| Author |
Message |
Adam Sniper
Модератор
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 7968
Location: Somewhere around
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:40 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Я что-то не понял... А после иприта у нас боле ничего не придумали? Нервно-паралитику, например?.. Химия не ограничивается дихлофосом.
А ядрену бомбу мы в расчет не принимаем просто потому, что так интереснее спорить и говорить слова, или есть какие-то другие глубинные причины?
А биологическое оружие?
_________________
Our pistols and rifles are only tools. We are the weapon. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Atlas
Участник
Joined: 06 Oct 2002
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Хм.
Голый тротил никто не применяет. Основной поражаюший еффект ето не температура и не ударная волна , а осколки.
Т.е. взрыв 10 кг чустого тротила в каком-либо канйоне даст меньший еффект чем распространение там же 10 кг иприта или фосгена.
Здание , я думаю , от 10 кг тротила не обвалится.
Т.е. в малых количествах БОВ еффективнее.
Я уже не говорю о бактериологическом оружии -
аерозоль в системе вентиляции
а ) сложно найти
б ) пока симптомы прояватся - будет уже поздно
в ) если включать его дистанционно - вообше хрен найдешь
г ) Пронести/провести на территорию магазина газовый баллон среди прочих поставок товара гораздо проше , чем сделать то же самое с бомбой
Все ето дело считать надо - я не специалист - но , ИМХО , ето вполне выполнимо.
Другое дело , что после етого дела Арафату и всей его звездобратии
придет полный и окончательный звездец. Премьера , который не согласится такой звездец устроить тут же переизберут.
Атлас |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
KOT_HA_KPbIWE
автор
Joined: 18 Dec 2002
Posts: 819
Location: Jerusalem/Modiin, Israel
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:57 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Господа (и дама), в своём споре об эффективности ОВ вы забываете одну важную деталь: все приведённые вами примеры (иприт, Халабджа) - применение ОВ на открытой местности (Халбджа со своими халупами тоже с совсем небольшой натяжкой подпадает под эту категорию). Проблемы средств доставки, погоды, рассеивания очевидны.
А при обсуждении ТЕРАКТОВ с применением боевых ОВ речь идёт о, например, метро, системах вентиляции небоскрёбов, и т.д.
Вспомните, в теракте Аум Синрикё в Токийском метро количества зарина были мизерными, а пострадавших - туева хуча (лень сейчас лезть в Гуглу за точными цифрами). Плюс (что, может, даже ещё важнее, чем собственно пострадавшие) - психологический эффект. Паника. Никто ничего не знает. Все куда-то бегут (те, кто ещё может), топчут друг друга... Силы безопасности, поначалу тоже не очень понимая, что происходит (а откуда обычному копу знать симптомы поражения нервно-паралитическим газом? Я не уверен, что даже при всей их боеготовности их этому учат; а если учат - что что-то откладывается в памяти), мчатся наводит порядок - и тоже получают свою порцию...
Вам мало?
Добавьте истерию, которая будет в СМИ ("хоумлэнд в опасности", "отступать некуда, позади Вашингтон..." сорри, господа американцы, если задеваю ваши чувства, я конечно утрирую - но смысл ведь тот же...)
_________________
Masakatsu Agatsu - Тhe Тrue Victory Is The Victory Over Yourself |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
KOT_HA_KPbIWE
автор
Joined: 18 Dec 2002
Posts: 819
Location: Jerusalem/Modiin, Israel
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:02 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Irina wrote: | | Цефа wrote: | | Насчет биологического и «грязного» оружия... ну очевидно, поживем-увидим рано или поздно. |
Биологическое оружие может быть эффективно только в недоразвитой стране. |
А вот это, прошу прощения, бред.
Даже в самой развитой стране, даже имея службы безопасности и здравоохранения, регулярно отрабатывающие такие сценарии - всё равно (в особенности, если будет, не дай Б_г, несколько очагов поражения одновременно), будет по началу растерянность, паника...
В более развитых странах, может быть, процент выживших будет выше, чем где-нибудь в Гондурасе, но тем, кто пройдёт через этот ад, и их родственникам, и всем окружающим мало не покажется!
_________________
Masakatsu Agatsu - Тhe Тrue Victory Is The Victory Over Yourself |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Adam Sniper
Модератор
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 7968
Location: Somewhere around
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:35 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | А вот это, прошу прощения, бред. |
А все остальное, прошу прощения, рази нет?
Даже как-то не очень понятно, как образованные люди оказались втянутыми в спор ни о чем...
_________________
Our pistols and rifles are only tools. We are the weapon. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
alexmar
Модератор
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
Posts: 1827
Location: Нес-Циона, ISRAEL
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
"it's been a hard day's night"(C)
_________________
Уходя из лаборатории потуши свет, воду, сигареты и тлеющие заряды |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
KOT_HA_KPbIWE
автор
Joined: 18 Dec 2002
Posts: 819
Location: Jerusalem/Modiin, Israel
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:38 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Ну, дык, эттааа... Опаньки, значит (разводя руками)
_________________
Masakatsu Agatsu - Тhe Тrue Victory Is The Victory Over Yourself |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Irina
Заслуженный Участник
Joined: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 337
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Да, химическое и биологическое оружие имеет ещё эффект паники. Однако когда люди убедятся, что не так страшен чёрт, как его малюют, паника прекратится. Повторяю: мегатерракт с помощью химии или биологии устроить практически невозможно.
| Quote: | | А ядрену бомбу мы в расчет не принимаем просто потому, что так интереснее спорить и говорить слова, или есть какие-то другие глубинные причины? |
Потому, что ядрену бомбу никакие террористы собрать не смогут.
_________________
qef waela darabtuka |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Старик
Ветеран
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 3837
Location: Израиль
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Ирина! Вы счастливы в своем неведении. Соображающий диверсант в стране с развитой инфраструктурой и промышленностью, может такого натворить.............
Вопрос только во времени, когда он появится.  |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Adam Sniper
Модератор
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 7968
Location: Somewhere around
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 8:20 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Повторяю: мегатерракт с помощью химии или биологии устроить практически невозможно. |
Я уже обратил внимание, что Вы эту мантру пару-тройку раз произносили. От этого набор слов не приобрел больше смысла.
А ядрену бомбу собрать можно в домашних условиях уже сегодня, минуя самую сложную в технологическом плане стадию обогащения - "распадку" могут просто украсть, купить у коррумпированных военных, да мало ли еще каким способом приобрести. БоНба, канешна, получится грязноватая, "коэффициент использования" низковат, но рванет по полной развертке. А уж если мы говорим про "будущее", то ваще "мама роди меня обратно".
_________________
Our pistols and rifles are only tools. We are the weapon. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Sprut-D
Ветеран
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Posts: 1149
Location: Москва
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Старик wrote: | Ирина! Вы счастливы в своем неведении. Соображающий диверсант в стране с развитой инфраструктурой и промышленностью, может такого натворить.............
Вопрос только во времени, когда он появится. |
Тем более ума много не надо что бы создать простейшее хим. оружие. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
John
Ветеран
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 1021
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:41 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Ирина! Мы Вам все равно ничего не расскажем.
 Бхопал, блин... |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Adam Sniper
Модератор
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 7968
Location: Somewhere around
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:18 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | Nuclear Terrorism
A nuclear terrorist attack is an incident in which a terrorist organization uses a nuclear device to cause mass murder and devastation. Nuclear terrorism also includes the use, or threat of use, of fissionable radioactive materials in an attack, for example, an assault on a nuclear power plant for the purpose of causing extensive and/or irreversible environmental damage. In this case, the terrorist organization need not develop, acquire or gain control of a nuclear bomb in order to cause extensive damage. It need only use conventional weapons against one of the many nuclear reactors in the world in order to seriously damage the reactor, thus releasing radioactive matter into the atmosphere. Such an attack can endanger large population centers.
Nuclear weapons can give terrorist organizations considerable advantages, since they can inflict large numbers of casualties and command worldwide media attention. Moreover, because it is hard to assess a terrorist organization’s threats to use nuclear weapons. Western countries are particularly susceptible to terrorist blackmail under threat of a nuclear strike. Decision makers have no way of knowing how likely the terrorists are to carry out their threat.
A terrorist organization may attempt to obtain fissionable material or nuclear weapons in a number of ways:
It may purchase fissionable material on the Eastern European black market. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, the economic crisis that has gripped most of the FSU, the demoralization of the Russian army, and the deterioration of governmental control of radioactive material and nuclear bombs in some of these countries have encouraged Black-market commerce in radioactive material.
It may purchase or obtain radioactive materials from other countries, particularly a those that support terrorism. Several “revolutionary” states such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya are known to be actively and regularly assisting various terrorist organizations. These same states have considerable resources and have made massive investments toward the acquisition of nuclear capability, and are striving to develop or purchase nuclear weapons.
It is rather unlikely that a terrorist organization would itself construct a nuclear bomb, for this requires special resources and training that terrorist organizations do not possess at the present time. However it is worth bearing in mind that such an organization may try to construct a simpler radioactive device, either by using its own scientists or by hiring scientists on the black market (many unemployed nuclear scientists are available on the world market, having been discharged in the FSU, and are willing to sell their professional expertise and experience to the highest bidder).
Terrorists may even seize a nuclear stockpile, one of the many stockpiles of various nuclear devices and other hazardous substances around the world.
Thus, terrorist organizations have various options for obtaining nuclear capability or a nuclear device. It is important to remember that terrorist organizations usually lack moral scruples and do not fear a nuclear response or damage to their international interests as a result of using nuclear weapons (a fear that has deterred sovereign states from using weapons of this kind in war and peacetime). All these factors make terrorist organizations more dangerous in nuclear terms than sovereign states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Terrorism
In contrast to nuclear terrorism, which remains a problematic and complex matter to execute and is thus still largely theoretical, chemical terrorism is more concrete and practical, and has already been used. The most conspicuous chemical terrorist attack occurred in early 1995, when members of the Supreme Truth cult in Japan released toxic gases on various targets, particularly the subway systems of Tokyo and Yokohama, killing several people and injuring dozens. Fortunately the number of victims did not reach higher proportions, despite the high toxicity of the material released, and the panic that gripped the subway passengers, and resulted in a stampede.
Chemical terrorism may be divided into two main categories:
Attacks intended to cause mass devastation. In these cases, the terrorist organization releases a toxin on congested population centers, bodies of water, and unventilated areas in order to cause as many casualties as possible.
Chemical attacks intended primarily to terrorize, blackmail, or cause economic damage, for example, an attack on a particular product, such as a food product, by introducing a toxic chemical substance into the product itself.
For the organizations involved, chemical terrorism has several clear-cut advantages over conventional or nuclear terrorism. Firstly, chemical substances are more readily available. They can be manufactured using simple chemical processes known to any university student. The components are usually simple products that can be obtained on the open market. A chemical attack can be perpetrated using off-the-shelf pesticides sold in grocery stores. In addition, many countries (including known supporters of terrorist organizations) have large arsenals of chemical materials. One must therefore reckon with the possibility of chemical weapons being transferred from one of these countries to a terrorist organization in order to perpetrate attacks. This is particularly true of those countries that have not flinched from using chemical weapons against their own citizens or in their wars with neighboring countries.
Because Chemical terrorism is inexpensive and does not require extensive facilities or resources, even the poorer organizations can obtain and use them very easily. Chemical substances also have the advantage of mobility. In contrast to a nuclear weapon, which is usually large and cumbersome and requires special vehicles and security to transport, even small amounts of chemicals suffice for a chemical attack. For example a jar containing several hundred grams of a chemical substance may cause mass mortality and, of course, can be moved about easily with no need for special preparations or security.
Moreover, a chemical terrorist attack, for the very reason that it involves a non-conventional weapon, will inevitably trigger a serious lowering of morale and undermine the personal security of the citizens of the country attacked. In this context, it should be borne in mind that most chemical weapons are colorless, odorless, and devoid of any other identifying factor. Therefore, they cannot be detected until the moment citizens are exposed and experience symptoms. Furthermore, it is difficult to protect oneself from chemical substances or to prepare their use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological Terrorism
Biological terrorism is the “use and dissemination by various means of biological weapons (various kinds of microbes) in population centers, in order to undermine morale and cause numerous causalities.”
Unlike the tools of chemical terrorism , biological weapons were not designed - and cannot ordinarily be used for - pinpoint attacks; their principle purpose is mass devastation. The results of a biological attack are not immediate: they become apparent several hours or days later (after some of the victims have left the site of the attack). This may make it harder to detect the perpetrator and target of the attack.
Biological weapons are not as common, accessible, or available as chemical weapons. For a terrorist organization, the two main sources of biological weapons are home manufacture or purchase from sovereign states.
Homemade biological weapons require the use of sophisticated biological laboratories and resources of diverse kinds, which, on the whole, are not available to terrorist organizations. However various countries (particularly those that are unable to obtain nuclear weapons) have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. Under certain circumstances, some of them may deliver biological weapons to terrorists that enjoy their patronage.
Once a terrorist organization has succeeded in obtaining biological weapons, it can move them from place to place very easily (as with chemical weapons) without fear of detection. Similarly, the weapon can be transported to the vicinity of the target and, if necessary, concealed there until used.
|
http://www.ict.org.il/
_________________
Our pistols and rifles are only tools. We are the weapon. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Adam Sniper
Модератор
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 7968
Location: Somewhere around
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:22 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | Infowar - Potential Weapons
If the response of the American defense establishment is any indication, strategic analysts are taking the possibilities of infowar seriously. Special committees in every branch of the U.S. armed forces are studying its potential, both as a defensive and an offensive weapon. The NSA (National Security Agency) is reportedly studying a rather imaginative arsenal of “info weapons.” Among the possible offensive weapons are:
Computer viruses, which could be fed into an enemy’s computers either remotely or by “mercenary” technicians;
Logic bombs, another type of virus which can lie dormant for years, until, upon receiving a particular signal, it would wake up and begin attacking the host system;
“Chipping,” a plan (originally proposed by the CIA, according to some sources) to slip booby-trapped computer chips into critical systems sold by foreign contractors to potentially hostile third parties (or recalcitrant allies?)
Worms, whose purpose is to self-replicate ad infinitum, thus eating up a system’s resources. An example is the infamous worm that crashed the entire internet network in 1994.
Trojan horses, malevolent code inserted into legitimate programming in order to perform a disguised function.
Back doors and trap doors, a mechanism built into a system by the designer, in order to give the manufacturer or others the ability to “sneak back into the system” at a later date by circumventing the need for access privileges.
A few other goodies in the arsenal of information warfare are devices for disrupting data flow or damaging entire systems, hardware and all. Among these - HERF (High Energy Radio Frequency) guns, which focus a high power radio signal on target equipment, putting it out of action; and EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) devices, which can be detonated in the vicinity of a target system. Such devices can destroy electronics and communications equipment over a wide area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trends - Information Warfare and Glass Houses
While all this seems to point to an increasing advantage of technologically advanced nations over those less advanced, there is a certain catch to this game. American strategists are very leery of the prospects of using the more malicious forms of information warfare, for the same reason that American policy forbids the assassination of foreign leaders. This policy rests on the principle, “Don’t do to others what they can more easily do to you.” The more technologically advanced a nation is, the more vulnerable it is itself to the techniques of information warfare. No nation is more dependent upon the information infrastructure (including the media) as the U.S. So it isn’t surprising that American policy makers are quick to point out that infowar scenarios are being studied at present mostly with an eye toward defense rather than offense.
Added to this is the fact that it is primarily the civilian sectors that are most vulnerable, with consequences in both the military and the political sphere. Military infrastructure relies for the most part on civilian infrastructure. Nearly every aspect of the military industry, from basic research and development to paying personnel depends on civilian information networks. Over 95 percent of military communications use the civilian network. Military bases, particularly the more sensitive ones, depend on the national electric power grid. Soldiers travel by means of the national bus cooperative. There is no way that the military can protect all of these networks from a focused infowar attack.
Trends in Warfare
In their book War and Antiwar, Heidi and Alvin Toffler divided human history into three distinct phases. The first phase, the Agrarian phase was called the First Wave; the Second Wave corresponded to the Industrial Revolution; while the present “age of information,” characterized by the “digitalization” of society, was termed the Third Wave. To each of these ages, the Tofflers ascribed its own particular type of warfare.
During the Agrarian Age war was waged for control of purely local resources, and the warriors were either members of the parties in direct control of the disputed land or resources, or in the case of feudalism, conscripted tenants of same. Large standing armies were not feasible as a rule, due to lack of resources, and the exceptions to this rule (such as the Roman Legions) were assured military dominance
The Industrial Revolution brought with it a kind of “de-feudalization,” which put society on a mass-driven footing. Resources and assets came to be controlled by larger sectors of the populace. This was true of war as much as any other industry. Warfare became an attack of society against society, with the involvement of millions of people, including civilians, on each side.
Our present age has been called the “Age of Technology,” but a more apt name might be the “Information Age.” Technology and information are interdependent, with advances in one entailing--and dependent upon--advances in the other. The increasing flow of information, the evolution of the global economy, and the creation of the internet are all factors in creating the modern global village. The main actors in our society are fast becoming international corporations, rather than nations. It is plain that the changes in human society as a whole will entail changes in the way we wage war as well. Among other trends, warfare is shifting more and more toward civilian targets. This is likely to be even more noticeable in future conflicts, in which information warfare will play a greater role.
Information Warfare in the Information Age
In war, both conventional and non-conventional, the priority of a target is dependent on its value to the other side. The same is true of terrorism, though targets are chosen more for psychological value than for military value. For this reason in any open conflict, communications facilities and supply lines have always been high priority targets. Today critical information, both on and off the battlefield, flows from place to place by means of digital technology. It is not surprising that information warfare is fast becoming a hot topic in military circles. With the increasing digitization of the battlefield it makes sense to find ways of protecting the computerized control of ones military apparatus while at the same time coming up with the means to disrupt that of the other side.
But information warfare, both defensive and offensive, is not confined to the battlefield. In fact, it is a matter of far more urgency to the citizen than to the soldier. It is more than likely that both the victims and the perpetrators of information warfare will be found in the civilian sphere. This is because it is in our civilian lives that we are most vulnerable to the techniques of information warfare. It is to be expected that the military, concerned as it is with the continual need to protect its facilities and personnel from hostile action, will take all necessary precautions to guard its digital apparatus from outside interference. We need not be overly concerned over the penetrability of military computers; the military can take care of itself.
Unfortunately the same does not hold true for most civilian mission-critical computers. As mentioned above, the military itself depends on the civilian infrastructure, which is itself the achilles heel of our society. We have become overwhelmingly dependent on the digitized flow of information. Computers control our electric power supplies, run the national water system, control the air traffic into and out of the country, manage our bank accounts, and keep track of every aspect of our personal lives. All of these information systems are vulnerable, to one degree or another, to outside interference. In the past we have been fortunate in that the vulnerability of such systems has been less than the hacking talent of those who had most to gain by waging information war. This is something we mustn’t count on in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Warfare - the Perfect Terrorist Weapon
Terrorism is yet another example of how the focus of war has shifted toward civilian populations. The aim of terrorism is not to destroy the enemy’s armed might, but to undermine his will to fight. The terrorist seeks to disrupt the daily life of his target nation by striking at the most vulnerable points in the society. Such vulnerable areas included transportation networks and public events, which insure good media coverage. By hitting the citizen just where he thinks he is safest, the terrorist causes the greatest confusion and loss of morale.
Today, with every aspect of our lives dependent on information networks, terrorists have a whole new field of action. And while the technology to operate and protect these networks is quite costly, the means required to attack them are relatively cheap. In the simplest case, one needs only a computer, a modem, and a willing hacker. According to Alvin Toffler, “It’s the great equalizer. You don’t have to be big and rich to apply the kind of judo you need in information warfare, That’s why poor countries are going to go for this faster than technologically advanced countries.”[1]
According to TIME Magazine, the Defense Science Board at the Pentagon warned that annoying hackers trying to crack the Pentagon’s computers were not the only things the defense strategists have to worry about.
“This threat arises from terrorist groups or nation-states, and is far more subtle and difficult to counter than the more unstructured but growing problem caused by hackers. A large, structured attack with strategic intent against the U.S. could be prepared and exercised under the guise of unstructured ‘hacker’ activities. . . .there is no nationally coordinated capability to counter or even detect a structured threat.”[2]
Can They Do It?
Needless to say, what applies to the U.S. applies as well to other developed countries. Are terrorists currently capable of waging Infowar? In the past, there was no compelling reason for terrorists to be computer literate. This is changing fast. Today over 60 percent of University degrees in Computer Science are given to students from developing countries, the vast majority from Islamic countries. And even if terrorist organizations do have trouble supplying their own hackers, there are always mercenary hackers willing to do the job for the right price.
“During the Gulf War, according to Pentagon officials, a group of Dutch hackers offered to disrupt the U.S. military’s deployment to the Middle East for $1 million. Saddam Hussein spurned the offer. The potential for disruption was great, says Steve Kent, a private computer security expert in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of a Pentagon advisory panel on defensive information warfare. “In the Gulf War the military made extensive use of the Internet for its communications, and it would have suffered had the Iraqis decided to take it out.’ ”[3]
Consider also that the means to disrupt or destroy digital equipment are relatively inexpensive, easily smuggled from place to place, can be used from a distance, and are virtually untraceable. In short, the perfect terrorist weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychological Warfare
The scenarios described above belong to a subset of information war, commonly called “Hacker warfare”. However, the term infowar includes other ways of manipulating information, among them “Psychological Warfare.” Psychological warfare is the attempt to warp the opponent’s view of reality, to project a false view of things, or to influence his will to engage in hostile activities. It includes a variety of actions that can be divided up into categories according to their targets. Strategic analyst Martin Libicki proposes four categories: operations against troops, operations against opposing commanders, operations against the national will, and operations designed to impose a particular culture upon another nation. In an article for RAND, authors John Arquilla and David Ronfeld called this technique “Netwar.”[4]
“Netwar refers to information-related conflict at a grand level between nations or societies. It means trying to disrupt or damage what a target population knows or thinks it knows about itself and the world around it. A netwar may focus on public or elite opinion, or both. It may involve diplomacy, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with local media, infiltration of computer networks and databases, and efforts to promote dissident or opposition movements across computer networks.”
The Media as “Psychological weapon”
This aspect of information warfare is nothing new. The attempt to influence the human element in a conflict is an old technique. Only the means have changed. Armies have always tried to make their forces seem stronger or weaker than they are, or to convince enemy soldiers that they have no escape but surrender. But to this component in the military arsenal has recently been added a relatively new technique, born of the technology of mass information transfer. Now psychological warfare includes the endeavor to influence the populace of an enemy country to oppose the war effort, or to depose the reigning government. The means to this end reside in the mass media, and more recently in the internet.
Psychological warfare through the media has been used with success by the U.S. in the Gulf War of 1990-91. The Iraqis were led by media reports to believe that the air war was to be a short-term strike, followed by an immediate ground war, in which they felt themselves to have the advantage of numbers and territorial dominance. They were also kept busy along the Kuwaiti coasts, by means of disinformation pointing to an imminent American coastal offensive.
Another example of psychological warfare was the American “propoganda war” in Haiti[5]
“The Pentagon “launched a sophisticated psy-ops campaign against Haiti’s military regime to restore depose President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Using market-research surveys, the Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group divided Haiti’s population into 20 target groups and bombarded them with hundreds of thousands of pro-Aristide leaflets appealing to their particular affinities. Before US intervention, the CIA made anonymous phone calls to Haitian soldiers, urging them to surrender, and sent ominous e-mail messages to some members of Haiti’s oligarchy who had personal computers.”
America has not always been on the winning side in psychological warfare. Democracies, by their very nature, are acutely sensitive to public opinion, making them vulnerable to manipulation through the media. American troops left Somalia after the loss of just nineteen American Rangers in a conflict with the forces of Somali leader Mohammed Aideed. That conflict reportedly cost Aideed about fifteen times that number, roughly a third of his forces. And yet it was the Americans who conceded defeat. Why? “Photos of jeering Somalis dragging corpses of U.S. soldiers through the streets of Mogadishu transmitted by CNN to the United States ended by souring TV audiences at home in the U.S. on staying in Somalia. U.S. forces left, and Aideed, in essence, won the information war.”[6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Weapons for Terrorism
CNN & Direct Broadcast
But although the media is a relatively new element in armed conflict, it is a weapon that terrorists have used from the outset. In fact terrorism has always been psychological warfare. Terrorists interact with an entire population through the media. Terrorism is analogous to a virus, which transmits its “genetic message” through the legitimate means of information transferal of the society on which it preys, thus altering the society’s perception of itself and the world around it. In essence, terrorism aims to replace a society’s worldview with its own, just as a virus replaces the host’s genetic material with its own.
Global News Broadcasters such as CNN bring events worldwide into private homes. Whether the events are real or choreographed specifically for public consumption is another question. In this age of Direct Broadcast Satellites no one needs a government’s permission to speak directly to a country’s people. The machinery for Direct Broadcast are well within the financial means of any well-funded terrorist group, such as Hizballah.
The Internet
To this already influential means of reaching the minds of the public terrorists now may add another option: the internet. Because the internet spans geographical, cultural, and economic boundaries, its potential for outreach is tremendous. And due to the way in which information searching is done, through the use of keywords, population targeting, and newsgroups, the message can be focused on particular elements of the population.
In a sense, the internet is becoming the prevailing means of information transferal. In the foreseeable future the internet will replace, or more accurately “swallow” the other forms of media. We will likely see a merging of Direct Broadcast Satellite TV merging with the net to target particular sectors of the population, a kind of “mega-newsgrouping”. Thus the media will enter the age of “Me-TV.”
This “newsgrouping” in the media offers a new capability to terrorists, no less than to the rest of the elements currently fighting for the attention of the public. Terrorists will be able to tailor their message to different sectors of the population, just as advertisers do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Can be Done About It?
In the U.S., where the threat is most immediately recognized, debate is currently going on to decide what part government can and should play in protecting civilian networks. On the one hand the civilian networks are controlled by private interest groups, some of them internationally owned. Government regulation would seem to be interference or even repression. On the other hand, the vulnerability and ease of manipulation of some networks are weak links in modern society, and their exploitation by hostile elements threatens all elements of society, and not just the direct controllers of the networks. One solution is to require organizations with a dependence on sensitive information technology to fulfill certain security criteria before being issued a government license. Something like this has been done in Israel already, with the legislation of the “Computer Laws” of 1994.
However, it must be pointed out that although such measures can provide a minimum level of protection against tampering, there is no such thing as 100% security. What is more, the solutions are sure to lag behind the potential threat until the threat becomes reality. At present the cost of protection is higher than the cost of attack, and until an attack on a major system actually happens, organizations are unlikely to take security measures as seriously as they could, or should.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Information technology is being developed by strategic planners both as an offensive battlefield weapon, and as a weapon for “logistics attack,” as a means to disrupt the civilian infrastructure on which an enemy’s military apparatus depends.
Technology has already been used effectively by American forces in the Gulf War and in the conflict in Haiti.
However, Information Warfare is a double-edged sword - those countries most capable of waging it are also the ones most vulnerable to it.
The increasing dependence on sophisticated information systems brings with it an increased vulnerability to hostile elements, terrorists among them.
Attacks on information technology are unsettling easy to carry out. The means are relatively inexpensive, easy to smuggle, virtually untraceable, and completely deniable. This, coupled with the fact that the civilian networks which are most attractive to terrorists are also the most vulnerable, makes infowar the perfect weapon in the terrorist arsenal.
Currently, the security solutions lag far behind the potential threat. This situation is likely to continue until the threat becomes reality, forcing a reassessment of preventive measures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. Toffler, quoted in TIME Magazine article, “Onward Cyber Soldiers”, August 21, 1995 Volume 146, No. 8
2. Quoted in TIME Magazine article, “Onward Cyber Soldiers”, August 21, 1995 Volume 146, No. 8
3. TIME Magazine article, “Onward Cyber Soldiers”, August 21, 1995 Volume 146, No. 8
4. Arquilla and Ronfeldt, "Cyberwar is Coming!", article for RAND
5. TIME Magazine article, “Onward Cyber Soldiers”, August 21, 1995 Volume 146, No. 8
6. Libicki, Martin. “What is Information Warfare?”, article for the Institute for National Strategic Studies
|
http://www.ict.org.il/
_________________
Our pistols and rifles are only tools. We are the weapon. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Observer
Ветеран
Joined: 05 Dec 2001
Posts: 677
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Observer
Ветеран
Joined: 05 Dec 2001
Posts: 677
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Observer
Ветеран
Joined: 05 Dec 2001
Posts: 677
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
По-моему это явная подготовка к непрерывной маленькой войне везде. Дядя Кревельд как будто в будущее смотрел! Скоро и Executive Outcomes легализуется и будет нормальной частью рыночного мира.
| Quote: | Hoon aims to restructure armed forces to fight terror
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=472469
Row over cost-cutting as minister seeks to revamp Britain's defences to meet the requirement of the post-Cold War era
By Kim Sengupta
12 December 2003
Britain's armed forces are to be transformed from Cold War warriors into a swifter force, capable of tackling international terrorists, in one of the most radical military overhauls in recent history.
Almost one-third of the British Army's tanks, as well as a number of warships and aircraft, will disappear in the formation of lighter and technologically more sophisticated forces needed for quick deployment. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the prospect of a major war in Europe disappearing, terrorism is seen as the new threat in the White Paper introduced yesterday by Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence.
Britain's forces will also be expected to take the war to the terrorists, with the possible range of operations extending to sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
At present, the British Army's armour is 80 per cent "heavy", and the most overt change would be in the number of main battle tanks, the Challenger 2s. The two heavy armoured brigades will be cut to one, reducing the number of Challengers by 114 over the next nine years.
The first tranche of 57 Challengers, in an armoured regiment being converted to reconnaissance, will be replaced by the quicker, lighter Scorpion armoured fighting vehicles in the next few years.
A second armoured regiment will face a similar transformation, with the Challengers being replaced by the new medium-weight Future Rapid Effects System, due to come into service in 2012.
The White Paper also paves the way for changes to the Royal Navy and the RAF with the phasing out of some older warships and a cut in the overall numbers of combat aircraft. That is likely to mean a reduction in the current number of 232 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft ordered by the RAF, as well as a number of Jaguars.
Defence officials refused to discuss the numbers of Eurofighter on order, which may need to be cancelled, involving penalty clauses, only saying the "priority" was to get the first batch of 55 aircraft.
The officials also insisted that no forecast had been made about reduction in the size of the Army. "The numbers you need in the armed forces that come out of the end of that is a bit of work we have still to do," said one official.
The White Paper laid particular emphasis on precision-guided weapons and on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, known as C4ISR.
It stressed the importance of the new digitalised communications systems and the Watchkeeper unmanned aerial drone, currently under development, as "key enablers" that make it possible to strike rapidly at fleeting "targets of opportunity". Although there is no direct mention of special forces, officials acknowledged the need for more "flexible and adaptable" armed forces. It is believed that will mean more back-up support, such as helicopter airlifts, rather than an expansion in numbers of the SAS and SBS.
The paper envisages that the forces will be able to conduct one large-scale and one small-scale operation at any one time, or two that are medium scale and one small scale. However, it said that most operations would only be possible if UK forces were operating alongside the Americans and it stressed the importance of keeping up with American technology so that it remained "inter-operable".
Mr Hoon, speaking in the Commons, said: "It has historically been the fashion to measure military capability in terms of the weight of numbers of units or platforms - of ships, of tanks and of aircraft.
"That might have been appropriate for the attritional warfare of the past, but in today's environment, success will be achieved through an ability to act quickly, accurately and decisively, so as to deliver military effect at the right time."
While Nicholas Soames, the Conservatives' defence spokesman, welcomed the "broad thrust" of the White Paper, he expressed concern that it could become a cover for more defence cuts.
He said: "Given that there are so few hard facts in the White Paper, we are concerned that a whole raft of decisions on cuts will start to leach out later ... we remain deeply concerned about the financial crisis in the MoD and the consequences that flow from it at a time of severe over-stretch."
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, also warned against cutting troop numbers. He said: "Winning the peace in the new security environment is as important as winning wars. For that we need enough peace-keepers."
CHANGING WEAPONS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
BEATING A RETREAT:
114 Challenger 2 tanks. Unquantified numbers of Jaguar and Eurofighter warplanes.
The latter is on order and the final total is dependant on renegotiating contract with manufacturers.
Some Type 42 destroyers, Type 22 frigates, and, possibly, some Hunter-killer submarines will also be retired from service.
JOINING THE RANKS:
Scorpion armoured fighting vehicles. Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) vehicles.
Precision-guided weapons and high-tech command and control centres.
Joint Strike Fighter being built with the United States.
Apache attack helicopters. Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs), such as the Watchkeeper. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Цефа
Генерал сказочных баталий
Joined: 18 Nov 2001
Posts: 4369
Location: Местные мы...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Проще говоря, без серьёзного наращивания strategic lift, все эти реформы просто превращают английские ВС в сторожей американских баз.
Нет ни закупок новых самолетов ВТА, ни транспортных кораблей... какие силы быстрого реагирования, которым надо снимать такси чтобы добиратся до места ?
_________________
Моя б воля - хоронить не успевали бы... (с) Адам.
 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Observer
Ветеран
Joined: 05 Dec 2001
Posts: 677
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:16 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Цефа wrote: | Проще говоря, без серьёзного наращивания strategic lift, все эти реформы просто превращают английские ВС в сторожей американских баз.
Нет ни закупок новых самолетов ВТА, ни транспортных кораблей... какие силы быстрого реагирования, которым надо снимать такси чтобы добиратся до места ? |
Дык у них весь SAS в один 747-ой помещается.  |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Observer
Ветеран
Joined: 05 Dec 2001
Posts: 677
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'
So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.
Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'
Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Vadim
Ветеран
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Posts: 5144
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Пентагон раскрыл Бушу глаза
Секретный доклад аналитиков Пентагона, в котором говорится о неизбежных и очень опасных изменениях климата на планете, четыре месяца пролежал под сукном в Белом доме из-за нежелания администрации президента США считаться с проблемой, угрожающей интересам энергетического и нефтяного лобби страны. Но если не принять срочных мер, предупреждает Пентагон, под угрозой окажется жизнь большинства жителей планеты. Vip.Lenta.Ru публикует полный перевод статьи из британского издания The Observer, узнавшего о существовании этого доклада.
...
http://vip.lenta.ru/fullstory/2004/02/23/report/
_________________
Равенство, братство,
Дегуманизация!
 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Calendar 
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages
Транслит 
Log in
Calendar
Forum index » Военное дело » Общевойсковые вопросы
