asymetric warfare

In article ,
Mike Williams wrote:

The last I heard, the projected date for the launch of the Galileo Next
Generation Global Navigation Satellite System was some time in 2005, so
after that date there could be an alternative to the American GPS.
However, anyone who's at war with the US is likely to be also disliked
by the Europeans behind Galileo, and might find that they can't get good
readings from either system.

It doesn't really matter whether the enemy is on good terms with Europe
or not. Just because it's a European system doesn't mean the US can't
jam it into uselesness as soon as hostilities begin.

"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Wasn't it pervect who wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

How are you getting your position information?

The cheap solution is to use GPS. But IIRC the US has complete
control over the GPS satellite system. So if you are at war with the
US, you can't count on your GPS working right.

The last I heard, the projected date for the launch of the Galileo
Next
Generation Global Navigation Satellite System was some time in 2005,
so
after that date there could be an alternative to the American GPS.
However, anyone who's at war with the US is likely to be also disliked
by the Europeans behind Galileo, and might find that they can't get
good
readings from either system.

Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
transmitter -- and that spoofing won't affect the American GPS system at
all.


Ray Drouillard

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:49 -0500, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
transmitter

That doesn't logically follow; it's possible to make non-encrypted
data that can't be faked, you just use a digital signature.

--
"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 Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:15:56 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:49 -0500, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
transmitter

That doesn't logically follow; it's possible to make non-encrypted
data that can't be faked, you just use a digital signature.

If you don't go to spread-spectrum, your radio links will probably be
jammed. (Solution - go to spread spectrum).

Spread spectrum signals will be difficult to separate from noise,
except at very close range, where the total power level is noticable
above the broadband noise.

I'd still rate a radio location system using spread spectrum
transmitters as rather vulnerable, because the transmitters have to
remain in a fixed location for the system to work, and would be prime
targets.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:49 -0500, Ray Drouillard wrote:
:
:Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
:transmitter
:
:That doesn't logically follow; it's possible to make non-encrypted
:data that can't be faked, you just use a digital signature.

But the 'digital signature' is really just another encryption
algorithm, typically more easily faked or broken than full encryption.

Doh!

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

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:49 -0500, Ray Drouillard
wrote:

Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
transmitter

That doesn't logically follow; it's possible to make non-encrypted
data that can't be faked, you just use a digital signature.

Is the European answer to GPS going to have digital signatures? If so,
how secure are they?

Any public-key encryption scheme I have seen uses large prime numbers.
They are secure because it's really difficult to factor the product of
two large prime numbers.

When the Europeans come out with their GPS system, and if it has some
kind of a digital signature, wanna make a bet about how long it takes
the US military to find a way to spoof it? It might be a long and
difficult computer search for the private key, or it might be something
as straightforward as using the intelligence community to ahem acquire
the codes.


Ray Drouillard

"Mike Williams" wrote

The cheap solution is to use GPS. But IIRC the US has complete
control over the GPS satellite system. So if you are at war with the
US, you can't count on your GPS working right.

The last I heard, the projected date for the launch of the Galileo Next
Generation Global Navigation Satellite System was some time in 2005, so
after that date there could be an alternative to the American GPS.
However, anyone who's at war with the US is likely to be also disliked
by the Europeans behind Galileo, and might find that they can't get good
readings from either system.

As of this month, Galileo is already subject to US
control/degradation/jamming if necessary.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W25942BD6
from www.tagesschau.de [bablefish translation]
"Galileo will work on a frequency, which is at any time easily influenceable
for American of military. Without consulting Europe, American armed forces
will be able to switch off the European satellite navigation system Galileo
in crisis and conflicts likewise, as this already happens with the American
global Positioning system (government inspection department). "

Pete

pervect wrote:

:I don't know the details of the system (one reason I'm free to post) -
:but the absolute best case I can see is for you to force the US to
:basically shut off the GPS system everywhere. Depending on your
:weapons range, you may be able to force GPS nullification only in a
:limited area (the US can probably scramble the timing when the
:satellites are over the area threatened by your weapons, while leaving
:the timing intact when the satellites are over "safe" areas.
:
enying the US use of GPS would have a negative impact on US military
:capability, but it would not eliminate it.

Denying the other guy use of GPS doesn't prevent the US military from
using it.

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

Fred J. McCall skrev i meddelelsen
...

Denying the other guy use of GPS doesn't prevent the US military from
using it.

However the cost to non-military users might very well be the desired effect
of the opponent.

--------------------------------------
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

Love Me - take me as I think I am

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

Well, it could slip a few million dollars to a charismatic religious
leader to carry out terrorist attacks on New York City.

It could also develop weapons of mass destruciton, or pretend to be
doing so.

And it could buy billions of dollars of weaponry and associated
materials from France, Germany, and Russia, so as to keep those
countries in its pocket.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com