asymetric warfare

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.

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.

Dirt simple to shut down. You have looked at the various wireless
internet technologies and how easy they are to jam out, degrade, etc,
haven't you? Not to mention all the spoofing that would become
possible (WEP isn't).

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:03:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(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.

Dirt simple to shut down. You have looked at the various wireless
internet technologies and how easy they are to jam out, degrade, etc,
haven't you?

Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency
hopping ones?

Not to mention all the spoofing that would become
possible (WEP isn't).

Indeed. However wireless internet doesn't necessarily involve WEP.

--
"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).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency
hopping ones?

You should remember that "spread spectrum" is not synonymous with
"unjammable" or "undetectable." As far as that goes, some wideband
jamming techniques can be very effective against normal spread spectrum
communications. There are some major limitations that come with spread
spectrum, mostly having to do with power versus range versus noise.

Frequency hopping is pretty good for keeping people from hearing what
you're saying, but once you know the general band they're working on,
you can either jam them with suitable wideband frequencies, jump on
their frequencies before the receiver can lock on ("fast" jamming) or a
number of other moves.

You can defeat these ECM moves, but the counter-countermeasures cost a
*lot* more money than the countermeasures. And, once again, you're
getting into a technical war with a country that spends a *lot* of money
on that sort of thing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:26:53 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency
hopping ones?

You should remember that "spread spectrum" is not synonymous with
"unjammable" or "undetectable." As far as that goes, some wideband
jamming techniques can be very effective against normal spread spectrum
communications. There are some major limitations that come with spread
spectrum, mostly having to do with power versus range versus noise.

Frequency hopping is pretty good for keeping people from hearing what
you're saying, but once you know the general band they're working on,
you can either jam them with suitable wideband frequencies, jump on
their frequencies before the receiver can lock on ("fast" jamming) or a
number of other moves.

You can defeat these ECM moves, but the counter-countermeasures cost a
*lot* more money than the countermeasures. And, once again, you're
getting into a technical war with a country that spends a *lot* of money
on that sort of thing.

A quick perusal of some webpages on the 802.11 wireless spec suggest
that the direct sequence spread spectrum is probably the more secure
of the two possibilities (frequency hopping is the other possibility).

However, the fairly modest processing gains - only about 10db or so
according to:

http://www.wireless-nets.com/article...per_spread.htm

and the relatively modest and specific bandwidth allocations

902-928 MHz
2.4-2.4835 GHz
5.725-5.850 GHz

suggest to me that digital internet systems based on the 802.11 spec
will probably be relatively easy to jam or detect, especially if the
receivers and transmitters are using low-gain antennas ("isotropic").

It also seems to me that the need for routing signals through multiple
"hops" is going to

1) be vulnerable if any intermediate system is compromised
2) require routing information to be propagated through the internet
which will identify active sites.

There are some other interesting questions, like what the procedure
for adding a node to this internet system is.