asymetric warfare

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:51 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:



You and Phil, and to a lesser extent George, who should know better,
don't seem to realize that killing the enemy C&C is how the US fights
wars today. The days of grinding towards the Capital worrying only
about the front line and hoping a golden bullet takes out the Leader
are dead and gone. This is 2003 not 1943.

I think there are technologies that our fictitious nation of Elbonia
can use that will make disrupting their C&C structure a lot more
difficult. I would even go so far as to say that investing in a
modern C&C infrastructure would probably be the best first investment
Elbonia could make. Probably the best approach would be to grow their
own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
think that they can just buy one).

This isn't the position I started out with, BTW, but as the discussion
proceeded the point sort of grew on me.

I think that the US is well aware of this, and is doing its level best
to suppress and discourage such actions. Hence some of our
silly-seeming export regulations that ban this, that, and the other
thing for export. (I don't expect these regulations will actually
accomplish much, BTW.)

I also think there will be an increase in the use of nuclear weapons,
and that the wave of current US military actions will, as a side
effect, encourage nuclear proliferation. I don't think that this will
be widely announced, though - I think that everyone will claim not to
have weapons of mass destruction, and when intelligence turns up
irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons, they will merely blink and
calmly state that said weapons are purely defensive for use against
military targets only and are in no way classifiable as being WMD.

pervect wrote:
I think there are technologies that our fictitious nation of Elbonia
can use that will make disrupting their C&C structure a lot more
difficult.

Certainly, but homegrowing them as you suggest below is the work of
decades, not weeks or months.

I would even go so far as to say that investing in a
modern C&C infrastructure would probably be the best first investment
Elbonia could make.

Simply making it modern doesn't reduce it's vulnerability. What does
do so it a lot of hard thinking about it's vulnerabilities, and how to
patch those without introducting too much additional complexity,
cruft, or new vulnerabilities.

Probably the best approach would be to grow their
own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
think that they can just buy one).

That approach has to start in the elementary schools... And the last
thing the Elbonian dynasty wants is a well educated middle class.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:23:50 -0800, pervect
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:51 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:



You and Phil, and to a lesser extent George, who should know better,
don't seem to realize that killing the enemy C&C is how the US fights
wars today. The days of grinding towards the Capital worrying only
about the front line and hoping a golden bullet takes out the Leader
are dead and gone. This is 2003 not 1943.

I think there are technologies that our fictitious nation of Elbonia
can use that will make disrupting their C&C structure a lot more
difficult. I would even go so far as to say that investing in a
modern C&C infrastructure would probably be the best first investment
Elbonia could make. Probably the best approach would be to grow their
own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
think that they can just buy one).



So all Elbonia has to do is create a modern middle class, capable
of supporting an educated technical infrastructure...and by the way,
keep said middile class from chucking the leadership out. Not only
isn't that easy, but that';s not a 10 year project, its a 30 year
project.


I also think there will be an increase in the use of nuclear weapons,
and that the wave of current US military actions will, as a side
effect, encourage nuclear proliferation. I don't think that this will
be widely announced, though - I think that everyone will claim not to
have weapons of mass destruction, and when intelligence turns up
irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons, they will merely blink and
calmly state that said weapons are purely defensive for use against
military targets only and are in no way classifiable as being WMD.

Why would the U.S. wish to increase using nuclear weapons? I think
the decision to start creating new nuke designs is stupid, but in any
case, the U.S. doesn't *need* nukes in most concievable engagements,
and in fact using them would degrade our own effectiveness.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:34:18 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Why would the U.S. wish to increase using nuclear weapons? I think
the decision to start creating new nuke designs is stupid, but in any
case, the U.S. doesn't *need* nukes in most concievable engagements,
and in fact using them would degrade our own effectiveness.

One reason to create new designs is shelf-life concerns about the
current inventory which contains some 20 year old weapons. Creating
longer lasting and more easily maintained weapons could be cost
effective in the long run rather than trying to maintan our current
store of aging weapons.

Scientists are testing an mixture of Plutonium isotopes which decays
16 times faster than normal to see what the long term effects on the
bomb components will be. Tests will be run to simulate the effects of
60 years of aging on current designs to see what, if anything, needs
to be done to keep our current weapons working for another 40 years.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

pervect writes:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:51 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

You and Phil, and to a lesser extent George, who should know better,
don't seem to realize that killing the enemy C&C is how the US fights
wars today. The days of grinding towards the Capital worrying only
about the front line and hoping a golden bullet takes out the Leader
are dead and gone. This is 2003 not 1943.

I think there are technologies that our fictitious nation of Elbonia
can use that will make disrupting their C&C structure a lot more
difficult. I would even go so far as to say that investing in a
modern C&C infrastructure would probably be the best first investment
Elbonia could make.


I would say that investing in a *robust* C&C infrastructure is the
third best investment Elbonia could make. That's not the same as
a *modern* C&C infrastructure, especially in Elbonia.

The first best investment, of course, would be a professional NCO
corps, and the second best a professional officer corps. Well led
forces can be somewhat effective even when completely isolated;
poorly led troops a phone call away are no asset.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On 23 Dec 2003 11:18:11 -0800, (John Schilling)
wrote:



I would say that investing in a *robust* C&C infrastructure is the
third best investment Elbonia could make. That's not the same as
a *modern* C&C infrastructure, especially in Elbonia.

Robust is closer to what I should have said than modern, some of my
bias for modern technology is showing. A nice, modern centralized
commuinication system that can be quickly decapacitated with one
strike is a liability.

The first best investment, of course, would be a professional NCO
corps, and the second best a professional officer corps. Well led
forces can be somewhat effective even when completely isolated;
poorly led troops a phone call away are no asset.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:48:39 -0800, pervect wrote:
On 23 Dec 2003 11:18:11 -0800, (John Schilling)
wrote:

I would say that investing in a *robust* C&C infrastructure is the
third best investment Elbonia could make. That's not the same as
a *modern* C&C infrastructure, especially in Elbonia.

Robust is closer to what I should have said than modern, some of my
bias for modern technology is showing. A nice, modern centralized
commuinication system that can be quickly decapacitated with one
strike is a liability.

I've argued elsewhere[1] that middle-income countries should
consider using a wireless internet mesh as the foundation for their
(civilian) information infrastructure. Why not allow the military
system to piggyback off that? (as a backup: the civilian
system might be down in an area, and there should be a separate
military system as well). Now a proper wireless internet
infrastructure would mean every apartment building, workplace,
school, hospital, etc being connected. It would be quite difficult,
both militarily and politically, to shut down such a widespread
network.

[1] at http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_122.html

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:53:50 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:


I've argued elsewhere[1] that middle-income countries should
consider using a wireless internet mesh as the foundation for their
(civilian) information infrastructure. Why not allow the military
system to piggyback off that? (as a backup: the civilian
system might be down in an area, and there should be a separate
military system as well). Now a proper wireless internet
infrastructure would mean every apartment building, workplace,
school, hospital, etc being connected. It would be quite difficult,
both militarily and politically, to shut down such a widespread
network.

[1] at http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_122.html

The thought of relying on the internet as-is, or some future wireless
version therof, for military purposes scares me. Badly.

Distributed denial of service attacks would probably be one of the
more benign attacks against this sort of architecture. If there
exists a few unchecked buffers in some popular software (and it would
probably be hard to catch them _all_) much worse things could happen.
Not to mention some of the interesting possibilities for havoc that
arise from well-financed versions of classic schemes, such as the
current "Install the latest security patch from M$" problem.

In article ,
pervect wrote:

The thought of relying on the internet as-is, or some future wireless
version therof, for military purposes scares me. Badly.

Or not...

Dear Mr. USAF,
My name is Robert Nkrume, and I represent a number of military
interests in Nigeria. I have recently come into the possession of a
number of cruise missiles, and need help in delivering them to the
United States. All I need is your banking information and an address to
deliver them to.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:31:34 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
pervect wrote:

The thought of relying on the internet as-is, or some future wireless
version therof, for military purposes scares me. Badly.

Or not...

Dear Mr. USAF,
My name is Robert Nkrume, and I represent a number of military
interests in Nigeria. I have recently come into the possession of a
number of cruise missiles, and need help in delivering them to the
United States. All I need is your banking information and an address to
deliver them to.

Hackers right now cause enough problem on the internet just for kicks.
Give them some significant funding for bribes, some people who are
good at breaking & entering to substitute a few key CD'rom with
identical looking copies, and you could have a real party. Now
imagine military weapons being online and controlled through said
interent. Thanks, but I'll pass.