Slashdot Mirror

• US won't do anything against Iraq because everyone knows Saddam is not responsible for what happened, and there would be massive internationnal oposition.

Not everyone.

The US needed someone to blame, and it needed them quickly. That's not to say it wasn't bin Laden, but I don't think truth is really going to be a high priority here, just plausibility.

Another article at Jane's can be found here. It provides a short report on some of the prototype technologies that may be deployed, such as the Predator, Global Hawk and the "Hairy Buffalo."

Perhaps of more interest to some slashdotters would be the "back end" of these systems. The forward deployed robots like the predator are most valuable when the data they collect is processed rapidly and distributed to other systems in the combat zone. This article touches on that a bit - as you can see in this quote:

"Working with stand off reconnaissance assets like the EC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence platform and the E-8D Joint STARS battlefield surveillance aircraft, Global Hawk would be able to fly deep into hostile territory and scan otherwise impenetrable terrain for terrorist activity. Through JEFX, the ability of UAVs to network their synthetic-aperture radar and electro-optic imagery with intelligence from Joint STARS and Rivet Joint has been successfully demonstrated. The 'fused' data, which offers a highly accurate picture of target locations, is transmitted within seconds to patrolling combat aircraft."

fooled be not.. Afghanistan feeds your voracious appetite for your golem press.. bin laden is a helluva handsome target, after all.. 6'5" tall.. big hands.. pure illusion.. "a schoolboy" compared to the mastermind, a psychotic Lebonese named Mughniyeh, financed by Iraq..

I was also under the impression that the 757 & 767 were both smaller than the 747.

I was also under the impression that the 757 & 767 were both smaller than the 747.

Seems this is an appropriate place to toss out a couple of new attack-related sites.

First, Jane's Security has some ideas about who may be behind this attack... and it ain't bin Laden.

Second, Political Cartoons, a collection of attack-related cartoons. Some are worth a second look: you can draw opposing interpretations from them.

The Dalai Lama's letter to Bush. Worth reading twice: it's short, and important.

Bush's Language: why calling this a "crusade" is rather foolish.

Also, I'd like to apologize for a previous post in which I used the word "accident" in lieu of "attack." My mind was somewhere else, and I think it was trying to fool itself about the atrocity of the attack.

This can be a sick and cruel world, or a world of joy and life. I encourage you to encourage others to choose the latter. Let's stop the hatred within our own communities, as we try to stop the hatred between nations.

Anyone else noticed this? US policy favors smart bombs over smart soldiers, signals intelligence (Carnivore type stuff, see janes analisis), balistic missle defence over convertional (patriot style) measures.

Rear Admiral Kathleen Turner, who works on Star Wars II, said yesterday (I'm gatecrashing an arms fair) that "Threats come from many sources" and that a balistic defence should be a part of US defence. She did cut her talk short in light of WTC. Wonder how many people in the US actually speak Arabic, and how many of those work for the govt. in relavant fields. This goes for the UK too (my country), that as we speak English we never bother to learn other languages. When I'm working in the West Bank I find almost everyone - except Jewish settlers - speaks 3 languages, Arabic, Hebrew and English. Then there are a lot of Christian schools in the area who teach French, Spanish, Greek, Latin etc.

Just an observation from a news photographer.

Here's the link to the article on Jane's

He was a handsome chap at that. Very unfortunate.

How are we going to crush Afghanistan from afar, if the Red Army couldn't do it from next door?

kabloie

Has anyone thought of the possible connection to the mysterious crash of Egyptian Air 990 in Nov of 1999? That plane was also a 767. No evidence of mechanical failure was found. The US investigators believed that the copilot may have drove the plane into the Atlantic in an act of suicide, but the Egyptians disagreed. Could there be any connection?

I work for a university and, yes, we are closed today. I don't think this is out of fear but out of precaution. We'll be back at work tomorrow, and this will be on our minds. But the world will continue.

This isn't World War III. This isn't some 17th century prediction come true. This is something the governemt hasn't been preparing itself for. They haven't paid attention to threats, they've (especially this administration) have ignored groups and governements in this world who aren't popular targets in the American public's eyes. And, if you look at a campaign, we elected a president who knows little and cares even less about world events.

We won the Cold War. We put ourselves into a position of power and envy by telling people they should be like us. Instead of thinking violence and retaliation from those who are jealous would never happen here we should have been preparing for it to occur. And, still yet, we should be working with other nations to help them.

We are the only super power, ladies and gentlemen. With great power comes great responsiblity. We can't isolate ourselves and we can't ignore things around us. Every time we do we are given a rude awakening (the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, and now yesterday). We should either step up to our responsibilities on the world stage or step back, because if we don't, well, then I'm honestly afraid that yesterday will only be a drop in the bucket.

Janes has made info from their All the World's Aircraft data available online for the 767 and 757.

Janes has made info from their All the World's Aircraft data available online for the 767 and 757.

"Aircraft hijacking has formerly been a hallmark of Middle Eastern terror groups. The advent of what is considered modern international terrorism occurred in July 1968 when members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an Israeli El Al commercial flight en route from Rome to Tel Aviv."

This is complete and utter bullshit. Massoud (the rebel leader) is a freedom fighter endeavoring on the quest for civil liberties and democratic government in Afghanistan.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_securi ty/news/jir/jir010911_1_n.shtml

Certainly an eventful month for the Taliban.

No "civilized" country should sell any weapon to anyone without democratic legitimisation; even better, all international weapon trading should be simply forbidden, including hand guns

All secret agencies in "civilized" countries must be closer controlled to avoid creation of new guerrilla armies around the world

Anonymous Transfer and laundry of large sums of money must be controlled to dry up funding of weapon trade and funding of rouge groups

Every Individual connected with weapon trading or supporting guerrilla in a foreign country should be severely punished

Human rights must be honoured everywhere in the world, and everyone not honouring them should become outlawed

Fair International Trade and real substantial development support should help to create a reasonable level of wealth everywhere in the world

The problem with the above things is not that they require an idealistic world; the problem is, the would put many important and powerful people in the USA and other countries, Israel quite ahead, in the rogue camp.

The USA e.g. would have to face that killing imprisoned people, even convicted criminals, is not justice, but a crime against humanity.

And just hearing about some explosions in Kabul, it seems that the US Government has a long way to go, and to learn some more lessons. I do not have any sympathy for those lunatics in Afghanistan, but they are a result of cold war superpower games and did not chose their fate, and the killing of innocent people does not justify the killing other innocent people.

Another thing from history that many people in the U.S. are not aware of:

Terrorism works.

Especially in rich countries where life is highly valued, and people have a lot to loose they are easily scared by terrorist attacks, even if the real danger is statistically marginal compared to tobacco or traffic, the perceived danger is large enough to change a society.

And you can not stop terrorist attacks by people who are willing to sacrifice their life; just look to Israel these days.

You can not stop terror by killing people, as you can not cure your AIDS by fucking a virgin, as believed by many people in Africa and Asia.

Some predictions for the future:

Someone guilty will be found, probably Ben Ladin

Bombs will be thrown by the US Military, and more innocent people will be killed

A lot of annoying and expensive security measures will be taken

Civil Rights will be restricted in the U.S. and other civilized country

More innocent people will be killed in the U.S. by terrorist attacks

Finally, the terrorists will not achieve their ultimate goals and be hunted down and isolated from their environment;

to achieve this, compromises will be made to dry up the particular terror breeding grounds, like creating more wealth and stability in these regions

the fear of terrorism will have impact on political decisions, and in the long term US politicians will be more careful because of this fear

After this bad day I hope that today's events will be a unique experience in my life, and not the begin of a new era of terror and war.

Lets make this world a better place.

p.

Race and religion is not the enemy, fundamentalism is the enemy. Only when one believes in something so strongly that there is no longer room for reason are acts like these possible. The Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the recent actions of the taliban come to mind.

On another note, it seems to me that if the cockpits of the airplanes that had been hijacked had been sealed off, there would be many many fewer dead. The US has Tomahawks, the terrorists have 747s. Some people from the airlines, or airport security should go to jail, if multiple planes can be hijacked at the same time something is very wrong . Things will have to change, "just" blowing up a airliner is a far better thing than ramming the plane into a building full of 25,000 people.

Also, I now have a much less harsh attitude towards "privacy invading" measures such as face recognition software. In fact I want my privacy invaded a whole lot more especially when I'm getting on a plane.

Maybe the one good thing about this is that if Bin Laden is to blame, the US will certainly cease its support of the taliban, and will almost certainly take punitive measures. Of course whether such measures will hurt the taliban, or just the innocent people of Afghanistan remains to be seen. If of course it was bin laden.

Finally, yes, give blood, as so many others have today.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/i dr010529_1_n.shtml

At the bottom of the Jane's article, there are some pictures.

I scrolled through these using the down arrow, and what I saw immediately after the last one (the plane in the crate) was just the first line of the item that followed. It was not unamusing.

--Blair

The missile has also been improved by upgrading the dual thrust solid-propellant motor and it now has a maximum stated range of up to 50km and a maximum effective altitude of 88,560ft. It is not known whether the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile with its radio-frequency proximity fuze has been improved.

As you can see, that missile goes well beyond the necessary 65,000 feet. The article is here.

"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"

The missile has also been improved by upgrading the dual thrust solid-propellant motor and it now has a maximum stated range of up to 50km and a maximum effective altitude of 88,560ft. It is not known whether the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile with its radio-frequency proximity fuze has been improved.

As you can see, that missile goes well beyond the necessary 65,000 feet. The article is here.

"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"

According to articles here, here and here, it doesn't sound like the Chinese will be knocking on our door (with nuclear warheads or troops) any time soon. Given the current Chinese disputes with Russia, Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines (over islands) as well as mounting tensions with Taiwan, China is in no mood (or ability) to go to war. There will be plently of posturing, but this dispute is purely politics.

China has a lot to sort out internally before they are any sort of major military threat. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be regional conflicts that escalate (after all, that is how WW I got started), it only means that conflict between our two nations is unlikely. Do a little reading at Janes or other sites before rattling sabres. China has a long history of spying and tough talk (like the USSR, USA, et. al.), but they currently pose little threat.

If you want something to really worry about, start paying more attention to the escalation in the Middle East.

The US EP-3 is a propeller driven aircraft, meaning it flies roughly 300 miles per hour. The Chinese J-8 fighter which intercepted the US EP-3, is a supersonic fighter jet capable of speeds over mach 2! Do you really think the US plane would "ram" the jet out of the sky? Is it not obvious that in order for there to be a collision of any sort, it would require the Chinese fighter to maneuver itself VERY close to the US EP-3? US military flights usually follow a preplanned flight path, and given the nature of the plane I highly doubt the experienced pilot would be so stupid to veer from it. Additionally, no rational person would "hotdog" a propeller driven aircraft. The only autonomous aircraft in the sky that day were Chinese fighters. Please wake up people, this is nothing more than political posturing by the Chinese trying to make a name for themselves. They know the upper-hand is in their favor and they're exploiting it to the fullest. Not to mention it buys TONS of time to rummage through the classified US aircraft. Janes Intelligence is a pretty reliable source when it comes to military information. Most of this information can be found here. Go there to read some "non-spinned" and "non-politicized" facts.

The US EP-3 is a propeller driven aircraft, meaning it flies roughly 300 miles per hour. The Chinese J-8 fighter which intercepted the US EP-3, is a supersonic fighter jet capable of speeds over mach 2! Do you really think the US plane would "ram" the jet out of the sky? Is it not obvious that in order for there to be a collision of any sort, it would require the Chinese fighter to maneuver itself VERY close to the US EP-3? US military flights usually follow a preplanned flight path, and given the nature of the plane I highly doubt the experienced pilot would be so stupid to veer from it. Additionally, no rational person would "hotdog" a propeller driven aircraft. The only autonomous aircraft in the sky that day were Chinese fighters. Please wake up people, this is nothing more than political posturing by the Chinese trying to make a name for themselves. They know the upper-hand is in their favor and they're exploiting it to the fullest. Not to mention it buys TONS of time to rummage through the classified US aircraft. Janes Intelligence is a pretty reliable source when it comes to military information. Most of this information can be found here. Go there to read some "non-spinned" and "non-politicized" facts.

The US EP-3 is a propeller driven aircraft, meaning it flies roughly 300 miles per hour. The Chinese J-8 fighter which intercepted the US EP-3, is a supersonic fighter jet capable of speeds over mach 2! Do you really think the US plane would "ram" the jet out of the sky? Is it not obvious that in order for there to be a collision of any sort, it would require the Chinese fighter to maneuver itself VERY close to the US EP-3? US military flights usually follow a preplanned flight path, and given the nature of the plane I highly doubt the experienced pilot would be so stupid to veer from it. Additionally, no rational person would "hotdog" a propeller driven aircraft. The only autonomous aircraft in the sky that day were Chinese fighters. Please wake up people, this is nothing more than political posturing by the Chinese trying to make a name for themselves. They know the upper-hand is in their favor and they're exploiting it to the fullest. Not to mention it buys TONS of time to rummage through the classified US aircraft. Janes Intelligence is a pretty reliable source when it comes to military information. Most of this information can be found here. Go there to read some "non-spinned" and "non-politicized" facts.

China claims that the aircraft was in Chinese airspace when the incident occured.

Now, I know China claims national boundaries exending beyond Tiawan, but I think that many people here should be reminded that there's two sides to the story.

For example, try China.com for a different side of the story, or the BBC for a (reasonably) unbiased take on things.

The thing I find funny about this is that there are 1-metre resolution spy-satelite photographs of the airbase etc. at Janes Defence Weekly (Article), (Pictures), which two years ago no-one would have had access to.

China claims that the aircraft was in Chinese airspace when the incident occured.

Now, I know China claims national boundaries exending beyond Tiawan, but I think that many people here should be reminded that there's two sides to the story.

For example, try China.com for a different side of the story, or the BBC for a (reasonably) unbiased take on things.

The thing I find funny about this is that there are 1-metre resolution spy-satelite photographs of the airbase etc. at Janes Defence Weekly (Article), (Pictures), which two years ago no-one would have had access to.

China claims that the aircraft was in Chinese airspace when the incident occured.

Now, I know China claims national boundaries exending beyond Tiawan, but I think that many people here should be reminded that there's two sides to the story.

For example, try China.com for a different side of the story, or the BBC for a (reasonably) unbiased take on things.

The thing I find funny about this is that there are 1-metre resolution spy-satelite photographs of the airbase etc. at Janes Defence Weekly (Article), (Pictures), which two years ago no-one would have had access to.

-- flossie
http telnet

BC Ferries has three catamarans for sale. The PacifiCat Explorer, and the PacifiCat Discovery are currently in service in British Columbia. They're the second-largest aluminum-hulled catamarans in the world, and can do 34 knots. They'd probably run you about $200 million (Canadian) a piece.

$600 Million (Canadian, or about $400 million US) is a hell of a lot cheaper than $60 billion, and you can take your car onto the ferry... The ferries are almost new, and, while I don't like the decor too much, they're not bad.

Probably been said before, but I can't help but write this response:

1. There are basically two totally different types of submarine: ballistic missile submarines, and hunter/killer submarines. Note that propulsion is totally arbitrary: a "nuclear" submarine normally means a submarine carrying a nuclear reactor as its main propulsion system, not a submarine armed with nuclear weapons.

   Ballistic missile subs carry around 20 SLBMs - that's "Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles", which in this time and age are meant to be used for waging unlimited nuclear war. The missiles mostly carry multiple, really big warheads. These are strategic weapons, used in deterrence, MAD and disarmament negotiations. The only thing these boats do is go out on patrol, cruise around in a big box of ocean and keep well away from everybody else in that box. If Armageddon isn't scheduled for this month, they go back to port, change crews, and go back out.

   I choose to call all other submarines "hunter/killer", which is kind of an over-simplification. Bear with me. Maybe calling them "tactical" would be a better choice, since that is what mostly distinguishes them from the ballistic missile boats. These boats come in all sizes and kinds, nuclear-propelled and conventional, and all kinds of armament. Their missions can be diverse: surveillance, putting commando soldiers on a beach somewhere, escorting a surface battle group, denying sea room to somebody else, hunting merchant shipping, hunting surface warships, hunting submarines... Many of these missions are interrelated: if your sub escorts an aircraft carrier, it will most definitely keep an ear cocked for enemy submarines that are bent on killing the carrier, and do a bit of sub hunting themselves.

   Looking at these missions, it's not hard to imagine that a lot of possible design solutions exist to fulfill them. The U.S. Navy, and indeed most western navies, seem to go the way of the multi-purpose boat: build a submarine that can handle submarine hunting - possibly the most demanding mission - and you get a submarine that should do all other things reasonably well, too.

   Now for the Russians. Think back a dozen years or so, and remember that in those cold war days, U.S. Navy carrier battle groups roamed the high seas pretty much unchallenged by anybody else. Especially the Soviets (the Russians still were Soviets back then). And from what I remember, the Soviets had a healthy fear of those carriers, in the case of a larger conflict between the two power blocs, driving up the coast of Norway, right into the Barents Sea, back yard of the Soviets, and start pummeling the submarine and air bases located there with air strikes. Since the Soviet Navy didn't have proper carriers with which to go after the U.S. ones, they had to find something else. A relatively cheap (compared to carriers of their own) way was with submarines - a sub and its upkeep costs only fractions of a carrier battle group. Unfortunately, one main purpose of the "group" part of the carrier battle group was to keep enemy submarines from launching torpedoes at the carrier... so again, a solution was sought and found: The Soviet Navy built a number of classes of submarine dubbed, in the western naval lingo, SSG - "guided missile submarine". This indicates that these submarine's main mission was to shoot guided missiles - mostly of the cruise missile kind - at enemy ships. These missiles were built with both nuclear and conventional warheads; this is not surprising, since the Russians put both kinds of warhead on pretty much everything they built.

   Back to the subject at hand: The Kursk was just such a boat - an SSGN of the Oscar II class, launched in 1994 and therefore one of the newer units in the Russian Navy. It carries as its main armament 24 SS-N-19 missiles, with a range of around 500km and either a 750 kg HE or 500 kT nuclear warhead (source: Jane's Naval Forces). These missiles, despite wearing a nuclear warhead, are classed as tactical weapons.

   So the Kursk might have been nuclear -armed, but since agreements have been reached about removing tactical nuclear weapons from ships, and it is more complicated and more expensive to carry nuclear weapons, I find it highly unlikely that she was.

   Having said this much, I notice that it really doesn't matter that much - unless some Baltic terrorists drive up there in a Zodiac and try to get their hands on a warhead... The only real problem in environmental terms will probably be the reactor and propulsion system - if any pipes are damaged, or corrode to an extent that they start to leak, evil things may happen. It would, unfortunately, not be the first nuclear reactor ending its life on the seafloor.

2. The Kursk is being called "the best ship in the fleet" and all kinds of other names after the fact that she sunk. I would regard that as a bit of hero talk for the rest of the world. She wasn't the newest boat, neither in her class nor absolutely.

   The "flagships" don't always get the "cool new stuff" "to play with". Often, new stuff is put on older units which aren't that useful in their primary role anymore, tested and tweaked, and then put on the next class of new units to be built - but in a finished state.

   The USS Enterprise (assuming the aircraft carrier CVN-65 is meant here) isn't just the first in its class, but the only one! She was the first nuclear-powered carrier, and there are others newer than her, but they aren't considered to be in her class. As for the "flagship": she's probably a flagship for the admiral commanding the battle group, and maybe for a fleet, but I've never heard Enterprise being referred to as anything more than that in this context.

3. The reports of other subs in the area by the Russian Navy are, in my opinion, more talk than based on proper facts or pieces of information in the Russian Navy. They could be pretty sure that there would be foreign boats there to monitor their exercise - these things aren't that secret - so saying "They hit us! They hit us!" comes in pretty handy in case of an accident. Not that there never were accidents - go read "Blind Man's Bluff" for some exciting stories.

4. It is most likely correct that the foreign boats monitoring the exercise got the best picture of what happend right away, and that they also concluded that the Kursk suffered a catastrophic accident. The fact that no owner of those boats stepped forward to say anything isn't surprising, since it would have meant to disclose information about their own capabilities.

   I have never heard of the U.S. government being involved in the rescue effort. The rescue submarine responsible for this piece of the globe is the British LR5, which was brought to the scene of the accident as "soon as possible" - this time frame being determined by Russian authorities.

5. This probably isn't specific to submariners, but to soldiers and sailors, and groups of people in similar situations, everywhere.

The Moscow Times special report has a few stories that mention another sub in the area. There are lots of other storys off the main pages.

In todays terms (I've even heard the US navy cliam it) flagship has been reduced to the marketing term. Its like which ship is more importaint, the USS New Jersy or the USS Missouri? Both are mostly pointless agasint a real navy but there was a reason that Japan surrendered on the deck of a battleship and not elsewhere.

Did the Kursk carry nukes? According to Janes it could carry 24 .5mT ones. Did it have any at the time? Aparently not. Besides you don't take out a carrier fleet with conventional weapons if your in the middle of a nuke war. Remember thats why these subs exists. They are all part of the "I can nuke you better than you can nuke me" game and part of that is the ability to take out ships that can carry nukes (like big carriers).

Who said anything about an international conspiracy? Every military likes to hide things. Thats as much a fact of life as testing new stuff can go very wrong. I kind of like the pr spin on things. Add that to the buring infastructure pr spin (just as soon as the TVs are back on) and you've got a spin doctors wet dream.

First off, the Kursk was a flight II Oscar (NATO-designation) SSGN. Check Jane's for more info. In other words, it was the same type of submarine as later-mode US Los Angeles and UK Trafalgar submarines. It was an ANTI-SHIP submarine. The Oscars Don't Carry Nuclear Missiles. Although technically possible, both SALT I and SALT II forbid nuclear weapons on attack submarine cruise missiles, and generally frowed on nuclear ASW weapons such as SUBROC (this was an area of contention, but both sides generally didn't carry anti-submarine nukes).

Secondly, how reliable is the Sunday Times for stuff like this? They might be better than the Times-Mirror, but then again, I don't exactly trust people like CNN and CBS to get it right either. Smells like a reporter is making this a sensationalist story from nothing.

Another technical detail here: there were two explosions: one of about 100kg TNT force, and one about 15 times stronger 2:15 later. The first is in line with an explosion of a torpedo propeller propulsion system or a compressed-air torpedo launch system (or collision, or whatever). The second is in line with either a rocket motor or warhead cook off. A couple of things to think about:

• If the entire damage is due to the cavitation torp, why the 2 minute gap between explositions? The Cav Torp is shot out like a normal torp (ie via compressed air). Any explosition in the torpedo lauch tube would almost certainly set off the rocket motor in the Cav Torp immediately. This goes for torp-launched missiles, too (like the SS-N-15/16 that the Oscar has).
• Typical compressed-air torpedo launch systems have more than enough high-pressure air in them to look like a 100kg TNT explosion if something goes wrong.
• Torpedoes have 100-150kg warheads. Only the SS-N-19 cruise missiles have the size warhead for the 2nd explosion.
• Similarly, the rocket motor in a Cav Torp or one of the SS-N-15/16s is not big enough for a 1.5T explosion. The SS-N-19's rocket is definately big enough, though.
• The 100kg initial blast would almost certainly not be enough to sink the Kursk. It wouldn't even fill the torpedo compartment with water instantly (probably take a couple of minute, minimum).

By far the most likely scenario to date is a malfunctioned torpedo launch (regardless of what type of torpedo) which blew out the torp tube and either started a fire in the forward torpedo room or short-circuited a bunch of stuff that led to either a warhead cookoff or rocket fuel explosion in one of the SS-N-19s.

While testing a new cavitation torpedo might be the immediate cause, I wouldn't point to them as being the general problem until a lot more info comes to light (which is unlikely until they raise the Kursk, and probably not even then). Indeed, if what Jane's and others are saying, it could easily have been a bad launch system itself, and whether shooting a Cav Torp, SS-N-16, or torpedo wouldn't make a difference.

-Erik

Not to mention the fact that the only good news is at Stratfor (free) and Jane's (not free).

Wrong. Try again.

A 200 knot torpedo/missile (that's not even designed to make drastic course changes at all, much less 180 degrees) has a minuscule (read: impossible) chance of taking out its launch platform once launched.

Far more likely is the theory that K-141's standard torpedoes detonated in the exercise, probably while still in the tube or weapons racks.

The Bellona Foundation has posted their analysis here, and the venerable folks at Jane's have their's up as well.

Finally, the effect this will have on Naval funding and deployment was discussed at STRATFOR.

The best source of reliable info related to military equipment is Jane's. They publish lots of different reference books on weapons, communication systems, vehicles, etc. Unfortunately, they want actual money for their stuff.

You can also sometimes find information on specific items on the web sites of the military contractors building them. They like to showcase their major projects.

• although anyone with enough intelligence and time can pick it up without formal schooling. In fact, the skills are not at all rare or unusual, being the same as those required for an average, small or medium-sized company network system administrator: a position which commands among the lowest pay in the computer industry. The chances are that there is a university drop-out in your town with all of these prerequisites. That said, a list of qualifications does not fully explain their make-up, as the skillset is more to do with lifestyle than specific capabilities. Some people collect baseball cards; others analyse [computer network] protocols.

The development of Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABMs) and the general technology of a Theater Missile Defense (TMD) was spurred as a way around the standoff of Mutually assured destruction during the cold war. The ABM ban was demanded by USSR because if the United States successfully put a working TMD in place, the US could launch a preemptive nuclear strike without fear of retaliation. It would eliminate the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and return them to the strategic arsenal as an actual weapon.

Congress' support of the 'new' Star Wars program, in combination with their recent refusal to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty looks less and less to me like thoughtful assertion of US power, and more like a bunch of cocky morons (I'm referring to the congress here, not the loveable /. crew) pushing the United States into a position as the only viable nuclear threat. Yes, other countries are developing nuclear weapons (including India and Pakistan's recent 'weaponizing' of their nuclear program), but I would assert that the proper US response would be treaty development and diplomacy, rather than setting the US up as the 'country to beat', so to speak.

Having a defensive system which (in theory) would render the US virtually invulnerable to ballistic weapons delivery is just as much a deadly weapon as a submarine loaded with chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, not to mention the Tomahawks to drop them off on your front doorstep. Just because 'defense' is in the name of this system does not mean it serves no offensive purpose.

And is it just me, or does the thought of a payload of biological and/or chemical agents being blown up in the mid-upper atmosphere by a US ABM system scare the living sh** out of you guys, too?

That's not entirely true. In addition to their reference texts, Janes Information Group publishes the "Jane's Defence Weekly". They also publish interviews: at the time of this posting, they have one up with Shamil Basayev, one of the Chechen rebels' military leaders. It's special-purpose, to be sure, but it's definitely news.

Have you seen the title to their main page?

"Jane's Intelligence Review, the world's leading open source defence, security risk and threat analysis for the professional intelligence and defense analyst"

Obviously this means anyone can copy and redistribute copies of Jane's Intelligence Review as long as they make any modifications they make to the text publically accessible...

Gerv

The excerpt from the Jane's article (also check out the full article) demonstrates the errors of judgement that are made by so-called "experts" who are approaching the concept of information warfare from the military/intelligence arena.

First of all, classifying infowar/infoterror alongside nuclear, biological and chemical attacks is wrong. They are completely different things, although there are some vague similarities in the skills and expertise needed to successfully carry out attacks.

Secondly, many analysts are failing to appreciate the differences between hacktivism, infoterror and infowar.

Hacktivism is about drawing attention to one's cause and spreading propaganda. It's most often achieved by defacing websites. We've seen an awful lot of hacktivism, from the 'Free Kevin' campaign to the Mexican Zapatistas. For hacktivists, hacking is merely a means to the end of getting exposure in the mass media.

Infoterror is the use of information warfare tactics to disrupt a nation's information and communications infrastructure in such a way as public opinion turns against the Government, forcing the government to accede to your demands. This can be equated to the IRA's tactics in the lead-up to their final ceasefire, where they disrupted motorways, postal deliveries, etc. in the UK - instead of actually causing physical harm to buildings and people, they disrupted the country's infrastructure, causing hassle for ordinary citizens, but without incurring the righteous indignation which accompanies terrorist bombs which kill innocent people. The attacks upon various internet sites belonging to NATO, the US and the UK during the Kosovan conflict were an example of a hacktivism campaign which was trying to be an infoterror campaign (but failing miserably).

Full infowar is an out-and-out attempt to completely disrupt or destroy an enemy nation's critical information, communications, command and control infrastructures, both civilian and military, and is likely to include attacks upon the physical infrastructure (e.g. bombing telecoms exchanges) as well as logical attacks (hacking, viruses, worms, etc.).

There's another complication in that the intelligence community is worried that terrorists are beginning to use the Internet for communications and to organise themselves (see the RAND report on Netwar for more on this). This use of the Internet by the Bad Guys muddies the water and obfuscates the threat presented to the 'Net by Other Bad Guys.

Thirdly, few so-called "experts" are realising that, as we move into the 21st century, a country's national security doesn't rely so much on the strength of it's armed forces, but instead upon it's economic strength and well-being, and as the economy begins to rely upon information and communications technologies more and more, the threat is growing.

Fourthly, just as soldiers know next to nothing about conducting naval battles, and sailors aren't exactly experts in air combat, existing military and intelligence people know next to nothing about information warfare. You have to turn to the hackers and their equivalent on the other side of the fence (i.e. system and network administrators who have the same skills as the hackers).

Even then, there's a world of difference between a script kiddie (the equivalent of a foot soldier who knows how to march and shoot, but little else), a real hacker (the equivalent of, say an officer, who can formulate tactics, etc.) and an information warfare strategist, who understands the big picture.

Finally, I will say this - this is a threat and, at the moment, it's a significant one, because our information and communications infrastructures are vulnerable and poorly defended. However, reducing the risk is neither particularly difficult nor expensive.

More significantly, the role for the military and intelligence communities in reducing the risk, is much smaller than most people think (and much smaller than the military and intel guys want it to be.

I've been studying information warfare for over six years. I've had articles published in military magazines, I've written reports, I'm even currently writing an article for a government magazine and I've spoken at security conferences, both white- and black-hat. I don't claim to know everything about information warfare, but I'm pretty sure I know a hell of a lot more about it that the guy who wrote that article.

As do many of Slashdot's readers, I suspect.

The Dodger
dodger@2600.com

OK....

1. Jane's Defence Community
2. Jan e's Defence Community
3. Air&Space Smithsonian Magazine
4. Website Central
5. Netsc ape Products: How to Make Communicator Your Default Browser
6. Member Directory
7. Netcenter Enterta inment Channel
8. Search - Photogra phy
9. Search - Arts > Photography > Galleries
10. S earch - Arts > Photography > Galleries > People
11. EROS // Male Nude Photo Gallery - Gale ria de Nu Masculino.
12. EROS // Fine Art Male Nude Photo Gallery - Galeria de fotos de nu masculino - Home
13. EROS // Fine Art Male Nude Photo Gallery - Galeria de fotos de nu masculino - Index
14. EROS // Fine Art Male N ude Photo Gallery - Galeria de fotos de nu masculino - Links
15. Lady Lynx - erotica for women, links to g alleries of naked men
16. Lady Lynx - Erotica for Women
17. Free Sites with Galleries o f Pics

Although soem of the URLs say "search", I didn't do any searching, just clicked on links.

And I have now just proved how easy I can get to male pr0n on-line -- oh, no, what have I done?!

OK....

1. Jane's Defence Community
2. Jan e's Defence Community
3. Air&Space Smithsonian Magazine
4. Website Central
5. Netsc ape Products: How to Make Communicator Your Default Browser
6. Member Directory
7. Netcenter Enterta inment Channel
8. Search - Photogra phy
9. Search - Arts > Photography > Galleries
10. S earch - Arts > Photography > Galleries > People
11. EROS // Male Nude Photo Gallery - Gale ria de Nu Masculino.
12. EROS // Fine Art Male Nude Photo Gallery - Galeria de fotos de nu masculino - Home
13. EROS // Fine Art Male Nude Photo Gallery - Galeria de fotos de nu masculino - Index
14. EROS // Fine Art Male N ude Photo Gallery - Galeria de fotos de nu masculino - Links
15. Lady Lynx - erotica for women, links to g alleries of naked men
16. Lady Lynx - Erotica for Women
17. Free Sites with Galleries o f Pics

Although soem of the URLs say "search", I didn't do any searching, just clicked on links.

And I have now just proved how easy I can get to male pr0n on-line -- oh, no, what have I done?!

Keep in mind that the 19 click number is inherently flawed because it progressed through links themselves, and thus probably missed many, many isolated sites.

Try getting to, say, any porn site from, oh, Jane's Information Group or a page on mantids w/n 19 clicks, just clicking on the provided links. My suspicion is that it's going to be pretty difficult.

In addition, intent is not transitive.