Slashdot Mirror
E-Bombs: Technology Update
vaderhelmet writes "'In these media-fueled times, when war is a television spectacle and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon, the perfect weapon would literally stop an enemy in his tracks, yet harm neither hide nor hair. Such a weapon might shut down telecommunications networks, disrupt power supplies, and fry an adversary's countless computers and electronic gadgets, yet still leave buildings, bridges, and highways intact. It would strike with precision, in an instant, and leave behind no trace of where it came from.' (Story from IEEE Spectrum Online)"
It would also strike all hospitals, causing loss of life. Which is particularly bad, because the Geneva convention forbids attacks against medical facilities, which shall be marked with a red cross, and the e-Bomb *would* attack such.
(8-DCS)
It's actually a pretty useless weapon in the current war or terror really. As you say, it doesn't work on AK-47s and RPG-7s. The biggest problem with such a weapon existing is that the best target to use it against would be our selves, hence you then have the added danger of fabrication becoming common knowledge. But...
Could you use a directional version of it to disable bomb circuitry? Ok, actually that's a bad idea, cos the bomb would probably go off, but I'm pretty sure if you could design something with a directional capability - kinda like a big overpowered microwave, it'd make a great anti-missile system for commercial jets.
And in these times when men are willing to sacrifice their lives by crashing planes and strapping bombs to themselves, that EMP won't do you much good. How does an EMP stop the guy in a heavily populated area from emptying an M16 into a crowd, or blowing up a U-Haul full of kerosene and fertilizer? So long as people are dedicated to their cause, they will fight, with or without their Palm Pilots. The Romans did.
do not read this line twice.
However, terrorists would rather use low-cost/high-bodycount methods, like hijacking a plane and flying it into a building; no cost to Al Queda (they just had to pay for training and carpet knives).
That's why the Bush method for fighting terrorismn is not working: cost America 100 + billion dollars, Al Queda nothing (in comparison)
Well...obviously one type of weapon is not proof against all types of attacks.
Consider Desert Storm. This mght have been good against the Iraqi tanks semi buried and used as fixed gun emplacements. And against Saddam's command and control facilities.
For the lone suicide bomber, you employ other tactics.
Where it wouldn't work is a place like Afganistan, where a local irregular knows how to use a camel and a kalashnikov. (Unless this device melts guns).
So, in summary, it seems like the perfect underdog weapon, where the underdog is not the US, but, say, Palestinians or Baathists. Terrorists could use it in the US, and we would be virtually defenseless, and it would render our expensive, high-tech army useless overseas.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I fail to see why the war is a failure because it cost money.
Well both Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein are still have not been captured or killed. The primary objectives of this war against terrorism.
Also, Al Queda *does* spend quite a bit of money too (remember the U.S. trying to freeze assets?). Arms dealers aren't working for free ya know.
Which is still nothing compared to what America is spending
And what I'm trying to say is, the way America is trying to fight this war is, like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear bomb. Maybe they should use there resources more effectively
Ok, since everyone else replying to this post doesn't seem to get it, I'll put it in terms /.ers can relate to...
Think of it as MS vs Open Source. The US military gets to be MS (more $$ than god, everywhere, and nearly all-powerful). And the "terrorists" get to be Open Source (devoted to some ideal, hard/impossible to discourage, and extremely decentralized).
Just as you can't kill Open Source because it's too decentralized and adaptive, you can't win Bush's "War on Terrorism". It's just not possible. The only way to stop it is to somehow come to terms with it.
Instead of trying to wipeout all these people, why not try to figure out why they see us as such a threat and such a hated enemy that hundreds of people each year are willing to violently kill themselves in an attemt to hurt us. Everyone here knows (or at least suspects) that the US has done many terrible things over the decades to many different people around the world in order to shape things to our liking. We can never win a war against terrorism, but we will destroy ourselves trying to, and you all know it.
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
You and many others have forgotten one of the fundamentals in life: Never get in a fight with someone who has less to lose than you.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Wow, 'The perfect weapon kills all of your enemies' reads like the logic of an 18-year-old. Since I turned 18, I've learned:
Injuries are preferred in combat: Kill an opposing combatant, and you take one enemy out of combat; wound him and you take out two or three people (to carry him, provide medical support, etc.). Plus, screaming comrades are a lot more demoralizing and distracting than dead ones.
Most combatants are not eager and hateful. They're conscripts or patriotic supporters of their government. When governments say the fighting should stop, they're happier alive than dead, and within decades most citizens can reconcile the deepest of rifts with former enemies, if their leadership doesn't continue to incite animosity.
In that vein, a man wounded in combat will reconcile, generally. His kids will, too. Kill him, and they'll never forget and are somewhat less likely to forgive.
Most importantly, your argument is hugely simplistic. Ignoring the lack of a pure litmus test that allows you tell the difference between friendlies and enemies, you can't kill *EVERYONE*. There's always a compassionate bystander. Kill a man, his family resents you. Kill a town, and you piss off a lot of friends and relatives. Kill all Iraqis and you just piss off all of the other arab nations. Kill off all the arabs, and muslims worldwide will hold a deep grudge. Once the damage exceeds the personal level, the circle of influence grows.
Sorry for the ad-homenim about you sounding like an 18-yr-old, but you got rated as insightful. Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to conventional doctrine a rational terrorists group will avoid killing large numbers of civilian bystanders in order to avoid aleanating the community from which they draw their support (and funding).
You are confusing Terrorist with Guerilla. A terrorist by definition is doing things to cause a general sense of "terror" in his enemies civillian population. This is best achieved if the targets are essentially random so every member of the population is at potential risk and if the attacks are as horrific as possible. So a bomb in a crowded pizza parlor is an act of terrorism while a sniper targetting a soldier is an act of guerrilla warfare. Either act is a matter of tactics so any particular group can be engaged in both kinds of activities.
Obviously as in the case of the IRA bombing in the City of London a single terrorist act can have multiple advantages. It WAS a terrorist attack in that it killed a number of people that belong to the "opinion class" and thus invokes terror throughout that class. It also did financial damage to a much wider group so they felt it have an impact on their lives personally. The whole point of their terrorism was to demoralize the enemy population so that they would conclude that Northern Ireland was not worth the cost of having to live in fear. A technological attack that did even more economic damage may have been effective but part of what the terrorist wants is the graphic scenes on TV of bleeding civillians running from the blast and the sight of all that damage (the City of London bombing was dramatic). Being TOLD about a bunch of computers being disrupted doesn't move public opinion the way that the random and horrific deaths of large numbers of people *just like you* does.
I would like to note that my freedoms do not come from force of strength, but from rule of law
Bullshit. It is the force of strength that makes rule of law work. Next time you think there is no force of strength behind rule of law, try punching a judge.
Laws only work because we can use physical force to punish anyone who violates them. As a society of mostly civilized people we tend not to have to do so, but only because we are well trained. Its easier and more profitable to fine someone for a voilation, but but in the end, if someone absolutely refuses to submit to more civil means, we will physically drag their ass into a cage and lock them up there until we thing they'll play nice.
It might make the general population of "liberated" countries like Iraq, even more hostile if you blow up their computers and Internet connections! Nothing worse than a horde of angry Iraqi children denied their Quake time.
Are you trying to be funny here?
Iraqis are pissed off because they had, for almost a month after their "liberation", no *FOOD* to put on their tables, no *WATER* to drink, no *MEDICINE* to use...
Even now, *GAS* and *WATER* electricity supplies remain sloppy.
Nobody gives a fuck about the internet.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!