[geeks] Re: geeks digest, Vol 1 #2172 - 20 msgs

[dave at cca.org]

dana at dtn.com writes:

>dave at cca.org wrote:
>>Last I heard, not that I've been following it too closely,
>>an effective non-nuclear EMP device had still not been
>>demonstrated.

>That depends on your definition of effective.  Range is obviously an issue.

Yep. I'm mostly talking about the people claiming that anyone
with $150 and access to a Radio Shack can build a handheld device
that will take a building's worth of electronics out from across
the street.

Yet they can't show one themselves.

Riiiiiiight. :-)

Now, a van full of massive capacitors, special antennaes, etc.,
etc. That's something else entirely.

>>Defense contractors trying to get money to defend against
>>them have been hyping the threat for years, but the reality
>>has been lagging behind...

>No, No, that was "Cyber[war-terrorism]" that they've been hyping for years.
>EMP protection is just kinda an offshoot from the "TEMPEST" protection
>crowd.

There were some people lumping the two in together, but yeah, you're
right, I think they were more focused on the "cyber" thing.

------ David Fischer ------- dave at cca.org ------- http://www.cca.org ------
----------- When Heaven is full, the dead shall walk the earth. -----------