Which had nothing to do with what I’m saying. The assertion is that EMP can do massive damage to civilian electronics. Which begs the question of why that wasn’t our plan in the event of nuclear war. We know NEAR the blast is a strong EMP so things that will be near it need to be hardened, but that does NOT indicated that “a couple of explosions” would reek havoc across the country. So at best you erected a strawman, yet another fallacy.
“We know NEAR the blast is a strong EMP”
We know that a source-region EMP effect is very strong (near a ground burst, for instance) But we also know that a high-altitude EMP is also very strong. So just look up MIL-STD-188-125-1, will you? It’s not a perfect document, but it’s pretty good. You will see what the military does, and probably be able to figure out why.
“Which begs the question of why that wasn’t our plan in the event of nuclear war.”
You didn’t even look it up on “wikipedia”! I just checked and they actually have a fairly comprehensive and accurate article. They go into military use of EMP.
You refuse to learn, my friend - as I have pointed out previously.
You do have a good working understanding of logical fallacies and how to misapply them.