[ExI] North Korea's super EMP Bomb
Anders Sandberg
anders at aleph.se
Fri Jun 17 11:26:10 UTC 2011
Regardless of the actual existence and putative properties of the DPRK
emp-bomb it is a good example of a deterrence multiplier. I have been
keeping a small eye on big e-weapons over the past decade, and it seems
to me that back in 2000 the US was working quite happily on them. Then
interest seems to have faded, probably since it became clear that 1)
they are pretty useless in the underdeveloped theaters of war the US is
active in, and 2) excellent for attacks on hightech societies like the
US. Not a good idea to develop weapons most useful only to one's main
enemies.
The real problem is that we have no real idea about how bad an EMP would
be against a developed society because it wouldn't have a simple effect.
Different pieces of electronics react very differently due to local
shielding and their function. A big EMP is likely to be bad because it
will hit at least one crucial part of infrastructure like power, and
then that failure will produce a series of other bad effects. But the
real unknown is the systemic effects. It could be that inocous pieces of
tech in apparently not essential domains are extra vulnerable, and their
failure cause much more significant disruptions than expected. A sudden
failure of (say) AEI railcar identification tags or car electronics
would mess up transport infrastructure a lot - especially if the failure
is not deterministic in time and space. The combined effect of
correlated failures across a lot of domains also could have systemic
effects: computers becoming unreliable would negatively affect much of
society and require expensive repair/replacement - at the same time as
the repair/replacement infrastructure is also made vulnerable.
Most weapons work by maximizing entropy one way or another. A known
target can be hit with a surgical attack that destroys a key
functionality. The less information you have about he target, the more
you need to just swamp things in entropy. Strategic weapons do most of
their work not by blowing up physically but by existing as a known
deterrent. The good thing about the cold war nuclear arms race was that
it was fairly well defined and game theoretically sound (the actual
impementation of course turned out to be horrifically full of mistakes
and sloppiness): the entropy *on the strategic level* introduced by the
existence of a ballistic missile is low, probably much lower than what
conventional weapons and troops in all their complexity does. However,
weapons with ill-defined or badly understood effects introduce strategic
entropy. We tend to avoid uncertainty, especially when it comes to
losses, so having a high-entropy deterrent likely produces more
deterrence than an equivalent low-entropy deterrent - at the price of
making the game much more risky and uncertain. That is fine if you have
little to lose, which is the DPRK situation.
--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
James Martin 21st Century School
Philosophy Faculty
Oxford University
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list