GDC 2011: EMP Expert Supports Realism of Homefront

Team Hollywood

New member
Feb 9, 2009
5,205
0
0
EMP Expert Supports Realism of Homefront

Dr. William Forstchen, leading expert on EMP research tells Russ Pitts why Homefront's story is more real than you think.

Watch Video
 

Blayze2k

New member
Dec 16, 2009
86
0
0
IT *WILL* HAPPEN AND EVERYONE WILL DIE!

-_-'

That's some pretty intense sensationalism, there. Not to mention propaganda.
Fear-based politics are disgusting.
And while the game seems like it could have an interesting premise, this crap makes me not want to buy it.
 

MasterSplinter

New member
Jul 8, 2009
440
0
0
I have the solution.
Create a massive Faraday's cage all around North America. Or better yet create a less massive but still sizable Faraday's cage around Korea, they won't mind right?
 

Kegsen

New member
Feb 20, 2011
57
0
0
Dr. William Forstchen....leading fear-pusher and general of gibberish aimed at scaring the citizens?
His rant about upping the foreign policy towards N.K and "we will pwn thy arse if you use hax0r-waeponz" was just childish. Now, I know games tend to speak to the inner child in us - to play and just have fun - but in the name of all that is good and pure (single malt preferably)have the good doctor gone completely off the rails after playing?
As Blayze2k said, the game seems a bit interesting, but if this was meant to be a promo-piece into making the games realism a major selling point..it failed on an epic scale.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,779
663
118
Well, if a Professor of History says EMPs are a real threat, that's good enough for me.

Oddly enough, though, I thought the US didn't wait 4 years to go to war on Japan after Pearl Harbour.

Seriously, though, that guy can fuck right off. Or at least put some effort to pretending to be a scientist.

They just keep digging themselves into a hole with this game.
 

Team Hollywood

New member
Feb 9, 2009
5,205
0
0
Blayze2k said:
IT *WILL* HAPPEN AND EVERYONE WILL DIE!

-_-'

That's some pretty intense sensationalism, there. Not to mention propaganda.
Fear-based politics are disgusting.
And while the game seems like it could have an interesting premise, this crap makes me not want to buy it.
he does have a point though.
Biological weapons were developed [if you consider launching dead victims into a town being "developed"]

fire based weapons were developed and used.

Nuclear weapons were developed, and they *were* used.

Laser weapons are in development, and they will eventually be used.

EMP's are already developed, and what better way to push the odds into a countries favor than by getting a............. preemptive [small]:D[/small] strike against a bigger enemy?


And honestly, imagine what an EMP will affect in the US....

anything electronic, radio's, TV's, computers, vehicles to some extent, aircraft, phones, we will effectively be darkened, and because the average american panics at the slightest mishap, riots will break out until everything could be fixed.

By that time though we could already have an invasion landing on either coast.


The problem is that EMP's will be this generations Nuclear Weapons, and something actually needs to be done about it.

I refuse to live in a world where we are pushed back into 1950's-1970's nuclear weapon fears, and if that is fear-based politics, then we are officially screwed.



OT: always helps to have a noted person on the subject to stand up and say that your game is good. But in the end, what he says really wont matter if the game to us gamers sucks in the long run, which is what I am thinking Homefront will do.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Oddly enough, though, I thought the US didn't wait 4 years to go to war on Japan after Pearl Harbour.

Seriously, though, that guy can fuck right off. Or at least put some effort to pretending to be a scientist.
I'm pretty sure he said 'win' not 'went'.

If you are curious about what scientist say on the subject you can read up on FAS [http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm]. Potiential fear mongering aside, it's still pretty interesting stuff.
 

manythings

New member
Nov 7, 2009
3,297
0
0
Blayze2k said:
IT *WILL* HAPPEN AND EVERYONE WILL DIE!

-_-'

That's some pretty intense sensationalism, there. Not to mention propaganda.
Fear-based politics are disgusting.
And while the game seems like it could have an interesting premise, this crap makes me not want to buy it.
Change it to Russia and you have virtually every other game.
 

Blayze2k

New member
Dec 16, 2009
86
0
0
Kalezian said:
Blayze2k said:
IT *WILL* HAPPEN AND EVERYONE WILL DIE!

-_-'

That's some pretty intense sensationalism, there. Not to mention propaganda.
Fear-based politics are disgusting.
And while the game seems like it could have an interesting premise, this crap makes me not want to buy it.
he does have a point though.
Biological weapons were developed [if you consider launching dead victims into a town being "developed"]

fire based weapons were developed and used.

Nuclear weapons were developed, and they *were* used.

Laser weapons are in development, and they will eventually be used.

EMP's are already developed, and what better way to push the odds into a countries favor than by getting a............. preemptive [small]:D[/small] strike against a bigger enemy?


And honestly, imagine what an EMP will affect in the US....

anything electronic, radio's, TV's, computers, vehicles to some extent, aircraft, phones, we will effectively be darkened, and because the average american panics at the slightest mishap, riots will break out until everything could be fixed.

By that time though we could already have an invasion landing on either coast.


The problem is that EMP's will be this generations Nuclear Weapons, and something actually needs to be done about it.

I refuse to live in a world where we are pushed back into 1950's-1970's nuclear weapon fears, and if that is fear-based politics, then we are officially screwed.



OT: always helps to have a noted person on the subject to stand up and say that your game is good. But in the end, what he says really wont matter if the game to us gamers sucks in the long run, which is what I am thinking Homefront will do.
I'll give you that.
Weapons, once created, do tend to get used.
However I see no rational reason why the U.S. would be the logical target. I mean, yes, it would wreak havoc on us, but our enemies generally *don't* have the kind of resources to develop such weaponry on a large scale.
And even if they managed something like this, we have submarines capable of extended deployment and nuclear strikes on a devastating level. If North Korea *did* attack the U.S. on a large scale with EMP, there would be no North Korea very shortly after.

And it would be a mistake to believe that an EMP strike would make the U.S. easy to invade. We're a huge country and a lot of us own guns.

I'm not trying to make this a big military d*** wag.
I'm just trying to say that this sort of fear-mongering is groundless.
 

Blayze2k

New member
Dec 16, 2009
86
0
0
manythings said:
Blayze2k said:
IT *WILL* HAPPEN AND EVERYONE WILL DIE!

-_-'

That's some pretty intense sensationalism, there. Not to mention propaganda.
Fear-based politics are disgusting.
And while the game seems like it could have an interesting premise, this crap makes me not want to buy it.
Change it to Russia and you have virtually every other game.
This is why I like games that aren't based too much in reality.
 

harry2680

New member
Mar 3, 2011
3
0
0
Dam thats crafty, this profeesor is almost right, EMP stirkes could take out all of the electronic equipment in america, what he fails to mention is what exactly an offensive EMP strike actually is, a nuclear bomb is detonated in the space above the target with a very large effective radius of EMP. In effect you launch a nuke and explode it in space, firstly a nuclear launch would be detected either during launch or definately after detonation, thereby starting a thermonuclear war. It is merely an alternative use of a nuclear warhead, but as use of a nuclear warhead agasint america would result in a thermonuclear war it is no different to a nuke falling on america, except with a lot less fallout. The risk of this is no more than any ordinary nuclear war. So this "Professor" is full of hot air, america is fully aware of the dangers and potential risk of an EMP strike, partly because they INVENTED it. I take back what i said before, i assumed he meant Non-Nuclear EMP.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,779
663
118
Kalezian said:
And honestly, imagine what an EMP will affect in the US....

anything electronic, radio's, TV's, computers, vehicles to some extent, aircraft, phones, we will effectively be darkened, and because the average american panics at the slightest mishap, riots will break out until everything could be fixed.
If the entire landmass of the United States of America was simultaneously hit with an EMP powerful enough to destroy everything, yes.

Dr. Fortschen has made quite a leap from EMPs being used as weapons, to EMPs being used as totally successful weapons.

Kalezian said:
The problem is that EMP's will be this generations Nuclear Weapons, and something actually needs to be done about it.
Exactly like nuclear weapons, and so the solution remains the same.

The US Navy has a fearsome second strike capacity, with 14 SSBNs at present. Just because the US is being destroyed by some magic EMP, rather than old fashioned nuclear devices, does not stop submarines from launching their missiles in retaliation. That was the only way the US could defend itself against an enemy considering a first strike, and it worked very well.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Blayze2k

Slycne said:
I'm pretty sure he said 'win' not 'went'.
Ah yes, after checking I realise I misheard him.

harry2680 said:
Suddenly "90% of the population dead" and such is fear mongering, all the EMPs in the world detonated together would struggle to take out a small city let alone a continent. There must be a law agasint this sort of thing...
Yes and no. If the US was blanketed in an EMP powerful enough to destroy all electronic equipment, than losing 90% in a year isn't unreasonable. It's just a rather large if, which he failed to mention.
 

cairocat

New member
Oct 9, 2009
572
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Oddly enough, though, I thought the US didn't wait 4 years to go to war on Japan after Pearl Harbour.
He said four years later we win a war.

OT: Yeah I've been thinking about just how catastrophic an EMP would be to this country. Not to say I agree with this guy's "We're all doomed" probability, but if it were to happen it would (pardon my language) fuck shit up.
 

bl4ckh4wk64

Walking Mass Effect Codex
Jun 11, 2010
1,277
0
0
You guys are all putting it on fear politics. Well, there was a shitload of people that said what happens in Homefront is impossible and un realistic. This is trying to prove them wrong. They're not trying to scare you, they're trying to prove the valdity of the backstory.

Edit; and to you guys saying we'll retaliate, think about this. About half of the American people want to reduce if not completely destroy all of our nuclear weapons. Homefront is supposed to be sometime in the future... add that fact to the extreme gullibility of most Americans and we're boned.
 

cairocat

New member
Oct 9, 2009
572
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Just because the US is being destroyed by some magic EMP, rather than old fashioned nuclear devices, does not stop submarines from launching their missiles in retaliation.
That right there shows a remarkable grasp of the technology.
 

Team Hollywood

New member
Feb 9, 2009
5,205
0
0
bl4ckh4wk64 said:
They're not trying to scare you, they're trying to prove the valdity of the backstory.
Which is a doomed enterprise, since obviously there are way bigger problems with the backstory than the specifics of EMP technology.

They should be advertising the gameplay, really, not doubling down on the backstory with stuff like this and the faux anti-NK protests.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I love the sensationalism being put out about the game. I am looking forward to this game, I think it will be a lot of fun.

I don't care for the need to push the validity of the back story though. It's a game. I appreciate his expertise on the subject, and it would make sense to put the worlds largest empire into the cross hairs. I also agree that 90% of the population would be dead within a year. But, an invasion is still very unlikely, and if it did, it would not come from North Korea. It would have to come from a place that had a viable economy. And if only 10% of the population survived, that would leave us with 23 Million people. Meaning that between the US and ALL of Europe, we would still be the 8th most populated country. The biggest threat would probably me Mexico then, with their poor economy, we share a border, and there is 111 million of them. North Korea by todays standards, would literally only have a population not even 1 million more than us if that were to happen. And we still have a second amendment. The people who survive that first year will be people who own guns and have a means of defending themselves. So, that means that with surplus of firearms, everyone will own a bunch of guns. So, that is 23 Million armed citizens, most of which will have firearms training. It's still not a viable move to invade America. All that aside, the concept is incredibly awesome, and they look idiotic trying to convince people how believable it is. It's like trying to convince people that Resistance 2, can and will happen.

My favorite bit about the whole backstory movie is the part where the UN puts economic sanctions into place. Politicians are stupid enough to believe this to be a good idea. Historically, it has never done anything but strengthen a regimes position amongst it's people. Why? Because the regime is largely unaffected by such things, but it does hurt the entire civilian population. Then the regime just has to give people hope that they can fix it, and they end up with the full support of it's people. And the few dissenters would be weeded out. Some would flee if it is possible.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
harry2680 said:
Dam thats crafty, this profeesor is almost right, EMP stirkes could take out all of the electronic equipment in america, what he fails to mention is what exactly an offensive EMP strike actually is, a nuclear bomb is detonated in the space above the target with a very large effective radius of EMP. In effect you launch a nuke and explode it in space, firstly a nuclear launch would be detected either during launch or definately after detonation, thereby starting a thermonuclear war. It is merely an alternative use of a nuclear warhead, but as use of a nuclear warhead agasint america would result in a thermonuclear war it is no different to a nuke falling on america, except with a lot less fallout. The risk of this is no more than any ordinary nuclear war. So this "Professor" is full of hot air, america is fully aware of the dangers and potential risk of an EMP strike, partly because they INVENTED it. I take back what i said before, i assumed he meant Non-Nuclear EMP.
This is supposed to be 2027. The idea is that the technology has progressed, and the movie, the strike comes from a satellite. Not a nuclear launch. The Manhattan Project produced a viable and useful bomb within 5 years of conception. Technology by this time would be exponentially better, as it is lifetimes ahead of technology when the the Manhattan project was conceived, to now. I get what your going for. It's still not believable because the source is North Korea. More than likely if this were to occur, it would be the US that developed it (having the largest military budget in human history, with no plans to cut it, even if it would immensely help our economy now), or one of out allies.

So, premise still fantastical, but still awesome.
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
Wow guys, actually read his book before you claim he's 'fear mongering'. In it, Forstchen details how the majority of deaths will be over issues like food supply, storage and transportation of goods. The simple fact is that our food resources are supplied to us via a complex transportation network and have to be maintain by electric devices, such as refrigerators. Although initially there isn't much of a problem, the book goes on to show how gradually food and water would become more difficult to acquire, especially for large populations. Lack of access to medical supplies also would lead to more deaths. After this our basic needs take over and we start fighting over the remaining resources. This isn't fear mongering, this is basic fact: the massive population growth of the 20th and 21st century comes from our use of complicated networks of communications and transportation, primarily all with electricity as a major component. Take away that component, and the result is a population die-off.
 

cjbos81

New member
Apr 8, 2009
279
0
0
In preparation of surviving this awful reality, I've already begun drinking my urine.