A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

asymetric warfare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old January 21st 04, 04:43 PM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

You are missing asymmetry. Archimedes' enemies used low tech, just lots
of it. Losing a major C3I node, or the logistics network, is much more
of a problem to a high-tech invader.


And it's unlikely as hell that you with your laptop are going to get
acess to any such.


After spending a fair bit of time in advisory groups to the National
Communications System, and the current telecom and advisory groups, I
will point out that if you can defeat the underlying transmission
system, the higher-layer application, often using commercial
transmission facilities, is neutralized.
Ads
  #503  
Old January 21st 04, 07:29 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

You are missing asymmetry. Archimedes' enemies used low tech, just lots
of it. Losing a major C3I node, or the logistics network, is much more
of a problem to a high-tech invader.


And it's unlikely as hell that you with your laptop are going to get
acess to any such.


After spending a fair bit of time in advisory groups to the National
Communications System, and the current telecom and advisory groups, I
will point out that if you can defeat the underlying transmission
system, the higher-layer application, often using commercial
transmission facilities, is neutralized.


That's fine for disabling DoD systems, important, but non tactical. I
have a hard time believing that a high-tech invader would rely on US
commercial transmission facilities.

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.
  #505  
Old January 23rd 04, 12:13 AM
John Schilling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howard Berkowitz writes:

In article , (John
Schilling) wrote:


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.


More likely, you can come to the same end as Archimedes, accomplishing
no more in the end than one guy with a hunting rifle.


You are missing asymmetry. Archimedes' enemies used low tech, just lots
of it. Losing a major C3I node, or the logistics network, is much more
of a problem to a high-tech invader.


Even high-tech invaders still use tens or hundreds of thousands of
men with purely mechanical weapons guided by the unaugmented human
eye and brain, who can use all the traditional low-tech methods of
hunting down the fool who thinks his Archimedean brain alone will
triumph over their brain and brawn combined.

Whereupon they can get on with repairing the C3I node and you can
get on with bleeding out on the floor.


Now, with a laptop *and* a rifle, you can accomplish a lot more than
with either alone. On the defensive side, every detective with a hunch
as to where that nuisance with the laptop is, every house-to-house search
for same, has to allocate a SWAT team per target instead of just a couple
beat cops. Which means the whole process takes them longer for the same
available resources and gives you that much more time to make a nuisance
of yourself with the laptop.


Ahem. If one tracks many of the more destructive hacking attempts, the
computer delivering the attack, the hacker, and the target often are on
different continents. Those SWAT teams had better have LONG range.


Hacking attempts against the academic and commercial internet, yes.
Military operations, outside of bad technothriller movies and novels,
are not dependant on the global internet. You can hinder the enemy's
R&D and procurement efforts and so delay his acquisition of newer
and better guns, but if you are wholly unarmed the guns he's already
got are more than sufficient.

And the networks that help coordinate his gunmen at the operational
level, the ones which are of immediate concern to you, are not so
broadly distributed. The enemy has no reason to put a node, terminal,
or other access point anywhere he doesn't have at least a minimal
military presence, and those are pretty much by definition places
where his SWAT teams can reach.


For that matter, you'll probably have to deal with armed enemy soldiers
one way or another just to get terminal access in the first place.


--
*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 *



  #506  
Old January 23rd 04, 01:31 AM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , (John
Schilling) wrote:

Howard Berkowitz writes:

In article ,
(John
Schilling) wrote:


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier
deterrent.


More likely, you can come to the same end as Archimedes, accomplishing
no more in the end than one guy with a hunting rifle.


You are missing asymmetry. Archimedes' enemies used low tech, just lots
of it. Losing a major C3I node, or the logistics network, is much more
of a problem to a high-tech invader.


Even high-tech invaders still use tens or hundreds of thousands of
men with purely mechanical weapons guided by the unaugmented human
eye and brain, who can use all the traditional low-tech methods of
hunting down the fool who thinks his Archimedean brain alone will
triumph over their brain and brawn combined.

Whereupon they can get on with repairing the C3I node and you can
get on with bleeding out on the floor.


You seem to be assuming that the information/electronic warfare attacker
is in physical proximity of the guys with the assault rifles, swords,
flamethrowers, clubs, etc. SMART attacks can come from another
continent. Even if the attacker is in the same area, the attacks would
almost certainly be from computers, jammers, etc. that are triggered
remotely. As a specific example, the US buildup in Saudi Arabia in 1991
was quite vulnerable to expendable jammers in the general vicinity of
commercial-grade earth stations.


Hacking attempts against the academic and commercial internet, yes.
Military operations, outside of bad technothriller movies and novels,
are not dependant on the global internet. You can hinder the enemy's
R&D and procurement efforts and so delay his acquisition of newer
and better guns, but if you are wholly unarmed the guns he's already
got are more than sufficient.


Again, the military messaging and control is encrypted beyond plausible
attacks by non-national actors, but not so the underlying packet- and
circuit-switched transmission networks, especially the strategic
fixed-location ones. Look at the amount of leased commercial lines over
which things like SIPRNET and JWICS run. There are government-owned
backups, but you significantly degrade capacity by taking out commercial
switching nodes.

Do remember I am not saying use cyberwarfare instead of, but as a
complement. My original argument was not that the white-hat hackers
can't be tracked down -- it was against the argument that the
unorganized militia with sporting weapons was a serious deterrent to any
regular force. Now, you have the apparent regulars hunting the high-tech
resisters, apparently because they ARE a credible annoyance.

And the networks that help coordinate his gunmen at the operational
level, the ones which are of immediate concern to you, are not so
broadly distributed. The enemy has no reason to put a node, terminal,
or other access point anywhere he doesn't have at least a minimal
military presence, and those are pretty much by definition places
where his SWAT teams can reach.


I think you are assuming physical presence of the network attacker,
rather than a leave-behind jammer, a remote attack on the routing
software, etc.



For that matter, you'll probably have to deal with armed enemy soldiers
one way or another just to get terminal access in the first place.


You don't need terminal access if you are going after RF links. For
packet and circuit switching, there is still far too much in-band
signaling and back doors that OUGHT to be fixed. The Border Gateway
Protocol, the heart of any IP packet switching network, is not
significantly secure. Good operational procedures are the main
protection.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! John Cook Military Aviation 35 November 11th 03 12:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.