Slashdot Mirror

Yes, let us revisit history.

The U-boat peril

Winston Churchill once wrote that, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. In saying this, he correctly identified the importance of the threat posed during World War Two by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') to the Atlantic lifeline. This lifeline was Britain's 'centre of gravity' - the loss of which would probably have led to wholesale defeat in the war. ... Britain might have been starved into submission,...

And what was a critical factor in keeping the shipping losses by German submarine threat from growing out of control? Signals intelligence, breaking the enemy codes, Ultra intelligence decoding the messages encoded on the German Enigma code machine. With that the Allies could read the orders and reports of the German U-boat fleet.

Enigma and Ultra - the Cypher War

From the second half of 1941 onwards, information from Enigma was one of the key factors enabling the Royal Navy to divert convoys away from waiting wolf packs. Decoded messages went initially to the Royal Navy section at Bletchley Park, then, if relevant, were passed on to Submarine Tracking Room in the Admiralty and later to the HQ Western Approaches, in Liverpool. ... The gist of the information contained in the signals, carefully edited to conceal its source, was passed on to operational commanders, only a very few of the most senior of whom were let even partially into the secret of Enigma .

The Enigma material, known as Ultra , was, of course, combined with intelligence from a wide variety of other sources, including HF/DF and wireless intercepts and reconnaissance reports, into a body of information known collectively as "SIGINT".

The effect of the improved flow of intelligence information was apparent during the second half of 1941. Increasing numbers of convoys were being diverted away from waiting U-boats. In July, for example, not a single convoy was sighted by the Germans over a period of three weeks, and during July and August monthly sinkings went below 100,000 tons, the lowest for over a year.

It would have been fairly trivial for the Germans to have rendered Enigma unreadable, possibly for the duration of the war, by a number of means they had readily at hand and could have implemented with simple commands. The result would have been at best a much longer and bloodier war. The result could very easily have been either a stalemate, or even a loss by the Allies.

The position of the Allies, their ability to sustain their war effort and avoid Britain being starved into submission, was all dependent upon the people with knowledge of the Ultra program keeping the ability of the Allies to read the German codes a secret. The Allies were able to do that. It was a shock to the Germans when they found out 30 years later that the Allies had broken the Enigma codes. At times they had suspected, but they passed it off as unlikely, and did relatively little compared to what they could have done had they known.

Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party in its guerilla war struggle to take control of China, said, "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Adjusted for current conditions* we could say that, "The terrorist moves amongst the people as a submarine moves in the sea."

The Western world is at war with al Qaida and its allies. The terrorists swim among the populations like submarines at sea. What Snowden has done is equivalent to telling the Germans in 1941 that their submarine codes have been compromised. What will the consequences be? It will take years to see, but it seems quite likely that there will be much more of this:

Two bombs in

Yes, let us revisit history.

The U-boat peril

Winston Churchill once wrote that, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. In saying this, he correctly identified the importance of the threat posed during World War Two by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') to the Atlantic lifeline. This lifeline was Britain's 'centre of gravity' - the loss of which would probably have led to wholesale defeat in the war. ... Britain might have been starved into submission,...

And what was a critical factor in keeping the shipping losses by German submarine threat from growing out of control? Signals intelligence, breaking the enemy codes, Ultra intelligence decoding the messages encoded on the German Enigma code machine. With that the Allies could read the orders and reports of the German U-boat fleet.

Enigma and Ultra - the Cypher War

From the second half of 1941 onwards, information from Enigma was one of the key factors enabling the Royal Navy to divert convoys away from waiting wolf packs. Decoded messages went initially to the Royal Navy section at Bletchley Park, then, if relevant, were passed on to Submarine Tracking Room in the Admiralty and later to the HQ Western Approaches, in Liverpool. ... The gist of the information contained in the signals, carefully edited to conceal its source, was passed on to operational commanders, only a very few of the most senior of whom were let even partially into the secret of Enigma .

The Enigma material, known as Ultra , was, of course, combined with intelligence from a wide variety of other sources, including HF/DF and wireless intercepts and reconnaissance reports, into a body of information known collectively as "SIGINT".

The effect of the improved flow of intelligence information was apparent during the second half of 1941. Increasing numbers of convoys were being diverted away from waiting U-boats. In July, for example, not a single convoy was sighted by the Germans over a period of three weeks, and during July and August monthly sinkings went below 100,000 tons, the lowest for over a year.

It would have been fairly trivial for the Germans to have rendered Enigma unreadable, possibly for the duration of the war, by a number of means they had readily at hand and could have implemented with simple commands. The result would have been at best a much longer and bloodier war. The result could very easily have been either a stalemate, or even a loss by the Allies.

The position of the Allies, their ability to sustain their war effort and avoid Britain being starved into submission, was all dependent upon the people with knowledge of the Ultra program keeping the ability of the Allies to read the German codes a secret. The Allies were able to do that. It was a shock to the Germans when they found out 30 years later that the Allies had broken the Enigma codes. At times they had suspected, but they passed it off as unlikely, and did relatively little compared to what they could have done had they known.

Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party in its guerilla war struggle to take control of China, said, "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Adjusted for current conditions* we could say that, "The terrorist moves amongst the people as a submarine moves in the sea."

The Western world is at war with al Qaida and its allies. The terrorists swim among the populations like submarines at sea. What Snowden has done is equivalent to telling the Germans in 1941 that their submarine codes have been compromised. What will the consequences be? It will take years to see, but it seems quite likely that there will be much more of this:

its spread is a function of distance, population density and commercial exchanges.

Tor the most part, yes. The map I linked, however, says that Milan was relatively unaffected, as was Warsaw, or Brugues. Which were important cities (apart from warsaw, okay ^^)

But, alas, that wikipedia map is most certainly wrong in that those green areas were not unaffected, but only *relatively* less affected areas. Milan had its share of pest deaths, but not as bad as in other cities Also, east Germany and Poland actually *were* affected

Your statement isn't exactly accurate.

In WW2 there was a large rate of "no-fire" where a soldier in combat never fired a round. Weapons training then consisted of shooting at a stationary round target. Soldiers who were excellent shots were often very hesitant to shoot at an actual person. It is estimated the rate of soldiers not engaging the enemy was as high as 75%
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/c hapter2.aspx

Between WW2 and Korea the military switched the targets to human silouhettes. These new targets didn't improve anyone's aim - but they did acclimate the soldies to shooting at a more human like target. The end result was a much lower rate of "no-fire" during the Korean war. However, the rate was still too high. (50%)

After Korea the military moved to "pop-up" targets that would spring up from the ground - simulating movement by the enemy and giving a more "life-like" feel to the exercise of going to the Range. It is estimated that between 90-95% of all soldiers in combat fired at the enemy.

While there is no absolute correlation between these different types of targets there is a pretty obvious conclusion. Better training has led to more effective soldiers. Video games, which are often very realistic looking, still lack the kick, smell, and feel of being on the range firing a rifle.

I don't believe Video Games have had that much impact on the willingness of soldiers to shoot. We didn't have DOOM in 1964.

The problem is a bit deeper though. It seems many soldiers might "posture" or just fire in the direction of the enemy without a real intent to kill due to their natural repugnance towards killing another person.

Alot of studying is being done, and needs to be done, to understand it all. Playing a game though isn't desensitizing anyone, at least it isn't proven to, though, perhaps, as games get more and more realistic they will (particulary if the physical effects of the field of combat can be simulated as well).

Unfortunately, I can't find the research article I read that detailed the correlation between target shapes and soldier efficacy. So you'll have to take my post with a grain of salt since I can't provide the supporting documentation. My Apologies.

Hell lets throw out all that modern technology and go back to the "good old days" like during the Civil War, where over 50,000 died in one three day battle (thats around twice the total number of deaths in the entire Iraq war). I mean because of the horrors of war back then, people were so peaceful and never engaged in violence to settle a dispute.

If you are referring to Gettysburg, which was a three day battle and easily the largest engagement of the War, your number of "over 50,000 died" is a bit high. There were under 50,000 total casualties, which includes deaths (of which there were between 5000 - 7000), woundings, and missing (usually meaning captured).

I do agree with your point that the type of fighting waged during the Civil War was so absolutely horrible that it gave people pause before fighting it. This was by design -- for example, Sherman's stated purpose when when marched from Atlanta to Savannah and then north through the Carolinas with his three corps, essentially destroying everything in his path, was to break civilians' will to fight and support the Confederacy: "We cannot change the hearts of those people, but we can make war so terrible...[and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it."

If such a strategy unquestionably worked and helped The Good Blue States defeat The Evil Red States, why isn't it being considered as an option in Iraq? Armies are great at killing people and blowing stuff up but they make lousy police forces and negotiators.

Ironically, reading NUTS caused me to be rendered unconscious, thus decreasing our national security just a little bit more.

What's next, a slow moving propeller driven spy plane taking down a faster, more maneuverable fighter jet ?

What happens when such "accidents" occur just while some hostile nation is amassing large amounts of troops and tanks on neighbor's border ?

Using the 'an accident might happen' line of reasoning, wouldn't the U.S. also then be compelled to disclose the locations of submarines, ships, armored vehicles and planes so they also don't collide with commercial vessels ?

Other nations hate it, but then they're inclined to hold disdain for any super power. It's the nature of power politics and warfare to be suspicious of the guy with the big gun. It's their purgative to try and get the information, just at it is the U.S.'s to say NUTS.