asymetric warfare

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

On 23 Dec 2003 20:59:24 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

phil hunt wrote:
(It's generally not a good idea to use canned phrases like this)

Only in keyed algorithmic encryption; random one time pads make it
harmless, as I understand it.

You understand correctly, even if the enemy knows what the canned
phrase is, they still gain no information that helps them decode any
future messages. Keeping all the messages the same length, as you've
pointed out, also prevents any traffic analysis.

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

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:26:59 GMT, "Pete" wrote:


"George William Herbert" wrote

Done properly, especially with one time pad encryption,
one can handle this sort of situation.

Consider... the use of CD-R's for pads. They give you 650
megabytes of storage. Assume one message of 1k contents
per minute is sent; that works out to a bit over 43 megabytes
of pad per month, or about 518 megabytes per year. Each receiving
station can have its own pad and its own recipient keying.

And then when one of those CD's gets lost or captured...

Then you can decode messages sent to that one station; assuming that
you can keep your enemies from ever learning that this one station was
attacked and everyone there killed. As soon as they learn the station
was compromised they just stop using that CD and issue a new one.

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:46:40 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

You use a different CD pair for each bunker. It's easy enough
with CD-Rs.

Easy enough to generate the CD's. Key distribution & syncing up could
be a bit problematical though. Solveable, but non-trivial.

Syncing should be easy enough, include a station ID/date header at
the front of every message and let a computer start scanning key
blocks until beginning of the message results in a valid ID header and
go from there. Worst case scenario is that the computer checks all
700,000 key blocks and doesn't find a match because the wrong disc was
used; however the operator should notice that something is wrong long
before this.

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

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:30:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"John" wrote:

Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

While trying to dodge incoming tank fire, the travel time of which
is less than the average human reaction time; that should be good for
a laugh.

At 2,000 feet I wouldn't want to bet I could move my body out of the
way of a 120mm round APFSDS round while looking directly at the muzzle
and waiting for the flash much less wait for a radar screen to tell me
to move and try to get a 20' vehicle to do it.

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

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:41:06 -0000, "John"
wrote:

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle.

At 1,000 yards the travel time of a 120mm APFSDS round is .52
seconds, Average human reaction time for someone doing nothing but
sitting there and waiting for an event they have to respond to by
flipping a switch is .3 to .8 seconds with a good 60% being above the
..5 second mark. Someone performing a complex task in reaction to a
signal, like driving around and then having to dodge in a specific
direction at a signal ranges from .35 to 1.5 seconds with 85% being
over .5 seconds. - Henry and Rogers, 1960

Assuming that your system is so good that it can classify every
round on the battlefield, tell what is coming and going, be scanning
the air for cluster bombs and rockets and take 0 seconds to illuminate
a light on the dash telling you which way to swerve, it won't help you
at all.

85% of your vehicles will be killed by the first shot because they
didn't respond in time and none of the rest will be able to get that
half width in the .15 seconds they have to move the vehicle. At 40mph
the vehicle will move 9 feet forward in .15 seconds, about 1/2 it's
length, leaving the back half of the vehicle beind the center point.

Claiming that the tanks will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
fire.

1,000 yards isn't exactly point blank range.

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

Peter Stickney wrote:
No, 5 miles is about twice the maximum range of an AT missile.

Except for Hellfire, or the Israeli Nimrod, or the various
AT-9 missiles (Ataka or Vikhr), South African Mokopa,
all of which have ranges better than 8,000 meters.

4-5 km is the common max range, but not true extreme.


-george william herbert

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:30:53 -0000, "John"
wrote:

Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy could
get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which will
start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2.

That's start fires of flamable material left exposed in the open,
not inside a steel hull. You're going to need to be a lot closer than
that to ignite the fuel stored in a carrier. UK Trident missiles are
based on the W76 warhead, not the W88 warhead, and have a 100kt yield,
not 475kt.

US ships constructed after 1969 were specially designed to resist the
shockwave generated by a nuclear weapon. You could cause severe
damage to the ship out to 1.8 nm or so. To sink it you would need to
be close enough destroy the ship through overpressure by being within
..8 nm or so. If you are close enough for the thermal pulse to burn
through the hull to ignite the fuel the shockwave would rip the ship
apart.

If you wanted to guarantee a kill by being within .8 nm or so it
would take about 400 warheads to cover all the ocean a 32 knot carrier
could reach in 30 minutes. Catching it within 1.8 nm by two different
warheads and could sink the ship from flooding and only take you 160
warheads or so; but this wouldn't be 100% certain.

Sure, it's possible that you can take out a CVBG with a shotgun nuke
approach, but it would take the UK 35% of it's missiles and 80% of
it's warheads to be reasonably sure of success.

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

In article ,
Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:30:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

While trying to dodge incoming tank fire, the travel time of which
is less than the average human reaction time; that should be good for
a laugh.

But you're trying to retrict the issue to tank fire *only*, when that's
the smallest issue on the modern battlefield. Well behind artillery,
for sure.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:11:33 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

While trying to dodge incoming tank fire, the travel time of which
is less than the average human reaction time; that should be good for
a laugh.

But you're trying to retrict the issue to tank fire *only*, when that's
the smallest issue on the modern battlefield. Well behind artillery,
for sure.

He only mentioned cluster bombs and tank fire; both of which it's
pretty ridiculous to claim you can avoid with a radar on a SUV.

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