asymetric warfare [Archive] - Page 2

Keith Willshaw

December 22nd 03, 08:47 PM

"John" > wrote in message
...
> "Charles Gray" > 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?
>

So you detect 200 inbound cluster munitions 3 seconds before they
hit, beyond a quick prayer to the deity of your choice how is that
of material advantage ?

By the way I've yet to see the tank that can outrun an APDS round
so quite what you mean by dodging incoming AT fire is a mystery.

>
> I never said the radar was for guidence; it's there so they can see and
> dodge incomming tank-rounds and other munitions..

How do you dodge a round doing greater than Mach 2 ?
I must have missed that detail somewhere

> You can use any missilbe
> for the SUV, and you can manouver whilst firing. During this period the
wire
> is being pulled out the tube at 300mps at minimum, a few mps to either
side
> is not going to break it. There are also fire-and-forget missile systems.
>
> > 76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as
> > far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but
> > they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far
> > out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping
> > LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from
> > quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't
> > mind losing at all.
>
> US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive
> filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun
turns
> and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage.
>

How many AFV's have guns with sufficient elevation and
slew range to accomplish this feat ?

Hint its a SHORT list

<rest of nonsense snipped>

Keith

pervect

December 22nd 03, 09:08 PM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:47:23 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>pervect > wrote:
>
>:From my POV, the key point that I missed in my earlier post (the one
>:you just replied to, there have been a bunch since then) is that GPS
>:is spread spectrum.
>
>Which really doesn't buy you much in the way of security. DS-SS
>merely makes it easier for the receivers to do ranging functions.

You're missing the forest for the trees - or maybe you just like to
argue? :-)

I'm going to give a reference of my own:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9508043

for an overview of a more theoretical and high-level approach as to
how GPS works, and to support the following statements I'm going to
make as to how GPS works.

The very basic principles of GPS are that are it is a bunch of
orbiting clocks, all of which (in the simplest model) transmit their
own proper time.

An observer on the ground, at a fixed location, knows what the proper
time on the satellite must have been when it was sent, when he
recieves the signal, because he knows (or can directly observe) the
satellites orbit.

Therfore, ultimately, an approach based on encryption is going to boil
down to encrypting something that everybody already knows or can
figure out, which is not going to be terribly secure.

Spread spectrum tecniques are really crucial to making this system
have the level of security it actually does.

Fred J. McCall

December 22nd 03, 09:08 PM

(phil hunt) wrote:

:On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:23:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
:>
:>:I find it hard to take your post seriously since you are apparently
:>:unaware of very well-known cryptographic techniques.
:>
:>And I find it hard to take your post seriously since you are
:>apparently unaware of very well-known traffic analysis techniques.
:
:Which, in particular, do you refer to?

Gee, I thought you plonked me the last time I was too correct for you
to stand. Go look it up. Google for "military communications traffic
analysis". You'll get more hits than you know what to do with.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall

December 22nd 03, 09:29 PM

"John" > wrote:

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

So it is impossible for a tank to kill anything? Oddly, experience
seems to indicate otherwise. Tanks are harder to kill than trucks.
Tanks kill tanks all the time. You figure it out.

:I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
:down smart munitions.

I'm not sure you understand just how hard this is to do. Obviously,
by your lights, smart munitions can't kill anything, either. Again,
our current reality would tend to be somewhat at odds with your
planet.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

John Schilling

December 22nd 03, 10:07 PM

"John" > writes:

>"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.

To dodge a tank round while driving an SUV, you need to side-step the full
soft-target kill radius of a 120mm HEAT-MP round. Unless the Brits are in
the game, in which case it's 120mm HESH.

Good luck.

--
*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 *

Owe Jessen

December 22nd 03, 10:35 PM

Am Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:37:41 +0200, schrieb "tadaa" > :

>> Just to give some figures: GPS will give you 5 to 30 meters accuracy
>> (as long as the US lets you have it). Galileo will give you about the
>> same accuracy. I suppose the US can jam both. I'd guess if they could
>> not, they would not have increased the accuracy publicly available and
>> would make much more of a fuss about Galileo.
>
>I doubt that US can jam Galileo just by turning a switch as it it with GPS.
>But they probably will develop some jamming feature against the Galileos
>signals.
>

I heared that turning back on selective availability is not much of an
option anymore because the economic aplications that depend on it are
too valuable to lose and that the SA cannot be targeted in a small
enough area.

Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de

Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

December 22nd 03, 10:37 PM

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

Paul J. Adam

December 22nd 03, 11:10 PM

In message
>US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive
>filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun turns
>and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage.

Firing at it, and inflicting enough damage to give you a decent chance
of surviving, are very different things. Bombs are a tough target
precisely because they're wrapped in a thick steel case and the filling
is nowadays rather insensitive: you're trying to (a) inflict lethal
damage on a rather small guidance unit, and (b) hoping that the
munition's ballistic course then lands it where it won't harm you or
yours.

>It would increase a fighter's patrol endurence from hours into days at
>little extra fuel cost. That's not silly. That's *very* useful for a
>cash-strapped military.

Who's flying and how do _they_ cope with 96 hours at a time strapped
into a cockpit?

>And
>what makes you think that things like AWACS will be able to fly in the near
>future? Very simple rockets could be built as first stages to older
>missilbes, or clusters of older missiles, which could put them in enough
>danger that commanders draw them back beyond their useful distance. If
>something cannot be used as effectively it's as good as badly damaged.

Why is this only valid for the US side?

>Even if they slow the USAF down an hour, that's an hour's warning more than
>a country without such a system woudl get.

So what? This might be crucial for El Presidente to empty his safe,
round up a few of his favourite mistresses and catamites, race to the
airport and fly away from the warzone. Doesn't stop the US force from
achieving _its_ aims, particularly if they included "get rid of El
Presidente".

>America's boastful tendencies do not change the laws of physics. Stealth
>aircraft do not reflect radar back at the origin radar - but they do
>reflect. If you have an array of linked radars the others may well pick up
>the reflected radar pulses, even if the origin array does not.

Absolutely true. When you get that working reliably and usefully in
practice, patent it and become wealthy.

>The purchase of a few AWAC systems (minus aircraft) would not break the bank
>of most middle-ranking nations. Linking them together is a computer problem.

They're only useful when flying: AWACS grounded because someone cratered
their runway are just as useless as AWACS you never bought.

>Again, reducing the range of US navy fighters by 200miles is going to be
>worth it!

That's a standard planning assumption, you're adding nothing. (The
published figure is actually 25 miles, not 100... the sea is large and
even a CVN is small by comparison with missile search ambits)

>Plus they have to keep supply-ships away by a similar margin. That
>would have a devistating impact on the army's ability to fight a sustained
>battle.

This is the standard planning assumption for the USN: it's not healthy
to be in sight of the coast. How do you plan to add to that?

>By contract, obscenely cheep. Could probably be done for a quarter billion
>dollars. In any population you usally get enough people who will fight, and
>in war the actual guns and AT weapons will usually fall into their hands.

Fight for what, is the problem? And how do you cope with the minor issue
of bank raids and other robberies by cheerful criminals using these
Government-issue weapons for unauthorised ends?

>After that it boils down to tactics. An RPG-7 can disable any tank in the
>world with a good side-shot. And massed against the front they can do enough
>damage to disable one.

Trouble is, getting enough shots from the front, or a good flanking
shot, is a lot harder than the armchair theorists seem to think. And the
costs of unsuccessful attacks tend to be high, and the Lessons Learned
are not widely promulgated among the attackers.

>You'd think so wouldn't you? Or at least the government would like you to
>think so. Truth is that western reactors have more safety systems than their
>russian equivolents, and therefore really are safer. But all that safety
>gear counts for very little when it's burnt or blown up,

Russian reactors use carbon moderators, that is, very pure coal. US
reactors use water for moderation.

Which burns better?

Also, compare the standards for containment buildings, which you have to
get through before you can burn or blow through anything directly
associated with the reactor core.

>At the very least the sudden and violent removal of several
>cooling towers would have a disabling effect on power-outout, causing
>brown-outs over a large areas and many days.

Quite so, but the same goes for hitting any power station or substation.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

December 22nd 03, 11:15 PM

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen >...

>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 entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
enemy's
rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I
infrastructure,
which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units capable of
operating on their own initiative.
If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
can get inside it.

A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
warfare.

Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.

If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.

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

Love Me - take me as I think I am

Derek Lyons

December 22nd 03, 11:38 PM

"peter" > wrote:

>I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
>the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
>objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
>the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
>what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

Yep. 9/11 is a demonstration of what happens when you *don't* have a
strategy or an operations plan. You raise a great sound and fury, but
accomplish nothing.

>Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
>surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

That works when the asymmetries as small. (For instance the Japanese
never expected our submarine campaign.) It fails when the asymmetries
are large as there is not military way to overcome them.

>If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
>expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you are not going to win
many, if any, victories of sufficient size. Your goal instead must be
to win on the political front, and there the 2nd-2rd tier nations have
the advantage.

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.

Derek Lyons

December 22nd 03, 11:47 PM

(George William Herbert) wrote:

>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.
>
>What made you think I didn't know that?

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

>What, did you think I'm going to post *all* the good
>countermeasures to a US attack in an open forum?!?!?....

No, no more than you'd expect me to. :)

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.

Derek Lyons

December 22nd 03, 11:52 PM

"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:

>Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen >...
>
>>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 entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
>enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I
>infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units
>capable of operating on their own initiative.

Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will
be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the
war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they
won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist
in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of
internal politics.)

>If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
>can get inside it.

OK, you first.

>A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
>and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
>warfare.

ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
the heart of the CVBG?

>Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.
>
>If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.

It might work, but it probably won't.

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.

Derek Lyons

December 22nd 03, 11:54 PM

"John" > wrote:

>America's boastful tendencies do not change the laws of physics.

But seemingly yours do.

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.

Derek Lyons

December 22nd 03, 11:57 PM

"John" > wrote:

>Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
>either.

ROTFLMAO.

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.

Duke of URL

December 23rd 03, 12:28 AM

In ,
John > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> "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. Claiming
> that the tanks will close to ploint blank range is stupid when they
> are facing concentrated AT fire. I'm also not sure he understood
> the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot down smart munitions.
>
>> And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
>> citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where
>> people the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding
>> machines. So they aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to
>> invade.
>
> However the question wasn't about poor countries, but

Straw man.
I did NOT say a word concerning the wealth, relative or absolute, of
countries. In fact, I don't think ANYone did.

> middle-ranking ones, which I took to mean ones comparable to most
> european nations.

Both the *stars* of Old Europe, Germany & France, have a history of
mass slaughter of citizenry when a new "leader" takes office.

John Schilling

December 23rd 03, 12:33 AM

"peter" > writes:

>I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
>the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
>objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
>the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
>what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

>If some one out there is planning on using cruise missiles for example, he
>wont build them to Tomahawk standards, he wont select tomahawk like targets
>and so on.

>Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
>surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

>If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
>expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.

Aren't you forgetting something? In addition to Thinking Outside The
Box, don't they have to implement a Paradigm Shift or something like
that?

You're about ten years too late to pat yourself on the back for dispensing
privileged knowledge to the masses on this one. Everyone here gets the
point about Asymmetric Warfare. We understand it, really.

We are trying to explain to you that Asymmetric Warfare is not a Magic
Word that wipes away some very hard problems in weapons technology or
military science. There are *reasons* the US/NATO do things the way
they do, and if it is't the most efficient way possible it does at
least allow the concentration of enormous resources on those Very Hard
problems with the result that the US/NATO and company have some Very
Impressive capabilities.

Invoking the Asymmetric Warfare buzzword does nothing to counter those
capabilities. It isn't clear that they even *can* be countered, save
in kind, but if it is possible it will involve a whole slew of very
hard problems in its own right, and that the amateurish solutions
posited here are not going to cut it.

--
*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 *

John Schilling

December 23rd 03, 12:41 AM

Owe Jessen > writes:

>Am Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:37:41 +0200, schrieb "tadaa" > :

>>> Just to give some figures: GPS will give you 5 to 30 meters accuracy
>>> (as long as the US lets you have it). Galileo will give you about the
>>> same accuracy. I suppose the US can jam both. I'd guess if they could
>>> not, they would not have increased the accuracy publicly available and
>>> would make much more of a fuss about Galileo.

>>I doubt that US can jam Galileo just by turning a switch as it it with GPS.
>>But they probably will develop some jamming feature against the Galileos
>>signals.

>I heared that turning back on selective availability is not much of an
>option anymore because the economic aplications that depend on it are
>too valuable to lose and that the SA cannot be targeted in a small
>enough area.

The cost of losing even a limited war, trumps pretty much every other
economic consideration. Since the subject here is how the United States
might be defeated in war, GPS cannot be the answer - either it isn't
decisive for the hypothetical adversary or it is, and if it is the
screams of all the world's commercial users won't stop the Pentagon
from pulling the plug.

--
*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 *

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 12:54 AM

On 21 Dec 2003 23:28:48 -0800, George William Herbert > wrote:
>Fred J. McCall > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
>>:On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:41:35 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>>:>:co-ordination = radio
>>:>In which case we're going to KNOW when you're spooling up to shoot and
>>:>you'll be dead before everybody gets rolled out and ready.
>>:
>>:Hasve you never heard of encryption, or are you trolling?
>>
>>Hasve [sic] you never heard of traffic analysis, or are you trolling?
>
>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.
>
>The messages are sent, every minute, every hour, every day.
>Most of the time they decrypt to "Nothing is happening,
>the wind is west at ten kilometers per hour in central
>Bagwabadad, the temperature is twenty three celsius,
>our fearless leader

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

>wishes you good will guarding our
>important sacred borders, have a nice day. [spaces padding
>out to 1k total chars]"

Or better still, make the null messages just encrypted nonsense.

--
"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).

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 12:55 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:01:52 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>> (phil hunt) wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> :Usingn the right
>> :programming tools is important, for example the right lasnguasge or
>> :(more likely) set of languages. On which lanugages to use, Paul
>> :Graham's essays on language design, and the way Lisp makes it easy
>> :for you to in effect write your own specialised language for the job
>> :in hand, are apposite.
>>
>> Again, this is wonderful until someone has to enhance or maintain the
>> result. EVERY effort written in a 'one-off' special purpose language?
>> Ugh!
>
>He wants to use lisp for real time software !

No, he merely thinks Lisp's macro system has advantages, when trying
to solve hard problems.

--
"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).

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 12:58 AM

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 01:02 AM

On 22 Dec 2003 17:41:26 GMT, Bertil Jonell > wrote:
>In article >,
>phil hunt > wrote:
>>On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell > wrote:
>>>In article >,
>>>phil hunt > wrote:
>>>>I've worked as a programmer for
>>>>defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
>>>>me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
>>>>written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
>>>>magnitude more efficiency.
>>>
>>> What competing method is there except for Open Source?
>>
>>Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS
>>projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful.
>
> The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is
>very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are
>talking about here.
> It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure
>that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to
>making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines.
> Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything
>like secret.

Certainly.

Using open source software such as operating systems, IP stacks,
image processing libraries, encryption libraries and the like would
probably be appropriate, and contributing any changes back to those
codebases might well be a good idea. The really secret stuff is much
less likely to be made available.

I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

--
"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).

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 01:30 AM

pervect > wrote:

:On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:47:23 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>pervect > wrote:
:>
:>:From my POV, the key point that I missed in my earlier post (the one
:>:you just replied to, there have been a bunch since then) is that GPS
:>:is spread spectrum.
:>
:>Which really doesn't buy you much in the way of security. DS-SS
:>merely makes it easier for the receivers to do ranging functions.
:
:You're missing the forest for the trees - or maybe you just like to
:argue? :-)

Or maybe I know more about botany than you do?

:I'm going to give a reference of my own:
:http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9508043
:
:for an overview of a more theoretical and high-level approach as to
:how GPS works, and to support the following statements I'm going to
:make as to how GPS works.

I would suggest a pair of alternative documents for more than just a
brief relativistic discussion: "NAVSTAR GPS User Equipment
Introduction" for an overview of the system and ICD-GPS-200C for a
description of what the signals actually look like and how they're
used (what you really want to look at are ICD-GPS-203, ICD-GPS-224,
and ICD-GPS-225, but those aren't really open to discussion here).

:The very basic principles of GPS are that are it is a bunch of
:orbiting clocks, all of which (in the simplest model) transmit their
:own proper time.

Right so far.

:An observer on the ground, at a fixed location, knows what the proper
:time on the satellite must have been when it was sent, when he
:recieves the signal, because he knows (or can directly observe) the
:satellites orbit.

Well, not quite. There's a bit more to it than that.

:Therfore, ultimately, an approach based on encryption is going to boil
:down to encrypting something that everybody already knows or can
:figure out, which is not going to be terribly secure.

Except you don't know all of what you need to know, so you really
don't know what the clear text is supposed to be.

:Spread spectrum tecniques are really crucial to making this system
:have the level of security it actually does.

Ok, view it that way if you like. I'm really not going to talk about
it other than what I've already said.

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

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 02:14 AM

(phil hunt) wrote:

:I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
:procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
:closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
:CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

What do you think the rest of us are doing? Chipping the stuff out on
stone tablets?

Ray Drouillard

December 23rd 03, 02:22 AM

"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

Ray Drouillard

December 23rd 03, 02:24 AM

"pervect" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:15:56 +0000, (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.

You don't necessarily need stationary transmitters. After all, the GPS
transmitters aren't stationary.

If the transmitters transmit their locations to the receivers, the
receivers can do the necessary calculations to get a fix.

Ray Drouillard

Pete

December 23rd 03, 03:33 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 22 Dec 2003 17:41:26 GMT, Bertil Jonell >
wrote:
> >In article >,
> >phil hunt > wrote:
> >>On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell >
wrote:
> >>>In article >,
> >>>phil hunt > wrote:
> >>>>I've worked as a programmer for
> >>>>defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
> >>>>me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
> >>>>written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
> >>>>magnitude more efficiency.
> >>>
> >>> What competing method is there except for Open Source?
> >>
> >>Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS
> >>projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful.
> >
> > The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is
> >very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are
> >talking about here.
> > It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure
> >that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to
> >making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines.
> > Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything
> >like secret.
>
> Certainly.
>
> Using open source software such as operating systems, IP stacks,
> image processing libraries, encryption libraries and the like would
> probably be appropriate, and contributing any changes back to those
> codebases might well be a good idea. The really secret stuff is much
> less likely to be made available.
>
> I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
> procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
> closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
> CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

Those are mere techniques to facilitate the actual work. And have little to
do with actually designing a viable weapons system.

The type of paper upon which you compose your missile design has nothing to
do with building a missile.

And a lot of those OSS techniques are not conducive to weapons design.
Folding your mods back into an OSS image processing library, for instance,
is not too wise when you are trying to develop a system in secret. Unless of
course you want your potential targets to know exactly what your system is
looking for (and thereby how to defeat it).

Pete

Pete

December 23rd 03, 03:52 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:25:54 +0000, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
> >In message >, phil hunt
> > writes
> >>On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >>>That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous
combat
> >>>systems.
> >>
> >>Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
> >>written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
> >>picture.
> >
> >Falling off a cliff isn't a problem once you've learned how to fly like
> >Superman.
> >
> >Trouble is, that prerequisite is harder than you might expect.
> >
> >Getting a machine to tell a T-72 from a M1A1 from a Leclerc is hard
> >enough in good conditions
>
> You don't have to. You have to be able to tell whether it's a
> vehicle or not, and if it is, is it in an area likely to be occupied
> by own forces.

That 'area' changes hourly. And may not be known until the weapon gets over
the target area.

>
> >: doing so in the presence of camouflage,
> >obscurants and when the crew have run out of internal stowage (so have
> >hung lots of external gear) and maybe stored some spare track plates on
> >the glacis front ('cause they need the spare plates and they might as
> >well be extra armour) gets _really_ tricky. Do you err on the side of
> >"tank-like vehicle, kill!" or "if you're not sure don't attack"?
>
> I'd tend to err towards the former. note that it's a lot easy to
> spot a moving vehicle than a stationary one.

Do you waste a missile on a dark green Chevy Suburban, or a tank? Do you
have enough missiles for *every* vehicle in front of you?

>
> >Would it not be embarrasing to have a successful armoured raid broken up
> >by your own missiles?
>
> Indeed. Maybe some form of IFF?

Even the US/NATO gets that wrong sometimes.

Pete

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 04:10 AM

On 21 Dec 2003 17:57:58 -0800, George William Herbert > wrote:
>phil hunt > wrote:
>>Which requirements am I underestimating? (Bear in mind I'm
>>considering missiles for several different roles).
>
>Let me give you an example... assume that you need a certain
>pixel width of an object to successfully identify it
>(say, 10 pixels across) with a certain contrast ratio.
>
>You also have certain limitations on the maneuverability
>of the airframe this is all one. It can't pull more than
>a certain number of G's etc.

I can imaigne a small, light wooden airframe, designed for low
detectability, pulling much lower Gs than a faster airframe, which
might be made of metal.

>To successfully design the homing mechanism, you need to
>assess the distance and light or background noise conditions
>of the frequencies you're looking at (visual, IIR, whatever)
>and the magnification of the imaging system and its optical
>resolution. You need to have a wide enough field of view that
>you can see the targets as you fly along searching, but not
>so wide that you won't be able to discriminate a target
>until it's so close that maneuvering to hit it becomes
>a serious problem.

I think that examining how nature has solved similar problems is
useful. The human eye has lots of closely-placed pixels at the
center, and in the periphery pixels are much more widely spread.
Perhaps the system could use one (or more) wide angle lenses, and a
(possibly movable) telephoto lens for giving more detailed attention
to an object.

> You need to assess the impact on
>the sensor and field of view of the background coloration
>across the target areas, etc.

Human eyes have 3 colours. There no reason in principle why an
artificial eye would have that number. (Though if we are using cheap
hardware, it probably would).

If a vehicle is stationary, and camoflaged, it's going to be a *lot*
harder to spot than a moving one. I think going for the ability to
spot moving vehicles well, and stationary vehicles a lot less well,
is adequate performance.

>With a much simpler system, laser spot homing,

But who shines the laser on the right spot? Or are you assuming
there's a human with a laser designator in the loop?

> I spent
>some months working out that nested set of problems.
>Taking one shortcut made the weapon not lock on if
>the ballistic miss trajectory was too far off.
>Taking another meant that it typically locked
>on early in a portion of its flight that led to
>it flying out of control as it lost energy trying
>to track the laser spot as it flew out.

I'm not with you there... could you explain?

> It would
>scrub too much forwards velocity off early and then
>start to come down too short of the target and stall
>out trying to correct for that.

Because it was manouvring too much at the start?

>You actually have to sit down, design a notional design,
>put a notional sensor on it, figure out what the
>parameters are, and simulate it for a while to see
>what the gotchas are.

That makes sense -- I'm sure lots of things wouldn't work right
first time.

> That requires models of the
>sensor, guidance, optics or transmitter, target
>behaviour, aerodynamics, and trajectory / movement
>dynamics of the weapon.
>
>Even getting a rough first pass of that to tell you
>what the roughly right answers are is nontrivial,
>can easily be months of work, and requires experience
>across a very wide range of diciplines (or a keen
>ability to figure out what you don't know and find
>it via research).

How much are simulated environments used in designing missile
homing systems? By a simulated environment, I mean the missile
software is working as it would be on the real missile, but output
instead of going to control surfaces, goes to a flight simulation
program, and input, instead of coming from a visula sensor (or
whatever) comes from a program which simulates what the output of
that sensor would be under those conditions?

>>>But few of those have progressed to production.
>>>The new Marines/Navy Spike missile is one
>>>exception,
>>
>>This is the Israeli ATGM, isn't it?
>
>No, there are two missiles named Spike,

And two named Javelin, incidently.

>and I'm referring to the US Navy / China Lake one.
>http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pao/pg/Articles/SpikeND.htm

I can't load that URL.

--
"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).

Jordan179

December 23rd 03, 04:15 AM

Simon Morden > wrote in message >...
>
> Which is what I would suggest. No country could currently defeat the USA in a
> stand-up fight. So disperse your army globally and take out US-interest soft
> targets: embassies, companies, tourists, registered shipping, anything that
> flies a US flag.
>
> The losses would be sickening, and it makes me nauseous to think about the
> scenario. Especially if army elements managed to get on US soil.

I see serious problems regarding command, control, communications, and
morale of the dispersed army in such a situation. I also see another
serious problem, in that you are buying yourself potential war with
_every_ country that your dispersed army is operating on -- other
countries are unlikely to take a very positive attitude towards your
"soldiers" (they would more likely be viewed as "terrorists" or
"homicidal maniacs") blowing themselves up on their soil to attack
Americans.

What is likely is that most of your "army" would defect or desert, a
few attacks would be carried out alienating virtually the whole world
against one, and your regime would finish their lives as criminals
wanted by pretty much every country on Earth.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Pete

December 23rd 03, 04:26 AM

"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...

Pete

Steve Hix

December 23rd 03, 04:40 AM

In article >,
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:

> The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
> enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I
> infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units capable of
> operating on their own initiative.

One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
fighting somewhat harder.

pervect

December 23rd 03, 05:00 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:48:46 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>pervect > wrote:
>
>:On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:45:07 GMT, (Derek
>:Lyons) wrote:
>:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
>:>
>:>>This is all pretty easy to jam, since the frequencies are
>:>>all known beforehand, but that general *approach* is very
>:>>hard to penetrate with traffic analysis.
>:>
>:><note: This is more-or-less how the SSBN comm system works in fact.>
>:>
>:>It's hard to penetrate with traffic analysis, yes. However a station
>:>transmitting 24/7 is a station that's easily located, and a station
>:>that will eat a gross of ordinance at H hour + .01 second.
>:
>:So everyobody goes on red alert as soon as the primary station stops
>:broadcasting, and the targetting information has to be sent by the
>:second backup station.
>
>Then we're back to traffic analysis. If they stay up, they get
>killed. If they don't stay up, coming up tells you something is going
>on. No way around that.

Actually there's something I forgot to mention - using similar spread
spectrum techniques as, for instance, GPS, it will in general be
fairly hard to tell that a high tech wide bandwidth low power
transmitter is "up" at all.

So even the 24 hour radiating link might not be terribly conspicuous
from an emissions point of view. And the backup links will be even
less conspicuous.

OTOH I would guess that good (high altitude with good field of view)
locations for antenna systems will be bombed as a matter of principle,
including anything that even looks like an antenna farm.

In any event, one of the first profitable investments for Elbonia
might be a modern C&C infrastructure that will be hard to monitor,
spoof, or take down.

pervect

December 23rd 03, 05:23 AM

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. Probably the best approach would be to grow their
own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
think that they can just buy one).

This isn't the position I started out with, BTW, but as the discussion
proceeded the point sort of grew on me.

I think that the US is well aware of this, and is doing its level best
to suppress and discourage such actions. Hence some of our
silly-seeming export regulations that ban this, that, and the other
thing for export. (I don't expect these regulations will actually
accomplish much, BTW.)

I also think there will be an increase in the use of nuclear weapons,
and that the wave of current US military actions will, as a side
effect, encourage nuclear proliferation. I don't think that this will
be widely announced, though - I think that everyone will claim not to
have weapons of mass destruction, and when intelligence turns up
irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons, they will merely blink and
calmly state that said weapons are purely defensive for use against
military targets only and are in no way classifiable as being WMD.

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 05:29 AM

pervect > wrote:

:Actually there's something I forgot to mention - using similar spread
:spectrum techniques as, for instance, GPS, it will in general be
:fairly hard to tell that a high tech wide bandwidth low power
:transmitter is "up" at all.

So we've established the following so far in this discussion:

1) Tanks can't kill anything, since it can dodge.

2) ECM doesn't work.

There was another equally silly one, but I forget what it was. No
matter.

Even trolls should know more about their subject than we're seeing
demonstrated here.

--
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto

Peter Stickney

December 23rd 03, 05:37 AM

In article >,
"John" > writes:
> "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. Claiming that the tanks will
> close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
> fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
> down smart munitions.

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.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War. Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
unlikely. (Lots of irregular terrain, lots of trees & brush - European
forests are like gardens in comparison.) Engagement ranges within
urban areas are very short - usually on the order of 200m or so.

Time of Flight for a main gun round to 2000m is about 1.2 seconds.
Time of Flight to 200m, is (Wait for it - 0.12 seconds.
Now, Sport, How much are you going to be dodging your SUV in 1.2
seconds. Be aware that you'll have to shave at least 0.5 seconds off
of that for the driver's reaction time.

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.

>> And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
>> citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
>> the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
>> aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.
>
> However the question wasn't about poor countries, but middle-ranking ones,
> which I took to mean ones comparable to most european nations. Of such I'd
> say only Britian or France had the capacity to blunt a US attack, and only
> because they can both MIRV task-forces whilst they cross the atlantic.
> Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
> either.

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.
U.S. Supply Convoys hump along at 20 kts, these days, so you're
looking at a 10 NM circle there.
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.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Penta

December 23rd 03, 05:55 AM

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:46:29 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote:
>
>:
>:"phil hunt" > wrote
>:
>:> I imagine the missiles could
>:> be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet
>:> cable into a slot on the missile.
>:
>:Here ya go. Code to this explanation, and you're all set.
>:
>:http://www.techblvd.com/Rvideo/Guidance.wav
>:
>:Easy.
>
>What's really spooky is that this isn't all that bad a description of
>how ProNav works. :-)

what's ProNav?

Derek Lyons

December 23rd 03, 06:14 AM

(phil hunt) wrote:
>He went to the NZ government before starting the project, told him
>what he was about to do, and they told him it was legal.

That's not entirely clear, and he somewhat obfuscates the issue. It
appears that what happened is he told the goverment he was going to
sell pulsejet technology, and *that* is what they told him was legal,
not the cruise missile project.

>Then a few months later, they shut him down by making him bankrupt.

Another half truth, though I don't know if it's you, or you parroting
his half truths. They collected a judgement against him for failing
to pay his taxes.

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.

pervect

December 23rd 03, 06:15 AM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:29:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>pervect > wrote:
>
>:Actually there's something I forgot to mention - using similar spread
>:spectrum techniques as, for instance, GPS, it will in general be
>:fairly hard to tell that a high tech wide bandwidth low power
>:transmitter is "up" at all.
>
>So we've established the following so far in this discussion:
>
>1) Tanks can't kill anything, since it can dodge.
>
>2) ECM doesn't work.
>
>There was another equally silly one, but I forget what it was. No
>matter.
>
>Even trolls should know more about their subject than we're seeing
>demonstrated here.

If you think tanks can't kill anything, you might want to explain how
you came to that conclusion, it isn't very apparent to me.

For extra credit, you might try explaining how the issue of whether or
not "tanks can kill anything" has anything to do with what I actually
said about the difficulty of detecting spread spectrum signals.

pervect

December 23rd 03, 06:19 AM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:30:25 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>:Spread spectrum tecniques are really crucial to making this system
>:have the level of security it actually does.
>
>Ok, view it that way if you like. I'm really not going to talk about
>it other than what I've already said.

OK, if you don't want to explain yourself, I can't force you to.

Derek Lyons

December 23rd 03, 06:19 AM

pervect > wrote:
>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.

Certainly, but homegrowing them as you suggest below is the work of
decades, not weeks or months.

>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.

Simply making it modern doesn't reduce it's vulnerability. What does
do so it a lot of hard thinking about it's vulnerabilities, and how to
patch those without introducting too much additional complexity,
cruft, or new vulnerabilities.

>Probably the best approach would be to grow their
>own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
>think that they can just buy one).

That approach has to start in the elementary schools... And the last
thing the Elbonian dynasty wants is a well educated middle class.

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.

Derek Lyons

December 23rd 03, 06:22 AM

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote:
>
>:I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
>:procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
>:closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
>:CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.
>
>What do you think the rest of us are doing? Chipping the stuff out on
>stone tablets?
>

No, embroidering on the ties you are forced to wear.

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.

Charles Gray

December 23rd 03, 06:34 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:23:50 -0800, pervect >
wrote:

>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. Probably the best approach would be to grow their
>own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
>think that they can just buy one).
>

So all Elbonia has to do is create a modern middle class, capable
of supporting an educated technical infrastructure...and by the way,
keep said middile class from chucking the leadership out. Not only
isn't that easy, but that';s not a 10 year project, its a 30 year
project.

>
>I also think there will be an increase in the use of nuclear weapons,
>and that the wave of current US military actions will, as a side
>effect, encourage nuclear proliferation. I don't think that this will
>be widely announced, though - I think that everyone will claim not to
>have weapons of mass destruction, and when intelligence turns up
>irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons, they will merely blink and
>calmly state that said weapons are purely defensive for use against
>military targets only and are in no way classifiable as being WMD.

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.

Coridon Henshaw

December 23rd 03, 06:41 AM

pervect > wrote in
:

> In any event, one of the first profitable investments for Elbonia
> might be a modern C&C infrastructure that will be hard to monitor,
> spoof, or take down.

All this talk about communications misses the point somewhat. The
Americans open most of their imperial conquests by dropping a GBU-28 into
the victim country's central command bunker. Robust communications aren't
all that much use when there's no one left to give the orders.

The goal for Elbonia should not be robust communications alone but rather
to develop a heavily distributed command system that isn't particularly
vulnerable to the kind of golden-BB decapitation strikes that the Americans
have perfected. This is, however, only going to be possible for values of
'Elbonia' along the lines of India, China or the EU.

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

Erik Max Francis

December 23rd 03, 06:48 AM

Derek Lyons wrote:

> Another half truth, though I don't know if it's you, or you parroting
> his half truths. They collected a judgement against him for failing
> to pay his taxes.

Indeed, I found that to be the most suspicious part of his story, a
really strong indication he was rationalizing away his responsibility.
How does the government trick you into failing to pay your taxes, so
they can scrub a project of yours, exactly, anyway?

Another very telling bit of the story is that his Web page _used_ to
mention the tax evasion, but it appears not to anymore (at least not on
the front page, and I'm pretty sure the text there is largely the same),
since I heard about the tax evasion from his own site. I'd say the
removal of that little detail is also rather telling.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ A life without festivity is a long road without an inn.
-- Democritus

pervect

December 23rd 03, 07:08 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:51 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

>And then the secondary system gets targeted PDQ...

AFAIK, against a good spread-spectrum system, you won't do much better
than to be able to monitor the total energy with a broad-band
detector.

Spread spectrum systems also tend to have much lower transmitter power
than conventional systems - by Shannon's channel theorem, the channel
capacity is proportional to the bandwidth, but only grows
logarithmically with transmitter power. So you'll need a lot less
power for a given bitrate with a wide channel.

The net result is that you can only detect the energy of the
transmitter above background noise when you are fairly close to the
transmitter.

I'm really not sure how quickly you can count on taking out a spread
spectrum transmitter. Especially when it's put on a low duty cycle
transmit mode rather than a continuous transmit mode.

To be realistic, I'd anticipate that anything that looks like an
antenna farm would be bombed, and that some anti-radiation missiles
(presumably looking for signals in the known bandwidth that the enemy
uses) might be left "loitering" in areas that are likely to contain
transmitters (ones with good lines of sight). I suspect that the
former might be more important than the later. Prepatory intelligence
work (like bribing or having agents follow service people) would also
be a factor in locating transmitter sites.

Keith Willshaw

December 23rd 03, 08:02 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:01:52 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> (phil hunt) wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> :Usingn the right
> >> :programming tools is important, for example the right lasnguasge or
> >> :(more likely) set of languages. On which lanugages to use, Paul
> >> :Graham's essays on language design, and the way Lisp makes it easy
> >> :for you to in effect write your own specialised language for the job
> >> :in hand, are apposite.
> >>
> >> Again, this is wonderful until someone has to enhance or maintain the
> >> result. EVERY effort written in a 'one-off' special purpose language?
> >> Ugh!
> >
> >He wants to use lisp for real time software !
>
> No, he merely thinks Lisp's macro system has advantages, when trying
> to solve hard problems.
>

And some nasty disadvantages which is why it has somewhat
fallen out of favour.

Keith

Bernardz

December 23rd 03, 09:39 AM

In article >,
says...
> In article <MPG.1a519da6af0338a89897c2@news>,
> Bernardz > wrote:
>
> > <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm>
> >
> > States that "North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within
> > range of Seoul...is within range of the 170mm Koksan gun and two hundred
> > 240mm multiple-rocket launchers...The proximity of these long-range
> > systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with
> > devastating attacks."
> >
> > Such an attack might result in a 100,000 dead in Seoul in the first day.
>
> ...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. We would definitely know once they
started firing in bulk missiles and shells.

If that moment comes, I doubt we would have time to knock their radar
defenses. That means it going to be very dangerous there.

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

22nd saying of Bernard

Damo

December 23rd 03, 09:52 AM

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Damo" > wrote:
>
> :
> :"> :If they can be mass-produced for $10,000 each, then a $1 bn
> :> :procurement -- and the sort of countries we're talking about
> :> :typically sign bigger weapons contracts than that -- would buy
> :> :100,000 missiles.
> :>
> :> I think you need to go look at this again. Hell, why not assume they
> :> cost $1 each and can be made by kindergardeners?
> :
> :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. 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.

Damo

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

pervect

December 23rd 03, 10:01 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:08:58 -0800, pervect >
wrote:

>I'm really not sure how quickly you can count on taking out a spread
>spectrum transmitter. Especially when it's put on a low duty cycle
>transmit mode rather than a continuous transmit mode.

I'm going to throw some numbers at this problem.

The shannon-hartley capacity of the communication channel should be

B(log2(1+S/N)), where S/N is the signal/noise ratio (measured at the
receiver), and B is the bandwidth.

Let's say our goal is to have the same channel capacity as a 25khz
channel with a 10 db S/N. That would be about 86khz. Round it up to
100khz, this is just a BOTE calculation.

Now lets suppose our spread spectrum channel is about 10Ghz wide.

log2(1+S/N)= 10^-5

S/N=.69e-5 (needed at the receiver)

Assuming inverse square law propagation, we'll have to be about
1/sqrt(.69e-5) = 400x closer to the source than the receiver is to get
a S/N of 1. So if the reciever was 40km away from the transmitter,
we'd have to be within about 100m of the source to have a S/N of 1.

With long enough integration times from a fixed site, we can probably
get some sort of bearing with a S/N < 1, but I doubt that any sort of
rapidly moving radiation seeking missile is going to be able to lock
on unless the signal is at least as strong as the noise. It should
also be pretty easy to setup false antennas transmitting low levels of
broadband noise to make any such missile's job very difficult unless
the attacker doesn't mind launching a bunch of them and also doesn't
care what they might hit (collateral damage).

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 12:23 PM

Penta > wrote:

:On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:46:29 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>"Pete" > wrote:
:>
:>:
:>:"phil hunt" > wrote
:>:
:>:> I imagine the missiles could
:>:> be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet
:>:> cable into a slot on the missile.
:>:
:>:Here ya go. Code to this explanation, and you're all set.
:>:
:>:http://www.techblvd.com/Rvideo/Guidance.wav
:>:
:>:Easy.
:>
:>What's really spooky is that this isn't all that bad a description of
:>how ProNav works. :-)
:
:what's ProNav?

Proportional Navigation. It's how virtually all GPS-guided weapons
fly.

[GPS-guided weapons is something of a misnomer, just by the way.
They're all really GPS-aided strapdown inertial.]

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

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 12:27 PM

pervect > wrote:

:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:29:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>pervect > wrote:
:>
:>:Actually there's something I forgot to mention - using similar spread
:>:spectrum techniques as, for instance, GPS, it will in general be
:>:fairly hard to tell that a high tech wide bandwidth low power
:>:transmitter is "up" at all.
:>
:>So we've established the following so far in this discussion:
:>
:>1) Tanks can't kill anything, since it can dodge.
:>
:>2) ECM doesn't work.
:>
:>There was another equally silly one, but I forget what it was. No
:>matter.
:>
:>Even trolls should know more about their subject than we're seeing
:>demonstrated here.
:
:If you think tanks can't kill anything, you might want to explain how
:you came to that conclusion, it isn't very apparent to me.

Oh, *I* don't think that. However, 'your' side has made the argument
that tank-killing SUVs are practically because tanks can't hit them,
as "all they have to do is dodge by half their vehicle width".

:For extra credit, you might try explaining how the issue of whether or
:not "tanks can kill anything" has anything to do with what I actually
:said about the difficulty of detecting spread spectrum signals.

It doesn't. It's merely another silly contention coming from 'your'
side of the argument. Yours is "ECM can't work".

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

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 12:28 PM

pervect > wrote:

:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:30:25 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>:Spread spectrum tecniques are really crucial to making this system
:>:have the level of security it actually does.
:>
:>Ok, view it that way if you like. I'm really not going to talk about
:>it other than what I've already said.
:
:OK, if you don't want to explain yourself, I can't force you to.

That's right, you can't. Have your security department send my
security department your clearance and then call me on a STUIII.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 01:04 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

:"phil hunt" > wrote in message
...
:> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:01:52 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
:> >
:> >He wants to use lisp for real time software !
:>
:> No, he merely thinks Lisp's macro system has advantages, when trying
:> to solve hard problems.
:
:And some nasty disadvantages which is why it has somewhat
:fallen out of favour.

And if he likes LISP's ability to redefine the world, he'll LOVE
FORTH....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall

December 23rd 03, 01:16 PM

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

: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.

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

John

December 23rd 03, 01:30 PM

"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.

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
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?

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.

>
> 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. 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. ;)

> 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
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! ^.^

ANTIcarrot.

Andrew McCruden

December 23rd 03, 01:50 PM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John" > writes:
> > "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. Claiming that the tanks
will
> > close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated
AT
> > fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to
shoot
> > down smart munitions.
>
> 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.
> The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
> 1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
> the 1990-91 Gulf War.

This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot i've
seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the range I've
seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m is the lowest
range figure by far

It certainly was NOT a Challenger II, The II didn't exist in 1991, all the
British Tanks deployed in Desert Storm were Chalenger I's

Daniel Silevitch

December 23rd 03, 02:00 PM

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>
>1) Tanks can't kill anything, since it can dodge.
>
>2) ECM doesn't work.
>
>There was another equally silly one, but I forget what it was. No
>matter.

3) Everything can be (easily) done in software.

-dms

IBM

December 23rd 03, 02:09 PM

"John" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> 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. So you need a total

Well, I suupose if there was a large quantity of fuel lying about
in puddles on deck that might be true, otherwise what kind of
drugs are you on?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Yeff

December 23rd 03, 02:29 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:50:27 -0000, Andrew McCruden wrote:

> This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot i've
> seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the range I've
> seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m is the lowest
> range figure by far
>
> It certainly was NOT a Challenger II, The II didn't exist in 1991, all the
> British Tanks deployed in Desert Storm were Chalenger I's

I've got a vague memory of that and I believe it was a French shot.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 03:05 PM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
>One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
>initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
>fighting somewhat harder.

True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.

--
"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).

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 03:19 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:02:34 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>> No, he merely thinks Lisp's macro system has advantages, when trying
>> to solve hard problems.
>
>And some nasty disadvantages which is why it has somewhat
>fallen out of favour.

All solutions have disadvantages. (Because all the ones that don't a
standard practise, and no-one ever considers doing it another way).

--
"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).

Chad Irby

December 23rd 03, 03:50 PM

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.

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

If they ever get the chance, that is.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

December 23rd 03, 03:59 PM

In article >,
"John" > wrote:

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

That's interesting, because the vast majority of deployed ATGM systems
in the world have a range of much less than half that, and only one or
two can make as much as 6,000 meters.

The smaller ones that would fit in the "slap it on an SUV" category
would be in the 1,000 to 1,500 meter range.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Alistair Gunn

December 23rd 03, 04:07 PM

In sci.military.naval John twisted the electrons to say:
> UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads ...

Operative word there being *can* - by all accounts, they only carry 3
warheads per missile. This being done to defuse the peace-niks in the UK
by saying it's not a massive upgrade over Polaris because it only has the
same number of warheads ...

> Otherwise a single sub can destroy america. MAD remember? ;)

1 sub x 16 missiles x 3 warheads a piece, I think America consists of
more than 48 places of "interest" ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Paul J. Adam

December 23rd 03, 05:14 PM

In message >, Peter Stickney
> writes
>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.
>The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
>1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
>the 1990-91 Gulf War.

5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)

>Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
>longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
>European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
>1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
>Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
>unlikely.

Open-fire ranges tend to be considerably longer, 2-2.5 kilometres being
frequent when visibility permits: however, the enemy rarely agrees to
cooperatively sit at that range.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Derek Lyons

December 23rd 03, 05:57 PM

"John" > wrote:
>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.

ROTFLMAO. Theres considerable more energy required to burst tanks in
the bottom of a steel ship than there is to start an urban area on
fire. (On top of which modern combatants are designed to withstand
considerable overpressure.)

>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
>arget at the moment of launch, which it can't.

This assumes that you can determine the position, course, and speed of
the convoy accurately (no navigation error in your sensor), get the
information back within a reasonable timeframe (without getting killed
when you radiate) and fire your missiles with a sufficiently low CEP
(>1 mile)... And even then it's unlikely you'll actually sink a ship.

>As I said, nuclear buckshot will kill most things. ;)

Thats the wet dream of most armchair admirals. The reality is quite
different.

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.

John Schilling

December 23rd 03, 07:07 PM

Erik Max Francis > writes:

>Derek Lyons wrote:

>> Another half truth, though I don't know if it's you, or you parroting
>> his half truths. They collected a judgement against him for failing
>> to pay his taxes.

>Indeed, I found that to be the most suspicious part of his story, a
>really strong indication he was rationalizing away his responsibility.
>How does the government trick you into failing to pay your taxes, so
>they can scrub a project of yours, exactly, anyway?

Oh, that's easy. Just have a corrupt county sheriff, the Illinois
Highway patrol, the Chicago PD, an irate country-western band, the
Illinois Nazi Party, the National Guard, and Carrie Fisher all line
up to stop them from delivering the check to the assessor's office
before the deadline...

--
*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 *

John Schilling

December 23rd 03, 07:18 PM

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 *

pervect

December 23rd 03, 08:49 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:27:28 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>pervect > wrote:
>
>:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:29:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>pervect > wrote:
>

>:If you think tanks can't kill anything, you might want to explain how
>:you came to that conclusion, it isn't very apparent to me.
>
>Oh, *I* don't think that. However, 'your' side has made the argument
>that tank-killing SUVs are practically because tanks can't hit them,
>as "all they have to do is dodge by half their vehicle width".

I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
"my" side, and for that matter, who is on yours?

John Schilling

December 23rd 03, 09:05 PM

(phil hunt) writes:

>On 19 Dec 2003 15:56:55 GMT, Bertil Jonell > wrote:
>>In article >,
>>phil hunt > wrote:
>>>Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
>>>written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
>>>picture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
>>>target.

>> Have you looked up "Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance" by Zarchan
>>(ISBN 1-56347-254-6) like I recommended?

>I haven't -- I tend not to read off-net sources, due to time, space
>and money constraints.

Then you know just enough about any subject to be dangerous. We're
still at least a decade away from the net being more than a suppliment
to the printed word - what gets put online now is the stuff that is
exciting and/or bragworthy, not the rigorous in-depth studies needed
to actually understand a new subject.

If you want to talk intelligently about what it takes to make a guided
missile, you need to know stuff that is printed in Zarchan and a very
few other (unfortunately expensive) textbooks and is to the best of my
knowledge not online anywhere. A good library may substitute for the
out-of-pocket cost of the book; there is no substitute for the time
and effort of reading the book.

And that's true of just about any other subject you might want to
discuss here.

--
*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 *

Keith Willshaw

December 23rd 03, 09:37 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:
> >
> >One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
> >initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
> >fighting somewhat harder.
>
> True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.

Hardly, the Wehrmacht certainly encouraged soldiers to use their
initiative at the tactical level but when it came to strategy $Godwin
insisted on micro managing the war down to battalion level.

The Panzer reserve was held back on D-Day because only
the Fuhrer could release them and he had taken a sleeping
pill and couldnt be wakened.

Keith

pervect

December 23rd 03, 09:48 PM

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.

Paul J. Adam

December 23rd 03, 10:32 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAM
>speakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
>>initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
>>fighting somewhat harder.
>
>True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.

The Wehrmacht had a good system of mission command at company level and
below, but was absolutely devoid of initiative at the operational level:
witness Hitler's orders that forbade any retreat under any
circumstances, even a false withdrawal to draw the enemy into a prepared
killing zone being forbidden (to say nothing of 'move it or lose it'
escapes)

It was obvious as early as 1940 (the Luftwaffe's fighters are most
effective high above the bombers they're protecting, but the bomber
crews want to _see_ their escorts, so the fighters get ordered to fly
slow weaves next to the bombers) and continued through the war.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

John Schilling

December 23rd 03, 10:43 PM

Chad Irby > writes:

>In article <mail-0E43D5.00500922122003@localhost>,
> Michael Ash > wrote:

>> North Korea, on the other hand, has enough artillery on the border to
>> completely level Seoul within a few hours, from what I understand. That
>> alone is enough to stop any plans for an invasion. In a way, it's even
>> worse than the nuclear problem. Unlike a nuke and its delivery system,
>> there's no possible way to take out mumble-thousand pieces of artillery
>> before the deed has been done.

>Kinda makes you wonder how well they can coordinate those artillery
>pieces... they can't even feed their troops.

>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
>communications.

How do you jam a homing pigeon?

The DPRK is hopeless at economics, yes, but the NKPA does traditional
twentieth-century warfighting reasonably well. I have recently argued
in another post that their ability to destroy Seoul by artillery fire
is vastly overrated, that with few exceptions the guns simply won't
reach.

But what fixed targets are within 15-20km of the border, those are
going to get plastered. The North Korean artillery is seriously
hardened; area weapons like MRLS will not even annoy it, only the
one-on-one attention of guided penetrator munitions. We can't
deliver those fast enough to take out the guns before they shoot
through their ready stocks of ammunition.

And the command and control battle, *on this issue*, favors the
North. Planned bombardment of fixed targets by prepositioned
artillery assets, requires only the general distribution of an
"Execute War Plan A" message in real time. War Plan A itself
can be distributed ahead of time, and as securely dug in as the
guns that will execute it. The implementation order goes out by
general broadcast, landline telephone, bicycle courier, signal
flare, and I wasn't kidding about carrier pigeons. With massive
redundancy in all channels. It will get through.

Once events diverge from War Plan A, yes, the NKPA will be blind,
dumb, and paralyzed. But the first day of battle, on the border,
will probably be theirs.

>For reference, look at the "massive" weapons infrastructure in Iraq, and
>how they never managed to get more than a few percent of them into play.
>And Iraq was in relatively good shape compared to what Korea's going
>through right now.

But Korea set everything up when, with Soviet and/or Chinese assistance,
they were in relatively good shape themselves. Given their patrons'
taste for extremely robust hardware designed for operation by illiterate
conscripts, that system will outlast the rest of North Korea by at least
a decade.

And the comparison with Iraq, misses some key differences. The Hussein
regime spent roughly a generation trying to opportunistically exploit
whatever weaknesses or instabilities their neighbors showed, and defend
against whatever threats arose, anywhere on a 2,500 km open desert border.
That requires flexibility at every level; "Execute War Plan A" doesn't
help the Iraqis.

North Korea, has had two generations to dig in and prepare for battle
with one specific adversary, on a 250 km front characterized by mountain
and storm. They know what they'll be facing on the first day of the
war, they are going to smash it hard, and we probably can't stop it.

Doesn't mean they would *win*, just that it won't be Iraq all over again.

--
*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 *

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 11:11 PM

On 23 Dec 2003 16:07:42 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>In sci.military.naval John twisted the electrons to say:
>> UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads ...
>
>Operative word there being *can* - by all accounts, they only carry 3
>warheads per missile. This being done to defuse the peace-niks in the UK
>by saying it's not a massive upgrade over Polaris because it only has the
>same number of warheads ...

Possibly. Another interpretation is that it's in continuation of
british policy of getting bad value for money in military equipment.
Another example of the same policy is the MRAV armoured vehicle:
Britain spent large amounts of money developing an 8x8 wheeled
vehicle (why? there are plenty of others on the market, and its a
mature technology so no big breakthroughs are possible), then
decided it didn't want the thing after all.

The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
something wrong here.

--
"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).

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 11:13 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:14:50 +0000, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Peter Stickney
> writes
>>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.
>>The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
>>1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
>>the 1990-91 Gulf War.
>
>5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)

I've seen a figure of 7 km for a Panther during WW2. I'm not sure I
believe it.

--
"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).

Chad Irby

December 23rd 03, 11:17 PM

In article >,
(John Schilling) wrote:

> How do you jam a homing pigeon?

A twelve gauge.

But the other question you *didn't* ask is "how effective is a homing
pigeon?"

> The DPRK is hopeless at economics, yes, but the NKPA does traditional
> twentieth-century warfighting reasonably well.

Really? Who have they gone up against in the last twenty years? How
well did they do?

And are you gauging the pre-starvation NK military, or the current one?

> North Korea, has had two generations to dig in and prepare for battle
> with one specific adversary, on a 250 km front characterized by mountain
> and storm. They know what they'll be facing on the first day of the
> war, they are going to smash it hard, and we probably can't stop it.

If it ever happens. That "go" order is the hard one to get out, and
it's seeming less and less likely that they'd be able to give it under
*any* circumstances.

> Doesn't mean they would *win*, just that it won't be Iraq all over again.

You're right. It might be shorter and less of a fight.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

phil hunt

December 23rd 03, 11:23 PM

On 23 Dec 2003 13:05:12 -0800, John Schilling > wrote:
(phil hunt) writes:
>
>>On 19 Dec 2003 15:56:55 GMT, Bertil Jonell > wrote:
>>>In article >,
>>>phil hunt > wrote:
>>>>Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
>>>>written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
>>>>picture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
>>>>target.
>
>>> Have you looked up "Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance" by Zarchan
>>>(ISBN 1-56347-254-6) like I recommended?
>
>>I haven't -- I tend not to read off-net sources, due to time, space
>>and money constraints.
>
>Then you know just enough about any subject to be dangerous. We're
>still at least a decade away from the net being more than a suppliment
>to the printed word - what gets put online now is the stuff that is
>exciting and/or bragworthy,

That's true to some extent, though as you say it's getting less true
all of the time.

>If you want to talk intelligently about what it takes to make a guided
>missile, you need to know stuff that is printed in Zarchan and a very
>few other (unfortunately expensive) textbooks and is to the best of my
>knowledge not online anywhere. A good library may substitute for the
>out-of-pocket cost of the book; there is no substitute for the time
>and effort of reading the book.

Indeed. True of Internet-based material too, of course.

--
"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).

Jordan179

December 24th 03, 01:20 AM

Michael Ash > wrote in message news:<mail-0E43D5.00500922122003@localhost>...
>
> North Korea, on the other hand, has enough artillery on the border to
> completely level Seoul within a few hours, from what I understand.

I'm not sure that this is possible with any real-world conventional
artillery. "Damage" Seoul, yes. "Completely level" is a whole other
order of destruction.

> That alone is enough to stop any plans for an invasion.

.... depends on our motivation. If we were, for instance, responding
to a North Korean nuclear attack, damage to Seoul might be considered
an acceptable cost.

> In a way, it's even
> worse than the nuclear problem. Unlike a nuke and its delivery system,
> there's no possible way to take out mumble-thousand pieces of artillery
> before the deed has been done.

I'm not sure that this is true. The artillery pieces, in firing,
would be giving away their location, and we would have total air
superiority over the battlefield.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

phil hunt

December 24th 03, 02:53 AM

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).

phil hunt

December 24th 03, 02:55 AM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:32:24 +0000, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAM
>>speakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>>One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
>>>initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
>>>fighting somewhat harder.
>>
>>True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.
>
>The Wehrmacht had a good system of mission command at company level and
>below, but was absolutely devoid of initiative at the operational level:

True, particularly as the war went on.

--
"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).

phil hunt

December 24th 03, 02:58 AM

On 23 Dec 2003 14:43:23 -0800, John Schilling > wrote:
>Chad Irby > writes:
>>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
>>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
>>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
>>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
>>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
>>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
>>communications.
>
>How do you jam a homing pigeon?

With a hawk or falcon, perhaps?

>And the command and control battle, *on this issue*, favors the
>North. Planned bombardment of fixed targets by prepositioned
>artillery assets, requires only the general distribution of an
>"Execute War Plan A" message in real time. War Plan A itself
>can be distributed ahead of time, and as securely dug in as the
>guns that will execute it. The implementation order goes out by
>general broadcast, landline telephone, bicycle courier, signal
>flare, and I wasn't kidding about carrier pigeons. With massive
>redundancy in all channels. It will get through.
>
>Once events diverge from War Plan A, yes, the NKPA will be blind,
>dumb, and paralyzed. But the first day of battle, on the border,
>will probably be theirs.

This seems an accurate assessment.

--
"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).

George William Herbert

December 24th 03, 04:08 AM

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...

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.

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

-george william herbert

George William Herbert

December 24th 03, 04:35 AM

John Schilling > wrote:
>and Carrie Fishe

*with* an M-16.

Don't forget the M-16.

-george

George William Herbert

December 24th 03, 04:51 AM

Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>: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.

I started saying that more than 10 years ago now, yeah.

There are now several other companies flying stuff in
the price / performance / complexity range I was talking
about, though I have not yet gotten full development
funding for my project and didn't receive one of the
DARPA FALCON project awards, though several of the
others did.

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

A lot of that is markup and costs associated with stuff
that has nothing inherently to do with the structure or
systems (interiors are not cheap).

Car engines and drivetrains also cost a lot more than
pulsejets do, cruise missile wings don't have to be
structurally all that complicated, etc.

People build homebuilt aircraft that are far larger
and more complicated (other than guidance electronics)
than our notional cruise missile for a thousand or two
thousand hours work invested, using tools and technology
that can be obtained in the bush in Rwanda if need be.
If we assume the cruise missile is half that effort,
that's five hundred to a thousand hours of effort.
In a lot of countries, people get paid a couple of
bucks an hour for reasonable tech-oriented labor.
If you wanted to do this with a prop (or, ducted fan)
there are two cycle aviation engines off the shelf
in quantity one at $2k and down for low power,
$4-5k and up some for about a hundred horsepower.
The ducted fan / afterburner job used in the
second generation, never used Kamizaze plane
used a hundred horsepower engine and a wooden
fan unit.

The only cost center which runs the risk of running
severely outside the budget is the computer and guidance
hardware. The INS will be several thousand in quantity
even if it's fiber optic gyros and MEMS accellerometers,
if you're aiming for 10 meter inertial accuracy over
those 200ish kilometers. The camera system engineering
will not be trivial, though the camera itself may end up
being very cheap (or cameras... CMOS cameras for $20 or
less retail today means that some solutions may just be
"buy more cameras"). The computer itself is trivial
and off the shelf, even hardened for flight. The software
is a sticky point but not as hard as some have made it out
to be, other than the image-matching software. I believe
that the image-matching problem is overstated here based
on previous investigations I have done, but I am not a
competent expert on that corner of the problem.

-george william herbert

George William Herbert

December 24th 03, 04:59 AM

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.

-george william herbert

George William Herbert

December 24th 03, 05:04 AM

John Schilling > wrote:
>[...]
>Invoking the Asymmetric Warfare buzzword does nothing to counter those
>capabilities. It isn't clear that they even *can* be countered, save
>in kind, but if it is possible it will involve a whole slew of very
>hard problems in its own right, and that the amateurish solutions
>posited here are not going to cut it.

Pushback. While you are generally correct... I think that some of
the enthusiasts here are not paying enough attention either to
details or to the big picture... I believe that there are some
unconventional and asymmetrical things which could be done which
would severely hamper western style warfare.

One of the things which could be done looks a lot like one of the
things under discussion here. There are many others, and the
overall strategy of defense by and only by massive cheap cruise
missiles is a grand scale loser, but as part of doing a lot of
other things it might well be a viable strategy component.

-george william herbert

George William Herbert

December 24th 03, 05:09 AM

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

Derek Lyons

December 24th 03, 06:46 AM

(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.

Bernardz

December 24th 03, 07:44 AM

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

pervect

December 24th 03, 07:54 AM

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:53:50 +0000, (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.

Bernardz

December 24th 03, 08:09 AM

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
> :out.
>
> 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.

Damo

December 24th 03, 08:18 AM

"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

Chad Irby

December 24th 03, 08:26 AM

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.

Chad Irby

December 24th 03, 08:31 AM

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.

Keith Willshaw

December 24th 03, 09:00 AM

"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 Keeney

December 24th 03, 09:36 AM

"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! ^.^

pervect

December 24th 03, 09:42 AM

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.

Charles Gray

December 24th 03, 10:37 AM

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:09:09 +1100, Bernardz
> wrote:

>
>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.
>
>
And required maitenance and was no where near a "store and fire"
weapon. You would need fueling facilities and that means taht "wooden
rounds" where you simply stick it in a container until you need to
shoot, are right out.
Also, you might consider that a large body of opinion holds that
the German's concentration on V weapons, rather than useful things,
such as fighters, may have hurt them worse than the weapons hurt the
allies-- in other words, the wonder weapon was a neat weapon-- for OUR
side.

Ash Wyllie

December 24th 03, 03:27 PM

John Schilling opined

>Chad Irby > writes:

>>In article <mail-0E43D5.00500922122003@localhost>,
>> Michael Ash > wrote:

>>> North Korea, on the other hand, has enough artillery on the border to
>>> completely level Seoul within a few hours, from what I understand. That
>>> alone is enough to stop any plans for an invasion. In a way, it's even
>>> worse than the nuclear problem. Unlike a nuke and its delivery system,
>>> there's no possible way to take out mumble-thousand pieces of artillery
>>> before the deed has been done.

>>Kinda makes you wonder how well they can coordinate those artillery
>>pieces... they can't even feed their troops.

>>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
>>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
>>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
>>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
>>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
>>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
>>communications.

>How do you jam a homing pigeon?

Big magnet.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Derek Lyons

December 24th 03, 04:58 PM

Bernardz > wrote:

>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.

Well, not quite. It was *assembled* by relatively unskilled labor.
Many components (warhead, guidance) required skilled labor, and much
of the machining required fairly skilled labor, but connecting the
parts built by skilled labor could be done by relatively unskilled
labor.

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.

Derek Lyons

December 24th 03, 05:01 PM

Charles Gray > wrote:

> And required maitenance and was no where near a "store and fire"
>weapon. You would need fueling facilities and that means taht "wooden
>rounds" where you simply stick it in a container until you need to
>shoot, are right out.

And that's the big sticking point with a defense system built around
garage built el cheapo vunderveapons. I'll buy that you could
assemble them and fire them off, and get a flyaway cost under $10K and
a PK of .25 or so. But I won't buy that the same will hold true once
the weapons are stored a month or two, or a couple of years.

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.

Chad Irby

December 24th 03, 05:22 PM

In article >,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

> And that's the big sticking point with a defense system built around
> garage built el cheapo vunderveapons. I'll buy that you could
> assemble them and fire them off, and get a flyaway cost under $10K
> and a PK of .25 or so. But I won't buy that the same will hold true
> once the weapons are stored a month or two, or a couple of years.

....especially when your maintenance/supply troops get bored, or decide
they're not making enough money, and start appropriating parts from
those missiles to use for other purposes.

The drinking of aclohol-based radar coolant by Soviet-era troops comes
to mind, but since we have a couple of thousand SUVs in a not-nice
country, there would be a huge tendency for the troops to "borrow" the
vehicles for quick defections to wherever seemed nicer.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

IBM

December 24th 03, 10:10 PM

"Andrew McCruden" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot
> i've seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the
> range I've seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m
> is the lowest range figure by far

French? Nope....
As I remember, it was the CO's tank of a British regiment
( 7th Hussars? ) and was at a range just over 5km.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Denyav

December 25th 03, 05:43 AM

>>Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
>>either.

Who needs nuclear buckshots if your opponent has nuclear weapons in storage or
in silos,but unfortunately you do need to be utmostly precise.

Denyav

December 25th 03, 06:26 AM

>A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
>and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
>warfare.

The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology
approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end
approach.
For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with
submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though submarines
were not the products of lower technology than surface ships.

So in future, advanced nations might try to take out everything their opponents
have by using weapons based on emerging technologies,while less capable nations
or organizations might try to achieve something by digging soil near fiberoptic
junctions.
Both could be called "Asymetric warfare" by definition.

Denyav

December 25th 03, 07:07 AM

>The Panzer reserve was held back on D-Day because only
>the Fuhrer could release them and he had taken a sleeping
>pill and couldnt be wakened.

And somebody,no other than Rommel assured Hitler only a couple of days ago that
the invasion could only come from Calais so that the could sleep well.
(Historians treat the legends gently !)

Bernardz

December 25th 03, 08:30 AM

In article >,
says...
>
> "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 ,

You are right! It was a slip by me.

> and was just about accurate to hit
> a target as big as London from 150 miles away.

Yep.

> As a military weapon
> it was a failure except in so far as it tied down allied assets to
> counter it.

Agreed. Although I would say psychologically it gave hope to the German
people that they were too were hitting the enemy back. Useless but a
doomed people will clutch at straws.

>
> Keith
>
>
>

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

22nd saying of Bernard

Bernardz

December 25th 03, 08:41 AM

In article >,
says...
> Bernardz > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Well, not quite. It was *assembled* by relatively unskilled labor.
> Many components (warhead, guidance) required skilled labor, and much
> of the machining required fairly skilled labor, but connecting the
> parts built by skilled labor could be done by relatively unskilled
> labor.

I suppose it depends on your definition of skilled and fairly skilled.
Interesting much of the labor force was actually slave labor.

Sufficient to say that for the purpose of this discussion of asymmetric
warfare, a major power today should be able to gather and train a labor
forces to manufacture such a class of weapon which to combat these
weapons would require a much greater force by the US.

>
> D.
>

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

22nd saying of Bernard

B2431

December 25th 03, 09:18 AM

>From: Bernardz
>Date: 12/25/2003 2:30 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.1a554b3a5ecb7c2c9897dd@news>
>
>In article >,
says...
>>
>> "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 ,
>
>You are right! It was a slip by me.
>
>> and was just about accurate to hit
>> a target as big as London from 150 miles away.
>
>Yep.
>
>> As a military weapon
>> it was a failure except in so far as it tied down allied assets to
>> counter it.
>
>Agreed. Although I would say psychologically it gave hope to the German
>people that they were too were hitting the enemy back. Useless but a
>doomed people will clutch at straws.
>
>
>>
>> Keith
>>

Not all that useless considering the U.S. made copies called the "Loon" and
intended to use them in the invasions of Japan. You can still see the remains
of the launchers on the beach of the Eglin AFB reservation. There are examples
of the Loons at Lackland AFB, Air Force Armament Museum and I am sure a few
other places.

Then again the U.S. also considered using cheimcal weapons in the invasions.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Paul J. Adam

December 25th 03, 07:11 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On 23 Dec 2003 16:07:42 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>Possibly. Another interpretation is that it's in continuation of
>british policy of getting bad value for money in military equipment.
>Another example of the same policy is the MRAV armoured vehicle:
>Britain spent large amounts of money developing an 8x8 wheeled
>vehicle (why? there are plenty of others on the market, and its a
>mature technology so no big breakthroughs are possible),

See any hybrid diesel/electric 8x8s out there? Or any rapidly
reconfigurable vehicles available off-the-shelf?

MRAV had some goals, none of the off-the-shelf candidates met them,
turns out MRAV didn't either. But then MRAV wasn't too expensive.

>The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
>country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
>million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
>Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
>almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
>spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
>the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
>something wrong here.

Not really, no. The UK buys the strategic lift and the support
infrastructure to be able to put troops, tanks, ships and aircraft far
overseas and fight: other countries concentrate on headline-grabbing
numbers of frontline assets but aren't able to send them anywhere (and
aren't tested in their ability to commit them to combat).

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

December 25th 03, 08:42 PM

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen >...
>"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:
>
>>Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen >...
>>
>>>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 entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
>>enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I
>>infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units
>>capable of operating on their own initiative.
>
>Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will
>be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the
>war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they
>won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist
>in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of
>internal politics.)

Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
effective at protecting them ?

>>If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
>>can get inside it.
>
>OK, you first.
>>A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
>>and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
>>warfare.
>
>ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
>the heart of the CVBG?

Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
matter to you ?

That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US
- don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to
be.

People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been
known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions.

>>Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.
>>
>>If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.
>
>It might work, but it probably won't.

It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in
Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ?

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

Love Me - take me as I think I am

Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

December 25th 03, 08:47 PM

Steve Hix skrev i meddelelsen ...
>In article >,
> "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:
>
>> The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
>> enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an
C3I
>> infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed
units capable of
>> operating on their own initiative.
>
>One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
>initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
>fighting somewhat harder.

Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ?

Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population
- remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share
our western values.

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

Love Me - take me as I think I am

phil hunt

December 25th 03, 08:55 PM

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:11:37 +0000, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On 23 Dec 2003 16:07:42 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>>Possibly. Another interpretation is that it's in continuation of
>>british policy of getting bad value for money in military equipment.
>>Another example of the same policy is the MRAV armoured vehicle:
>>Britain spent large amounts of money developing an 8x8 wheeled
>>vehicle (why? there are plenty of others on the market, and its a
>>mature technology so no big breakthroughs are possible),
>
>See any hybrid diesel/electric 8x8s out there?

Does it matter? There are plenty of vehicles. both military and non
military, that manage to work perfectly well without being
diesel/electric. One must consider how much extra it costs to
develop and produce a D/E vehicle, and whether the money might not
be better spent otherwise,

>Or any rapidly
>reconfigurable vehicles available off-the-shelf?

Again, is it really that big a deal? If it is a big deal (which I
doubt) a reconfigurable vehicle could be produced by starting with
an existing chassis (which would have had all the bugs ironed out
of it and therefore be reliable, cut off the rear half of the
superstructure, drill some holes for bolts, and

>MRAV had some goals, none of the off-the-shelf candidates met them,
>turns out MRAV didn't either. But then MRAV wasn't too expensive.

If you work out the ratio of what it cost divided by the amount of
military benefit Britian got from it, it was infinitely expensive.

MRAV cost (from memory, so probably wrong) Britain $200 million, for
which we could have bought about 400 vehicles such as the Patria AMV
or XA series. (Less if configured with fancier weapons, of course).

BTW, do you (or anyone else) have design specs for FRES? As in
weight, armament, armour, etc.

>>The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
>>country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
>>million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
>>Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
>>almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
>>spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
>>the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
>>something wrong here.
>
>Not really, no. The UK buys the strategic lift and the support
>infrastructure to be able to put troops, tanks, ships and aircraft far
>overseas and fight: other countries concentrate on headline-grabbing
>numbers of frontline assets but aren't able to send them anywhere (and
>aren't tested in their ability to commit them to combat).

There is a good transport infrastructure throughout Europe and in
any big war near this part of the world, I'm sure all European
countries would be able to cope, for example taking up civilian
assets such as aircraft. In other words, the transport etc assets
the UK is getting seem to be aimed at allowing it to fight
medium-sized wars with minimum (political and economic) disruption
to the rest of society.

It seems to me that there are 3 roles the UK armed forced can play:

1. small operations, typically peacekeeping or peacemaking,
involving a few infantry battalions, e.g. in ex-Yugosolavia or
Sierra Leone.

2. "poodling"; i.e. a force that gives a veneer of internationality
on an American invasion. This is a symbolic act (since the
USA's decision to go to war isn't affected by the size of the
poodle force) and can in principle be done with symbolic forces,
e.g. a brigade or so.

3. a big war in which vital national interests are at stake, and the
nation's entire military force is used in the struggle.

It seems to me that the UK is optimising its forces for type 2
conflicts at the expense of type 3 conflicts.

--
"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).

phil hunt

December 25th 03, 09:05 PM

On 25 Dec 2003 06:26:52 GMT, Denyav > wrote:
>
>The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology
>approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end
>approach.
>For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with
>submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though submarines
>were not the products of lower technology than surface ships.

Good example.

--
"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).

Chad Irby

December 25th 03, 09:22 PM

In article >,
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:

> Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
> recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
> to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
> view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
> effective at protecting them ?

Extremely so, when you consider the huge amount of money and time
invested in their destruction by pretty much every country that borders
them. They've got a higher standard of living than all of their
neighbors, they live longer, and have a moderate guarantee that they're
going to be in the same place for a while.

Overall, the Israeli military solution seems to be good enough so far.

> >ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
> >the heart of the CVBG?
>
> Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
> over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
> matter to you ?

I can certainly see why someone might be upset that a one-shot,
not-to-be-repeated attack isn't as effective in the long run, and I can
certainly see why someone might think it's funny that other prople can
rely on it for their future military actions.

> That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the
> US - don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you
> wish them to be.

Why not? It's worked pretty well so far.

"The US will get slaughtered in Afghanistan, like everyone else."
"The US will be in another Ivetnam when they invade Iraq."
"The Libyans caved in due to worldie pressure."

> People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been
> known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions.

....and have gotten beat into a pulp on many more. Not to mention that
most places don't have the "victory or death" mindset that the popular
literature hopes for. Especially when fighting against someone who's
really not that interested in invading those countries for direct
profit, like everyone else seems to do.

> It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in
> Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ?

Because it didn't work in Afghanistan and Iraq, in a very blatant and
obvious fashion. And without another opposing superpower to pay for it,
you won't get another Vietnam.

Many folks can't learn, but a lot of countries have gotten the message
that the US has figured out how to beat them at their own game.

The photos of Saddam put the final nail in that coffin.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

December 25th 03, 09:28 PM

"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:

> Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ?

Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up
against the US militarily in the next 20 years.

> Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the
> population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population
> share our western values.

Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
simple, right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

December 25th 03, 10:53 PM

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On 25 Dec 2003 06:26:52 GMT, Denyav > wrote:
> >
> >The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology
> >approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end
> >approach.
> >For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with
> >submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though
> >submarines
> >were not the products of lower technology than surface ships.
>
> Good example.

As is dropping one $50,000 smart bomb on the house of the leader of the
enemy country while he sleeps.

Or blowing up a handful of ammo dumps with smart munitions.

....if you're broadening the definition that direction.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Charles Gray

December 26th 03, 12:13 AM

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:
>
>> Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ?
>
>Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up
>against the US militarily in the next 20 years.
>
>> Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the
>> population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population
>> share our western values.
>
>Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
>simple, right?

Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.
China is another example where many of the citizens support the
government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call
it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into
conflict with the U.S. at some point.

And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if
somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders
might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the
conflict.
Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3
incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got
involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what
the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts.

Charles Gray

December 26th 03, 12:20 AM

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:42:11 +0100, "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen"
> wrote:

>Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen >...
>>"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen >...
>>>
>>>>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 entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
>>>enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I
>>>infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units
>>>capable of operating on their own initiative.
>>
>>Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will
>>be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the
>>war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they
>>won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist
>>in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of
>>internal politics.)
>
>Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
>recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
>to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
>view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
>effective at protecting them ?
>
>>>If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
>>>can get inside it.
>>
>>OK, you first.
>>>A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
>>>and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
>>>warfare.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
>>the heart of the CVBG?
>
>Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
>over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
>matter to you ?

Well, remember, that there were concerns about docking the cole
there, that were overrruled for political reasons. So killing the
Cole at peacetime, and killing it in wartime, when it would presumably
be allowed to sink any shipo approaching it are two different things.
As an opening move, it has some plausibility, but it woudl quickly
cease to be a viable tactic.

>
>That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US
>- don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to
>be.

Not arrogance-- but I do think the U.S. has always had the problem
of discounting non-technological solutations. Witness 9/11-- before
that every magazine was full of articles about terrorist
nukes/bios/emp weapons-- but that was how an *american* woudl likely
do things, going for the technological knock out blow. It's a bit of a
blind spot with us.

>
>People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been
>known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions.

Not always-- usually what happens is that they hold on until
outside events conspire to bring them victory. The resitance in
Europe and the phillipines is an example-- they were unable to drive
the enemy away, but did hold down large portions of his forces.

>
>>>Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.
>>>
>>>If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.
>>
>>It might work, but it probably won't.
>
>It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in
>Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ?
>

It depends on what sort of fight we're in. Vietnam and Iran ddn't
come in the aftermath of an attack on the U.S.,a nd neither did
lebanon. The whole 9/11 thing did change the political equation--
whether or not it will continue to do so remains to be seen,
especially should Al Qaeda not launch another assualt.
Often, the exterior factor that counts is U.S. public opinion. To
fight that you have to make yourself sympathetic or make them think
that occupation will only make things worse. In that case, the
current war shows the danger of a dramatic first strike-- while many
americans aren't completely on board with Bush's strategy (ranging
from mild disagreement with some tactics to major strategy
disagreemens), I doubt there are many here who advocate "doing nothing
and hoping Bin Laden retires".
Thats one factor of Asymetric warfare that we haven't talked about
too much-- making certain your methods don't create such rage that
they actually end up being counterproductive. If the U.S. is invading
you with a division, blowing up Down Town LA won't get them sent home,
It'll get them reinforced.

>--------------------------------------
>Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
>
>Love Me - take me as I think I am
>

Chad Irby

December 26th 03, 12:28 AM

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
> >simple, right?
>
> Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
> people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
> of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
> to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.

"Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?

Up until about late March, a lot of folks were telling us about all of
that "popular support" in Iraq, and we all know how that went. Ditto
for last year and Afghanistan...

> China is another example where many of the citizens support the
> government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call
> it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into
> conflict with the U.S. at some point.

China has been going in the opposite direction from totalitarianism,
because the government has figured out that they could do better by
opening up than by closing down.

> And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if
> somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders
> might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the
> conflict.

That's why they're not called "totalitarian." It helps keep some of the
power out of the hands of people who would use it *only* the way they
feel, without input from their populace.

> Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3
> incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got
> involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what
> the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts.

Like Tienanmen... a government that hold power by fear alone is not
exactly what you'd call "popular."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

phil hunt

December 26th 03, 12:34 AM

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:13:11 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>>"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ?
>>
>>Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up
>>against the US militarily in the next 20 years.
>>
>>> Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the
>>> population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population
>>> share our western values.
>>
>>Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
>>simple, right?
>
> Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
>people would call Iran that,

Only people who don't know what totalitarian means.

> but the government enjoys a fair amount
>of support,

So have many repressive regimes, for example Nazi Germany (at least
in the early years).

--
"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).

Steven James Forsberg

December 26th 03, 03:18 AM

:> >Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
:> >simple, right?
:>
:> Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
:> people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
:> of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
:> to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.

: "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
: Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
: strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
: lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?

While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I would
suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much stronger
than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it
modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed
social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards
the U.S.
You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split
between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/
executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly,
just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can
be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that.

:> China is another example where many of the citizens support the
:> government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call
:> it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into
:> conflict with the U.S. at some point.

: China has been going in the opposite direction from totalitarianism,
: because the government has figured out that they could do better by
: opening up than by closing down.

I don't think this is quite so. China is rapidly evolving its
economy, but politically retains very oligarchal. I think a better model
for China is "totalitarian capitalism", like that practiced by Nazi Germany.
Relatively great economic freedom combined with extreme government power,
often used to support "a strong economy". For all is faults, Nazi Germany
had quite an economic turnaround and did some pretty amazing things with
regards to economy and production before and during WWII. It is a somewhat
sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative'
business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if
only right into a destructive war.

regards,
-------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Gray

December 26th 03, 03:26 AM

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:18:13 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg
> wrote:

> I don't think this is quite so. China is rapidly evolving its
>economy, but politically retains very oligarchal. I think a better model
>for China is "totalitarian capitalism", like that practiced by Nazi Germany.
>Relatively great economic freedom combined with extreme government power,
>often used to support "a strong economy". For all is faults, Nazi Germany
>had quite an economic turnaround and did some pretty amazing things with
>regards to economy and production before and during WWII. It is a somewhat
>sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative'
>business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if
>only right into a destructive war.
>
>regards,
>-------------------------------------------------------------

>
Or as another example, South Korea for most of the 20th century. A
pretty much "anything goes" economic model, but still rather
repressive politically.

Chad Irby

December 26th 03, 03:52 AM

In article >,
Steven James Forsberg > wrote:

> If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
> will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US.

If it weren't for their governments feeding propaganda against the US
and Israel (with US dollars paying for it in the case of Egypt), most of
the people in these places wouldn't have any real reasons to dislike or
fear the US. Look at the recent government-sponsored broadcast of "The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in Egypt, for example.

As far as that goes, try to find a modern anti-US movement in the
Mideast that *wasn't* at least partly funded by one government or
another. Even Al-Qaeda was formed and supported by a member of the
Saudi Royal Family.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Derek Lyons

December 26th 03, 06:15 AM

"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" > wrote:
>Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
>recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
>to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
>view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
>effective at protecting them ?

Which is a nice way of avoiding addressing the issues I raised.

>>>A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
>>>and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
>>>warfare.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
>>the heart of the CVBG?
>
>Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
>over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
>matter to you ?

From a strategic viewpoint, it is worth a laugh or two. Again, you
resort to an emotional argument to avoid addressing the hard facts.

>That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US
>- don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to
>be.

It's not arrogance, it's simple cold facts. Killing the Cole barely
scratched the combat power of the CVBG. And in a real war, *that* is
what matters.

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.

Robert

December 26th 03, 07:20 AM

"Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
...
> :> >Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
> :> >simple, right?
> :>
> :> Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
> :> people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
> :> of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
> :> to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.
>
> : "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
> : Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
> : strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
> : lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?
>
> While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
> more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
> US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
> will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I
would
> suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much
stronger
> than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it
> modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed
> social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards
> the U.S.
> You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split
> between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/
> executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly,
> just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can
> be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that.

LOL

You do realize Iran ISN'T a democracy of any real sense don't you? It is a
Theocracy with a limited fake democracy cover.

If a non-elected government branch can kill, imprison, or remove from the
ballot any politician who doesn't get the "Good Islamic Stamp Of Approval"
before or after the election - its not a democracy.

Plus veto any legislation they don't like. This is why the < 30 majority
has been on the verge of staging a revolution for a few years.

Which is why a "real" democracy next door in Iraq should be scaring them so
bad.

The Islamic "priests" seam to still be beating the "rule by divine right"
drum since they seam to think they should be ruling not just the current
"royalty" of their countries. Remember the ones in Afghanistan ranting that
it was a SIN to accept a democratic government there.

[trim]

Bernardz

December 26th 03, 07:59 AM

In article >,
says...
> >From: Bernardz
> >Date: 12/25/2003 2:30 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <MPG.1a554b3a5ecb7c2c9897dd@news>
> >
> >In article >,
> says...
> >>
> >> "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 ,
> >
> >You are right! It was a slip by me.
> >
> >> and was just about accurate to hit
> >> a target as big as London from 150 miles away.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >> As a military weapon
> >> it was a failure except in so far as it tied down allied assets to
> >> counter it.
> >
> >Agreed. Although I would say psychologically it gave hope to the German
> >people that they were too were hitting the enemy back. Useless but a
> >doomed people will clutch at straws.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
>
> Not all that useless considering the U.S. made copies called the "Loon" and
> intended to use them in the invasions of Japan. You can still see the remains
> of the launchers on the beach of the Eglin AFB reservation. There are examples
> of the Loons at Lackland AFB, Air Force Armament Museum and I am sure a few
> other places.

Interestingly a bit earlier, in the US the American version of the V1,
the JB-2 was rejected by Washington as it was felt that they would
interfere with supplies of labor, production of bombs and artillery and
also port capacity might also be strained.

Apparently the idea was resurrected afterwards in the Pacific as you
stated.

>
> Then again the U.S. also considered using cheimcal weapons in the invasions.

I doubt that they ever intended to use gas despite some plans that have
been displayed.

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

--
What our descendants think of us and our ancestors will depend on what
we do now!

23th saying of Bernard

Charles Gray

December 26th 03, 10:05 AM

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 07:20:34 GMT, "Robert" >
wrote:

>
>"Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
...
>> :> >Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
>> :> >simple, right?
>> :>
>> :> Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
>> :> people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
>> :> of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
>> :> to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.
>>
>> : "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
>> : Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
>> : strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
>> : lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?
>>
>> While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
>> more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
>> US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
>> will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I
>would
>> suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much
>stronger
>> than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it
>> modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed
>> social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards
>> the U.S.
>> You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split
>> between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/
>> executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly,
>> just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can
>> be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that.
>
>LOL
>
>You do realize Iran ISN'T a democracy of any real sense don't you? It is a
>Theocracy with a limited fake democracy cover.
>
>If a non-elected government branch can kill, imprison, or remove from the
>ballot any politician who doesn't get the "Good Islamic Stamp Of Approval"
>before or after the election - its not a democracy.
>
>Plus veto any legislation they don't like. This is why the < 30 majority
>has been on the verge of staging a revolution for a few years.
>
>Which is why a "real" democracy next door in Iraq should be scaring them so
>bad.
>
>The Islamic "priests" seam to still be beating the "rule by divine right"
>drum since they seam to think they should be ruling not just the current
>"royalty" of their countries. Remember the ones in Afghanistan ranting that
>it was a SIN to accept a democratic government there.
>
>[trim]
>
Actually, it is closer to a authoritarian democracy than not.
There are very severe limits on what elected officials can achieve,
but the Mullahs desire the imprint of "popular" rule, so they do not
outright eliminate all opposition. Also, you make an error in calling
the Islamic rulers as "priests"-- there are conservtiive, moderate and
liberal branches, some of them quite interested in democratic reform.
Note that recently there was an open letter by about 200
legislators calling for democratic reform-- and they're all alive and
unimprisoned. A far cry from either Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan.
For that matter, it's a very, VERY far cry from our good friend the
Shah of Iran's government. I know Iranian exiles missing teeth and
fingernails as a result of coming to his bully boy's attention in a
bad way.

You miss, one of the great enemies of a truly democratic iran, the
United States of America, which has a nasty habit of making loud
pronouncments about the democratic movement in Iran, which goes over
about as well as Stalin giving his seal of approval to any movement in
the U.S., circa 1950. Most of the democratic reformers woudl prefer
we keep our yap shut.
As for a revolution-- very, very unlikely. Even many of the exile
Iranians prefer to avoid that-- IRan has had a major external war, a
repressive government of the Shah and the unpleasantness that came
after his fall, and many would generally prefer about any other
possible alternative to a revolution. Many of the reformers, most
young, are simply interested in outliving the hard line mullahs, who
are mostly old.

phil hunt

December 26th 03, 04:17 PM

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:26:27 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
> Or as another example, South Korea for most of the 20th century. A
>pretty much "anything goes" economic model, but still rather
>repressive politically.

Being repressive politically doesn't make a state totalitarian.
Totalitarianism is when a state tries to completely control the
thoughts of the people.

Stalin's Russia was totalitarian, but Brezhnev's Russia was merely
authoritarian.

--
"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).

ZZBunker

December 26th 03, 05:15 PM

Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 07:20:34 GMT, "Robert" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> :> >Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
> >> :> >simple, right?
> >> :>
> >> :> Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
> >> :> people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
> >> :> of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
> >> :> to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.
>
> >> : "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
> >> : Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
> >> : strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
> >> : lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?
> >>
> >> While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
> >> more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
> >> US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
> >> will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I
> would
> >> suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much
> stronger
> >> than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it
> >> modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed
> >> social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards
> >> the U.S.
> >> You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split
> >> between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/
> >> executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly,
> >> just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can
> >> be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that.
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >You do realize Iran ISN'T a democracy of any real sense don't you? It is a
> >Theocracy with a limited fake democracy cover.
> >
> >If a non-elected government branch can kill, imprison, or remove from the
> >ballot any politician who doesn't get the "Good Islamic Stamp Of Approval"
> >before or after the election - its not a democracy.
> >
> >Plus veto any legislation they don't like. This is why the < 30 majority
> >has been on the verge of staging a revolution for a few years.
> >
> >Which is why a "real" democracy next door in Iraq should be scaring them so
> >bad.
> >
> >The Islamic "priests" seam to still be beating the "rule by divine right"
> >drum since they seam to think they should be ruling not just the current
> >"royalty" of their countries. Remember the ones in Afghanistan ranting that
> >it was a SIN to accept a democratic government there.
> >
> >[trim]
> >
> Actually, it is closer to a authoritarian democracy than not.
> There are very severe limits on what elected officials can achieve,
> but the Mullahs desire the imprint of "popular" rule, so they do not
> outright eliminate all opposition. Also, you make an error in calling
> the Islamic rulers as "priests"-- there are conservtiive, moderate and
> liberal branches, some of them quite interested in democratic reform.
> Note that recently there was an open letter by about 200
> legislators calling for democratic reform-- and they're all alive and
> unimprisoned. A far cry from either Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan.
> For that matter, it's a very, VERY far cry from our good friend the
> Shah of Iran's government. I know Iranian exiles missing teeth and
> fingernails as a result of coming to his bully boy's attention in a
> bad way.
>
> You miss, one of the great enemies of a truly democratic iran, the
> United States of America, which has a nasty habit of making loud
> pronouncments about the democratic movement in Iran, which goes over
> about as well as Stalin giving his seal of approval to any movement in
> the U.S., circa 1950. Most of the democratic reformers woudl prefer
> we keep our yap shut.

It's doesn't matter what Democratic reformers want.
Since the Republican reformers told the
moronic Democratic reformers circa 1960,
that you since idiots couldn't reform a
pile of sand, or even a Cambodian tree farm,
it's not like we're going to let the Carter-Clinton-Gore
zero-goal education reform team, reform
anything other than than their
cameras, their Department of Education apologists,
their "Autobiography" editor team from
the Washington Post Style Guide To Every Redneck
Restaurant In The Australian Universe That You Didn't Want
To Visit, and their comb-overs.

> As for a revolution-- very, very unlikely. Even many of the exile
> Iranians prefer to avoid that-- IRan has had a major external war, a
> repressive government of the Shah and the unpleasantness that came
> after his fall, and many would generally prefer about any other
> possible alternative to a revolution. Many of the reformers, most
> young, are simply interested in outliving the hard line mullahs, who
> are mostly old.

Since the mullahs aren't even from Iran, and
they're even older than Jewish Rabbis,
many of us real Democratic reformers,
with non-zero IQs have always told the
US Democratic "Reformers" that we don't
we really care if you retards walk,
just as long as you walk like an Egyptian.

Denyav

December 26th 03, 09:59 PM

>t is a somewhat
>sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative'
>business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if
>only right into a destructive war.
>

I think you forgat a small detail,Germany before ashes and powerty was a
scientific,technological and military powerhouse,even in the middle of ashes
and powerty,Germans produced many all stars of science and technology.
But the powerty has also produced worlds largest communist party outside SU and
that was the reason why corporate Germany supported Nazis.
Without NSDAP and with more clever leadership Germany could dominate whole
world even without firing one shot in anger.
Germany did not lose WWII in 1942,they lost it in 1933.

Peter Stickney

December 27th 03, 03:56 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > writes:
> Not really, no. The UK buys the strategic lift and the support
> infrastructure to be able to put troops, tanks, ships and aircraft far
> overseas and fight: other countries concentrate on headline-grabbing
> numbers of frontline assets but aren't able to send them anywhere (and
> aren't tested in their ability to commit them to combat).

And then sells off the Air and Sealift assets just when they're
needed.
I seem to recall that as part of the post-Flklands War buildup of
defences on the Falklans, that equipment and material were being flown
down in TAC/Heavylift Shorts Belfasts - The same ones that the RAF had
sold them a couple of years before.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney

December 27th 03, 03:59 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > writes:
> In message >, Peter Stickney
> > writes
>>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.
>>The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
>>1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
>>the 1990-91 Gulf War.
>
> 5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)

Thanks, Paul & Andew - I knew it was an exceptional shot, but had the
details a bit mungled up. It doesn't change the point, though.
>
>>Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
>>longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
>>European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
>>1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
>>Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
>>unlikely.
>
> Open-fire ranges tend to be considerably longer, 2-2.5 kilometres being
> frequent when visibility permits: however, the enemy rarely agrees to
> cooperatively sit at that range.

Sure. It only makes sense to shoot at the longest viable range.
Hand-to-Hand Combat is what you do when you're unarmed, naked, and one
foot is nailed to the floor, after all.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney

December 27th 03, 04:35 AM

In article >,
"John" > writes:
> "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.
>
> I can only go by what I read. On sedcond thoughts, that does sound a bit far
> though....

You need to read more, then. No insult intended.

>> 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
> 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?

No, 5 miles is about twice the maximum range of an AT missile.
And an AT missiles, especially a havyweight long range job like a TOW
or HOT has three severe drawbacks. They have a very impressive firing
signature - all manner of smoke, flame, and debris kicked out of the
back, (and picked up off the ground & flung about by the backblast),
They have a long time of flight - It'll take about 25-30 secinds to
travel downrange. Going much faster makes teh guidance problems
difficult - you don't have time to steer - and degrades the
performance of the HEAT warheads they carry. They also need to be
fired from a stable platform. A fast-moving, jinking SUV isn't going
to cut it.
So, as soon as you've fired, you've revealed your position. (After,
of course, beaconing yourself with the mm-wave radar. You're shooting
a slow-moving (relatively) missile that requires a steady platform, so
you need to be a steady target. In that time, the target vehicle can
get between 3 and 5 main gun rounds off. (That's one of the reasons
that U.S. tanks use manually loaded guns with 4 man crews - An
autoloader can't stand radio watch, or man an OP, or help break track,
or make the coffee, and it doesn't get excited in crunch situations
and load 3 rounds in 12 seconds. - I've seen it done, and on the move,
at that.) So, yeah, it'll be a killing zone. But not the one you're
thinking of. Helicopters, BTW, aren't much better. They also have to
be steady platforms - either hovering or flying fairly straight, and
have to be at low altitudes. Normal U.S. Doctrine is to shoot a main
gun round at him as you begin to evade. You stand a significant
chance of hitting, and even if you miss, you'll negate the attack.

>
> 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.

At this point, you're passing Balloon Gas.

>> 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. 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. ;)

Analysis of the trajectory to be able to predict the point where the
warheads calve would be about 20 seconds. This is something we're
very good at. You might also consider the Flaming Datum problems that
you have here, as well. Postulating a U.K. sized military, you're
only going to have 1 missile sub at sea. (That's why they bought 4 of
the original Polaris boats - to be able to have 1 at sea, at any given
time. Nuking anything is, shall we say, a pretty definitive Statement
of Intent. At that point, even if you're postulating Massive
Retaliation against the U.S., you've not only marked your only viable
launch platform, in the worst possible way, you've expended 1/8 of
your missile & warheads on a relatively minor target. When the
Pointy-Haired Cannibal Hordes come pouring out of the wreckage of your
cities and drag you out of your bunker to invite you to dinner, well,
let's just say that you'll be well served.

>
>> Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
>> to unleash 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
> 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? ;)

Points: Not it its your convoy. We tend to take such things
personally.
It's not a case of Missile Subs, it's Missile Sub. (You've got 3, one
of which _may_ well, would be at sea, or you wouldn't be in a position
to screw up so mightily. The boats that are in port are gone.
Even if your boat at sea can avoid destruction, well, I hate to tell
you, but even a full load isn't going to do anythig but mightily ****
us off. Yes, we'll lose cities, but you're talking 14-16 missiles.
While you might have MIRVed warheads, they can only deviate from the
initial trajectory by a small amount. We're a big country, with stuff
fairly widely seprated. Hell, if you nuked Texas, we might not nitice
for years. If you nuked Nevada, property values would increase.
As for fallout, that is something that can be mitigated by, among
other things, the height of burst required to produce maximum effect.
Not that the Continental Euros might notice anything different - the
Eastern Midlands Coal Board puts several hundredweights of Thorium,
not to mention Uranium, particulates, and Sulfer compounds into the
European air without the slightest concern. (Did the number crunching
for an Internation Acid Rain Symposium back inthe '80s. Now I'm not a
Strict Environmentalist by any means, but these guys were/are daft!)
With the improvement in air quality, and the introduction of the
Gauloise shipments, life expectancy in France might actually increase
:)

> 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! ^.^

Hmm. You should have thought about that before you started playing.

(And where in the British Isles could you get a 5 mile Line of Sight
to _anything_?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 04:35 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:36:14 +1000, "Damo"
> wrote:

>military weapon of course but indicates how far and cheap off-the-shelf
>civilian technology can get you these days. Scary thought if some terrorists
>were clever enough to come up with like this.

Given that the guy who built it admits he's not exactly a genius,
just a part time hobbyist; and that all this information is pretty
much common knowledge to anyone with a minimal amount of aeronautical
engineering education, it's a sure bet that any terrorist group who
wants this information already has 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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 04:37 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:56:36 -0800, Erik Max Francis >
wrote:

>Damo wrote:
>
>> A civilian is making a cruise missile in his garage in New Zealand for
>> less
>> then 5000 dollars.
>
>He has apparently been thwarted by his own government, although his news
>page isn't terribly clear:
>
> http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
>
>Quite frankly, I'm not terribly impressed with his comments; he
>half-invokes conspiracy theory arguments which one hardly would need to
>consider. It's common sense that, hey, you're probably violating about
>a thousand different regulations with the project; the government would
>have to be completely stupid not to take interest in stopping the
>project for any number of common sense reasons.

The government of New Zealand told him that he was breaking no laws
or regulations with his project; they are going after him for a tax
issue. Pretty much the same way Al Capone got nailed once the feds
realized they couldn't prove he was involved with any criminal
activity.

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 05:11 AM

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 05:20 AM

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 05:22 AM

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 05:29 AM

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 05:49 AM

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 06:12 AM

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

George William Herbert

December 27th 03, 06:52 AM

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

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 07:47 AM

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

Chad Irby

December 27th 03, 11:11 AM

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.

Johnny Bravo

December 27th 03, 12:07 PM

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

Peter Stickney

December 28th 03, 03:41 PM

In article >,
Johnny Bravo > writes:
> 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.

It's worse than that, form the U.K. Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
all of your boats to sea.

Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
putting it out of action. Not sinking it, mind you, but giving it
ither things to worry about rather than pulverizing you. That's an
area of effect of 7 sq. NM. A 25 kt CVBG, which startes dispersing
and evading on a launch warning, (You don't have to wait for the
trajectory analysis, after all) could be anywhere in a 490 sq. NM
area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth. And we don't have 1 CVBG,
we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

a425couple

December 28th 03, 05:43 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in

> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill

Where does this quote come from?

Penta

December 28th 03, 09:04 PM

On 24 Dec 03 10:27:36 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>John Schilling opined
>
>>Chad Irby > writes:

>>>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
>>>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
>>>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
>>>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
>>>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
>>>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
>>>communications.
>
>>How do you jam a homing pigeon?
>
>Big magnet.

More to the point, I thought carrier pigeons were extinct?

I know homing pigeons aren't, but I thought they weren't useful for
communications purposes?

Steve Hix

December 28th 03, 09:21 PM

In article >,
Penta > wrote:

> On 24 Dec 03 10:27:36 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
> >John Schilling opined
> >
> >>Chad Irby > writes:
>
> >>>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
> >>>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
> >>>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
> >>>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
> >>>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
> >>>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
> >>>communications.
> >
> >>How do you jam a homing pigeon?
> >
> >Big magnet.
>
> More to the point, I thought carrier pigeons were extinct?

That would be passenger pigeons, as of 1914.

> I know homing pigeons aren't, but I thought they weren't useful for
> communications purposes?

[email protected]

December 29th 03, 12:36 AM

"a425couple" > wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>
>> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>> W S Churchill
>
>Where does this quote come from?
>
Churchill one would assume...
--

-Gord.

Johnny Bravo

December 29th 03, 01:05 AM

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:41:16 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>> 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.
>
>It's worse than that, form the U.K.

I pretty much had it covered, your numbers aren't so different from
mine. :)

>Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
>The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
>U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
>means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
>all of your boats to sea.

Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.

>Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
>applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
>within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
>putting it out of action.

I was being generous and using 16,000' and taking off about 1/3 for
the structural improvements the US has added to it's ship designs
based on data from tests like Crossroads - calling it 1.8nm as a nice
round figure - 10,800'

>area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
>to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
>warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.

There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
the example.

> And we don't have 1 CVBG,
>we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
>So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
>they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
>forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
>to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)

You never know, killing 7,000+ US servicemen by firing nearly 200
nukes at them is going to really **** the public off. It's not like
anyone can claim it was an accident.

One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
the ocean.

One interesting games theory aspect of this is that it wouldn't do
to run at full speed for the entire 30 minutes. If the enemy knew you
would do that, they would just fire along a ring around the current
location of the BG at the max distance it can travel in that 30 mins,
saving themselves quite a few warheads and missiles.

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

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 01:29 AM

pervect > wrote:

:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:27:28 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>pervect > wrote:
:>
:>:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:29:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>pervect > wrote:
:>
:
:>:If you think tanks can't kill anything, you might want to explain how
:>:you came to that conclusion, it isn't very apparent to me.
:>
:>Oh, *I* don't think that. However, 'your' side has made the argument
:>that tank-killing SUVs are practically because tanks can't hit them,
:>as "all they have to do is dodge by half their vehicle width".
:
:I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
:"my" side,

The gentleman proposing the magical technology cruise missile and
various other 'technological' fixes for problems the guy fighting the
US will encounter, of course.

:and for that matter, who is on yours?

All the sane people who recognize that 'asymmetric warfare' doesn't
mean trying to beat the other guy at his own game, particularly when
it takes 'magic' technology to do it.

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

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 01:37 AM

(phil hunt) wrote:

:The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
:country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
:million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
:Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
:almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
:spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
:the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
:something wrong here.

Britain spends money on things that Sweden does not, of course.
Strategic weaponry is expensive to develop and maintain.

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

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 02:03 AM

(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

Charles Gray

December 29th 03, 02:39 AM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:37:20 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote:
>
>:The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
>:country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
>:million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
>:Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
>:almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
>:spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
>:the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
>:something wrong here.
>
>Britain spends money on things that Sweden does not, of course.
>Strategic weaponry is expensive to develop and maintain.

Not to mention the abilty to quickly deploy-- how long woudl it take
Sweden to move a unit of soldiers to the Middle East, or move them
prepared to fight at the end of the journey.

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 03:39 AM

Bernardz > wrote:

: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.

It would also not be asymmetric warfare. This is attempting to play
the big guy's game. He will virtually always beat you at it. That's
why it's a mug's game.

We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations and lots of deep
caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.

You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
build weapons.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Chad Irby

December 29th 03, 03:51 AM

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> It would also not be asymmetric warfare. This is attempting to play
> the big guy's game. He will virtually always beat you at it. That's
> why it's a mug's game.
>
> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations and lots of deep
> caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
>
> You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
> build weapons.

"Asymmetric warfare" against the current US warfighting capability would
be a bit difficult, if you try to stick with standard tactics. The
easier move would be intelligence/espionage.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

phil hunt

December 29th 03, 03:55 AM

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).

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 04:20 AM

Bernardz > wrote:

:I suppose it depends on your definition of skilled and fairly skilled.
:Interesting much of the labor force was actually slave labor.
:
:Sufficient to say that for the purpose of this discussion of asymmetric
:warfare, a major power today should be able to gather and train a labor
:forces to manufacture such a class of weapon which to combat these
:weapons would require a much greater force by the US.

Except that this particular class of weapon does you no good, since
you won't have launching facilities for it for very long. Also note
that what we're talking about now is a bit more sophisticated guidance
than "aim it and when it runs out of fuel it falls on the target".
This requires more skilled tradesmen to implement, among other things.

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

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 04:39 AM

Steven James Forsberg > wrote:

: While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
:more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
:US fears it so.

You really are surpassing yourself in being an idiot for the holidays,
are you not?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Charles Gray

December 29th 03, 05:12 AM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:39:10 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
>
>: While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
>:more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
>:US fears it so.
>
>You really are surpassing yourself in being an idiot for the holidays,
>are you not?

I doubt the U.S. fears it-- the biggest problem is that the U.S.
often makes comments about Iranian reformers that the REFORMERS really
wish we could lay off-- kinda like the impact if Stalin had made a lot
of statements backing unions in the 1950's-- it can easily be used by
the opposition.
I would say that barring Isreal, Iran probably has the most
functional democracy in the Middle East, certainly far better than
many of our allies. It's not an american style democracy, by no
means, and it isn't a democracy where fundamental questions of policy
are open to public discourse, but it's still a damn site closer than
many.

Chad Irby

December 29th 03, 06:26 AM

In article >,
(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.

Bernardz

December 29th 03, 10:01 AM

In article >,
says...
> Bernardz > wrote:
>
> :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.
>
> It would also not be asymmetric warfare. This is attempting to play
> the big guy's game. He will virtually always beat you at it. That's
> why it's a mug's game.

True. But often military people have to play this game.

>
> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations

Never said it would be invisible.

What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.

The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.

> and lots of deep
> caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.

These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.

>
> You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
> build weapons.

Tell me?

--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

pervect

December 29th 03, 11:26 AM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:29:13 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>pervect > wrote:

>:I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
>:"my" side,
>
>The gentleman proposing the magical technology cruise missile and
>various other 'technological' fixes for problems the guy fighting the
>US will encounter, of course.
>
>:and for that matter, who is on yours?
>
>All the sane people who recognize that 'asymmetric warfare' doesn't
>mean trying to beat the other guy at his own game, particularly when
>it takes 'magic' technology to do it.

I think you'd better re-read my posts, in great detail. Usually I
don't like to take people to task for poor reading skills, but in your
case I'll make an exception.

pervect

December 29th 03, 12:18 PM

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

>In article >,
> (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/articles/whitepaper_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.

Peter Stickney

December 29th 03, 02:01 PM

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> "a425couple" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>>
>>> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>>> W S Churchill
>>
>>Where does this quote come from?
>>
> Churchill one would assume...

Manitoba? Which one of the bears said that?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney

December 29th 03, 02:20 PM

In article >,
Johnny Bravo > writes:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:41:16 -0500, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>It's worse than that, form the U.K.
>
> I pretty much had it covered, your numbers aren't so different from
> mine. :)
>
True 'nuff. Reality is as Reality Does.

>>Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
>>The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
>>U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
>>means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
>>all of your boats to sea.
>
> Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
> missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
> one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
> stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.

Of course, they've only got 192 or so warheads anyway. If _I_ were
going to attempt this little bit of foolishness, I wouldn't be too
happy about putting all of my warheads on one platform.

>>Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
>>applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
>>within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
>>putting it out of action.
>
> I was being generous and using 16,000' and taking off about 1/3 for
> the structural improvements the US has added to it's ship designs
> based on data from tests like Crossroads - calling it 1.8nm as a nice
> round figure - 10,800'

It'll work as an estimate. As with anything else regarding this stuff
- Those that Post don't Know. Those that Know don't Post. See the
Security Clearance threads for more (or less, depending on Need to
Knoe) info.

>>area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
>>to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
>>warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.
>
> There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
> aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
> the example.

It's a Round, Round, World. But the lack of coverage by a single
warhead vs. the area that the target could be hiding in means that
Nuclear Buckshot needs some rethinking. Hmm - I wonder what the
implications would be if the impact area includid one of thise
massive, concentrated, Russian or Japanese fishing fleets. At that
point, you've missed the Carrier, most likely, but pasted a Third
Party's civilians, commerce, and food. Not the best way to Win
Friends and Influence People.

>> And we don't have 1 CVBG,
>>we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
>>So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
>>they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
>>forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
>>to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)
>
> You never know, killing 7,000+ US servicemen by firing nearly 200
> nukes at them is going to really **** the public off. It's not like
> anyone can claim it was an accident.
>
> One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
> component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
> nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
> ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
> the ocean.

Well, it's why the triad itself was so important. Anybody
contemplating a nuclear strike against the U.S. wouldn't have to deal
with just one type of platform, but 3. And what worked against 1 type
wouldn't work against another.

> One interesting games theory aspect of this is that it wouldn't do
> to run at full speed for the entire 30 minutes. If the enemy knew you
> would do that, they would just fire along a ring around the current
> location of the BG at the max distance it can travel in that 30 mins,
> saving themselves quite a few warheads and missiles.
Of course. That's why its a Target Area, as opposed to a Target Ring.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 03:23 PM

Charles Gray > wrote:

:On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:37:20 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
(phil hunt) wrote:
:>
:>:The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
:>:country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
:>:million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
:>:Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
:>:almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
:>:spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
:>:the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
:>:something wrong here.
:>
:>Britain spends money on things that Sweden does not, of course.
:>Strategic weaponry is expensive to develop and maintain.
:
: Not to mention the abilty to quickly deploy-- how long woudl it take
:Sweden to move a unit of soldiers to the Middle East, or move them
:prepared to fight at the end of the journey.

Another big expense that Britain undertakes that most others do not;
power projection. Most other European forces are structured on the
assumption that if they need to move long distances they will have the
use of US strategic transport both to move the troops and keep them
supplied. This was one of the European crying points about the
Balkans intervention; if the US didn't play, most European forces
couldn't stay deployed in the region.

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

ZZBunker

December 29th 03, 03:43 PM

Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
> pervect > wrote:
>
> :On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:27:28 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
> :
> :>pervect > wrote:
> :>
> :>:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:29:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
> :>:
> :>:>pervect > wrote:
> :>
>
> :>:If you think tanks can't kill anything, you might want to explain how
> :>:you came to that conclusion, it isn't very apparent to me.
> :>
> :>Oh, *I* don't think that. However, 'your' side has made the argument
> :>that tank-killing SUVs are practically because tanks can't hit them,
> :>as "all they have to do is dodge by half their vehicle width".
> :
> :I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
> :"my" side,
>
> The gentleman proposing the magical technology cruise missile and
> various other 'technological' fixes for problems the guy fighting the
> US will encounter, of course.

But, the gentlemen proposing the cruise missles
have never claimed that their magic. Only ****head
helicopter pilots would believe that
something Russians invented are magic.
The claim is that since they're deadly at any speed,
they merely put the U.S. Military's ****head
B-X factory line out-of-buisness --- forever.

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 03:48 PM

(phil hunt) wrote:

: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?

Of course.

:> Not to mention all the spoofing that would become
:>possible (WEP isn't).
:
:Indeed. However wireless internet doesn't necessarily involve WEP.

And so it is even easier to spoof.

I'm curious. Why do you think WE don't do the things you suggest, if
they are so much more effective?

*I* think we don't do them because 'magic' is required for them to
work and in the real world there's damned little usable magic about.

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

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 04:19 PM

Bernardz > wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:>
:> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
:
:Never said it would be invisible.
:
:What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
:aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.

And why is that?

:The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
:because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
:early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.

That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
air defences first?

:> and lots of deep
:> caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
:
:These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.

Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these <$10k cruise
missiles, with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
spectrum datalinks, etc?

:> You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
:> build weapons.
:
:Tell me?

Very.

Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
Korea', that's a different matter.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall

December 29th 03, 04:21 PM

pervect > wrote:

:On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:29:13 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>pervect > wrote:
:
:
:>:I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
:>:"my" side,
:>
:>The gentleman proposing the magical technology cruise missile and
:>various other 'technological' fixes for problems the guy fighting the
:>US will encounter, of course.
:>
:>:and for that matter, who is on yours?
:>
:>All the sane people who recognize that 'asymmetric warfare' doesn't
:>mean trying to beat the other guy at his own game, particularly when
:>it takes 'magic' technology to do it.
:
:I think you'd better re-read my posts, in great detail.

Why would I want to do that? Even masochists don't like that kind of
pain.

:Usually I
:don't like to take people to task for poor reading skills, but in your
:case I'll make an exception.

Usually I don't read idiots for long. In your case, I don't think
I'll make an exception.

<plonk>

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Paul J. Adam

December 29th 03, 05:22 PM

In message <5DEHb.157132$8y1.465695@attbi_s52>, a425couple
> writes
>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>
>> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>> W S Churchill
>
>Where does this quote come from?

His work "The Grand Alliance". Apparently, some felt that the British
declaration of war against Japan on 8 December 1941 was too formal and
insufficiently blood-curdling.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

ZZBunker

December 29th 03, 07:59 PM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (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.

It doesn't matter what the US spends a lot of money on.
Since what the the idiots don't spend a lot of money is
attenna design.

An except for the paperwork, the FBI's counter-countermeasures
are in the same boat as the CIA's Blackbirds, and the
NSA's typewriter museam:

And as dead as the idiot green grass, and Baltimore Orieole
moron fans they're made out of.

That's simply follows from the fact that the
antenna's they designed for RADAR are like
most US Army Radar antenna's. They were designed
by clerks, for jerks, for the soon to be
repaved California desert.

Chad Irby

December 29th 03, 08:21 PM

(ZZBunker) wrote:

> It doesn't matter what the US spends a lot of money on.
> Since what the the idiots don't spend a lot of money is
> attenna design.

Antenna design is the *cornerstone* of ECM, and ignoring antenna design
in ECM is like ignoring wheels on a car.

(Rest of silly rant deleted to save a little of your potential dignity
for future use)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Jack Linthicum

December 29th 03, 10:01 PM

(ZZBunker) wrote in message >...
> Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> > In article >,
> > (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.
>
> It doesn't matter what the US spends a lot of money on.
> Since what the the idiots don't spend a lot of money is
> attenna design.

Who are the idiots? I know a lot of multipath antenna companies and
the contracts for NSA and the services just provide spill over five
years later for the remnants. And the antenna designers are often
'foreigners'.
>
> An except for the paperwork, the FBI's counter-countermeasures
> are in the same boat as the CIA's Blackbirds, and the
> NSA's typewriter museam:
>
> And as dead as the idiot green grass, and Baltimore Orieole
> moron fans they're made out of.
>
**** toku deska?
>
> That's simply follows from the fact that the
> antenna's they designed for RADAR are like
> most US Army Radar antenna's. They were designed
> by clerks, for jerks, for the soon to be
> repaved California desert.

See above. The U.S. uses real ees to design their antennas, some
design six before breakfast just to keep the pencil moving. You aren't
trying to receive with a transmit antenna are you? And you should see
a doctor, you either are very sick or very hip.

John Schilling

December 29th 03, 10:10 PM

Penta > writes:

>On 24 Dec 03 10:27:36 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>>John Schilling opined
>>
>>>Chad Irby > writes:

>>>>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
>>>>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
>>>>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
>>>>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
>>>>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
>>>>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
>>>>communications.
>>
>>>How do you jam a homing pigeon?
>>
>>Big magnet.

>More to the point, I thought carrier pigeons were extinct?

Passenger pigeons are extinct, but they were never relevant for this
sort of thing. Carrier/Homing pigeons are doing just fine.

>I know homing pigeons aren't, but I thought they weren't useful for
>communications purposes?

Hey, I;ll have you know you can run the internet by carrier pigeon,
per RFC 1149

<http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/>

Carrier pigeons are and always have been useful for communications
purposes when other channels are not available, and are one of many
legitimate rebuttals to the mindless, "we can shut down all their
electronics, so their armies will just sit around waiting to die"
bit.

High bandwidth and low latency they are not, but adequate for getting
out the "Execute War Plan Blue ASAP" message to people who already have
their part of War Plan Blue in sealed envelopes on-site.

--
*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 *

Andrew Chaplin

December 29th 03, 11:46 PM

Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> > "a425couple" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
> >>
> >>> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> >>> W S Churchill
> >>
> >>Where does this quote come from?
> >>
> > Churchill one would assume...
>
> Manitoba? Which one of the bears said that?

Winnie "The Pooh" Spencer, a very political animal, if you ask me (I
know you haven't).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Andrew Chaplin

December 29th 03, 11:50 PM

Penta wrote:
>
> On 24 Dec 03 10:27:36 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
> >John Schilling opined
> >
> >>Chad Irby > writes:
>
> >>>Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
> >>>border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
> >>>actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
> >>>couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
> >>>submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
> >>>command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
> >>>communications.
> >
> >>How do you jam a homing pigeon?
> >
> >Big magnet.
>
> More to the point, I thought carrier pigeons were extinct?
>
> I know homing pigeons aren't, but I thought they weren't useful for
> communications purposes?

Same species, both of them: _Columba livia_ or the rock dove. If the
buildings on the Spark Street Mall in Ottawa are any indication, they
are not going to be extinct any time before we are. Their main
redeeming quality is that the local peregrine falcons think them good
eating.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Peter Skelton

December 29th 03, 11:53 PM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:46:33 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
> wrote:

>Peter Stickney wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
>> > "a425couple" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>> >>
>> >>> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>> >>> W S Churchill
>> >>
>> >>Where does this quote come from?
>> >>
>> > Churchill one would assume...
>>
>> Manitoba? Which one of the bears said that?
>
>Winnie "The Pooh" Spencer, a very political animal, if you ask me (I
>know you haven't).

Winnie was from White River Ontario but emigrated to the UK with
his unit, the Second Canadian Infantry Brigade. When the unit was
posted to France he took up residence in the London Zoo where he
lived until 1934.

Peter Skelton

phil hunt

December 30th 03, 12:39 AM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:39:05 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:37:20 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>
(phil hunt) wrote:
>>
>>:The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
>>:country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
>>:million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
>>:Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
>>:almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
>>:spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
>>:the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
>>:something wrong here.
>>
>>Britain spends money on things that Sweden does not, of course.
>>Strategic weaponry is expensive to develop and maintain.
>
> Not to mention the abilty to quickly deploy-- how long woudl it take
>Sweden to move a unit of soldiers to the Middle East, or move them
>prepared to fight at the end of the journey.

If there for a real need for them to deploy -- such as an invasion
of an EU country (for example in a future scenario where Turkey is
in the EU), they would no doubt go by road.

--
"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).

Derek Lyons

December 30th 03, 01:15 AM

(John Schilling) wrote:

>High bandwidth and low latency they are not, but adequate for getting
>out the "Execute War Plan Blue ASAP" message to people who already have
>their part of War Plan Blue in sealed envelopes on-site.

Assuming the people who are sending the messages have already trained
the birds to fly to the various locations...

They are a valid backup method for some uses, but one that takes
considerable work to establish and maintain.

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.

[email protected]

December 30th 03, 01:50 AM

Andrew Chaplin > wrote:

>
>Same species, both of them: _Columba livia_ or the rock dove. If the
>buildings on the Spark Street Mall in Ottawa are any indication, they
>are not going to be extinct any time before we are. Their main
>redeeming quality is that the local peregrine falcons think them good
>eating.

Small nit here Andrew...isn't it "Sparks Street" vice "Spark
Street"?...
--

-Gord.

[email protected]

December 30th 03, 01:53 AM

Andrew Chaplin > wrote:

>Peter Stickney wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
>> > "a425couple" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>> >>
>> >>> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>> >>> W S Churchill
>> >>
>> >>Where does this quote come from?
>> >>
>> > Churchill one would assume...
>>
>> Manitoba? Which one of the bears said that?
>
>Winnie "The Pooh" Spencer, a very political animal, if you ask me (I
>know you haven't).

Damn...Andrew beat me to it.
:)

--

-Gord.

John Schilling

December 30th 03, 03:23 AM

(Derek Lyons) writes:

(John Schilling) wrote:

>>High bandwidth and low latency they are not, but adequate for getting
>>out the "Execute War Plan Blue ASAP" message to people who already have
>>their part of War Plan Blue in sealed envelopes on-site.

>Assuming the people who are sending the messages have already trained
>the birds to fly to the various locations...

>They are a valid backup method for some uses, but one that takes
>considerable work to establish and maintain.

Yes, but the NKPA has had nothing *to* do for fifty years, except prepare
for a massive battle with the US/ROK across a narrow and fixed frontier.
If they want carrier pigeons as a backup, they can set up and maintain
the network. If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.

Given their predilection for digging deep, I wonder if there's such a
thing as a carrier mole :-)

--
*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 *

IBM

December 30th 03, 03:54 AM

Penta > wrote in
:

[snip]

> I know homing pigeons aren't, but I thought they weren't useful for
> communications purposes?

They could be in some very limited circumstances.
Makes for a very lengthy OODA cycle though.
One has to wonder how robust the NKPA C3I systems
are. I suspect they probably have an extensive system
of buried land lines for the border region and my be
hoping that any resumption of the Korean police action
will be short and sharp. Effective resistance may depend
on being able to dodge the first spasm as the NKPA heads
south. Fortunately the relocation of forces necessary to
ensure this may now be politically palatable, at least to
the US.

One thing to remember about their artillery inventory.
Much of it is suspected to be buried in bunkers
and breakout tunnel positions. I suspect it won't
be all that vulnerable to counter battery on that
account. ROK/US assets will manage to get some of it but
even a target rich environment can be too much of a good
thing.

Ultimately though the only answer is to persuade the North
Korean leadership that they will be amongst the first
casualties if they choose to resume hostilities.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Chad Irby

December 30th 03, 03:57 AM

In article >,
(John Schilling) wrote:

> If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
> because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
> even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.

....or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
they don't bother...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

a425couple

December 30th 03, 04:19 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
> a425couple > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote
> >> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> >> W S Churchill
> >Where does this quote come from?
>
> His work "The Grand Alliance". Apparently, some felt that the British
> declaration of war against Japan on 8 December 1941 was too formal and
> insufficiently blood-curdling.

Thank you for your kind, helpful, and informative response.
Yes, I have found it now on page 514 of my edition.

Penta

December 30th 03, 04:19 AM

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:21:04 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:

>
>That would be passenger pigeons, as of 1914.

<scratchhead> What's the difference?

Penta

December 30th 03, 04:19 AM

On 29 Dec 2003 19:23:28 -0800, (John Schilling)
wrote:

>
>Given their predilection for digging deep, I wonder if there's such a
>thing as a carrier mole :-)

Thank you for giving the genetic engineering types yet ANOTHER
crazy idea...

First the Golden Rebeaver, now this...!

;-)

John Schilling

December 30th 03, 04:45 AM

Chad Irby > writes:

>In article >,
> (John Schilling) wrote:

>> If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
>> because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
>> even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.

>...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
>they don't bother...

Except that you are the only person on Earth with this inexplicable
belief. The NKPA has visibly devoted *enormous* effort to preparing
for actual war, such as carving out millions of cubic meters of hard
rock tunnels and fortifications, and you honestly think they are a
bunch of defeatists who can't be bothered to keep up a bunch of
pigeons or the equivalent?

They may not believe they can *win* a war, but they almost certainly
believe they can make the first day of that war really damned expensive
for the US and ROK. And they are almost certainly right - there's an
artillery tube every *fifty meters* along that border, dug in deep, and
the idea that the gunners are just going to sit around twiddling their
thumbs because we jam their radios and bomb their telephone exchanges,
is not terribly plausible.

--
*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 *

George William Herbert

December 30th 03, 05:16 AM

Chad Irby > wrote:
>...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
>they don't bother...

They are not stupid, and have plenty of successful combat
experience, albeit 50 years old.

They have *obviously* bothered over the last 50 years;
their military budget, clearly observable military construction,
etc all point to massive preparation work.

How effective is that? We don't know. It might all crumble to
dust if exposed to modern US and SK forces, or it might turn
out to be the worst thing we've had to fight since 1900.

We should not ascribe magic properties to their defensive
and offensive capabilities, but merely having tens of thousands
of artillery pieces along that border segment, essentially all
in bunkers or other hardpoints, is a calculus that requires
very significant threat level assumptions. If it hasn't
all rusted out, it's a very very dangerous thing.

-george william herbert

Johnny Bravo

December 30th 03, 05:31 AM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:20:19 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>> Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
>> missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
>> one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
>> stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.
>
>Of course, they've only got 192 or so warheads anyway. If _I_ were
>going to attempt this little bit of foolishness, I wouldn't be too
>happy about putting all of my warheads on one platform.

The old saying "If you're on thin ice, you may as well dance." comes
to mind. Anyone foolish enough to fire nearly 200 nukes at 7,000+ US
troops isn't going to be real worried about the chance that we'll find
their boomer and hit it first.

>It'll work as an estimate. As with anything else regarding this stuff
>- Those that Post don't Know. Those that Know don't Post. See the
>Security Clearance threads for more (or less, depending on Need to
>Knoe) info.

Crossroads Able gave some good data, I liked the pictures of the
Nevada, still floating despite having a 23kt nuke landing 1500-2000
feet away from it. The Independance (CV-22) damage report is telling
as well (all 280 pages of it); the commander estimated that if they
were ready for the blast 75% of the crew would have survived.

4 days after the blast and the damage assessment team noted how
little structural damage there was; of course all above deck aircraft
would have been blown over and any hangared planes below that weren't
secured against the 40 degree roll the ship endured would have been
wrecked but the ship was still salvagable. All the radars and
directors were gone but 1/2 of the 40mm mounts were judged to still be
in operable condition. The steering controls still worked and the
props and shafts were tested and showed that at least partial mobility
was retained.

The biggest damage the ship suffered was an untended fire which
burned out some spaces when some torpedoes and a mine were
incinerated; had there been damage control parties aboard this would
have been prevented.

Not bad for a ship that was only 3,000 feet away from a 23 kt
airburst.

>>>area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
>>>to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
>>>warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.
>>
>> There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
>> aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
>> the example.
>
>It's a Round, Round, World. But the lack of coverage by a single
>warhead vs. the area that the target could be hiding in means that
>Nuclear Buckshot needs some rethinking.

Either the attack time has to be considerably accellerated, the
targeting needs to be greatly improved or much larger warheads need to
be employee. Allowing course corrections at midflight apogee would
cut the escape time in half and the area to be covered by 1/4.

Combine that with a larger warhead, say the newer 475kt warheads
that can fit on a trident and rather than 200 nukes, we're down to
about 8 warheads to cover the target area and ensure at
least major damage to the carrier. Hitting it a minute later with 8
more would pretty much ensure destruction of the entire group.

>> One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
>> component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
>> nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
>> ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
>> the ocean.
>
>Well, it's why the triad itself was so important. Anybody
>contemplating a nuclear strike against the U.S. wouldn't have to deal
>with just one type of platform, but 3. And what worked against 1 type
>wouldn't work against another.

The only real protection against the sub portion of the triad would
be to find and sink the subs themselves; not exactly an easy
proposition with Cold War technology. Even the governments involved
didn't know exactly where they were hiding, other than the boundaries
of the patrol zones and it's a big ocean.

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

Chad Irby

December 30th 03, 07:24 AM

In article >,
(John Schilling) wrote:

> Chad Irby > writes:
>
> >In article >,
> > (John Schilling) wrote:
>
> >> If they don't have a backup carrier-pigeon network, it's
> >> because they are confident that they have alternate methods that are
> >> even more robust in the face of all the usual US countermeasures.
>
> >...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
> >they don't bother...
>
>
> Except that you are the only person on Earth with this inexplicable
> belief.

That's something called "humor."

Sorry you missed it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bernardz

December 30th 03, 09:27 AM

In article >,
says...
> Bernardz > wrote:
>
> :In article >,
> says...
> :>
> :> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
> :
> :Never said it would be invisible.
> :
> :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
> :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
>
> And why is that?

Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.

>
> :The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
> :because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
> :early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.
>
> That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
> What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
> Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
> air defences first?

As above

>
> :> and lots of deep
> :> caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
> :
> :These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.
>
> Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these <$10k cruise
> missiles,

I would suggest that any medium size country could put something
together.

> with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
> spectrum datalinks, etc?

To hit a city large you don't need any of this. All a V1 had was a
simple revolution meter. Of those not shot down half hit London. I am
sure a rather simple device could now be constructed that could do a
better job.

>
> :> You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
> :> build weapons.
> :
> :Tell me?
>
> Very.
>
> Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
> Korea', that's a different matter.
>
>

--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

Fred J. McCall

December 30th 03, 03:00 PM

Bernardz > wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:> Bernardz > wrote:
:>
:> :In article >,
:> says...
:> :>
:> :> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
:> :
:> :Never said it would be invisible.
:> :
:> :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
:> :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
:>
:> And why is that?
:
:Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.

So, as the Elbonian leader, upon the start of a US invasion you are
going to missile your own people on the presumption that US forces
will commit suicide to save your people from you? Pretty unlikely.

:> :The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
:> :because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
:> :early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.
:>
:> That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
:> What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
:> Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
:> air defences first?
:
:As above

As above, indeed. Your anti-aircraft defenses, not being invisible,
will be taken out BEFORE the US goes into your cities, so you must be
assuming that launching all your magic cruise missiles at your own
defenseless civilians will someone convince the US to endanger its own
people. Not likely.

:> :> and lots of deep
:> :> caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
:> :
:> :These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.
:>
:> Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these <$10k cruise
:> missiles,
:
:I would suggest that any medium size country could put something
:together.

And I would suggest that said medium sized country would need a fair
number of wizards to produce that much magic.

:> with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
:> spectrum datalinks, etc?
:
:To hit a city large you don't need any of this. All a V1 had was a
:simple revolution meter. Of those not shot down half hit London. I am
:sure a rather simple device could now be constructed that could do a
:better job.

So your answer to US invasion is what is essentially a random missile
attack on your own cities? And you think this will stop a US
invasion? And of course, all third world nations have cities the size
of London and its environs.

I will note that most folks think that V1 attacks on London were a
waste of effort for Germany that could have been applied elsewhere. I
will further note that for the thousands of V1 and V2 weapons fired at
Britain, relatively few people were killed by them. And yet you
somehow expect all these installations to go unnoticed before you get
invaded and these weapons to somehow effectively target US forces in
preference to the vast majority of civilians in cities (assuming, of
course, that the US forces stay in your cities rather than building
their own basecamps) or else that attacking your own cities as the US
comes in will somehow convince the US forces to simply suicide.

:> :> You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
:> :> build weapons.
:> :
:> :Tell me?
:>
:> Very.
:>
:> Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
:> Korea', that's a different matter.

At this point I have to ask - what ARE you smoking?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

John Schilling

December 30th 03, 07:16 PM

(George William Herbert) writes:

>John Schilling > wrote:
>>[...]
>>Invoking the Asymmetric Warfare buzzword does nothing to counter those
>>capabilities. It isn't clear that they even *can* be countered, save
>>in kind, but if it is possible it will involve a whole slew of very
>>hard problems in its own right, and that the amateurish solutions
>>posited here are not going to cut it.

>Pushback. While you are generally correct... I think that some of
>the enthusiasts here are not paying enough attention either to
>details or to the big picture... I believe that there are some
>unconventional and asymmetrical things which could be done which
>would severely hamper western style warfare.

>One of the things which could be done looks a lot like one of the
>things under discussion here. There are many others, and the
>overall strategy of defense by and only by massive cheap cruise
>missiles is a grand scale loser, but as part of doing a lot of
>other things it might well be a viable strategy component.

Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.

Because, e.g., cruise missile swarms are not going to be effectively
fielded without an extensive period of R&D, testing, procurement,
training, and deployment, which will be noticed and which will mean
you only get to use the cruise missile swarms against a US Military
that has accomodated itself to the idea of being hit by cruise missile
swarms.

So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.

Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.

--
*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 *

William Baird

December 31st 03, 03:06 AM

grrr. I hate all these crossposts. Are they really necessary?

(John Schilling) wrote in message

> Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
> game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
> and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.

This is definitely true. Defeating the US Military of 2003 would
be one thing. Defeating the US military of the time period that
it took to be able to develop the technology to defeat of the US
military of 2003 would be a different story altogether.

> So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
> a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
> tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
> because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
> an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that by the time that the R&D is done for
the cheap and effective cruise missiles is completed that the US
military
will have trotted out a very effective defense already. In fact, if I
am
not mistaken, they're working on it already.

"Next," Wilson said, "we're going after mortars."

http://www.ausa.org/www/news.nsf/0/052c0f79cec9c88f85256c9c004bdcd9?OpenDocument&AutoFramed
(THEL shot down a 152mm in the article)

LLNL is working on the 100+ kw solid state laser prototype for HELSTF
as we speak. (http://www.llnl.gov/nif/lst/helstf.html) At that point
it gets cheaper to knock down the cheap but effective cruise missiles
than it does to make them. After all, it's just the cost of the
gasoline
(or kerosene if its a turbine and prolly would be) to power the
laser...

First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
proliferated
into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
MBTs
around then, of course.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03k.html

I have my very strong doubts that a chemical laser will make its way
onto the battlefield, at least in an armored vehicle. I can't see
soldiers embracing something that if the tanks get blow open by
artillery
or mines will wipe out a company easy...flourine bad. Very bad.

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

Damo

December 31st 03, 04:48 AM

"John Schilling" > wrote in message
...
> (George William Herbert) writes:
>
> >John Schilling > wrote:

> Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
> missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
> style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
> standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
> an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
> kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
might as well send in F-15s??

Damo <- who would much rather read a discussion about cheap(ish) cruise
missiles then trying to defeat the US on the battlefield. This is a science
based group, not fantasy.

>
>
> --
> *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 *
>

Fred J. McCall

December 31st 03, 05:24 AM

"Damo" > wrote:

:"John Schilling" > wrote in message
...
:>
:> Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
:> missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
:> style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
:> standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
:> an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
:> kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.
:
:I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
:air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
:might as well send in F-15s??

I think you're both wrong.

1) When did Stinger get cleared for carriage in an F-22 (and in such
ridiculous quantities, too)? That would be merely insane, since the
Stinger isn't even an air-to-air weapon (and you certainly couldn't
jam 45 of them in anywhere and be able to shoot them).

2) The F-22 carries 8 AAM rounds internally in pure air to air trim:
6 AIM-120C in the main weapons bay and an AIM-9X in each side bay.

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

LukeCampbell

December 31st 03, 05:55 AM

William Baird wrote:
> First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
> platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
> proliferated
> into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
> MBTs
> around then, of course.

My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
(nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
a joule) is available. By high efficiency, I mean comparable to today's
chemical and solid state CW lasers, around 10% to 30% or better, not the
piddly 1% efficiency we get with solid state lasers operating with
flashlamps.

Why pulsed lasers? Short pulses cause damage to the target through
mechanical means (induced by the violent expansion of the solid density
plasma created by the pulse) rather than thermal. This is two to three
orders of magnitude more efficient at causing structural damage than
direct vaporization. The high repetition rate specified (several
kilohertz or faster) will allow you to blast holes though things quickly
compared to the relatively slow burning of CW lasers.

We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
the military has these toys to play with.

Luke

Chad Irby

December 31st 03, 06:16 AM

In article >,
"Damo" > wrote:

> I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
> air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
> might as well send in F-15s??

Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.

Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
side bays.

If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
do that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bernardz

December 31st 03, 06:58 AM

In article >,
says...
> Bernardz > wrote:
>
> :In article >,
> says...
> :> Bernardz > wrote:
> :>
> :> :In article >,
> :> says...
> :> :>
> :> :> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
> :> :
> :> :Never said it would be invisible.
> :> :
> :> :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
> :> :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
> :>
> :> And why is that?
> :
> :Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.
>
> So, as the Elbonian leader, upon the start of a US invasion you are
> going to missile your own people on the presumption that US forces
> will commit suicide to save your people from you? Pretty unlikely.

(a)
I never said my own people. I said some neighbour that is an ally of the
US.

We talking of deterring the US. If it came to use. I think we would
agree it would be suicide. Worst case in use is that the US would say
how terrible and we are sorry.

>
> :> :The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
> :> :because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
> :> :early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.
> :>
> :> That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
> :> What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
> :> Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
> :> air defences first?
> :
> :As above
>
> As above, indeed. Your anti-aircraft defenses, not being invisible,
> will be taken out BEFORE the US goes into your cities, so you must be
> assuming that launching all your magic cruise missiles at your own
> defenseless civilians will someone convince the US to endanger its own
> people. Not likely.

As (a) above

>
> :> :> and lots of deep
> :> :> caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
> :> :
> :> :These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.
> :>
> :> Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these <$10k cruise
> :> missiles,
> :
> :I would suggest that any medium size country could put something
> :together.
>
> And I would suggest that said medium sized country would need a fair
> number of wizards to produce that much magic.

No. Germany in WW2 could do it almost 60 years ago. Even the
Palestinians today have managed to put together some similar type
system.

>
> :> with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
> :> spectrum datalinks, etc?
> :
> :To hit a city large you don't need any of this. All a V1 had was a
> :simple revolution meter. Of those not shot down half hit London. I am
> :sure a rather simple device could now be constructed that could do a
> :better job.
>
> So your answer to US invasion is what is essentially a random missile
> attack on your own cities? And you think this will stop a US
> invasion? And of course, all third world nations have cities the size
> of London and its environs.

As (a) above

>
> I will note that most folks think that V1 attacks on London were a
> waste of effort for Germany that could have been applied elsewhere. I
> will further note that for the thousands of V1 and V2 weapons fired at
> Britain, relatively few people were killed by them.

Look at the thread London Blitz vs V1. Most people do not seem to be
saying that at all.

> And yet you
> somehow expect all these installations to go unnoticed before you get
> invaded and these weapons to somehow effectively target US forces in
> preference to the vast majority of civilians in cities (assuming, of
> course, that the US forces stay in your cities rather than building
> their own basecamps) or else that attacking your own cities as the US
> comes in will somehow convince the US forces to simply suicide.

Never said that.

>
> :> :> You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
> :> :> build weapons.
> :> :
> :> :Tell me?
> :>
> :> Very.
> :>
> :> Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
> :> Korea', that's a different matter.
>
> At this point I have to ask - what ARE you smoking?
>

Give me time. New year eve is just about to start now. Have a good one.
Actually I don't think overall we are that far apart.

If they don't deter the US this country is dead.

--
Above all wish for a healthy year

25th saying of Bernard

Fred J. McCall

December 31st 03, 07:22 AM

Bernardz > wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:> Bernardz > wrote:
:>
:> :In article >,
:> says...
:> :> Bernardz > wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :In article >,
:> :> says...
:> :> :>
:> :> :> We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
:> :> :
:> :> :Never said it would be invisible.
:> :> :
:> :> :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
:> :> :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
:> :>
:> :> And why is that?
:> :
:> :Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.
:>
:> So, as the Elbonian leader, upon the start of a US invasion you are
:> going to missile your own people on the presumption that US forces
:> will commit suicide to save your people from you? Pretty unlikely.
:
:(a)
:I never said my own people. I said some neighbour that is an ally of the
:US.

You're assuming that one exists and that it has high value targets in
range of your cheap magical cruise missiles. Such situations are
going to be rare - probably limited to being North Korea.

You're also assuming that attacking your neighbor unprovoked is
somehow going to win you points somewhere.

:> And I would suggest that said medium sized country would need a fair
:> number of wizards to produce that much magic.
:
:No. Germany in WW2 could do it almost 60 years ago. Even the
:Palestinians today have managed to put together some similar type
:system.

Cite? Because I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all
anymore.

:> I will note that most folks think that V1 attacks on London were a
:> waste of effort for Germany that could have been applied elsewhere. I
:> will further note that for the thousands of V1 and V2 weapons fired at
:> Britain, relatively few people were killed by them.
:
:Look at the thread London Blitz vs V1. Most people do not seem to be
:saying that at all.

I'd suggest you get an education on this somewhere other than Usenet.
History books would be a good start.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Chad Irby

December 31st 03, 09:08 AM

In article >, LukeCampbell >
wrote:

> Why pulsed lasers? Short pulses cause damage to the target through
> mechanical means (induced by the violent expansion of the solid
> density plasma created by the pulse) rather than thermal. This is
> two to three orders of magnitude more efficient at causing structural
> damage than direct vaporization. The high repetition rate specified
> (several kilohertz or faster) will allow you to blast holes though
> things quickly compared to the relatively slow burning of CW lasers.

You also have some problems with ionization of the air in some
conditions, degrading the beam.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Earl Colby Pottinger

December 31st 03, 01:35 PM

(George William Herbert) :

> Chad Irby > wrote:
> >...or they figure they're so screwed in the event of actual war that
> >they don't bother...
>
> They are not stupid, and have plenty of successful combat
> experience, albeit 50 years old.
>
> They have *obviously* bothered over the last 50 years;
> their military budget, clearly observable military construction,
> etc all point to massive preparation work.
>
> How effective is that? We don't know. It might all crumble to
> dust if exposed to modern US and SK forces, or it might turn
> out to be the worst thing we've had to fight since 1900.
>
> We should not ascribe magic properties to their defensive
> and offensive capabilities, but merely having tens of thousands
> of artillery pieces along that border segment, essentially all
> in bunkers or other hardpoints, is a calculus that requires
> very significant threat level assumptions. If it hasn't
> all rusted out, it's a very very dangerous thing.

Any chance of a chain reaction?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Arved Sandstrom

December 31st 03, 02:58 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Damo" > wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
> > air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and
you
> > might as well send in F-15s??
>
> Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.
>
> Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
> side bays.
>
> If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
> AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
> do that.

Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
that it could not be done.

AHS

Kevin Brooks

December 31st 03, 03:14 PM

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Damo" > wrote:
> >
> > > I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
> > > air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had
and
> you
> > > might as well send in F-15s??
> >
> > Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.
> >
> > Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
> > side bays.
> >
> > If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
> > AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
> > do that.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
> fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
> that it could not be done.

I think it is not that it could not be done--it is more a factor of not
being required. The F-22 already has a pretty good range (reportedly
superior to all other current and near-future competitors). Of course it can
also carry its conventional external tanks as required--I would think that
dropping those before entering into the threat envelope would clean it back
up to a pretty stealthy profile (the point being that stealth is not
required for the full flight profile--only during the
ingress/attack/egress).

Brooks

>
> AHS
>
>

Fred J. McCall

December 31st 03, 03:46 PM

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:

:Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
:fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
:that it could not be done.

Because the weapons carriage is internal. You can't launch weapons
through a conformal tank. It would also make the tank quite expensive
(rather than just steel). There is also the issue of changing the
shape of the airframe with conformal tanks (all those join lines),
which makes this a lot more difficult than you apparently think.

All this means you might as well just design the volume into the
airframe in the first place (which is what they did).

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

Chad Irby

December 31st 03, 04:24 PM

In article >,
"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
> fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
> that it could not be done.

Money.

Once the F-22 makes it into the inventory on a serious basis, someone's
bound to come up with something like that. They built in enough extra
pieces to make it easier when they *do* get around to it (like the wing
pylons that could, if they wanted, let them hang eight AIM-120Cs under
the wings for a total of ten).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Arved Sandstrom

December 31st 03, 06:19 PM

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:
>
> :Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal
external
> :fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
> :that it could not be done.
>
> Because the weapons carriage is internal. You can't launch weapons
> through a conformal tank. It would also make the tank quite expensive
> (rather than just steel). There is also the issue of changing the
> shape of the airframe with conformal tanks (all those join lines),
> which makes this a lot more difficult than you apparently think.

I know it's not easy. I do have a physics degree and some electrical
engineering under my belt. Yes, the tank would cost a few bucks - compared
to the price of the a/c itself I don't know how worried I'd be about that.
And I know a bit about antenna theory, so I am not oblivious to the fact
that it would have to be carefully done. But I suspect it would be less
difficult to do than you suggest.

> All this means you might as well just design the volume into the
> airframe in the first place (which is what they did).

Resulting in yet other compromises.

AHS

William Baird

December 31st 03, 06:31 PM

LukeCampbell > wrote in message
> My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
> practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
> (nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
> a joule) is available.

FWIW, the LLNL solid state laser is a pulsed one. The flash lamps are
supposed to be followed on with LEDs as well.

Ah, here we go:

"The project scientists are also investigating several diode
cooling and packaging techniques for optical pumping using
laser diodes. A 10-bar prototype monolithic diode array is
operational and delivers 300 W at 940 nm. When complete, the
HELSTF laser will deliver 100-kW-to-MW output power under burst
mode for the duration of several seconds."

> We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
> if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
> technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
> the military has these toys to play with.

The technologies are sufficiently advanced enough that the
Blue Beanies, ahem, USAF are talking about putting a SS-HEL
in the back of Lockheed's Air Force JSF version.

My bet is that within ten years we'll see each branch of the
military with one sort of laser or another as an offensive weapon.

Will

> Luke

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

George William Herbert

December 31st 03, 07:04 PM

Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>"Damo" > wrote:
>:"John Schilling" > wrote:
>:> Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
>:> missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
>:> style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
>:> standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
>:> an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
>:> kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.
>:
>:I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
>:air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
>:might as well send in F-15s??
>
>I think you're both wrong.
>
>1) When did Stinger get cleared for carriage in an F-22 (and in such
>ridiculous quantities, too)? That would be merely insane, since the
>Stinger isn't even an air-to-air weapon (and you certainly couldn't
>jam 45 of them in anywhere and be able to shoot them).
>
>2) The F-22 carries 8 AAM rounds internally in pure air to air trim:
>6 AIM-120C in the main weapons bay and an AIM-9X in each side bay.

The F-22 isn't cleared for Stingers. John is talking about
a hypothetical but reasonable design extension.

Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
US Army helicopters.

There exist multiple rocket pods firing rockets with similar
body diameter to Stinger; modifying the pods to actually fire
stingers would be a minor modification. Building a new pod which
volumetrically filled the F-22 weapons bay, was extended out
for firing and then retracted back in, is not trivial but
not a particularly difficult project. I am taking John's
count of how many missiles would fit in such pods on faith;
he knows how to do math.

Similar retractable rocket pods, firing unguided rockets then
but operationally very similar, have been used in USAF interceptors
of the past.

-george william herbert

LukeCampbell

December 31st 03, 07:55 PM

William Baird wrote:
> LukeCampbell > wrote in message
>
>>My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
>>practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
>>(nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
>>a joule) is available.
>
>
> FWIW, the LLNL solid state laser is a pulsed one. The flash lamps are
> supposed to be followed on with LEDs as well.
>
> Ah, here we go:
>
> "The project scientists are also investigating several diode
> cooling and packaging techniques for optical pumping using
> laser diodes. A 10-bar prototype monolithic diode array is
> operational and delivers 300 W at 940 nm. When complete, the
> HELSTF laser will deliver 100-kW-to-MW output power under burst
> mode for the duration of several seconds."

Oh. My reading was that it could operate at full power (about 100 kW
CW) for several seconds, and then had to be shut off to cool. Since I'm
not actually working on the beasty, though, I can't say if my reading is
correct or not.

>>We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
>>if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
>>technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
>>the military has these toys to play with.
>
>
> The technologies are sufficiently advanced enough that the
> Blue Beanies, ahem, USAF are talking about putting a SS-HEL
> in the back of Lockheed's Air Force JSF version.
>
> My bet is that within ten years we'll see each branch of the
> military with one sort of laser or another as an offensive weapon.

Sounds about right. I would have guessed 10 to 20, myself, but I am
usually a bit conservative.

Luke

LukeCampbell

December 31st 03, 08:02 PM

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> You also have some problems with ionization of the air in some
> conditions, degrading the beam.

For visible or near IR, this is not so much of a problem as with mid IR
(or UV, for that matter). There is an ionization phenomena that can
actually help propagate the laser beam in some conditions. Very intense
light in air can lead to self focusing, and if there was nothing to stop
it, the laser would catastrophically self focus down to a point,
resulting in strong ionization and the total absorption of the beam. It
turns out however that before this occurs, the beam will cause weak
ionization of the air, forming a diverging lense and expanding the beam
again. The beam still has enough power to self focus in normal air,
though, so you go through a sort of leap-frog effect of focus, diverge,
focus, diverge, etc. This overcomes diffractive spreading of the beam,
and some researchers have managed to propagate millijoule, femptosecond
pulses of laser light for several kilometers through the atmosphere
using this method. It is not clear if this would be a good option for
weapons, but it might turn out to be a very effective means of
delivering pulsed laser energy to targets within a few kilometers.

Luke

William Baird

December 31st 03, 10:39 PM

LukeCampbell > wrote in message
> Oh. My reading was that it could operate at full power (about 100 kW
> CW) for several seconds, and then had to be shut off to cool. Since I'm
> not actually working on the beasty, though, I can't say if my reading is
> correct or not.

They're pulsed lasers, iirc. The first version, using the
flash lamps, has to be. Flash lamps don't give a continuous
pumping effect. Reading from what both HELSTF and LLNL has
said, the LED pumped version is a follow-on. The laser guys
are just as excited about the pulsed effects as we are. Rapid
thermal cook-off takes a lot longer (theoretically) and doesn't
work in every situation.

Will

> Luke

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

Fred J. McCall

January 1st 04, 01:20 AM

(George William Herbert) wrote:

:Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
:version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
:US Army helicopters.

Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for
hunting helicopters.

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

LukeCampbell

January 1st 04, 01:44 AM

William Baird wrote:

> They're pulsed lasers, iirc. The first version, using the
> flash lamps, has to be. Flash lamps don't give a continuous
> pumping effect. Reading from what both HELSTF and LLNL has
> said, the LED pumped version is a follow-on. The laser guys
> are just as excited about the pulsed effects as we are. Rapid
> thermal cook-off takes a lot longer (theoretically) and doesn't
> work in every situation.

That is just too cool. I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

Luke

John Schilling

January 1st 04, 02:37 AM

"Damo" > writes:

>"John Schilling" > wrote in message
...
>> (George William Herbert) writes:

>> >John Schilling > wrote:

>> Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
>> missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
>> style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
>> standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
>> an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
>> kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.

>I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
>air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
>might as well send in F-15s??

The F-22 carries, internally and stealthily, six AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two
AIM-9 Sidewinders. It can carry four missiles (2 ea AIM-9 and AIM-120)
*and* two JDAMs internally, as a self-escorting strike aircraft. That
may be where you got the four missiles bit from.

But AMRAAMS are gross overkill against the sort of cruise missile being
postulated here. You only need the long range, midcourse guidance,
high energy and terminal maneuverability if the target is going to
evade and/or shoot back, or if it's moving fast enough that even a
supercruising F-22 can't engage closely.

Against minimal cruise missiles, an air-to-air Stinger is more than
enough. Yes, the Stinger has an air-to-air variant, and yes, the
seeker will lock onto the exhaust of a small piston engine. And
you can pack eight of them in the weight and volume envelope of an
AIM-120, or four for an AIM-9. Fifty-six total in an F-22, without
compromising stealth or supercruise[1].

This is not to say you could do it tomorrow. You'd have to design
4- and 8-rail extendable launchers, and integrate the missiles and
launchers with the F-22 weapons control system. But it could be
done faster than the hypothetical opposition could field their
cruise missile swarms, at which point American fighter pilots get
to have more fun than they've had since the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

[1] A competent adversary not irrationally wedded to the Great
Cruise Missile Swarm tactic would keep just enough MiG-29s or
the like in inventory that American pilots would reasonably
insist on a couple of AMRAAMs at all times Just In Case. So
maybe fourty Stingers and two AIM-120s would be a more realistic
loadout for this scenario, ~34 stowed kills at 0.8 Pk. Probably
a couple more with the gun :-)

--
*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 *

George William Herbert

January 1st 04, 04:47 AM

Fred J. McCall > wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
>:Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
>:version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
>:US Army helicopters.
>
>Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for
>hunting helicopters.

The thread was specifically on, how does the US respond
intelligently to the swarm of a tenth of a million cheap
cruise missiles fired by the Swami of Elbonia in response
to the 1st Armored, 1st Cav, 1st Inf, 3rd Inf, 7th Inf,
103rd Airmobile Armored, and a host of other units
swarming across his border.

The intelligent response is, of course, that the USAF
on hearing of this threat fits tens of Stingers in
pods to all the fighters they have available;
in twenty years, that will be F-22s and F-35s.
And lasers, no doubt. But lots of Stingers.

There aren't enough helicopters in the world,
probably, to justify fitting that many Stingers
to a F-22 or F-35, though I wouldn't say it would
*never* come to pass.

-george william herbert

Fred J. McCall

January 1st 04, 06:12 AM

(George William Herbert) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
:>:Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
:>:version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
:>:US Army helicopters.
:>
:>Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for
:>hunting helicopters.
:
:The thread was specifically on, how does the US respond
:intelligently to the swarm of a tenth of a million cheap
:cruise missiles fired by the Swami of Elbonia in response
:to the 1st Armored, 1st Cav, 1st Inf, 3rd Inf, 7th Inf,
:103rd Airmobile Armored, and a host of other units
:swarming across his border.
:
:The intelligent response is, of course, that the USAF
:on hearing of this threat fits tens of Stingers in
:pods to all the fighters they have available;
:in twenty years, that will be F-22s and F-35s.
:And lasers, no doubt. But lots of Stingers.

Except the planes are busy doing other things (like taking out launch
sites and such) and it would take time to vector properly configured
aircraft after the missiles. No, I think this is one you handle by
giving the ground troops better air defense. It would be both cheaper
(when you saw the threat being created) and more generally useful (for
things like aircraft threats) if you never need it for hunting the
missiles. That lets your ground troops interdict these things while
your aircraft hammer the launch points (plus all the enemy C4I assets)
into so much floating dust.

--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer

Earl Colby Pottinger

January 2nd 04, 10:25 PM

(phil hunt) :

> 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.

I would like to thank you for this thread. It has given me some insight on
what is going thru the minds of some of the smaller idiot countries that like
to rattle the cage holding the USA. As a Canadain it is always a wonder to
hear some of the silly ideas about the USA that comes out of the rest of the
world.

Things I have learnt:

1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are
not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will
fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything
they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me.

2) There are people to this day who think they can make a war too big to
fight. America is BIG, it really is BIG, I mean really, really BIG. When
America goes to war, it does not gear up production to fight, instead it uses
the war to clean out all the old stock it has lying around to make room for
new shiny weapons that it will make later after examining the results of the
old weapons. By the way America hate holding onto old stock, it does not
matter how little you are, they want to use all thier old stock on you to
clean out the inventory. I guess it make the paperwork easyier.

3) There are people to this day who think they can make a war too expensive.
America is rich, it probably is the only country where government people say
"A billion here, a billion there, soon it starts to add up to real money' and
mean it. In other words if you spend a billion dollars making your defense
system, America can afford to spend ten billion tearing it down. Ditto, if
you spent 10 billion.

4) There are people who insist on trying the fight the last war again.
America has a number of think-tanks who's only job if to figure out was went
wrong in the past and how to avoid repeating it and what could go wrong in
the future and how to prevent it. Depending on America to follow your war
plan is dumb.

5) People who have not tried to do advance programming, communication
networks, or operation of multiple mobile units in the middle of the FOG of
war think it is far easyier that it really is. America loves dictators who
try to control thier entire army from thier headquarters.

6) Cheap systems are not cheap. America's kill ratio is so high that cheap
systems have to be bought in quantities that are no longer cheap.

7) Off the shelf items are not harden enough to survive what an weathly
attacker can do to make them fail. Units that are hard to fool are expensive
to bye.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

pervect

January 3rd 04, 06:01 AM

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:25:13 -0000, Earl Colby Pottinger
> wrote:

>Things I have learnt:
>
>1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are
>not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will
>fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything
>they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me.

Me neither. I can see why some people might think that as a nation we
are not too bright or perhaps easily manipulated, but we certainly
seem to be willing to fight.

>
>2) There are people to this day who think they can make a war too big to
>fight. America is BIG, it really is BIG, I mean really, really BIG. When
>America goes to war, it does not gear up production to fight, instead it uses
>the war to clean out all the old stock it has lying around to make room for
>new shiny weapons that it will make later after examining the results of the
>old weapons. By the way America hate holding onto old stock, it does not
>matter how little you are, they want to use all thier old stock on you to
>clean out the inventory. I guess it make the paperwork easyier.

>
>3) There are people to this day who think they can make a war too expensive.
>America is rich, it probably is the only country where government people say
>"A billion here, a billion there, soon it starts to add up to real money' and
>mean it. In other words if you spend a billion dollars making your defense
>system, America can afford to spend ten billion tearing it down. Ditto, if
>you spent 10 billion.

Tell me something, do you like throwing the nation's money away? I
gather we spent about $60B fighting the Iraq war, and are planning to
spend another $80B or so on "reconstruction". "Reconstruction" is
apparently not reconstructing very much at the moment (almost no power
in Iraq, water shortages, etc. from an article I recently read) -
despite a very large budget. Oddly enough, Iraq did a much faster job
of reconstruction all by itself without US help after the Gulf war.
Go figure.

What are we actually getting for our money? Do you think that the US
gvt is going to find the mysteriously missing weapons of mass
destruction?

Apparently you don't want to set any limit into how much money the US
will throw away.

The recent trend to mindless militarism in the US frankly alarms me.

If we were actually getting something from it as a nation, it might be
understandable (though not particularly ethical, a sort of "big fish
eats little fish might makes right" sort of ethics). But we're not
even getting anything from it (as a nation, I mean, I'm sure a few
rich people are getting very much richer).

Johnny Bravo

January 3rd 04, 11:54 AM

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:01:24 -0800, pervect >
wrote:

>>1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are
>>not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will
>>fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything
>>they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me.
>
>Me neither. I can see why some people might think that as a nation we
>are not too bright or perhaps easily manipulated, but we certainly
>seem to be willing to fight.

Perhaps it comes from the typical American unwillingness to suffer
unnecessary casualties. Not that we won't do what it takes, just that
we'd prefer to do it without any of our guys dying. Rather than
trying to storm an enemy position, we'd rather just bomb and shell the
hell out of it first, losing time but gaining lives. It's a long and
glorious tradition going back to the time when American irregular
troops were considered unmanly and cowardly for not standing toe to
toe with the British regulars and exchanging volleys with them.

--
"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

January 3rd 04, 08:46 PM

In article >,
Johnny Bravo > writes:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:01:24 -0800, pervect >
> wrote:
>
>>>1) There are people to this day don't seem to understand that Americans are
>>>not cowards, they just don't like to fight wars. **** they off and they will
>>>fight, they will not be scared off, rather they will hit you with everything
>>>they have got. Why people think otherwise that is beyond me.
>>
>>Me neither. I can see why some people might think that as a nation we
>>are not too bright or perhaps easily manipulated, but we certainly
>>seem to be willing to fight.
>
> Perhaps it comes from the typical American unwillingness to suffer
> unnecessary casualties. Not that we won't do what it takes, just that
> we'd prefer to do it without any of our guys dying. Rather than
> trying to storm an enemy position, we'd rather just bomb and shell the
> hell out of it first, losing time but gaining lives. It's a long and
> glorious tradition going back to the time when American irregular
> troops were considered unmanly and cowardly for not standing toe to
> toe with the British regulars and exchanging volleys with them.

Apparantly there are those (see the A-Bomb on Japan thread) who think
that this is, somehow, unfair.

Ain't nobody fights fair.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Derek Lyons

January 3rd 04, 09:31 PM

pervect > wrote:

> "Reconstruction" is
>apparently not reconstructing very much at the moment (almost no power
>in Iraq, water shortages, etc. from an article I recently read)

That's what you get for trusting journalists... Or do you *really*
expect such a large task to be accomplished in time for the 6 o'clock
news?

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.

Paul J. Adam

January 3rd 04, 10:11 PM

In message >, Derek Lyons
> writes
>pervect > wrote:
>> "Reconstruction" is
>>apparently not reconstructing very much at the moment (almost no power
>>in Iraq, water shortages, etc. from an article I recently read)
>
>That's what you get for trusting journalists... Or do you *really*
>expect such a large task to be accomplished in time for the 6 o'clock
>news?

Issues like "25% of Basra still without running water"... true, except
those houses were never plumbed in the first place! Putting water back
in the pipes is one job, building pipes that weren't there before is a
bigger step.

The idea that every Iraqi household enjoyed plentiful clean, pure water;
magnificent sanitation; and ample electrical power; just ain't so.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

January 3rd 04, 11:23 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Issues like "25% of Basra still without running water"... true, except
> those houses were never plumbed in the first place! Putting water back
> in the pipes is one job, building pipes that weren't there before is a
> bigger step.
>
> The idea that every Iraqi household enjoyed plentiful clean, pure water;
> magnificent sanitation; and ample electrical power; just ain't so.

Power generation in Iraq is equal, right now, to the peak before the
war, and by the summer they're planning on about a 50% increase, while
revamping the distribution system.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Kevin Brooks

January 4th 04, 12:02 AM

"Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
...
> pervect > wrote:
>
> > "Reconstruction" is
> >apparently not reconstructing very much at the moment (almost no power
> >in Iraq, water shortages, etc. from an article I recently read)
>
> That's what you get for trusting journalists... Or do you *really*
> expect such a large task to be accomplished in time for the 6 o'clock
> news?

Even more funny--IIRC the power output and distribution capability surpassed
that of pre-OIF Iraq a couple of months back.

Brooks
>
> 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.

Russell Wallace

January 4th 04, 06:10 AM

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:56:55 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>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.

And it could end up ****ing the Americans off to the point where they
launch an invasion, kick the crap out of its army, seize control of
the country, and end up dragging its leader out of a hole in the
ground. So the above doesn't seem to have been exactly a winning
strategy :P

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

Damien R. Sullivan

January 18th 04, 04:05 PM

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
>"Jarg" > wrote:
>>An interesting if, but the Soviets, though at an apparent disadvantage,
>>weren't faced with such overwhelming military power, and had a history of
>>successfully repelling invaders.
>
>The Russians could, and on multiple occasions did, trade space for
>time, forcing the invader endure their winter. No other nation shares
>this unique combination of vast space for mobilty with climactic
>advantages.

Canada? The original question was about a "mid-tier" country; didn't specify
whether that meant tech level or size or population or what.

I'm told North Korea did something similar in the Korean War, despite having
much less space. Withdraw, leading US forces up into a valley, and
counter-attack with forces and winter.

Alaska in a secession war? Actually that might be a more interesting
candidate for this scenario than "Elbonia". Say the Free State Project went
there instead of New Hampshire, and actually took off. We're probably still
dealing with a relatively pipsqueak population, barring a boom or two, but
could they make it too expensive to keep them by force? It didn't work in the
Civil War but (a) tech has changed (b) the geography is different and (c) the
rest of the US may not have the same tolerance of casualties, especially when
a moral issue like slavery isn't on the table.

Moving beyond winter to other "mid-tier" scenarios: California trying to
secede from a theocratic US. A militaristic US invading Canada or Mexico,
with the invadees having had time to build up defenses as they saw the
militaristic party take hold (invasion could be for conquest, or in response
to Canada legalizing drugs, or being a haven to resistance within a theocratic
US.) Australia becoming a drug and cloning haven. War with Indonesia for
some reason...

Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt government and
motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?

-xx- Damien X-)

Kevin Brooks

January 18th 04, 04:16 PM

"Damien R. Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> >"Jarg" > wrote:
> >>An interesting if, but the Soviets, though at an apparent disadvantage,
> >>weren't faced with such overwhelming military power, and had a history
of
> >>successfully repelling invaders.
> >
> >The Russians could, and on multiple occasions did, trade space for
> >time, forcing the invader endure their winter. No other nation shares
> >this unique combination of vast space for mobilty with climactic
> >advantages.
>
> Canada? The original question was about a "mid-tier" country; didn't
specify
> whether that meant tech level or size or population or what.
>
> I'm told North Korea did something similar in the Korean War, despite
having
> much less space. Withdraw, leading US forces up into a valley, and
> counter-attack with forces and winter.

Not a very accurate example. The DPRK did NOT lure US forces
northwards--they instead were sent reeling northward (they had no other
direction to run). They were saved from outright annihilation by the timely
intervention of the PLA, which apparently did not intend to enter the fray
unless UN forces approached the Yalu. Some indications are that the PLA even
tried to signal the UN, and MacArthur, of their intent in an effort to get
him to stop short of the Yalu. In the end the DPRK did nothing much in terms
of a CATK--that was the screaming hordes of the PLA. What DPRK forces that
remained (either dead or already in UN PW camps) would have to lick their
wounds for a while before reentering the combat picture in any forcable
manner.

Brooks

<snip strange what-if's>

Keith Willshaw

January 18th 04, 04:30 PM

"Damien R. Sullivan" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'm told North Korea did something similar in the Korean War, despite
having
> much less space. Withdraw, leading US forces up into a valley, and
> counter-attack with forces and winter.
>

Not exactly, they were routed and withdrawing in a
panic when the Chinese intervened, it was the
army of the PRC that launched the counterattack.

Keith

Jack

January 19th 04, 01:21 AM

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article , "Damien
R. Sullivan" > wrote:

> Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt government and
> motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....

Jack

Bryan J. Maloney

January 19th 04, 03:22 AM

(Damien R. Sullivan) nattered on
:

> to secede from a theocratic US. A militaristic US invading Canada or
> Mexico, with the invadees having had time to build up defenses as they
> saw the militaristic party take hold (invasion could be for conquest,

Essentially fall back out of the northern regions and force a jungle
fight, in Mexico's case.

Howard Berkowitz

January 19th 04, 03:32 AM

In article >, Jack
> wrote:

> On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
> "Damien
> R. Sullivan" > wrote:
>
>
> > Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
> > government and
> > motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?
>
> Possibly not today, but back in 1776....
>

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.

Jack

January 19th 04, 06:41 AM

On 2004/01/18 21:32, in article ,
"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote:

> ... 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.

....until you have reduced the ability of the high tech forces to a level
less out of line with those of the your indigenous forces, at which point
the ability to do something more than strangle them with your power cord
will certainly be required.

They will maintain the advantage of a trained frontline force with modern
weapons. You will have to overcome that with sufficient numbers of fighters
and adequate weapons, intimate knowledge of all sorts of local and regional
networks -- both of infrastructure and of human resources, and great
leadership.

Which leg of that triad do you really think you could do without?

Of course we don't have anything like "a well ordered militia" today, so
perhaps you would like to suggest a replacement that can carry us to the
next level of protection beyond that provided by video gamers? Once you have
done your stuff with the laptop weapon, the conflict will become very
conventional "unconventional" warfare -- something the so-called "high tech"
forces, and not just in the US, are now better prepared to fight than they
have ever been, even without the tech.

Jack

Howard Berkowitz

January 19th 04, 05:21 PM

In article >, Jack
> wrote:

> On 2004/01/18 21:32, in article
> ,
> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote:
>
> > ... 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.
>
> ...until you have reduced the ability of the high tech forces to a level
> less out of line with those of the your indigenous forces, at which point
> the ability to do something more than strangle them with your power cord
> will certainly be required.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. A high tech force may withdraw and regroup if its
C3I is significantly degraded.
>
> They will maintain the advantage of a trained frontline force with modern
> weapons. You will have to overcome that with sufficient numbers of
> fighters
> and adequate weapons, intimate knowledge of all sorts of local and
> regional
> networks -- both of infrastructure and of human resources, and great
> leadership.
>
> Which leg of that triad do you really think you could do without?

In one scenario, I can't. In another scenario, I'm talking about
deterrence, not victory. In yet another scenario, I put the "adequate
weapons" far below the leadership and the logistics.

I also want a better assessment of the potential threat. While you
haven't used the vague phrase "tyranny" that others have, I still want
to know, in sufficient detail to plan resistance, why the opposition is
there, how it is led and motivated, and whether its formation could have
been prevented by nonmilitary means -- as has been the historical case
in the US.
>
> Of course we don't have anything like "a well ordered militia" today, so
> perhaps you would like to suggest a replacement that can carry us to the
> next level of protection beyond that provided by video gamers? Once you
> have
> done your stuff with the laptop weapon, the conflict will become very
> conventional "unconventional" warfare -- something the so-called "high
> tech"
> forces, and not just in the US, are now better prepared to fight than
> they
> have ever been, even without the tech.

And I have yet to see a plausible scenario for that threat emerging,
much as John Ashcroft might like to introduce his version of muwatain.

Ash Wyllie

January 20th 04, 10:00 PM

Howard Berkowitz opined

>In article >, Jack
> wrote:

>> On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
>> "Damien
>> R. Sullivan" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
>> > government and
>> > motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?
>>
>> Possibly not today, but back in 1776....
>>

>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.

But hunters with guns can make invasions more expensive, and give you and your
laptop time to be effective.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

John Schilling

January 20th 04, 11:28 PM

Howard Berkowitz > writes:

>In article >, Jack
> wrote:

>> On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
>> "Damien
>> R. Sullivan" > wrote:

>> > Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
>> > government and motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to
>> > work?

>> Possibly not today, but back in 1776....

>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.

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.

Offensively, a lot of what you are going to accomplish with that laptop
is learning interesting things like, e.g., section X of the enemy's
operation is grossly dysfunctional except that mid-level person Y knows
how everything works and is keeping the whole thing running. Is that a
bit of abstract knowledge, or a target for a well-placed bullet?

And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
of improvised explosives...

--
*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 *

Chad Irby

January 20th 04, 11:48 PM

In article >,
(John Schilling) wrote:

> And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
> of improvised explosives...

A laptop, a gun, a bunch of improvised explosives, and a hidden pirated
phone line from a neighbor you don't much like is a lot more satisfying.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Howard Berkowitz

January 21st 04, 01:43 AM

In article >, "Ash Wyllie" >
wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz opined
>
> >In article >, Jack
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
> >> "Damien
> >> R. Sullivan" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
> >> > government and
> >> > motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?
> >>
> >> Possibly not today, but back in 1776....
> >>
>
> >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.
>
> But hunters with guns can make invasions more expensive, and give you and
> your
> laptop time to be effective.
>

Aren't there some assumptions here about the level of force the invaders
will use? Soviet doctrine, in suppressing the Budapest uprising in 1956,
was "one shot from a building, level the building. Many shots from a
building, level the block." A much more humane force, the 82nd Airborne
in Detroit is 1967, was not seriously inconvenienced by urban shooters.

Howard Berkowitz

January 21st 04, 01:47 AM

In article >, (John
Schilling) wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz > writes:
>
> >In article >, Jack
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
> >> "Damien
> >> R. Sullivan" > wrote:
>
> >> > Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
> >> > government and motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to
> >> > work?
>
> >> Possibly not today, but back in 1776....
>
>
> >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.
>
> 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.
>
> Offensively, a lot of what you are going to accomplish with that laptop
> is learning interesting things like, e.g., section X of the enemy's
> operation is grossly dysfunctional except that mid-level person Y knows
> how everything works and is keeping the whole thing running. Is that a
> bit of abstract knowledge, or a target for a well-placed bullet?
>
> And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
> of improvised explosives...

Oh, between my academic background in chemistry and a certain amount of
helpful instructions from Fort Bragg, I suspect I just might get by with
improvised explosives.