RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251


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

Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:13:06 +0500


fc  Thu Oct 26 00:17:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Thu Oct 26 07:17:07 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-705-972544564-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com  Thu Oct 26 02:16:06 2000
Received: from c3.egroups.com (c3.egroups.com [208.50.99.225]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id CAA26190 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:16:06 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-705-972544564-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.37] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2000 07:16:10 -0000
X-Sender: ozair_rasheed@geocities.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_0); 26 Oct 2000 07:16:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 28050 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2000 07:16:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Oct 2000 07:16:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO relay3.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.112) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Oct 2000 07:16:03 -0000
Received: from smtp3.mail.yahoo.com (HELO smtp1b.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.135) by relay3.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Oct 2000 00:16:03 -0700
Received: from host-64-110-95-58.interpacket.net (HELO ozair) (64.110.95.58) by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Oct 2000 07:11:13 -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: 
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
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: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:13:06 +0500
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you want to close the subject this is a separate issue. Again you are
looking at it from your standard, it would be worth a while to try to
understand how and why a system other than democracy works. Which is not to
say that I am against Democracy but then from purely objective point of view
it would worthwhile to investigate the exceptions to the norm and find out
why, how and if they work.

Regards,
Ozair

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Williamson [mailto:Glenn_Williamson@ottawa.com]
Sent: ??????, ????? ????? 26, 2000 12:46 AM
To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251



Ok,

 I don't know if LDC's will or may fully understand the potential behind
nukes, it is different than advanced weaponry. It can and will continue to
dominate everyone's interest but on the other side, is there the possibility
that it would be used to simply take on the country that resides on it's
border. So many countries are at some point taken over by a military
dictatorship where as in the western world the government rules over the
military. If the country does have the the weaponry to cause mass
distruction at the flip of a switch is it right to allow them to have that
potential. I don't think nuclear weapons are the natural growth of a nation,
I think it is seen as once I have it no one will bother us but we can bother
them if need be.

 I know this is my 2 cents and it only my thoughts. If anyone disagrees, not
a problem it is only meant as a thought. Another day another subject will be
of interest.

 And going back a couple of emails the comment that every country knows how
difficult it is to take someones life. I whole heartily disagree with this,
having spent several months in Sarjevo, one quickly realizes there are
madmen out there that don't have a care in the world for human life.

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Ozair [mailto:ozair_rasheed@geocities.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 3:05 AM
To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251


I appreciate your comments emerging purely from your experience. However, I
would like to point out that if we consider a time shift and place the LDCs
in the same position as the Advanced countries were 20 years ago and equate
the command and control mechanism that were in place on the Nuclear Arsenal,
we find that they are the same, LDCs have just begun to acquire the Nukes
and have begun to develop advanced command and control procedures needed for
a Nuke arsenal. It would be a mistake if anyone was to consider them as
unstable and biased or as under controlled, since we all realize that
acquiring nukes (or any other advance weaponry) is part of the natural
growth of a nation/country and that to deprive it of this growth phase is to
deprive its growth. It is like a child growing up and learning from
experience.

Regards,
Ozair

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Wilson [mailto:partners@7pillars.com]
Sent: ?????, ????? ????? 22, 2000 12:10 AM
To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Digest Number 251


My experience is that the concern isn't regarding the level of maturity, but
the command & control mechanisms over the use of nucs.  It's not just
technology either (and frankly, the technology of command & control is far
more
sophisticated than nuc technology), but the social, political, etc.
structures
that 'limit' use.

Correctly or not, the view of the 'new kids on the block' obtaining WMDs is
a
mixed cluster of fear, uncertainty, doubt--what does 'Madman X' have to lose
by
first use?  What would hold Madman back from use?  What response would be
necessary?

It's worth a historical note, though: Nixon used the threat of 'first use'
to
draw the Sovs back to the bargaining table; the Sovs seriously feared first
use
out of Reagan (and I could mention WWII).  MAD scenarios rely upon a certain
level of insanity to be effective.  Kahn's discussion of 'chicken'--show up
drunk and rip the steering wheel out of the car--is worth remembering.  Only
it's just no fun to be the -other guy-.

To drift back to IO and IWAR, a key factor encouraging use in future
conflicts
is the seemingly more 'humane' nature.  Far from it, in fact--war is hell,
after all.  Economic warfare, such as what's being done to Iraq, is a meat
grinder for the regular folks, and has little negative impact on the power
structure.  I have been tempted to write a paper on this, because I think a
detailed discussion of these factors is essential; there's even a Kahn-esque
scenario-set of how to approach escalation (where, unlike with nucs, many of
the constraints or governors on action are just not there).

MW
www.7pillars.com

On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Ozair wrote:

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



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


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



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




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


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


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/14/_/595019/_/972544565/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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