Re: [iwar] FW: Britain Develops Shell To Disable Electronics


From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com

Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:12:45 -0800


fc  Fri Jan  5 16:08:07 2001
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:08:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Sat Jan  6 00:04:00 2001)
X-From_: azb@llnl.gov  Fri Jan  5 18:03:34 2001
Received: from hh.egroups.com (hh.egroups.com [208.50.99.210]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id SAA00746 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:03:32 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-884-978739645-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.55] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2001 00:07:31 -0000
X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Jan 2001 00:07:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 80140 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2001 00:07:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2001 00:07:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.41.70) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Jan 2001 01:08:28 -0000
Received: from catalyst (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id QAA24113 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010105160148.00aa0430@poptop.llnl.gov>
X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200012271652.IAA12907@all.net>
References: 
From: Tony Bartoletti 
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:12:45 -0800
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] FW: Britain Develops Shell To Disable Electronics
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At 08:52 AM 12/27/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Seems a bit optimistic to me.
>
>Per the message sent by St. Clair, James:
>
> > Britain Develops Shell To Disable Electronics
>...


While I share Fred's general assessment of the article, it does occur to me
that one could develop and deploy hundreds of "mini-cruise" missiles, each
using smart navigation to locate a particular computing or electronic
installation.  The article mentions "within a radius" but (of course)
never specifies the value.  Perhaps 20 to 30 meters?  Yes, it would be
a substantial undertaking, but within reach technologically.

And sure, there would be deaths in the immediate vicinity of the blast(s),
but not of the "city-vaporizing" scale.

Then again, 10 to 20 years hence, we might travel the highways in autos
that self-navigate at high speed, near bumper-to-bumper.  Knock out those
electronics, and the civilian damage could be substantial.  Part of any
reasonable defense against EM-warfare should include an assessment of the
degree to which future electronics-driven life/death systems (e.g., smart
highways) may become part of the civilian infrastructure.

___tony___





Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900


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