High-Altitude Nuclear Explosions Dangerous, but not for Reasons Gingrich Cites

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Newt Gingrich has been warning the nation of the danger of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP)—a burst of radiation created by a high-altitude nuclear explosion. This pulse would take down electrical systems over hundreds or thousands of miles, the argument goes, knocking the U.S. back to the 19th Century. “In theory, a relatively small device over Omaha would knock out about half the electricity generated in the United States,” he was quoted as saying by the New York Times. In Gingrich’s view, the threat of an EMP attack justifies actions such as pre-emptive strikes on the missile instillations of nations such as Iran and North Korea.

The threat of an EMP attack is real—assuming, of course, that a nation or organization develops not only nuclear weapons but intercontinental ballistic missiles and the will to deploy them. Yet the primary target of an EMP wouldn’t be ground-based power systems. It would be satellites.

In the June 2004 issue of Scientific American, the national security journalist Daniel G. Dupont wrote “Nuclear Explosions in Orbit” [subscription required], a story that details the sequence of events that would follow a nuclear detonation just above the atmosphere.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The initial blast of high-energy gamma rays would strike air molecules and create a shower of high-energy electrons, he writes. These electrons, once they reached ground, would indeed disrupt sensitive electronic equipment. But only that equipment within direct line-of-sight of the blast—taking out a city, perhaps, not a continent.

More fearsome would be the effects of radiation on orbiting satellites. After the initial nanoseconds-long blast of gamma rays, a nuclear bomb releases about 70 percent of its total energy in the form of x-rays. Dupont writes:

“Soft,” or low-energy, x-rays produced by a HANE would not penetrate deeply into any spacecraft they encountered. Instead they would generate extreme heat at the outer surfaces, which itself could harm the sophisticated electronics inside. Soft x-rays would also degrade solar cells, impairing a satellite’s ability to generate power, as well as damaging sensor or telescope apertures. When high-energy x-rays strike a satellite or other system components, however, they create strong internal electron fluxes that produce strong currents and high voltages that can fry sensitive electronic circuitry.

He quotes K. Dennis Papadopoulos, a plasma physicist at the University of Maryland who studies the effects of high-altitude nuclear explosions for the U.S. government, who concludes that “a 10-kiloton nuclear device set off at the right height would lead to the loss of 90 percent of all low-earth-orbit satellites within a month.” The exception would be U.S. military satellites, many of which have been hardened against exactly this kind of threat.

Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.

More by Michael Moyer

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe