asymetric warfare

Derek Lyons wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
[...]
What made you think I didn't know that?

Some of your brushing aside of C&C issues in various places in this
thread.

There is brushing aside because you don't understand something,
or don't understand its significance, and brushing aside because
you don't want to talk about it.

I am limiting the scope of my replies because I think there are
a lot of valid things threat countries could do to make possible
US invaders lives hell that I really don't want to help them do
any more easily if I can help it. Most of them aren't much like
the "Mother of all Buzz Bomb Sorties" but that's sort of like
some things I have looked at and concluded are potentially
quite viable.

The cheap cruise missiles stuff... it's already out there and
been talked and analyzed by people, so talking about it more isn't
going to hurt anything.


-george william herbert

(George William Herbert) wrote:

Pete wrote:

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

One of those CDs is lost or captured, and then the opponent
has a years worth of weather reports and routine messages
to two tech sergeants and a light squad of flunkies and
guards in a warehouse / launch bunker in the middle of the
desert.

Or maybe if the war is two weeks away, you've got your 'East Wind'
message.

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.

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.

In article ,
says...
In article MPG.1a52b872713147f59897c9@news,
Bernardz wrote:

In article ,
says...

...if nobody bothers with counterbattery fire, or drops a bunch of high
explosives in the area of the artillery to make them stop shooting.

We *know* where these cannons are going to be firing from. Wh know
where their hardened shelters are. We know where their radar defenses
are.

If the North doesn't start with a completely unprovoked surprise attack,
they've got a good chance of getting erased very quickly.

I doubt we know as much as you think.

Really? Why?

The area just north of the border is one of the most observed areas on
the planet. A couple of generations of South Korean spies have had time
to look the area over, and a couple of generations of North Korean
defectors have had time to tell us where everything is.

Well we know there are huge tunnels there and we have no idea where they
are!


We would definitely know once they
started firing in bulk missiles and shells.

If they ever get the chance, that is.

The odds are that some will get the chance. It will be our job to make
sure that they get taken out pretty quickly.





--
It is really stressful to play properly blackjack when you have 16 and
the dealer has 10.

22nd saying of Bernard

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 ,
says...
Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bernardz wrote:
:
: :Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1
: :jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally
: :cities.
: :
: :Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway
: :and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each
: :missile.
: :
: :My missiles shot down are a lot cheaper then the anti missiles the US
: :uses anyway.
: :
: :The make sure that this US ally is aware of your capability. That might
: :keep the US out of the conflict.
:
: You've got to build them somewhere.
:
:I presume that they would be built long before the conflict started.

So kill the factories and wait 5 years. Most of them won't work.

How?

This class of weapon system is quite easy to build. A decent machine
shop can build them. For example a V1 rocket in WW2 could be constructed
from very simple material, relatively unskilled labor and took about 500
man hours to complete.



: They have to launch from
: somewhere. Both of those 'somewheres' can be targeted and obliterated
: in pretty short order.
:
:We could not do it in Iraq. Mobile launchers are very difficult to take
ut.

For onesy-twosy launches this is true, but that's not really what's
being talked about here, is it?

Point taken. Don't forget that they would have a long time to prepare.
Many deep caves with plenty of reinforcement and small opening. Plenty
of anti aircraft missiles in the region.

It would not be an easy target.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Damo" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Damo" wrote:
:
: :A civilian is making a cruise missile in his garage in New Zealand for
less
: :then 5000 dollars.
:
: I'll believe it when he gets it done, it has a usable warhead
: fraction, and it works after being bounced around on roads (and off)
: in the back of a truck for six months. And if it passes that, then
: we'll talk about flight profiles, RCS, accuracy under GPS-jammed
: conditions, etc.
:
: Get back to me.
:
:I wasnt pretending this was military grade weapon (the GPS component
rules
:that out straight away) but if someone told you this 10 years ago you
would
:write it off completely.

Really? I find that quite odd, since I remember George talking about
how to build a rocket much more cheaply than we are STILL building
them and didn't "write it off completely". I'm pretty sure that was
more than 10 years ago.

Was that just a rocket or a cruise missile? Cheap GPS units are only a
relative recent occurance although in the US you may have had $100 GPS units
10 years ago.

I do find the price tag pretty ludicrous,
given that you can't buy a car for that kind of money.

Well actually you can buy cars for that amount of money, and quite
complicated ones at that. A flying bomb is IMO much simpler -
engine+computer+leading edges and servo units. Making it reliable and
accurate is another thing entirely....


:With todays technology it is at least possible, and
:for terrorists it doesnt have to meet your guidelines above - just hit
:something in a city will do it.

Using mortars off the shelf is easier and cheaper if your only goal is
to lob some explosives into a city.

If you want to escape launching something from 20-50km away is much better
then 2-5km away. And more terrifying - imagine the media response: CRUISE
MISSILE HITS NEW YORK!

Damo

--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

In article MPG.1a53eef0ec8e12d39897d0@news,
Bernardz wrote:

Well we know there are huge tunnels there and we have no idea where they
are!

What you hear from public comments is very different from what can
reasonably be expected.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a53f4b4844803a89897d1@news...


This class of weapon system is quite easy to build. A decent machine
shop can build them. For example a V1 rocket in WW2 could be constructed
from very simple material, relatively unskilled labor and took about 500
man hours to complete.


The V-1 was a pulse jet not a rocket , and was just about accurate to hit
a target as big as London from 150 miles away. As a military weapon
it was a failure except in so far as it tied down allied assets to
counter it.

Keith

"John" wrote in message
...
"Peter Stickney" wrote...

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.

Got to agree with the above statements.

I can only go by what I read. On sedcond thoughts, that does sound a bit
far
though....

Also consider that your millimeter-wave emitting SUV is ligking itself
up like a neon sign in a part of the radio spectrum that nothing else
is on. A couple of sinple horn antannae on the turret sides (Sort of
like the old coincidence rangefinder ears) for DFing, and an
omnidirectional antenna up with the Wind Sensor on the turret roof for
general detection, and you won't, say, be able to hide your
Tank-Killer SUV in Madman Morris's SUV Dealership's parking lot.

On the other hand five miles is about the right range for AT-missiles. So
if

The US ARMY fact file http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/tow/ gives
TOW a max range of 3750m. 3750m is less than half of five miles and
TOW is one of the longer ranged anti-tank missiles.

your tanks want to get to point blank range they'll still need to drive
through a kill-zone. At 40mph that'll take seven and a half minutes. How
many tanks will die in that time before they even get off a single shot?

Not as many as you might think.
First, vision is going to be obscured over much of that distance by trees,
buildings, fences, haze, etc. Heck, at 2000m on perfectly flat & open
ground I'm not sure that a SUV & tank would be over the horizon from
each other yet. You are going to need altitude for those long shots.
Sure, there are places where this can done (I can think of a couple of
places out west that could conceivably hit 35 miles) but they are rare
and they will be heavily scouted before they are entered.

Of course helicopters would be sent first, but you can buy 100 SUVs for
the
cost of a single tank. The helicopters may simply run out of missiles.
Unlike tanks the SUVs may well be able to see as well as they can. And
unlike tanks, the SUVs can fire-back.

Of course, if they run out of missiles they may simply go back for more,
use the chain gun on the soft targets like SUVs with missile launchers,
call in an Air Force strike or even an artillery strike.

What makes you think that tanks can neither see nor shoot-back?

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

Oh, not only are you figuring on nuclear missiles but thermonuclear
missiles.
Kind of getting away from the original character of your hypothetical
country
aren't you?

start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier
explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2.

Gee, you think it just might be a little harder to light off the jet fuel in
a carrier's bunkers than, say, a dry field of brush or an exposed wood
timber framed home? I suspect you'll have to get significantly closer
than 9km to a carrier to kill it and it won't be by igniting the jet fuel.

So you need a total of 12 warheads (or two
missiles) to kill the convoy. This assumes the US has perfect reaction
times, and can instantly guess the target at the moment of launch, which
it
can't. As I said, nuclear buckshot will kill most things.

Na, no point getting into the geometry.

Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
to unleacsh somethig on the order of 10 Trident MIRVs on your country,
and only take out single targets, roughtly 1.0-1.5 hours after launch.
Your Command Centers and missile bases, or Missile Sub ports don't
move, and you made the mistake of going Nuclear first.

Attacking a military convoy (particularly of an agressor) is very
different
from attacking a civilian or semi-civilian target. Particularly when the

I would not count on the nation who's convoy you just nuked thinking
that way.

fall-out will drift over large parts of europe, who will not exactly thank
you in exchange. Again, there is no international law that says, "Thou
shalt
not attack the US." The US would also *not* launch against the british
islands without making damn sure they'd knocked out our ballistic
submarines
first. Otherwise a single sub can destroy america. MAD remember?

Besiodes which we have no silos or command centers! Have you seen the
state
of London traffic? There's be no way the PM could get out in time! ^.^