One of the counter arguments I've heard about the use of HEMP weapons is that while they can cause great destruction, they can not destroy everything. There ar

One of the counter arguments I've heard about the use of HEMP weapons is that while they can cause great destruction, they can not destroy everything. There are regions of the world with mountains and it seems unlikely the energy from an EMP would destroy something hiding in the shadow of a mountain. Both sides know this and would intentionally place some of their own nuclear ICBM's there with additional EMP hardening. So MAD rules again and setting off HEMP weapons would assure your own countries destruction. Another strategy is to smuggle nuclear weapons into a country and be able to remotely detonate them. No ICBM's or supersonic missiles needed and without knowledge of where they are or how they might be triggered there is no way to stop them. Both the US and Russia have fairly porous borders. And both sides can also install ICBM's at locations outside their borders, so an HEMP strike against one country does not necessarily remove the ability to strike back, unless you're willing to also knock out most of the world (which then becomes a very bad place to live in with everyone in the entire world hating you). So basically using HEMP as a first-strike weapon still seems to make no sense because of MAD.