Version: 2008

Comments on: DIY 'e-bombs' a threat to airliners

Terrorists could build electromagnetic pulse weapons with cut-rate equipment available online.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (18 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by axemaster20 April 3, 2009 6:38 PM PDT
It's amusing that everyone is getting all excited about this. These kinds of weapons are incredibly easy to build and use. Anyone who has taken high school physics can build them, although it takes a bit more to build a good one. I know this because I built one during my senior year of high school, and managed to make a 300 volt electric field at a distance of 200 feet. Pretty good for a start. So making a big fuss isn't going to make much difference, unfortunately.
Reply to this comment
by axemaster20 April 3, 2009 6:55 PM PDT
And by the way, it only cost me $30 to build it. Popular Mechanics is way off the mark. Building one capable of killing a plane probably wouldn't cost much more than $200.

Sorry for double posting :)
by paul.saulnier April 3, 2009 7:07 PM PDT
Wow, let's keep publicizing this idea so that even the casual terrorist can get ideas and build it. Why not add the links to the web sites where you can buy all the parts?
Reply to this comment
by gsekse April 4, 2009 7:46 AM PDT
"Information prevention" is a lousy security system. But hey, every government attempts some form of it. I think if you read history, such great leaders as Hitler and Stalin used this sort of control on their countries. It worked SO well for them.

Yes, this message is heavily laden with sarcasm, for those of you who don't seem to follow that sort of thing.
by egockel70 April 4, 2009 11:08 AM PDT
what the hell is a "casual terrorist"?
by assman April 3, 2009 7:27 PM PDT
EMPs seem like an obvious weapon to use on an aircraft, but one powerful enough to crash airline systems which already have some level of shielding would be heavy and large in size. A weaker one would cause an interruption but probably not crash or fry the electronics. They do test these things when they assemble the aircraft.
Reply to this comment
by professionaladventurer April 3, 2009 7:40 PM PDT
Why did the camera still work in the above video ? (and and no visible coil, I smell a fish) And what exactly do you power the EMP with that you carry on the plane. Oh, oh oh. & most x-ray operators can spot one a mile away (I used to train SSI's on Xray for the TSA). Just not very a effective or feasible a weapon.
Reply to this comment
by txstubby April 3, 2009 8:02 PM PDT
An airplane is a long cylindrical Faraday cage, designed to survive lightning strikes - add in inverse square law (double the distance from the microwave transmitter and the microwave power is quartered) and this looks like something that was released on April 1st. For an external pulse the size of the antenna, equipment and generators required to generate a sufficiently large directed energy weapon make this impracticable for anything but the military to experiment with. A more likely scenario is a unit smuggled onto a plane but again finding the correct frequencies, power and location in the plane make this a very unlikely scenario.
Reply to this comment
by gerrrg April 3, 2009 11:18 PM PDT
I think that's why there is concern about the increased use of carbon fiber in the fuselage of planes.

The central concern remains, however, as EMPs can damage more than just planes. One could conceivably create an EMP before you hit your target with a more conventional attack, making your target blind before you hit them. I'd bet armies around the world are scrambling to incorporate this blind-and-attack strategy as we speak. It's real hard to call up reinforcements or signal a UAV if no one has electronics working on the field.
by xim1970 April 3, 2009 10:15 PM PDT
Yeah, thanks for giving terrorists new ideas (and possibly, info)...*******!
Reply to this comment
by jasonaorr April 4, 2009 7:08 AM PDT
I sincerely doubt that terrorists frequent CNET news looking for new ways to attack civilians. Rest assured, if the news media has caught onto something that is plausible enough to scare people into reading the article (and thus validating advertising), then terrorist organizations thought of it a long time ago. The whole idea that the media should remain silent because "the enemy" is listening is a farce and a threat to free speech in this country.
Reply to this comment
by tsport100 April 4, 2009 7:59 AM PDT
This is all hysterical BS... The amount of energy required to "fry" anything from a distance electromagnetically is enormous, and it's not even really possible short of a nuke.

The theory is to use a 'pinch' which relies on a millisecond release to concentrate the energy, but it still requires MEGAWATTS to actually DO anything. Just have a look around the net at school kids building 'can crusher' pinches and look at the size of the capacitor bank required to store just a coupe of kilo joules. And they can only dent a paper thin alloy can that has the coil wrapped tight around it. To cart around a portable E-bomb with multiple megawatts requires energy storage technology that DOES NOT EXIST!!!

No-one is going to get sus of an Arab wheeling in 20kg worth of battery/supercaps???? Do some basic maths, PLEASE! Popular mechanics are pushing a tabloid tech story with this one!
Reply to this comment
by MrJosh April 4, 2009 10:45 AM PDT
this kind of stinks of sensationalist reporting. I could find you a poorly done youtube video and a private consultant who makes money off of identifying a "terrorist" threat and marketing its countermeasure that would tell you PB&J sandwiches were a threat to planes. EMP generation is nothing new, most people are aware of it. I am sure the "evildoers" too. Maybe you could be reporting on something that doesn't feel like the topic of a FOX news morning show, like the industry news the majority of your readers signed up for.
Reply to this comment
by AndrewRich April 4, 2009 2:56 PM PDT
Can we have the TSA stop confiscating bottled water and hair gel, now, please?
Reply to this comment
by vineet957 April 5, 2009 2:58 AM PDT
I think such information should be banned from the internet. Such information should not be leaked out which become a fear.
<a href="http://news.cnet.com">Cnet News</a>
Reply to this comment
by rayzoredge April 6, 2009 6:53 AM PDT
Why is this news now? They released this info a LONG time ago... if I remember correctly, in Popular Mechanics. And CNet is just getting ahold of this wondrous application now?

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that a good handful of people here know what they're talking about with this not being a feasible solution for "casual terrorism." =p
Reply to this comment
by Michichael April 6, 2009 11:53 AM PDT
As txstubby stated, the airplane is a Faraday cage. It's self shielding to withstand lightning strikes and other electromagnetic interference. The Aerospace industry has been given directives on our parts to make them more electromagnetically shielded due to the expected large scale EMP waves that will be generated by solar flare activity come 2012/2013, but as it is aircraft are already shielded against anything less than a TeV, and I'm sorry to break it to you but you'd have to have a dedicated reactor or take over a power substation to generate enough of a charge to "EMP" an airplane.
Reply to this comment
by RobertE26 April 8, 2009 7:17 AM PDT
While this is interesting, the critical electronics are located in a "electronics equipment bay" that is well shielded. Connections to the flight deck are using more and more fiber optics. So the threat of this being an effective weapon are slim.
Reply to this comment
(18 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Military Tech

The military establishment's ever increasing reliance on technology and whiz-bang gadgetry impacts us as consumers, investors, taxpayers and ultimately as the "defended." Our mission here is to bring some of these products and concepts to your attention based on carefully selected criteria such as importance to national security, originality, collateral damage to the treasury and adaptability to yard maintenance-but not necessarily in that order.

Mark Rutherford is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.

Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Military Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement