Digital currencies, especially crypto assets, are instruments that push the boundaries of modern finance and redefine the concepts of sovereignty and trust. The decentralized, distributed ledger technology (DLT) architecture of blockchain theoretically promises a value transfer that is resistant to state intervention, censorship, and geographical borders, operating as an apolitical medium. However, this structure frequently masks the vulnerabilities in the physical and digital layers upon which its very existence deeply depends. In extreme scenarios such as atomic disasters or space based satellite warfare, which are no longer merely theoretical the question of the preservation of digital currencies transcends a simple data security problem and transforms into a philosophical crisis that questions the nature of abstract value in the face of the collapse of civilization’s technological backbone.
Technological Perspective: The Revenge of the Physical Layer
The security of blockchain rests on cryptographic verification and distributed consensus mechanisms. Yet, this digital superstructure owes its existence to three fundamental physical layers: energy infrastructure, telecommunication networks (particularly fiber optic cables and satellite constellations), and data storage/server units.
One of the first targets in space based conflicts will be the Global Positioning System (GPS) and low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks such as Starlink. The accuracy of timestamps and network synchronization, which are vital for cryptocurrency transactions, depend with absolute precision on GPS signals. The crippling of a satellite network by kinetic or non kinetic (laser, high power microwave) weapons not only severs internet access; by disrupting the temporal ordering of blocks, it can lead to chain forks, double spending attacks, and the collapse of the consensus mechanism (especially in Proof of Stake).
The High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) generated by nuclear explosions magnifies this threat exponentially. A HEMP has the capacity to permanently destroy continental scale electrical grids and all unprotected semiconductor circuits. In this scenario, the distributed nature of the blockchain ceases to be an advantage; the simultaneous physical destruction of all nodes in a geographical region does not merely mean the erasure of the chain’s record in that area (even though copies theoretically exist on other continents). The real danger is global network fragmentation. When the backbone of the Internet collapses, surviving isolated node groups can continue to process transactions internally, but when connectivity is restored, deciding which of these isolated chains will be accepted as the “valid” one will lead to an unsolvable consensus crisis and immense value destruction. Cold wallets and offline backups rely on the assumption that a functioning computer can be found after a nuclear EMP a scenario highly unlikely in a technological dark age that would last for years in affected regions.
Economic and Psychological Risks: The Hyper Insecurity Cycle
In an extreme crisis, the value of digital assets becomes subject not to their underlying technology but to instantaneous fluctuations in psychological trust. The simultaneous halt of exchange operations (CEXs) alongside infrastructure collapse means the sudden evaporation of liquidity. This creates a “digital asset run” far more lethal than a classic bank run.
The psychological dynamic here is more complex than simple panic. Holders of digital assets confront the heavy burden of the “be your own bank” philosophy. Since the system has no central authority, there is no mechanism to appeal to, no fund to provide compensation, and no institution to hold accountable. This state of ontological insecurity can push users to two extremes: on one hand, those desperately and insecurely trying to get online to salvage their assets; on the other, those who experience a profound existential shock upon realizing that their digital assets have become meaningless in the face of physical destruction. The fear of missing out (FOMO) is replaced by the immediacy and certainty of absolute loss (Fear of Certain Loss). This situation demonstrates how money, as the digital manifestation of the social contract, can revert to nothingness when the underlying social consensus vanishes.
Social, Cultural, and Legal Perspectives: Fragmented Sovereignty
An atomic conflict destroys the physical infrastructure of the Westphalian sovereignty system while simultaneously exposing how fragile the “stateless” sovereignty promised by cryptocurrencies truly is. Culturally, Bitcoin and similar assets are powerful symbols of freedom and technological progress. However, when these symbols become physically inaccessible due to an electromagnetic pulse and their value approaches zero at the same time, a cultural trauma ensues.
At this point, a legal vacuum emerges. International law is almost entirely silent on the protection of digital private property in a state of war. Since “your cryptocurrency” is nothing more than a private key, there is no authority from which to claim compensation or rights if that key is directly targeted or destroyed as collateral damage in an armed conflict. As social structures destabilize, the real value for surviving communities becomes not the numbers in a digital wallet, but immediate physical resources such as canned food, clean water, and medicine. This lays bare the truth that money is a social consensus in its most naked form: when there is no society left to provide consensus, money itself ceases to exist.
Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives: The Tragedy of the Trust Machine
Blockchain was designed at its core as a “trust machine”; it takes trust away from humans and institutions and delegates it to code and mathematics. Atomic and space based conflicts reveal the tragic limits of this abstraction. The code may be perfect, but the silicon, fiber optic cables, and power lines upon which the code runs are not; on the contrary, they are extremely fragile.
Philosophically, this situation is a reflection of the mind body dualism that has persisted since Descartes, now projected onto the digital economy. Digital currency, as pure information (mind), can exist everywhere in the world, but it cannot manifest without a physical infrastructure (body). When the body dies, the existence of the mind becomes meaningless. Ethical responsibility enters at this point: those who build and use these systems bear the irresponsibility of ignoring the system’s absolute dependence on physical reality. True resilience lies not only in cryptographic security, but also in socio technical planning for how to rebuild infrastructure locally and redundantly. In the event of a catastrophe, what must be protected may not be individual wealth, but rather the community based communication and energy micro grids that will make transactions possible again.
Conclusion: The Trial of Abstract Value Against Physical Reality
Digital currencies offer robust protection against peacetime threats through cold wallets, multi signature systems, and geographically distributed backup strategies. However, a planetary scale electromagnetic pulse or the collapse of satellite communication reduces the preservability of these assets from a mere technical malfunction to the question of whether they hold any meaning at all alongside civilization’s technological backbone.
The risk cannot be entirely eliminated, but it can be managed with a layered and holistic approach. This approach relies not only on encrypting data, but also on resilient energy sources (for instance, full nodes stored in EMP shielded Faraday cages ready for operation), alternative communication protocols (such as block transmission over shortwave radio), and most importantly, the existence of trained communities who know how to manage these assets during a crisis.
In conclusion, digital currencies promise humanity an unprecedented financial autonomy. Yet this autonomy ultimately remains a slave to the physical infrastructure of the civilization humanity has built. In an extreme disaster scenario, what is truly tested is not the strength of cryptography, but the resilience of the human capacity to construct meaning, value, and community. The protection of digital assets, in this larger picture, cannot be considered separately from the responsibility of keeping the planet habitable and maintaining the fundamental communication networks of civilization.
References
- Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867 1960. Princeton University Press.
- Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121 136.
- Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage Publications.
- Foster, J. S., Gjelde, E., Graham, W. R., Hermann, R. J., Kluepfel, H. M., Lawson, R. L., … Woodard, J. B. (2004). Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: Volume 1: Executive Report. National Research Council.
- Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
- Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
- Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Melville House.
- Decker, C., & Wattenhofer, R. (2013). Information propagation in the Bitcoin network. 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer to Peer Computing (P2P), 1 10.
- Maurer, B., Nelms, T. C., & Swartz, L. (2013). “When perhaps the real problem is money itself!”: The practical materiality of Bitcoin. Social Semiotics, 23(2), 261 277.
- Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press.
- Johnson Freese, J. (2017). Space Warfare in the 21st Century: Arming the Heavens. Routledge.
- Apostolaki, M., Zohar, A., & Vanbever, L. (2017). Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies. 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 375 392.
- Whitty, M. T. (2019). The psychology of online financial decisions: The role of impulsivity, self control, and cognitive biases. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 214 224.
- Krombholz, K., Judmayer, A., Gusenbauer, M., & Weippl, E. (2020). The other side of the coin: User experiences with Bitcoin security and privacy. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1 13.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Due to its influence, this work has been placed here in chronological order; the first edition was published in 2011.)
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Socio