Hacker News Reader

Comment by Maximus9000 | Hacker News Reader

> The report concluded that, one year after a large-scale EMP or CME, nine of every ten Americans would be dead, from a variety of causes stemming from the attack.

Anyone else find that hard to believe?

View on HN

It's wild to me how little people understand how many systems they rely on just to survive. It's only hard to for you to believe the impact because things have been running smoothly so you haven't had not notice the energy infrastructure you're depending on.

The entire electrical grid of the US is destroyed you no longer have the means to provide clean drinking water and food to the nation. You would have immediate and widespread economic collapse. Even the military would be crippled in there ability to help since, per the article, 99% of their power comes from the consumer grid.

You can lose power for a few days and be fine because you are still supported by a massive electrical infrastructure. But a destroyed grid would be catastrophic.

Electrics go down and don’t come back up -> petrol/gas stations stop working -> supply chains break down, including for food -> mass starvation.

Exactly how many people you expect to die will depend on your assumptions. Also on whether it occurs due to a CME (can expect humanitarian aid from the other side of the planet) or military action (other countries probably have more pressing concerns in this scenario).

> or military action (other countries probably have more pressing concerns in this scenario)

I'm starting to think that getting nuked would be preferable to a conventional attack disabling the national grid for prolonged duration. At least for those close to one of the impact sites it would be a faster and more pleasant way to go.

For those a little bit further away from ground zero, I imagine a fatal dose of radiation would be slow and painful.

But would it be worse than starvation? I imagine that the two combined would hasten a victim's demise, too, which in this scenario might be desirable to the victim.

An extended grid down event is probably much more serious than you are imagining. It’s not just lights and fridges that stop working, but sewage pumps, water systems, gas stations and virtually every other system you rely on.

What would your plan be to keep you and your family alive? Would you be able to protect your resources from others who also want to keep their own families alive?

Disruption of just-in-time delivery of food, medicine, and other essentials would potentially be a very deadly thing all by by itself. Even if these items are available, the ability to purchase said goods would be difficult with the overwhelming dependency on electronic payment methods used today. Even pulling money from your bank account could be problematic.

90% might be a bit high, I don't know. However, I don't find it at all hard to believe that the casualty rate would be obscenely high and cover a majority of the population.

It basically assumes that nobody will have any problem solving skills and will be reliant on the previous systems to still be running. That assumption is easier to make than to try to figure out how people would actually behave.

All the transformers melting seems like a tough problem. What’s the solution?

Couldn't even imagine the amount of random fires that would break out the first day, with practically no tools to put them out.

currently there isn’t one. We can manufacture about 2 “big” transformers a year, and there are about 120 on the planet. Assume 50% are melted, and even with redirected resources itll take a long time to recover

Not if it takes on the order of months to get the power grid back up, no.

Very belatedly, but I read the parent comment as one in ten, not nine.

Not really. Without power or vehicles we can't get food or water. We'd most of us die in fairly short order, I think.

nope

Reply on news.ycombinator.com