devices in a big area don't work for a long amount of time.
Some military buildings knocked out, everything not underground or specially shielded shuts down, has to reboot - this combined with a military strike...
You don't need soldiers equipped with compasses to do this.
It's not like electric devices in a big area don't work for a long amount of time.
shuts down, has to reboot
I don't think you understand how an EMP works. The article is about a microwave gun which is more selective but less effective than a nuclear EMP. The pulse causes extremely high voltage. Durable electronics (an old car) might restart, but modern electronics are often destroyed.
It's not like electric devices in a big area don't work for a long amount of time.
Unless they are EMP hardened, they will not work forever, which to me is a pretty long time.
I don't think you understand how an EMP works. The article is about a microwave gun which is more selective but less effective than a nuclear EMP. The pulse causes extremely high voltage. Durable electronics (an old car) might restart, but modern electronics are often destroyed.
It's not like electric devices in a big area don't work for a long amount of time.
Unless they are EMP hardened, they will not work forever, which to me is a pretty long time.
Then US military with EMP hardened equipment.
It's not the technical aspects i have a problem with, it's the statement that US Military lacks skills to strike after EMP attack.
"we don't practice the same kind of map-in-hand training that would be useful after an effective EMP"
Like i've also stated: Maybe it wasn't meant to be that serious, maybe it even was meant to be funny.
Thanks anyway for clarifying this. I am intrigued. Guess i will read into this topic in more detail :)
It's not the technical aspects i have a problem with, it's the statement that US Military lacks skills to strike after EMP attack.
"we don't practice the same kind of map-in-hand training that would be useful after an effective EMP"
Like i've also stated: Maybe it wasn't meant to be that serious, maybe it even was meant to be funny.
Thanks anyway for clarifying this. I am intrigued. Guess i will read into this topic in more detail :)
If you want a good read on the effect of a massive EMP attack, read "One Second After"[1]. William R. Forstchen wrote it after presenting to the US Congress on the dangers of EMP, and having the presentation be largely ignored.
1. http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/...
1. http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/...
The reference to map-in-hand was spoken in the same breath as an EMP. I don't believe it's intended to be directly related to this missile, but seems to have been brought up tangentially. I explained the reference to you because based on your question, you seemed to sincerely not understand the map-in-hand reference.
Ok, sorry.
But it was only logical to assume that he referred to the missile, since it's the article you automatically (normally) talk about when writing a comment.
I still don't see his problem though.
Even if we talk about EMPs in general:
-> US Soldiers know exact time and are prepared (i don't see no problem there - even if they couldn't handle a map, which i strongly doubt)
It was probably meant to be a funny/ironic remark i guess
But it was only logical to assume that he referred to the missile, since it's the article you automatically (normally) talk about when writing a comment.
I still don't see his problem though.
Even if we talk about EMPs in general:
-> US Soldiers know exact time and are prepared (i don't see no problem there - even if they couldn't handle a map, which i strongly doubt)
It was probably meant to be a funny/ironic remark i guess
Sorta....depends on whom.
The country whose army is most relied on advanced electronic system is most fragile to such weapons
Milatary grade electronics are EMP sheilded in general and that is down to the cold war and the fear that a nuke would as a side effect kill all the electronics. This fear with army's in general has been a area already planned for and with that this type of offencive whilst has niche uses. It is still nice and against less ofganised unofficial army's of the World then this is something that can be used. It certainly is a nice reusable design.
Sadly though medical equipment and hospitals from my knowledge tend to not be as well protected against sich devices. I would also wonder that the effects upon pacemakers would not bode well either.
Still it will be less life impacting than alternatives in the situations which it lends itself towards. So good on boing for finaly making the EMP miltary grade market justified after all these years.
Sadly though medical equipment and hospitals from my knowledge tend to not be as well protected against sich devices. I would also wonder that the effects upon pacemakers would not bode well either.
Still it will be less life impacting than alternatives in the situations which it lends itself towards. So good on boing for finaly making the EMP miltary grade market justified after all these years.
Is cancer causing considered "non-lethal" ?
Because the police are certainly going to be using this someday at protests.
Not their problem I guess if people get cancer from it several years later.
Because the police are certainly going to be using this someday at protests.
Not their problem I guess if people get cancer from it several years later.
Unless I am mistaken, microwaves are not ionizing radiation. If intense enough, they can cause burns but won't cause DNA damage.
Studies about chronic high exposure to microwaves show no clear signal of cancer incidence. A quick burst is pretty much considered safe aside from heating related injuries, as far as anything reputable I can find on the matter is concerned.
Studies about chronic high exposure to microwaves show no clear signal of cancer incidence. A quick burst is pretty much considered safe aside from heating related injuries, as far as anything reputable I can find on the matter is concerned.
Also, would it be possible to shield against such a pulse, the same way that data centers can be shielded against EMP using things like grounded copper "wallpaper" and adding shielded energy filters on the incoming power supplies?