![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 * |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |