Slashdot Mirror
The Soldier is the Network
Roland Piquepaille writes "This article from InfoWorld says that "in the battle of the future, the helmet becomes a data retrieval device." It describes a scenario where soldiers are equipped with sensors and other networking equipment. "Each person is a network with routing capability to everyone else," says Peter Marcotullio, director of development at SRI International. This technology should be available in five years for the military, which probably means that we'll become networks ourselves ten years from now. Check this column for a summary. Please note that this article is part of a special report called "From the battlefield to the enterprise" which looks at why some key technologies -- deployed on a massive scale in Afghanistan and Iraq -- may hold promise for corporate IT."
Can someone explain how this differs from mesh networking?
I can think of some other technologies that I would have liked to have available at work, some days.
Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time? A booklet I have (from my wireless router) states that "The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted safety standard for human exposure to RF energy emitted: 1) Do not touch or move antennas while unit is transmitting or receiving."
...each platoon has a cracker or a few, who is able to jam the opponent's displays temporarily, hack into older models to confuse the enemy's friend-or-foe identification, protect his own people from such attacks, snoop on enemy data transfers, fry their heads or change the intelligent helmet into guided missile attractor beacon...
Future? Maybe not, but certainly a good idea for a computer game.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
On the other hand, imagine if a script kiddie got hold of a soldier's IP and began DDOSing him, and making him unable to report back, or sending him bogus information that could kill him.
Okay. First off, i cannot imagine that this would be on the public internet at all. That would be stupid. I'm guessing that the soldier 'network', such as it is, will by and large be limited to the geographic area where the soldiers are. I doubt they'd have public access, though whoever is commander of the block or whatever probably has a private uplink.
A "script kiddie", if you really want to use those words (how about "enemy combatant"?), would somehow have to get into the local network of soldiers, which would mean being there physically. Since i'd imagine this network is using wireless of some sort (well, i mean unless all the soldiers helmets drag ethernet cables), this means that the script kiddy in question would be broadcasting. IP addresses can be forged, but broadcast signals can be traced to their source. If someone is interfering with their network of soldiers, the military can and *will* simply locate and drop bombs on this person, as they are 1) in a war zone 2) attempting to sabotage military defense lines.
I'd imagine that inputting false information, rather than just DOSing, would require the keys to whatever cryptography the military is using. The U.S. military probably has the best cryptography in the world, and if you can get hold of the u.s. military's cryptographic methods and keys, you sure as hell are NOT going to do anything as blatant with this knowledge as interfere with small-time military skirmishes; that would alert the u.s. military that you've broken their code, which would be bad. Rather, you are going to sit there and quietly soak up all the information you can while those keys are still valid.
However, from a military standpoint, attempting to take individual soldiers and hijack their helmets, or something, and pump back false information, would be a very good idea, and much easier. Likewise, i would suspect the chinese military will soon be developing as many ways as possible to jam local wireless networks.
-- super ugly ultraman
Yup, DDoSing, hacking, EMP blasting, or just staticing it all to hell.
"Walking internet cafes with laser blasters brought down by ragtag group with sticks and stones, and a freak electrical storm"
*honk*
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet -- and at a whole lot lower cost than the helmet itself?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've read that Ghandi actually criticized the Jews of Nazi Germany for remaining (relatively) silent for so long. As I recall, he said something to the effect that if they'd held a peaceful protest, and forced the Nazis to kill a lot of them, then the public outcry would've been sufficient to prevent later atrocities.
What is being proposed has been tried before.
The Royal Navy led the world in the mid-19th century in adopting steam propulsion, with ships proceeding in formation at constant speed, with evolutions being carried out as per flag signals from the flagship. Signal books became more complicated; signalling became a job for the brightest and best, among both officers and seamen. New signalling mechanisms such as Morse code over wireless, or Morse over signal lamp, were adopted with alacrity. People sent signals because they could, and having sent signals to the commander, whose orders they were supposed to follow, they expected replies.
Consequently, after a couple of decades of this, the Royal Navy couldn't fight worth shit.
There are two anecdotes involving Nelson and signalling -- the "blind eye" at Copenhagen, and the "England expects" before Trafalgar. These weren't tactical signals. These were Nelson having a laugh. Nelson had no truck with centralised command and this signalling malarkey; he trained his commanders as he was trained, to understand their job and to get on with it as they saw fit. Nelson and his like put the fear of God (or rather, the fear of the Royal Navy) so thoroughly that it lasted a century.
This "the soldier is the network" business means that a soldier is going to get flooded with urgent requests for tax records at a moment when he might expect to be being given information about at which window to point his grenade launcher. But then, that information would probably be coming from a major in a bunker in the Pentagon who's never handled a grenade launcher, and whose orders are going to be at best meaningless and at worst horribly counterproductive.
Maybe the DoD should consult at the militaries of other nations, that have efficient armed forces and smaller budgets, and see what'd spend the money on, given the choice. Wouldn't be this. But it might be a smaller, lighter, more reliable, more powerful, strongly-encrypted radio comms system with extensions for a whiteboard mode.
Well, that's military doctrine. Police doctrine varies by department but generally involves hitting your target, so the rounds don't go downrange and hit innocent bystanders. In the event of a well-prepared and determined group of bad guys, the police way is to send in sufficiently overwhelming force so you don't have to use military tactics to win. "Covering fire" in a law-enforcement scenario would be grossly irresponsible, imho, if you're not way out in the middle of nowhere. (Not saying it never happens.)
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see scenes from 'Spaceballs'...
Is it just me being paranoid, or does the "soldier of the future" in this picture look like an Imperial stormtrooper?
What's next, Dick Cheney on a respirator with a black helmet?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Radio-equipped soldiers are given special tactical status because of the ease with which any useful spectrum of radio waves can be triangulated. The equipment to do so has come down from a few thousand and a truck to a few dozen dollars and a half-pound gadget the size of a sandwitch.
And now someone wants to put an always-on packet transponder on each soldier?!? Why not put them in flourecent pink instead of camo and put "mortar me" signs with bulls-eyes on top of each tent?
Spread spectrum and encryption will keep you from being jammed, overheard, spoofed, etc., but only radio silence can keep you from being spotted. Laugh all you want, just keep your fucking toys away from my troops.
Reread the reports from early in the war. The military had trouble buying satellite access because the media and telecom companies had already bought it due to the increasing crisis.
They don't have a bandwidth problem
The limiting factor to the number of Predators that can be airborne at once is not available drones, but bandwidth contention.
Gee, do you think they should encrypt the network? Gee can it be monitored? The fact you even thought of this should tell you the military has thought of it as well.
Yes, it sounds obvious and logical. But yet, the military only noticed this after UK satellite-dish hobbyists started recording unencrypted Predator feeds from the Middle East.
If they EMP you, it won't be a big area.
EMPs have been known to have a diamter greater than 2000 miles. Refer to Test Shot Starfish for background. Creating an EMP that is controlled (directional) and yet still powerful is actually more technologically challenging than firing a large one.
Umm, a small tactical nuke will kill them. Lack of communication at that point is moot. See above comment.
A nuke explosion at a high altitude is the easiest way to create a widespread EMP blast. Electronics will be damaged at a distance 100s of times greater than the human-lethal blast range.
There are obvious reasons why a nation with atomic weapons might be more willing to employ them for EMP against equipment, rather than targeting troops on the ground.
Russia still maintains a capability to fire a large nuke into the upper atmosphere, which would blackout London and Berlin in a single shot. The US State Department claims that North Korea has a system with similar power.