RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251


From: Ozair
From: ozair_rasheed@geocities.com
To: iwar@egroups.com

Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:15:05 +0500


fc  Sat Oct 21 08:14:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Sat Oct 21 15:14:09 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-557-972141197-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com  Sat Oct 21 10:13:20 2000
Received: from ej.egroups.com (ej.egroups.com [64.209.169.103]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id KAA20679 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:13:20 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-557-972141197-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Oct 2000 15:13:24 -0000
X-Sender: ozair_rasheed@geocities.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 21 Oct 2000 15:13:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 14643 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2000 15:13:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Oct 2000 15:13:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO relay1.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 15:13:15 -0000
Received: from smtp1.mail.yahoo.com (128.11.69.60) by relay1.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 08:13:14 -0700
Received: from host-64-110-95-132.interpacket.net (HELO ozair) (64.110.95.132) by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 15:13:09 -0000
X-Apparently-From: 
To: 
Message-ID: 
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <033a01c0397f$336300d0$4b50b880@cm.deakin.edu.au>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
From: "Ozair" 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:15:05 +0500
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Keeping on the topic of Information Warfare and Nukes. I would like to ask
one simple question. Why is it that when smaller (less developed countries)
toy with Nukes everybody in the world is worried. Is it so that the LDCs are
considered to be immature in their approach to weapons or what?

Every nation, country, creed on this earth realizes the important of life
and how difficult it should be to take someone's life. It is to be
remembered that taking a life is the most extreme choice for any one.


Regards,
Ozair

-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Stagg [mailto:vstagg@deakin.edu.au]
Sent: ??????, ????? ????? 19, 2000 8:47 AM
To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Digest Number 251


Regrdless of the type of weapons used, one of the worrying things these
days is the entry of so many new players. We've seen

-- Pakistan and India toying with nukes
-- China implying they will use IW as they would not cope in conventional
war
-- In Aust, saw recent problems with Fiji where the govt was taken hostage
--The break up of the USSR and various tearway states and the
    problems associated therein, Russian Mafia, diehard communists, etc
-- Bosnia, Serbia war and atrocities
-- Chem and bio weapons potential in Gulf war
-- Recent problems (again) with Palestinians and Israeli's, and the
willingness to use violence

Michael's Waging_IWAR follows similar thoughts, with concept of OpFor and
DOS-M/V attacks. In his comments Michael tends to dispel HERF and electronic
"Pearl Harbors" which is reasonable but should not be totally ignored. It is
certainly feasible in the future that these (and other) types of
weapons/attacks
will exist and be available. (It was not so long ago people thought the
earth
was flat, man would never fly, get to the moon, etc)

Going back to Drew's comment of G2i, when I said Group I was meaning it in a
generic sense, applying to Governments, Military (often the same in some
countries),
or large/co-ordinated groups.

Certainly in traditional wars there have been certain "Rules" although not
always
adhered to. In today's climate with so many new threats and potential
adversaries
who are willing to bend or overlook the "Rules" the scope of war seems to be
changing - throw in IW related tactics and issues and the rules change
again.

At least with nukes (eg. in Cold War) it was mainly the threat, not the
reality. These
days the weapons are changing but so too are attitudes.

As to Tony's comments, this is an area I am looking at, and there certainly
is a
need for corporations (and public) to take some responsibility.
Again it is the difference b/w traditional and modern war. These days
the boundaries are no longer physical, forces or adversaries known, and
infrastructure is becoming a shared responsibility of all. Michael has also
written an interesting view on this, Infrastructural_Warfare_Threat_Model

My thoughts anyway...:-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Bartoletti" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [iwar] Digest Number 251


> Michael,
>
> We are in agreement about the overall remoteness of the EMP issue, given
the
> broad range of other cyber-type attacks that are more easily pursued, (and
> I am happy you are not a "hardened shell" advocate :)
>
> I did not want Fred's observation to be construed to mean that such an
> attack could be outright dismissed for all but "national-level"
combatants.
>
> True, those corporate holders of infrastructure will get what's coming if
> they are unprepared for reasonable eventualities.  Unfortunately, the
public
> (and who knows how many dependent functions) will suffer "collateral"
damage.
>
> ___tony___
>
> At 02:05 PM 10/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >I'm not discounting the devolution of destructive capacity down (go read
my
> >_Waging IWAR_ when you have a moment).  What I do think is more than
slightly
> >unrealistic is the drama associated with HERF, 'directed energy weapons,'
and
> >the like.  Given even a 'low yield' device, I could think of any number
of
> >uses, only a few of which involve the generated EMP.
> >
> >As for Nero...  Any business that depends on IT infrastructure and
doesn't
> >have
> >mechanisms in place to handle the full spectrum of credible threats gets
what
> >they have coming to them.  Recently finding out exactly how little
Corporate
> >America actually cares about infrastructure assurance, I suspect that a
number
> >of players would be caught out.  (Incidentally, I'm on the far extreme
from
> >'hardened facility' thinking: go read my _Defense-in-Depth_ when you have
a
> >moment.)
> >
> >Pardon my on-going sarcasm, but 'Pearl Harbor' and related scenario
thinking
> >(including directed energy weapons--I'm not saying they aren't possible,
I'm
> >saying they occupy a pretty tiny section of a realistic threat spectrum)
miss
> >the point.
> >
> >MW
> >Managing Partner, 7Pillars Partners
> >A Professional Military & Intelligence Advisory Firm
> >(aka, we actually do IO for a living, among other things)
> >
> >On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tony Bartoletti wrote:
> >
> > > Forgive me, but some degrees of "nuke" capability will become easier
to
> > > develop and deploy, especially for those with enough patience.
Something
> > > the size of a suitcase carried to the top of a tall downtown building,
a
> > > device constructed almost entirely "domestically".  It need not have a
> > > high-efficiency yield -- 10% would produce an impressive display.
> > >
> > > Yes, we have "key sites" that have been hardened against such
eventualities
> > > for years.  Again, forgive me, but that sounds a bit like "protected
by his
> > > hardened facility, Nero fiddled while Rome burned."  Given the
potential
> > > degree of social and financial collapse that could ensue from such an
> > event,
> > > the prospect that certain hardened facilities would remain unscathed
is of
> > > scant comfort.
> > >
> > > ___tony___
> > >
> > > At 07:48 AM 10/18/00 -0700, Michael Wilson wrote:
> > > >Go Fred.  That's the big problem when people talk about directed or
> > > >environmental energy weapons--they tend to forget that nucs are the
> > primary
> > > >known powersource.  They also forget the law of the inverse
> > square.  Would it
> > > >also be worth mentioning that key sites have been hardened for years
> > > >(particularly the old, 'Cold War' installations) for just that
reason?  My
> > > >recollection was that entire development efforts (such as GA chips)
were
> > > >pursued for these reasons.
> > > >
> > > >Sigh, no general sense of science or history.
> > > >
> > > >MW
> > > >www.7pillars.com
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Fred Cohen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Per the message sent by DrewSchaefer@ftnetwork.com:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Back to our point.  IF an EMP bomb is somehow built and
delivered by
> > > > > > some UNNAMED country with lots of sand against some advanced,
> > IT-dense
> > > > > > urban area in Europe or USA, with a capacity to take out ALL EM
> > > > > > communications (TV, radio, electrical grids, Newspaper [having
> > lost its
> > > > > > capacity to create newsprint, now virtually all done
electronically],
> > > > > > Phone, Internet and cellular, [forgive me if this list seems
> > ignorant, I
> > > > > > am still searching best sources]), a hugely devastating effect
> > would be
> > > > > > rendered against populations that prior, were 'immunized' by the
> > Rules
> > > > > > of War against such involvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read nuclear weapon.  If you anaylze it, you may find that in
order to
> > > > > build this EMP bomb that takes out 'ALL EM communications' over
any
> > > > > significant area (on the magnitude of a city) you will need so
much
> > > > > energy that only a nuclear weapon can achieve it in a deliverable
> > > > > package.
> > > > >
> > > > > FC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------
> > > > > http://all.net/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------
> > > >http://all.net/
> > >
> > > Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
> > > Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
> > > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> > > Livermore, CA 94551-9900
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > > http://all.net/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------
> >http://all.net/
>
> Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> Livermore, CA 94551-9900
>
>
>
> ------------------
> http://all.net/
>
>



------------------
http://all.net/


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Last minute trips at  
first-rate discounts 
from Hotwire.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9748/14/_/595019/_/972141197/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

------------------
http://all.net/