How, exactly, am I "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting"? I listed numerous examples of the military designing things without warfare-persistence as a design goal - bridges in relief operations, administrative buildings in cities, limpet-mines. And "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting" was what you took from that? Honestly, I'm struggling to see how - or why - you would do that unless you were trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. Now, what was it about that response to your argument you actually take issue? (And, for bonus points, how might it be affected by your presumption of childhood trauma?)
I'm getting doubts that you even know what the Internet is and how it works. If that's the case, I'm out. Seriously, you seem to know what an EMP is yet you fail to grasp that the Internet in its concept is not vulnerable to the EMPs at all. The power grid is vulnerable because the energy business is the only business that is not regulated. Typically regulation would require basic defence of the critical infrastructure against natural disasters but it's not the case with the power stations (at least not in the US). If the connections between nodes were properly shielded there would be no threat to the Internet from even a nuclear explosion.