John T. Scopes wrote:
This raises the age-old question about the morality of warfare, or what are any army's ultimate military objectives? Obviously the point is to be able to effectively control a defined piece of territory, but how is that to be achieved? The enemy must be removed as a force capable of challenging your control, but what does that actually entail? Is disabling most of an enemy's military hardware effective enough?
Here's an article from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21532245
You need a better source.
Yes, electromagnetic "weapons" have been used. They have been used effectively in the middle east to disable IEDs. But IEDs typically have antenna and are crudely designed. A high amplitude electromagnetic field will fry them. Equipment that has been designed to be hard against high level electromagnetic fields are in a different category, and design specifications typically require hardening.
It is not very hard to design weapon systems that are quite hard against even very high amplitude EMP environments. A little bit of shielding goes a long way. I once inadvertently subjected a very inexpensive calculator (which had a metal body) to a full threat level HEMP. It worked just fine afterwards. Source region EMP is much more difficult to counter, but if you are that close to a nuclear blast you probably have other problems unless you are in a hardened silo.
The key to hardening is making the decision to provide protection. Completely soft commercial electronics are vulnerable. But with a modicum of engineering, military systems can be quite well protected. Even a little thought can show means of making soft systems harder.