0

I have world destroyed by a war, but still on certain level of technological advancement. The basic thesis is that due to technological advancement of warring nations the people came up with lasting EMP field to disable advanced electronics for prolonged time. Soon after, every battlefield was EMPed once one side started loosing to disable enemy tech and had a chance to rally or retreat. And it did not take long time before battlefield was just preemptively EMPed (just to be done with it and prevent enemy to fire EMP on their own terms). After some time, EMPing of cities begun to cripple production and demoralize population. Soon these pulses covering almost every part of planet except underground part of cities build like Faraday cages for HQs, science labs and essential factories and of course private Faraday villas for rich.

Some things I struggle with and I would like to be corrected if wrong:

  • Armies have reverted to Firesticks (demeaning name for concurrent powder weapons) from Emguns - hand-waved infantry sized railguns. Problem is, soldiers still have futuristic armor which was fair protection against Emguns but against Firesticks it is almost impenetrable. Except for really close range (below 10m with AK or SCAR), concentrated fire or special sonic AP ammunition which can be fired only from what is basically Barret M82 and other current high power weapons - basically impractical guns for infantry use. Armor covers almost whole body except joints and face.The kinetic energy is still noticeable, but wont cause any serious blunt trauma. Concentrated fire against one armor segment would overwhelm ability of segment to neutralize kinetic energy until the point of shattering (it is unobtanium non-newtonian liquid getting hard during impact)

    My hypothetical change of engagement tactics: The engaging squads would use smoke grenades to cover themselves from Barret Snipers and generally to close engagement distance safely under 10m for "easier" incapacitation. But whole combat would be really messy since nobody would see. Another idea I have that whole combat would look like Mad Max where Squads would fight in some Hum-wees, peppering each other with Miniguns and RPGs in high octane combat, but those are really ammo hungry and I somehow doubt they would achieve anything before returning home with empty magazines. So I am not sure about it.If you have more plausible idea please share with me.

  • Would air-force revert to world war 2 style planes and bombers (but modernized - better engines, better guns)? Were cold-war/vietnam war jets enough "primitive" to be functional under EMP pulse?

Thank you all for answers, feel free to answer any point of the three you want. Or all. Also sorry for my weird English, I am from Russia and I still struggle with English.

Edit note: I simplified question on pure military engagement

F1Krazy
  • 14,172
  • 6
  • 47
  • 64
Prahara
  • 677
  • 4
  • 13
  • 5
    A constant pulse is an oxymoron. A pulse cannot be constant by definition. – L.Dutch May 04 '20 at 13:50
  • 1
    @L.Dutch-ReinstateMonica Fair point, how would you call it? Constant EMP field? – Prahara May 04 '20 at 13:53
  • Based on Maxwell's equation a constant field is way less disruptive, because it has no induction related effects. – L.Dutch May 04 '20 at 13:59
  • 1
    EMP Barrage is good term. – mart May 04 '20 at 14:00
  • @L.Dutch-ReinstateMonica How about repeating pulse in intervals? Intervals seems good. – Prahara May 04 '20 at 14:01
  • @mart Fantastic! Thanks, that sounds very militaristic as well – Prahara May 04 '20 at 14:02
  • There's is no passive "lingering" of an EMP, it's not like radioactivity: bomb one area and make it improper to life (or technology). If you want something like this, you raise some powerful satellites in the sky capable of detecting any EM of artificial nature (i.e showing a spectrum outside the natural noise) and trigger an EMP in the direction of the source. – Adrian Colomitchi May 04 '20 at 14:10
  • @AdrianColomitchi Thank you for great suggestion, I will definitely write it down. I would highlight your answer, but it is really not about the three main points I asked about. But I am really grateful for that suggestion. – Prahara May 04 '20 at 14:15
  • I think you've too many questions for one post. You might consider breaking this up into separate posts. – StephenG - Help Ukraine May 04 '20 at 14:16
  • @StephenG is it appropriate? I am kind of new here and I am not sure if its okay to delete post after people already commented. – Prahara May 04 '20 at 14:17
  • You can do fairly heavy edits to questions before someone answers, but comments don't affect that. Once someone has posted an answer it is considered bad behavior to heavily alter the question (as it can make their answer irrelevant and creates a "moving target" for everyone else). Comments are not really intended for extended discussion and definitely not for answering, but are best suited to seeking clarification or pointing out significant issues that make answering difficult. – StephenG - Help Ukraine May 04 '20 at 14:22
  • If you want a realistic background for the cause, try an extended (time/space) solar flare, keeping the Earth under a 3-6 months long Carrington event. Then ask: how agriculture will cope? What about transportation? Energy production and distribution? And so on... maybe start asking something you feel it's critical first. – Adrian Colomitchi May 04 '20 at 14:22
  • Initiate editing from the edit link immediately beneath your question – Adrian Colomitchi May 04 '20 at 14:24
  • @AdrianColomitchi Agriculture is "iceberg" under essential factories underground in faraday bunkers as a meat cloning and insect mush fabricators (cockroach farms) to feed general population. Classic agriculture is back on line with diesel tractors and mechanical combine harvesters can be built and operated well within EMP affected area , but fertilizers are pretty advanced. As I said tech is crippled, knowledge is not, and is stored safe. – Prahara May 04 '20 at 14:32
  • LOL I see you already have the answers, so why (or what) do you actually ask? – Adrian Colomitchi May 04 '20 at 14:34
  • I have the three dashed points I am uncertain about - the air-crafts, engagement tactics and effects of EMP on embryos @AdrianColomitchi – Prahara May 04 '20 at 14:35
  • You don't need to edit your question to say that it's a duplicate - the "This question already has answers here" box does that for you. – F1Krazy May 04 '20 at 15:07
  • You might note that it's perfectly possible to design electronics that are resistant to EMP. Do a search on "emp resistant electronics". – jamesqf May 04 '20 at 16:54
  • Fundamentally, you have increased defensive power and decreased offensive power. Look at history for the last few times that happened. You WON'T get Mad-Max style mobility - quite the opposite. An attacker will need to accumulate a vast advantage in wealth and manpower for a successful attack; cheaper alternatives to influence like assassination, bribery, intrigue, arranged marriages, etc., will become preferable. – user535733 May 04 '20 at 17:44

0 Answers0