I have read a great many stories about nuclear EMP - many of them NOT on SOL.
Many of the stories do not address the issue of damage that might have been caused by the nuclear blast, and even more don't mention fallout.
I have read a great many stories about nuclear EMP - many of them NOT on SOL.
Many of the stories do not address the issue of damage that might have been caused by the nuclear blast, and even more don't mention fallout.
Would there be a significant amount of fallout from a high altitude detonation for an EMP?
My understanding is that the most fallout from a regular nuclear blast mostly comes from irradiated dirt and other solid particles kicked up into the atmosphere by the blast.
Left over material from the bomb itself spread over that large of an area probably wouldn't be that much of a danger by itself.
And I wouldn't expect gasses in the upper atmosphere that might be made radioactive by a high altitude blast to suddenly fall out of the upper atmosphere.
Would there be a significant amount of fallout from a high altitude detonation for an EMP?
I don't know. Which is why I believe the stories should have addressed the issue. In at least one of the stories I read, the bomb was detonated at 2000 feet. I don't know whether that qualifies for your "high altitude" specification, but I would not have thought so.
Which is why I believe the stories should have addressed the issue. In at least one of the stories I read, the bomb was detonated at 2000 feet.
My limited understanding is that close to the ground, any EMP effects will be very localized, limited to around 10 miles from ground zero.
the bomb was detonated at 2000 feet.
Fat Man detonated at 1,600 feet above Nagasaki, with a fireball right at 2,500 feet in radius. That means it touched the ground, and had the 20 PSI shockwave hit the ground, so there was a LOT of fallout from that. That's not high altitude. High altitude is like 50 - 100 miles up.
To give you an idea of the difference - a Titan II Warhead has a fireball radius of 3.5 MILES.
Would there be a significant amount of fallout from a high altitude detonation for an EMP?
Well, this would be at a higher altitude than atmospheric tests, which didn't create noticeable fallout (though they did dump radioactivity into the atmosphere, which is at least part of why they were banned, and detectable fallout from the bomb materiaals used now to date stuff). High altitude radioactivity isn't a problem per se - solar and cosmic radiation causes transmutation of the atoms in the upper atmosphere all the while (it's where Carbon-14, used for carbon dating, comes from)
So, I'm with DS, no significant fallout from HA-NEMP
Left over material from the bomb itself spread over that large of an area probably wouldn't be that much of a danger by itself.
That left over material, even in its vaporized form, would be highly radioactive and thus dangerous.
That left over material, even in its vaporized form, would be highly radioactive and thus dangerous.
It would be dangerous if it was concentrated in a small enough area.
Spread evenly over thousands or millions of square miles, I doubt it.
We are talking about as fallout, not direct exposure from the blast.
That left over material, even in its vaporized form, would be highly radioactive and thus dangerous.
It would be dangerous if it was concentrated in a small enough area.
Spread evenly over thousands or millions of square miles, I doubt it.
We are talking about as fallout, not direct exposure from the blast.
Many of the stories do not address the issue of damage that might have been caused by the nuclear blast, and even more don't mention fallout.
If it's a straight EMP bomb - meaning a high altitude burst - then there won't be any ground damage from the detonation. Fallout will also be negligible, to non-existent, because there's nothing to turn INTO fallout. So, a bomb going off fifty miles up isn't going to do anything BUT send out massive EMP damage, and that's it. Which is enough, let's not start that discussion AGAIN!
Ground blasts, or low-aerial bursts? Sure, you're going to see lots of damage on the ground. Then whatever is sucked up into the fireball itself gets irradiated and made into fallout. There's even a cute little website if you want to see what ground damage would be. It doesn't show you casualties, but it does give you the magic 1 - 3 PSI overpressure range where glass breaks and wooden buildings fall down.
(That's how I killed twenty million Chinese in a few seconds in my book - simply create a fifteen PSI pressure wave.)
That's how I killed twenty million Chinese in a few seconds in my book
If it's a book on SOL, I'd appreciate the title.
That's how I killed twenty million Chinese in a few seconds in my book
If it's a book on SOL, I'd appreciate the title.
One of the books in 'A True History — A Universe from the Mind of StarFleet Carl'
AJ
If the story is about EMP, it would be a burst just above the Karman Line (edge of space). No fallout comes from that. Just highly charged electromagnetic pulses.
ETA: That has been proven empirically in the past.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Project_K_nuclear_tests
The K3 test in particular was a real time EMP test. There was no fallout from it.
As we can see from both the Nagasaki and Hiroshima shots, nuke damage is pretty easy to recover from. Those cities were hit... and within years they were rebuilt and are quite the thriving towns today. Not ideal, sure, but we can see that it's not "end of the world" stuff just because a nuke goes off.
The EMP is a lot more problematic because it would cause a tremendous decay in industrialization for thousands of miles. Modern society is very inter-connected, so a huge EMP over Florida, for example, could cause a system collapse over a third of the continental US depending on how the grid is set up.
It's still not "end of the world" stuff, though, because no single bomb could do enough damage to really bother the nation in the long term. While on paper a section would be thrown back to the pre-industrialized times, the rest of the nation would go into overdrive to both pick up the slack and repair the damage.
Plus, there are plenty of other industrialized nations who would be happy to supply aid.
Yea, it'd suck for the average folks living in FLA or GA or wherever it struck, but only for a few months while every single company in the world was moving heaven and earth to get things back to normal. Part of us being so interconnected nowadays is that other nations need the US to be operating smoothly so their own economies can function.
Anything bad that would disrupt the US, like an EMP bomb, would send shockwaves through the stock market and such, or causing the loss of "foreign aid" dollars, or seeing the USN pull back to circle the wagons, leaving the oceans open to slavers and pirates willing to take the risk.
Now where it would really hurt humanity would be another Carrington Event.
Right now, any nation on earth could pull through an EMP attack with very little worry even if the bad guys detonated two or three bombs in strategic areas. But a Carrington Event? That screws everyone on the whole planet. There wouldn't be nations that could come to our aid because they're in just as much trouble.
Another thing to consider is that if anyone is going to the trouble to make an EMP blast over the US, they are probably going to do more than one. One over Georgia, one over Pennsylvania, one over Texas, One over Nebraska, one over LA, and one over central Washington, and the entire power grid of the US is essentially toast. Given that the lead time for a single substation size transformer can be months, replacing a thousand or so would be a years long project, assuming any of our overseas partners would have the capacity to build that many, given the world-wide economic disruption such an attack would engender. And let's not even talk about replacing all the generators slagged by the same blasts. Many of the generators at the hydroelectric facilities in the US are coming up on being a hundred years old. I doubt that the information necessary to replace them even exists anymore, It could take a generation to fully restore the US power grids, assuming we could find a way to pay for them.
I doubt that the information necessary to replace them even exists anymore
The information exist, the facilities do not.
I doubt that the information necessary to replace them even exists anymore
The information exist, the facilities do not.
Uh, the facilities do exist. For several hydro-electric plants along the Columbia, both the turbine blades and the coil windings have been replaced in their entirety over the past 25 years or so.
Tighter windings for higher power generation capacities per unit of water moved, and different blades to enhance the oxygen content of the water after passing through the generator in order to address water oxygenation problems being encountered at many dams.
I would also add, anyone who thinks other countries would supply the US with critical infrastructure items when their own are gone is seriously deluded. Recovery from a worldwide event like that will be every country for itself.
I think it's wrong to assume it would be a years-long project to rebuild.
This would be a highly-motivated project and you'd see resources pouring in from all over. While it might take a lot of time to build a transformer today, there also isn't any serious pressure to get them built and out the door. After an attack, though, there'd be huge pressure and folks would be working around the clock even if they were working by whale-oil lamps.
And, yes, allies would step up to the plate. They might not like us nearly as much as they claim, but having our economy down for the count would be a crippling blow to their own economies. They'd be desperate to get us back up and running.
After an attack, ... yes, allies would step up to the plate.
Um, that's an incredibly optimistic world-view.
Keep in mind that there are only three scenarios that come to mind with the detonation of high altitude, targeted EMP devices.
1: Accident - Oops - somehow or other, we did it to ourselves. In a situation like that, then yeah, there's only going to be one EMP device (probably), and we'll recover from it. That's the LEAST likely of the three scenarios to actually happen.
2: Terrorists - that's the second least likely of the three scenarios to happen. If terrorists have a nuke, they're not going to use it as an EMP device, they're going to go for something big. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, and it'll be close to a ground-burst. If they have the half dozen needed to blanket the country, they'll take out half a dozen cities as close to the same time as possible. Or better yet (from their perspective), blow one, then say they have five more concealed in cities, showing pictures of the other five bombs. The number of dead from people fleeing EVERY major city would be enormous.
3: Nation-state - Of the three scenarios, the most likely for either a single or multiple EMP bursts. If the nation-state is one of two actors - China or Russia - then their statement to our allies is simple. 'We brought them to their knees with six bombs. You will not help them recover, or we will detonate some above you, and do the same to you!' And ... that pretty much takes care of that. No one comes to our (or the Canadians, because to get New York, Chicago, and Seattle, you're going to take out Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver, too) aid, for fear of the same thing happening to them.
The problem with this scenario is simple, and can be summed up in four letters: SSBN
An EMP attack from a nation state is going to screw up most things civilian. STRATCOM would NOT be affected, and you'd see a whole lot of VLF signals going out with targeting data, shortly thereafter followed by a comment (hopefully!) from surviving US Chain of Command to the attacking nation to surrender or die. Otherwise, there's going to be a dozen boats flush their tubs, and EVERY city in the country that attacked us DOES become radioactive fallout.
If the attacking nation-state is a smaller actor - North Korea, Iran, etc., then that smaller actor should shortly cease to exist, because their neighbors will take care of that, for fear of what I mentioned above, and we'd get lots of help rebuilding.
2) For a terrorist EMP attack, they would have to either obtain control of a complete ICBM or satellite based nuclear weapon. Very unlikely.
A more likely scenario for terrorist nuclear attack is that they have warheads without the launch device, smuggle them in by sea and move them into detonation position by ground transport for a ground level detonation.
The only realistic scenario here for an above ground detonation is that they somehow sneak the device into an occupied high rise building an get it up to the roof undetected.
The only realistic scenario here for an above ground detonation is that they somehow sneak the device into an occupied high rise building an get it up to the roof undetected.
That actually wouldn't be that difficult, simply sticking the thing into a freight elevator. Keep in mind that you're basically talking about something around the twice the size of a standard carry-on bag, if that. Just rather heavy. Or in a small plane.
The reason for it to be, say, fifty stories up, is to increase the potential for blast damage due to interfering terrain. For sake of argument, I'll use freely available nuclear blast radius website available on the internet, and chose the top floor of the UN building in Manhattan.
A 60 kt bomb pretty much guts Manhattan, and breaks glass to Secaucus, NJ. But everything south of the Williamsburg bridge on the Island itself is still standing. Now, you bump up to a D-5 warhead, like is in a Trident, and everything south of the UN is gone, all the way up to Fort Lee, and you've got broken windows all the way to Hackensack. You use the warhead out of a Titan-II, and you're breaking glass out to New Brunswick, and everything within 25 miles of the UN building isn't there anymore. That takes out Dick Van Dyke and New Rochelle, even.
That actually wouldn't be that difficult, simply sticking the thing into a freight elevator.
Would the freight elevators be accessible to the general public?
It's not just a matter of getting it to the roof, it's doing so while remaining undetected.
And for the blackmail scenario it potentially has to sit on the roof undetected for weeks.
Would the freight elevators be accessible to the general public?
Rent an office in the building. Not a big deal. We're not talking about the greatest Christmas movie ever, 'Die Hard' here, where you're trying to rob someplace. Look at how much empty office space exists now.
Or you just rent an apartment.
Either way, this 'above ground' detonation isn't going to be a big EMP generator except locally, because the BLAST effects are going to do your damage there.
This is one of those topics I really wish I didn't know that much about, but I do, courtesy of being a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare specialist. Want to know how to fill out an NBC Flash report? Want to know to set up a decontamination shower? Want to know about triage on people and troops that have received an LD (lethal dose) of radiation, but aren't showing effects yet? Want to know how to take a crap wearing full MOPP-4 gear? I know all that fun stuff, and more!
Either way, this 'above ground' detonation isn't going to be a big EMP generator except locally, because the BLAST effects are going to do your damage there.
That I was already aware of. Unless you are going for the edge of space, the point of an above ground detonation is maximizing the blast damage area.
Well, everything depends on the details, right?
If it's 1, that means that we're only looking at a single detonation that happens over a single area. While that could cause a partial collapse of the US electrical grid, it cannot get all of it.
If it's 2, again, you have to wonder how many detonations they can make happen.
If it's 3, that'd have some serious backing, sure, but.... again, how many detonations could they reasonably manage?
And you have to remember, that in each case, it's going to spur every allied nation into action. Even if they hate our guts, they rely on our market to support their economies. How much would the OPEC nations hate to have a huge customer like the US completely out of action? Think they wouldn't hate that kind of drop in need for their oil?
France, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Australia.... every last one of them would ostensibly remain fully functioning and able to produce the fuses and switches needed to bring the US system back on line.
Not to say it would be fast, but it'd be fast enough to prevent some kind of worldwide collapse. They need our resources just as much as we need theirs, maybe even more. Plus, they couldn't allow it to be seen that they'd stand aside while an ally nation is attacked like that because they might be next on the list.
I don't think #3 is very likely because any attack on CONUS wouldn't wipe out our fleets in the ocean, including those pesky nuclear subs. You might knock out our land-based capabilities, but we have more than enough stuff under the waves to completely ruin your day in return.
In short, there's no attack that could happen which would destroy the US entirely. We could be hurt, certainly, and millions would die as a result. But the flip side to that is that you'd leave millions still alive and very pissed off. That's not a victory for whoever did the attack because there'd be hell to pay once things were back online... and I don't really think the politicians could stop the retribution even if they wanted to.
But, yea, overall, details matter.
The only thing that would cause real problems for the long-term would be another Carrington Event because that would hit the allies just like us, and then nobody would be around to help anyone else. With all of us thrown back into the pre-industrial age, things would be rough for a century or more.
I don't think #3 is very likely because any attack on CONUS wouldn't wipe out our fleets in the ocean, including those pesky nuclear subs.
Go read my post that you replied to again.
The problem with this scenario is simple, and can be summed up in four letters: SSBN
Our surface fleets are, politely, irrelevant. But the SSBNs are the boomers - the 14 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. (The other 4 Ohio class boomers were refitted to SSGN - they each carry and can launch 154 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, in case someone wants to argue about us having 18 boomers.)
You're post isn't relevant because you assume a lot of facts.
While our subs would wreak havoc on any nation that pulled such a stunt, don't discount the hellfire and damnation that would be levied by our surface ships. All those boats are armed with gear and guys who would be happy open fire on any nation involved. And since most nations capable of such dastardly acts are close enough to the salt water, it wouldn't be a problem to park a couple ship a little ways offshore and open up with those 16" guns or fly sorties with all the fighter jets until they ran out of bombs to drop.
Yea, the enemy nation could issue some kind of ultimatum, but that's only going to put them on everyone's radar and open them up to a worldwide attack from a dozen nations who are now going to be fighting for their own existence. Why would Iran, for example, threaten 10 allied nations when any of those ten could drop nukes on them and wipe them out?
It's not a question of those nations loving us and wanting to support us because they'd be fighting for their own self-interest. Aside from hurting their economies by putting the US back a couples steps, the threat of an EMP strike against them would be quite the motivation!
You're post isn't relevant because you assume a lot of facts.
Neither is yours if you think that 16" guns are in regular use in current navy vessels.
@Ferrum1
You're post isn't relevant because you assume a lot of facts.
Neither is yours if you think that 16" guns are in regular use in current navy vessels.
My understanding is that the last of the US battleships was decommissioned around a decade ago and those that haven't been scrapped are being used as museums.
On the other hand, a fully armed aircraft carrier could do far more damage than the biggest of the old battleships.
My understanding is that the last of the US battleships was decommissioned around a decade ago and those that haven't been scrapped are being used as museums.
A decade? Try closer to 30 years ago. The USS Missouri was the last Battleship in active service, and was decommissioned for the last time on 31 March 1992.
USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin were the last of the battleships to be stricken from the NVR, and that happened in 2006. 15 years ago now.
You're post isn't relevant because you assume a lot of facts.
Well, let me ask you this. On your DD-214, what's your MOS? Mine is Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare.
At least I'm smart enough to know that 16" guns haven't existed on combat surface ships (or, as the Silent Service calls them, targets), for three decades.
I'm also smart enough to realize the difference between what a carrier can do and an SSBN can do. A carrier is 400 square miles of US territory, anytime, anywhere - presuming it's flight deck is undamaged. If it IS damaged, then you've basically got one very large target, with half a dozen supporting ships, trying to get the hell out of Dodge as quickly as possible. A SINGLE SSBN could be sitting just outside of New York Harbor, and turn every city in Iraq into large piles of glowing waste with three missiles. (They carry MIRV W-88 warheads, 455kt each warhead.)
It's not a question of those nations loving us and wanting to support us because they'd be fighting for their own self-interest. Aside from hurting their economies by putting the US back a couples steps, the threat of an EMP strike against them would be quite the motivation!
Tell me, do the unicorns all fart rainbows in your world? In what possible real world could you imagine that if someone (say, China), said - we just destroyed the US economy with 8 EMP nuclear devices. If you help them at all, we will detonate them over YOUR country! And what do you think Great Britain, France, and everyone else are going to do? Ah, we will send all available aid to the US! And ten minutes later, they all have large EMP devices exploding over THEM - because you don't make that kind of threat without fully intending to carry it out.
Hell, no! They're going to go ... shit, we're screwed. And that's pretty much going to take care of that.
When you have to resort to personal attacks, you've already lost the debate, carl. I would also point out that your DD214 saying you're trained in NBC doesn't mean you know didly about anything else. You wanna cherrypick one point put in there for effect and use that to claim that the entire point is therefor invalid? That's called a logical fallacy. ;)
For all you want to insist that you're smart, you sure aren't displaying it here. It was you, after all, you discounted the entire surface fleet's capabilities in this fictitious setting and asserted that the bad guys could easily dissuade international reprisals by merely threatening to drop another EMP bomb.
In what world do you think any nation, even China, would be able to bully the entire rest of the free world into complying with their dictates? A lot of those countries have subs of their own and would happily use them rather than live under the communist rule of a terrorist nation.
You speak as though it's a hard fact that must happen, like the sun coming up in the morning, and anything else is "unicorn farts". That's just silly!
Mutually Assured Destruction actually works. And while other nations might not have this stockpile of EMP bombs, just the very real threat of them would be enough to see missiles fired from all over the place. Who would sit there and do nothing when they know the next commands are just around the corner? China tells you to not render aid "or else", and you comply.... thinking, I guess, that China would never ever ever issue another command... "or else".
Of course nations would respond. Aside from treaties of mutual aid, there's also the very real self-interest because their economies are tied to ours so tightly. And they certainly wouldn't just sit there and take it.
In what world do you think any nation, even China, would be able to bully the entire rest of the free world into complying with their dictates?
You speak as though it's a hard fact that must happen, like the sun coming up in the morning, and anything else is "unicorn farts". That's just silly!
Mutually Assured Destruction actually works.
I know it works.
Unless China doesn't give a shit.
Would you care to examine a scenario such as that? We're actually starting to experience one right now. The following is a given. He that controls the high orbitals controls the planet.
Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative actually brought down the Soviet Union, whether you want to give him credit for it or not. We're now entering a phase where the Space Force of the United States could be considered provocative by our enemies. They officially don't have anything to counter that. Unofficially ... probably. As we continue to gain more of an advantage, they become increasingly desperate. Finally, they decide, screw it.
Now, keep in mind Chinese population and birth control issues really are catching up with them. Not saying they didn't bring this upon themselves - they did. What happens with MAD when one of the countries decides that they can TAKE the strike? Oh, yeah, it goes out the window.
Now, keep in mind I've still only been postulating scenarios that are going to happen during a WAR - which is what you're going to have if a nation-state pops off EMP devices in the high atmosphere above CONUS. Including the threats that you dismiss so casually, without actually knowing what you're talking about (again).
A lot of those countries have subs of their own
Three.
Three countries that would support the United States have ballistic missile submarines, and that's IT. France has four, the UK has 4, and India has 2. Those are the ONLY nations in the world with Ballistic Missile Submarines that would be on our side. (India's missiles can only reach a maximum of 2,000 miles, France's can reach 6,000 miles, and the UK submarines use our Trident missiles, so they can reach 7,500 miles.)
China has 6, Russia has 12, 11 of which ought to work. Of course, as I said, we have 14.
Of course nations would respond. Aside from treaties of mutual aid, there's also the very real self-interest because their economies are tied to ours so tightly. And they certainly wouldn't just sit there and take it.
Do you understand the concept of war? A conventional war is one where you send in troops to do a (relatively speaking) controlled amount of violence against an enemy, in order to inflict the will of your nation upon them. By popping EMP devices, you're not fighting a conventional war anymore - you're fighting a war for complete global domination. You've decided the risk - and the damage - to your own nation is outweighed the potential gain. You've walked into the casino and put your entire fortune on red, it's time to double down.
Treaties and pretty much everything else goes by the wayside about this time, which apparently you completely can't grasp.
By popping EMP devices, you're not fighting a conventional war anymore - you're fighting a war for complete global domination.
Exactly. Global domination that you assert every other nation is just going to sit there and take lying down. China pops off a couple EMP's over the US, and not only does out naval fleet do nothing, but no other nations will do anything because china threatened them with EMPs of their own.
Yea, that makes sense. Glad it's so cut-n-dried. ;)
no other nations will do anything because china threatened them with EMPs of their own.
You're willing to bet that they will?
Are you aware that China is currently building about thirty more missile launch sites, and has moved an entire Army group to the border with India?
Last time I checked the history books, it wasn't the rest of the world that came to the aid of the US in WWII, it was the other way around. We're the only nation that had the infrastructure and factories at that time to take on the rest of the world and win.
We're also the ONLY nation that has actually USED nuclear weapons in warfare, too. Remember the lines from the running cadence - 'Family of gooks all sitting in a ditch; little baby sucking on his mama's tit; pickle a pear and hear 'em scream; chemical burns don't give a shit; 'cause napalm sticks to kids!'
We just locked down most of the world because of a virus with a 98% chance you wouldn't catch it, and if you did, you had a 98% chance of surviving it. You think the 'political leaders' in those countries are going to risk it?
Unless China doesn't give a shit.
Safe bet. They've initiated hostilities with Nuclear Powers twice in their history already.(The US in Korea in the 1950's, and the USSR in the late 1960's)
To believe that China doesn't have at least some officials who believe in a doctrine of being able to fight "limited wars" against nuclear powers is to assume the sun rises from the west.
There also is the matter of Mao being on record, from multiple sources, stating that he felt that full Nuclear Exchange between the Western Powers and the Communist Block would hasten the victory of the Socialist movement.
So the doctrines of the PLA as it relates to both the use of Nuclear Weapons, and engaging in hostilities with Nuclear Powers is something the rest of the world needs to be very mindful of. China pays obvious lip-service to MAD, but that doesn't mean they actually subscribe to it.
I realized there is one big problem with my scenario - getting the devices into position. Space command is going to notice five or six launches aimed at/crossing US territory. They might not figure out what is going on in time, and there isn't much they can do to stop them anyway, but you can be sure that there will be some major retaliation going on soon after detonation. I think a more realistic scenario would be whatever number of mobile launch platforms hidden/disguised in cargo containers, with SRBMs inside. I remember reading a magazine article in my younger days that started out 'Fifty vans spread out across the US...' A half dozen cargo containers loaded onto semis and heading out across the country wouldn't come to anyone's attention. Schedule things so they all pull off of the road into a secluded area one night, set up, and launch, and there you go. It wouldn't take much of a rocket to get a couple hundred kilos up 100km. An additional advantage is that there would be no obvious tracks pointing at the origin of the launches, unlike a launch from outside the US. Yes, authorities would probably have the launch vehicles, but it would be very hard to trace where they originated from, especially after the damage the launch would have created.
Speculation is fun, isn't it. I just hope I don't get a visit from a couple of gray-suited gentlemen any time soon.
Speculation is fun, isn't it. I just hope I don't get a visit from a couple of gray-suited gentlemen any time soon.
Cargo/sealand container deployment of missiles is not a new concept and had been previously reported. I wouldn't worry about visits from gitmo reps for mentioning something already spoken of.
https://sofrep.com/news/just-about-every-nation-has-secret-missile-platforms-hidden-in-shipping-containers/
The pulse from a high altitude nuclear EMP bomb (HEMP) would be detected around the world. Just as a detonation from an H bomb would. The mutually assured destruction premise would be null and void at that point. I've no doubt in my mind that the nuclear powers of the world would take immediate action rather than wait around to be hit themselves. The signal profile for a HEMP, has been known since the 60's, and if nothing else, the flux pump/heave of the magnetosphere would be impossible to mask.
The world would be glowing on the darkside that same evening.
For one of the most realistic EMP scenarios I have read, try the trilogy starting with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Second_After
I really enjoyed it and the books seem to follow human nature very well.