5 ms·

The answer: yes, they could've. I had a professor who previously had been part of a US gov group that had been tasked with preparing for an attack on the electr

The answer: yes, they could've. I had a professor who previously had been part of a US gov group that had been tasked with preparing for an attack on the electrical grid, all the way back in the tail end of the cold war. His impression of the security of the US grid was that it was completely unsecured. He told me that they had no chance of solving the problem then, and that he expects the same is still the case. His worst fear is a large EMP attack, not locally cutting powerlines, but the danger still stands

g_p 6y ago
Putting aside EMP attacks (a real risk, but harder to mitigate against), the big issue right now on a day to day level is that energy suppliers are under pressure from regulators to reduce prices to consumers (in most countries which run regulated private sector energy distribution). This means redundancy is written down by MBAs as excess capacity. It means assets are stretched to far nearer their safe limits than was ever envisaged previously. This ironically reduces their safe working life (in many cases), but this problem is cast along the road - in markets where providers re-tender regularly to continue to operate, that means it's a problem for the next franchise holder. The incentives just aren't there to encourage creation of new redundancy. Existing redundancy won't be removed (as that would cost more!), but the long term outcome of this kind of "regulated private provider" system seems to be systemic under-investment in capital assets, with a view to deferring the problem until another time. Another big challenge is that often the regulators for energy companies are "market" regulators, and therefore staffed by expert economists, rather than expert engineers. This further perpetuates the myth you can maintain and run critical national infrastructure with an economics degree and a calculator, and means the regulator tends to focus solely on economics, while assuming any issues with technology are fixed through economic incentives. Often they aren't, as the cost of a systemic black swan event is multiplied out by its likelihood, and the end result is to take no action while enjoying the profits today. At least the above is based on my experience in trying to get energy market regulators to understand security and the issues of their regulator approach.
jonathankoren 6y ago
That’s weird that his concern is an EMP attack. Pretty much every serious nuclear scholar I’ve read find an EMP attack laughable. It’s a great thing to stir up fear among a domestic audience, but as an actual military tactic, it’s stupid. First, there’s never been an operational test anywhere, second, you have to fire a nuclear weapon, which is the very act that triggers a full scale nuclear response because of launch-on-warning. And finally, there’s just better uses for a nuclear weapon, like you know, air bursting in a city.
- crystalPalace 6y ago
  An EMP attack from an enemy nation is unlikely but a solar flare could happen at any time. In 1859 the world experienced an enormous geomagnetic storm when a coronal mass ejection hit Earth's magnetosphere. If the same solar flare happened today most of the world's power grid could be wiped out minus government and military hardened assets.
- 01100011 6y ago
  Non nuclear EMP weapons have existed for years, and that's only the stuff they're talking about publicly. There may be other techniques, say distortion of the Earth's magnetic field to send charged particles toward a target, that we don't know about.
  - nradov 6y ago
    The non-nuclear EMP weapons are very weak and have only minor localized effects. They aren't capable of taking out the power grid for a whole city or something. And please no one waste our time by claiming that the military has some secret magic EMP technology. The laws of physics impose severe constraints on what can be achieved with conventional explosives in a weapon small enough to put in an airplane or truck.
    - 01100011 6y ago
      You only need to take out a few key points to take out the grid. Large scale EMPs are not needed. Knowing which key points to take out is the domain of nation states, but it is absolutely possible.

g_p 6y ago

Putting aside EMP attacks (a real risk, but harder to mitigate against), the big issue right now on a day to day level is that energy suppliers are under pressure from regulators to reduce prices to consumers (in most countries which run regulated private sector energy distribution). This means redundancy is written down by MBAs as excess capacity. It means assets are stretched to far nearer their safe limits than was ever envisaged previously. This ironically reduces their safe working life (in many cases), but this problem is cast along the road - in markets where providers re-tender regularly to continue to operate, that means it's a problem for the next franchise holder. The incentives just aren't there to encourage creation of new redundancy. Existing redundancy won't be removed (as that would cost more!), but the long term outcome of this kind of "regulated private provider" system seems to be systemic under-investment in capital assets, with a view to deferring the problem until another time. Another big challenge is that often the regulators for energy companies are "market" regulators, and therefore staffed by expert economists, rather than expert engineers. This further perpetuates the myth you can maintain and run critical national infrastructure with an economics degree and a calculator, and means the regulator tends to focus solely on economics, while assuming any issues with technology are fixed through economic incentives. Often they aren't, as the cost of a systemic black swan event is multiplied out by its likelihood, and the end result is to take no action while enjoying the profits today. At least the above is based on my experience in trying to get energy market regulators to understand security and the issues of their regulator approach.

jonathankoren 6y ago

That’s weird that his concern is an EMP attack. Pretty much every serious nuclear scholar I’ve read find an EMP attack laughable. It’s a great thing to stir up fear among a domestic audience, but as an actual military tactic, it’s stupid. First, there’s never been an operational test anywhere, second, you have to fire a nuclear weapon, which is the very act that triggers a full scale nuclear response because of launch-on-warning. And finally, there’s just better uses for a nuclear weapon, like you know, air bursting in a city.

crystalPalace 6y ago
An EMP attack from an enemy nation is unlikely but a solar flare could happen at any time. In 1859 the world experienced an enormous geomagnetic storm when a coronal mass ejection hit Earth's magnetosphere. If the same solar flare happened today most of the world's power grid could be wiped out minus government and military hardened assets.
01100011 6y ago
Non nuclear EMP weapons have existed for years, and that's only the stuff they're talking about publicly. There may be other techniques, say distortion of the Earth's magnetic field to send charged particles toward a target, that we don't know about.
- nradov 6y ago
  The non-nuclear EMP weapons are very weak and have only minor localized effects. They aren't capable of taking out the power grid for a whole city or something. And please no one waste our time by claiming that the military has some secret magic EMP technology. The laws of physics impose severe constraints on what can be achieved with conventional explosives in a weapon small enough to put in an airplane or truck.
  - 01100011 6y ago
    You only need to take out a few key points to take out the grid. Large scale EMPs are not needed. Knowing which key points to take out is the domain of nation states, but it is absolutely possible.