3 ms·

I mean explosively pumped generators aren't new and were invented in the 50s. The hardest part is getting a fast enough explosive, however it doesn't take that

I mean explosively pumped generators aren't new and were invented in the 50s. The hardest part is getting a fast enough explosive, however it doesn't take that much effort or chemistry knowledge to make supersonic explosives if someone needed it. And neodynium magnets are pretty common consumer products these day. It is harder that just blowing stuff up, but when one side is using killer robots and other advanced electronics tech it doesn't seem like much effort in comparison. We already see criminal elements making guns and drugs and narco submarines, a fast explosive and magnets doesn't seem beyond reach to me.

hurtigioll 4mo ago
it's much cheaper to defend against EMP (Faraday shield) than to make EMPs the fact that EMP blasts are not used in Ukraine, by both sides, to defend against drones also shows its not such a good idea
- AngryData 4mo ago
  I think the main reason we don't see the use of EMP weapons is because of collateral damage. Ukraine isn't fighting from a position of little to no electronics, they still rely on radios for communication, radar for enemy detection, their own drone supplies, they are near civilian infrastructure, and they have neighboring countries that would not be happy to get random strong EM noise even if its far enough away to not cause any real damage. Maybe smaller scale DIY EMPs wouldn't be as effective as I think, they would have to be pretty close to their target to do real damage to non-radio devices, however I think collateral damage is the biggest reason we don't see them. Drones are weak and fragile enough already that it just easier to shoot or blow them up rather than try to lob a grenade sized EMP up near them, a regular grenade explosive would be similarly or more effective without the extra complexity. But something like a mobile turret platform or multiple smaller ground bots I can see it being the best option.

hurtigioll 4mo ago

it's much cheaper to defend against EMP (Faraday shield) than to make EMPs the fact that EMP blasts are not used in Ukraine, by both sides, to defend against drones also shows its not such a good idea

AngryData 4mo ago
I think the main reason we don't see the use of EMP weapons is because of collateral damage. Ukraine isn't fighting from a position of little to no electronics, they still rely on radios for communication, radar for enemy detection, their own drone supplies, they are near civilian infrastructure, and they have neighboring countries that would not be happy to get random strong EM noise even if its far enough away to not cause any real damage. Maybe smaller scale DIY EMPs wouldn't be as effective as I think, they would have to be pretty close to their target to do real damage to non-radio devices, however I think collateral damage is the biggest reason we don't see them. Drones are weak and fragile enough already that it just easier to shoot or blow them up rather than try to lob a grenade sized EMP up near them, a regular grenade explosive would be similarly or more effective without the extra complexity. But something like a mobile turret platform or multiple smaller ground bots I can see it being the best option.