RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare

From: John Sforza (jsforza@rochester.rr.com)
Date: 2001-08-30 06:13:03

Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] Interesting article on netwar"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] ICANN Board Member Blasts Governance Study"
In reply to: Tony Bartoletti: "Re: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare"
Next in thread: Tony Bartoletti: "RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare"
Reply: Tony Bartoletti: "RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: <iwar@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <HJEOJIABAJCJIMKBCKIGEEMOCAAA.jsforza@isrisk.net>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829183830.00b49ec0@poptop.llnl.gov>
Importance: Normal
From: "John Sforza" <jsforza@rochester.rr.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:13:03 -0400
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Original Message

> >ROGUE MISSILE THREATS: Addressing a missile defense conference
> last week in
> >Huntsville, Ala., CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin focused on three
> >rogue state missile threats -- Iran, Iraq and North Korea -- and a "cross
> >fertilization" among these and other nations that makes missile threats
> >possible.
> >
> >Iran, he said, will soon field a Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile
> >(range 1,300 kilometers) capable of hitting Israel, Saudi
> Arabia, Turkey --
> >and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf.
> >
> >Iraq has rebuilt "several critical missile production sites," McLaughlin
> >said, and is hiding a small number of Al Hussein short-range ballistic
> >missiles (range 650 kilometers) that can strike Israel, Iran,
> Saudi Arabia
> >and Turkey.
> >
> >North Korea, the biggest threat of all, he said, could test a long-range
> >Taepo Dong 2 capable of hitting parts of the United States with a
> >"nuclear-sized payload" sometime in 2003.
> >
> >How do such nations develop sophisticated ballistic missile technology?
> >
> >The North Korean No Dong, developed initially from Russian Scud
> technology,
> >forms the basis of the Iranian Shahab-3 as well as Pakistan's
> medium-range
> >missile, McLaughlin said.
> >
> >Iran and Pakistan, meanwhile, are viewed by CIA analysts as potential
> >"secondary" proliferators, eager to turn their technology imports into
> >exports for hard cash they can turn around and use to import still more
> >technology.
> >
> >Russia and China further complicate the picture, McLaughlin said,
peddling
> >technological know-how and missile components to the rogue nations of the
> >world.

Tony's response..

>
> No doubt, all of this is true to some extent, however...
>
> I wonder how the good scientists and engineers from North Korea,
> Iran, and
> Pakistan must feel when the world's major superpower (US) promulgates the
> notion that without the technological gifts from "parent nations", these
> professionals would be unable to rub two sticks together.

Driven to prove their capabilities through demonstration... Welcome to the
traditional arrogance of a world power to the lesser nations. We're going to
get our ass kicked if we don't watch our language and attitudes. In today's
world most of these folks have degrees from the same places, and never
forget raw talent. It is a dangerous precedent to associate capability
(especially short term or one off demonstration) with the density of PhD's.

> A question:  If it were possible for these "rogue nations" to
> fully develop major offensive capability without the help of other
nations,
> would we (the US) still hold to the line that they got the capability from
(Russia,
> China, etc) in order to pressure those parent nations into
> policing "their children"?  That is, to let it be known that should any
overt act on the
> part of "the child" occur, we would hold "the parent" responsible?

I like it ... NOT, short term, dangerous classic escalation mentality. How
much of that material (I wanted to say c?#*) in the emerging nations is US
sourced? Unless it can be proven in world court that a 'superpower' nation
is directly assisting nuclear offensive development to offensive capability
in a state sanctioned mode you are treading on a thin shell lava field, have
fun.

As I have said before, rockets are so damned inefficient, I grant that they
are timely delivery vehicles but I see no requirement that they get their
payloads to target in 15 minutes vs. 30 hours. Actually the 30 hours
provides considerably more Pysch Ops advantage, albeit with the heighten
risk of interception.

Or did I miss your point Tony?

Regards,

John  Sforza
ISRisk
716.230.3516 V
jsforza@isrisk.net <mailto:jsforza@isrisk.net>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it Now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/n7RbFC/zhwCAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] Interesting article on netwar"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] ICANN Board Member Blasts Governance Study"
In reply to: Tony Bartoletti: "Re: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare"
Next in thread: Tony Bartoletti: "RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare"
Reply: Tony Bartoletti: "RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:40 PDT