This is nothing new for the telecommunications industry in this Country.
Those in the US who enjoy unlimited local calls?
We dont, we pay for each one.
Those who enjoy ADSL?
Telstra here are testing it to the point of stupidity, we will be lucky to see it before 2001. And even then, only in sydney.
Those who enjoy cable in the US?
Only one, perhaps two cities(Sydney, perhaps melbourne) in all of Australia even have cable. So most of us dont even have it.
Australia is an internet Dinosaur in regards to integration of emerging technology and services for internet access, and Telstra charge ridiculous fees to users and ISP's alike. To the point where it is rare to find a decent unlimited data dialup connection.
Until we get some large well funded competition in this country(at&t, bell, MCI, sprint etc), and can loosen telstra's strangle hold on the larger internet fibre pipes and services here, we will still be that dinosaur, and will be poorer for it aswell.
On behalf of the Roach Overlords of the disinformation caste, I assure you that your probes will never become public knowledge to the general roach population, as they are not yet ready to accept the concept of intelligent life other then the supreme roach race.
We have to be careful, as one relic labeled 'Windows' nearly brought the destruction of our race.
However after carefully examining some of your technology, we wish to know of the secrets of the 8 track, the hoola hoop, and we wish further information about Grand Emporer Gates, the ruler of your planet for a period of time in the 21st century.
I never said heavy armor on Commercial 747's, i said transportation of some light armored units in commercial 747 cargo planes. Hell you could even pull IFF transponders from 747's fit them to military cargo planes if you want to.
I didnt say for the aircraft not to use IFF transponders, but to make full use of them, travelling along standard routes for air traffic. Hence its a surprise attack, not a surprise suicide.
Second, transporting armor in a car carrier is not going to be sunk if as far as everyone knows it has a legitimate manifest and is due to dock legally.
Yes the US would know that China would be massing vehicles at ports and airports by satellite data, but how many times has China had excercises near taiwan? Quite often. Especially involving army/navy amphibious deployments. Satellites are great for taking photos, but they dont tell you what the enemy intends or thinks 90% of the time.
Lastly, read the previous postings, and get the drift that i have all along said this is highly unlikely, highly difficult, that the plan has operational holes in it as all plans do, that its only a broad hypothetical concept.
I dont believe you have read the document and all the related posts that have added to the entire plan thoroughly. I have said a couple of times, the addition of a chemical or biological or nuclear element into the mix, would make events quite different, also added a diversionary force from a bordering country adding pressure as ive mentioned twice also. So feel free to read the threads fully, instead of getting the gist, grunting, and clicking reply.
If you believe the US has absolutely no vulnerabilities at all on any border, I would politely suggest, you are deluded.
If you can think of a better operational concept, post it here, and then maybe we can pick holes in your plan.
Im not sure its easy to compare the 117 with those two aircraft, as both of those are multi-role combat aircraft, while the 117 is primarily a bomber. It is obvious though that those aircraft would have been in more dangerous situations, but mostly because they are rather easily detected by standard SAM sites, and air to air threats(even with ECM pods), thus they would attract more enemy attention. However, I would say that the 117 missions over baghdad, given the amount of flak that went up during those missions, amazes me that not one of the aircraft was shot down, even by chance, disregarding the technology. I agree though that we are at a point where the aircraft is worth more then the pilot, I wonder if we will reach a point one day where the pilot is considered ballast and redundant.
Here is a reply to some of the threads below, didnt think the post would generate such interest but here goes, ill try and answer some of your criticisms.
Firstly, the above plan isnt THE plan for total victory over the US. It is an invasion plan. Invasion meaning, 'your troops set foot on enemy soil', not 'you accept the presidents surrender and youre home in time for tea.' Such campaigns dont exist, and never will.
A war is a set of campaigns, an invasion is just one campaign of a war. So set that straight now.
An invasion that could possibly happen, but obviously not from China, as i said in my earlier post, china's armed forces are very limited in what they can do, the above was hypothetical, but marginally possible. If the planets are aligned and the wind is blowing just right.
The strategy does have some holes, no strategy is without them, or wars would last only hours. The best strategy is one that has the fewest holes, and assumes the least about the enemy, and most often the simplest and quickest to execute. Also remember, few plans survive the first shot.
Now i have assumed a few things about the enemy, hitting upon the night of a holiday or weekend, when many US personell are away, getting laid, on shore leave, or getting drunk in the O club. I am assuming he wont be prepared, wont have defensive assets in place, and will be on a low level of alert.
This is the crux of the surprise attack, if the enemy were prepared, we would attack a different way eh? or not attack at all.
Now response WILL be slow, for one good reason. How many US invasions have you had? Would you recognize one? Would you quickly be on the phone to the local base commander telling him so? Chances are not. And if you were, he probably wouldnt talk to you, cause he is a busy man, and will wait for word from official channels ie the cops.
So things are chaotic for awhile. Alot of people are running around, some with guns, some in uniform. The base commander is waiting for field intelligence, if he is awake at all. Eventually the local cops will realise they are against a too well organized enemy, and will call in support from the National Guard, or a Regular Army Base. They arent home though are they? they are out or away on liberty. So it takes time to assemble troops. In that time, a well organised enemy is already knocking down your gates, and troops are fanning across your perimeters ready to turn people into lunch meat.
Dont overestimate your own response time to an emergency that has never taken place before in recent memory on US soil, atleast not with ground troops.
As to a retalitory nuclear strike from the US so quickly, id be doubtful of that. FOr various reasons some mentioned by others of the force for force policies of some politicians, it usually depends on the thoughts of the man at the desk at the time. You would have atleast 24 hours before a response would become official from the US regarding a nuclear strike. Information doesnt flow that fast(alot of desk drivers between grunt and president), and neither do tough decisions.
Also it is hard to block access to armor units, as they are all terrain vehicles plus a bit more. Road blocked? go through a building then through a few hundred backyards. Once the armor is out in the open, even better luck blocking access, tanks were built for ploughing over barbed wire at 40mph.
Now someone mentioned that superpowers who try to exert pressure from afar usually failed, which is why i mentioned perhaps an allie in south america, or cuba, who could exert diversionary force on another front. Allied missions from afar do sometimes work well, World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, GulfWar, Bosnia, Kosovo. These are all examples where the US has been successfull in influencing an area through alliegences and munitions. And korea did require a huge movement of troops over the ocean, from the US to korea.
Now the NRA are an element, but unless you have anti tank weapons, you will have difficulties stopping APC's and medium armor once they emerge from the airport. Not even the US is THAT liberal with weapons:) I work with a few people who wish it were otherwise.
Now Goosekirk had some good criticism's about our 'lil' invasion, and they are noted. You are right, SAC would sure as hell notice the cargo planes, and thats an element that would require some thinking on, perhaps use commercial 747 cargo planes to deliver the vehicles. This would strike out private airfields, cargo planes can stop relatively quickly on a private field, 747's are another matter.
Now as to re-routing traffic, that could be accomplished one way, send troops before hand unarmed, and send your weapons along with your first wave, arming your already present troops. This enables your troops to arrive over say a 12 hour period on a miriad of different flights, with various stop overs in different countries perhaps.
As to why using air landings at all, why not use everything at hand? The whole idea is to invade an enemy at as many points of entry as possible. Even if the air landed troops dont make it, they provide a great distraction for army groups until the heavy guns arrive.
Evading the US carriers as i said earlier would be almost impossible, but if the vehicles arrive on standard trade routes, using standard expected vehicles, you dont need to evade much at all.
Now as to Why China would invade? I dont think they will ever, or even think of it, if they were to invade anyone it would be siberia. I said i doubted they would invade in my previous post.
The concept behind the first post was to explain that an invasion could take place, not a total victory, that would require on the spot decisions regarding the actions of the US, and noone can say 100% exactly what the US would do in that situation.
Anyways I hope that answered some of criticisms out there, i expected them anyways, as the post wasnt written as a prophecy:) just a hypothetical
SO what if its detected? its irrelevant. What is important is when that radar detecting you is able to switch to fire control mode and guide a missle into your burners. Few fire control radars can lock onto a 117.
Operationally, stealth has done well compared to other aircraft. For example 117's never lost a plane over the Gulf. That in itself is a hell of an achievement in any war zone, especially given that random effect that bullets and flak tend to have on your life when you are over a war zone.
One stealth went down over Kosovo, which is a loss, but hardly a huge tragedy or blow to the stealth program. And this 117 was only shot down when its bomb bays were opened, giving a slight radar signature that was locked onto.
Another stealth fell from the sky without being shot at, which is bad, but nothing compared to some of the incidents regarding russian made aircraft, or even some aircraft such as the f-16a, or the f/a 18, which had some major teething troubles, resulting in deaths.
regardless if a radar can detect you, someone still has to shoot you down, and standard fire control radars in migs cant do it, no standard fire control radars on russian designed sams can do it.
I havent read or heard anything saying this PCL system has fire control capabilities, thus is only a pain in the ass, and not a show stopper. Best they can do is direct planes that cant easily lock onto you in your direction. And most pilots know how to deal with that. Hit the turf on full burner and get the hell out of the way.
Sure you could slip in plenty of nationals, but you risk the one true killer of campaigns.
Operational Security.
The more people you involve on the covert side of the operation, the larger your chances of being discovered too early.
Things happen, say one of your nationals gets arrested for something, perhaps he gets into a fight. He talks, or he inadvertantly lets something go in interrorgation. Or even worse, one of the men defects to the US while in country, or even worse, is a double agent.
Kinda gets more complicated the more people you involve. A better option would be to recruit chinese americans, like the Germans did in world war one, recruiting german americans, to sabotage factories, rail roads, munitions and docks in both the US and Canada.
A multicultural country such as the US, or in my case Australia, often has many enemies, some of which, live inside of it.
A 'home grown' guerilla war would be much more effective, as your troops already know the land, they know the lingo, they know the real targets from the imagined and best of all, they can dissappear back into the crowd.
Up to true hostilities these people could be used in a terrorism campaign. Drawing resources from the US into internal security concerns instead of external, allowing your forces to perhaps draw near enough to strike.
An invasion could be undertaken on the US. It would have problems though.
First you send in infiltrators, who set up airstrips in remote locations, and purchase ammunition. They purchase vehicles and fuel. You then take about two dozen chartered commercial jet airlines, you load them with troops and land them at US airports all friendly like, most likely the east coast. It doesnt take long for 500 or so armed troops to capture an airport, and then fortify their position quickly. The 747's can carry anti-tank/heavy weaponary, and plenty of ammunition. No food, cause that isnt neccessary. These troops are the first wave and will only be the front line for a short period. 10-20 minutes behind these 747's, are standard long range cargo planes, carrying light armor vehicles and more troops, these land at the commercial airports and at the private airstrips you have set up.
Your troops take the LAU's and go like hell towards your assigned targets. Airbases, Army Bases, Naval Bases, Police Stations, Gun Stores. The trick is to move fast and capture quickly. A night attack on a weekend would be best, as you would capture quite afew bases relatively lightly manned and vulnerable, you might even bring pilots/tankers/sailors with you to take the captured vechiles and add to the chaos. You continue to bring in troops from china by air and land them at your secured areas.
At this stage it gets sticky. Your main mode of transport of large armor and troops is by sea. Getting by SOSUS is quite hard, and you have to deal with naval assests in the pacific. Hopefully you would attack at a time when a carrier isnt present close by in the pacific. You have to get your tanks in, so one way would be by using normal car carriers, who are on scheduled runs to make landfall on the same day as your attack to deliver vehicles. If you were serious about your plan, you might even nuke pearl/guam in the first 24 hours of your attack, to make it easier to move more heavy units from china to the US. This would also allow you to move a chinese carrier closer to the US to provide air support for the grunts and eventually transferring all aircraft to captured US runways.
You have to link up your heavy armor, light armor and infantry to push inland, obviously after securing your captured cities. You then utilise these cities, and the railroads to supply food and munitions to your front lines as they spread inland. Time elapsed is about 48-72 hours, more then enough time for the US army to mobilise and to present a good front line, possibly near the rockies.
Attack of the US is not an easy task, and requires exquisite timing of delivery of assets. It requires china to send troops a huge distance, and to get past pearl with ships. It would obviously be easier to attack with an allie close by, say from cuba or south america, to attack other borders at the same time. This draws units away from your main assault.
Now this is a possible scenario, if, china had the logistical assets to do this. The Chinese army is much like the soviet army used to be. A large club to bludgeon your opponent to death with numbers, aslong as he is relatively close. China has never had to move huge amounts of troops over an entire ocean to attack an enemy so far from home. It isnt easy logistically. But possible. To make it more interesting, an enemy may even release chemical/biological weapons before he attacks. He may poison water supplies. He may release anthrax or similar diseases. He may sabotage power stations, he may cause an increase in terrorism before hand.
There are alot of things in warfares bag-o-dirty tricks.
As for disabling the US nuclear counter attack, that is a tough nut to crack, and would require unconventional techniques im sure. For example purchasing properties near known ICBM silos, buying a few hundred stingers and praying you can cripple a few missles before they hit your country. Perhaps small backpack nukes could be used to crack the silos at close range, but thats debatable, as those silos are hardened and quite well built. Maybe wait till they open up to launch? Who knows.
Naval nukes are even harder to disable apart from an intense naval campaign by your forces to kill the subs, even then, they can launch from almost anywhere, and damn but their quiet.
Carrier based nukes are also a concern. It is unlikely you would attack the US without first developing a good ABM defence.
So in answer to your comment 'It would be exceedingly difficult to come anywhere near the US shore with any kind of sizable force.' True, but not impossible. Give war a chance!:)
I think, given the gist of the thread we are on, that we have somehow justified the existance of the NSA. We can't even agree on ONE true threat to National Security in the US(Apart from Thermonuclear weapons)
If the issue can be so convoluted for a group of educated, well adjusted(my friends call me moon unit), and according to us, well informed people, imagine the job the NSA or the CIA has?
Instead of one large menacing enemy, such as the Soviet Union to concentrate on, we have 10,000 smaller but equally threatening enemies. NSA have to account for them all, cause if they dont, im sure the media, and us the public, will rip them limb from limb cause someone got through the net....again...
so what do we want? We want an NSA with carte blanch to operate and take out all the 'bad guys' John Wayne style, but we dont want them to have any power to do so or the ability to use technology to track them...
damn i already got a headache....
There is a balance out there im sure, but as usual, not one that will keep everyone happy.
Technology and the Net is our playground, and we tend to like keeping it free from cops, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, NCA, ASIO, DGSE, KGB, GRU, ONI, ATF, and ELMO,(I hate that muppet), we dont want censorship, we dont want governments trying to regulate our Internet Usage, and hoooray for us, damn straight....so what do we do about terrorism? We have to do something, cause us innocent bystanders are the targets, it wont be bill clinton, unless an all female jilted lover terrorist group emerges from akansas.
Once again there must be a balance, but im sure it will piss off greatly. The price we will pay for peace, is eternal aggrivation, and most likely, lack of privacy:)
North Korea is a large threat because of their alliegances.
If some of the older slash dotters around here might cast their minds back[might require some straining], we may remember exactly who the UN were fighting in the Korean War. Mostly it wasnt the North Koreans, but the Peoples Republic of China, who entered the war when McArthur proceeded to invade North Korean Territory after successfully capturing and securing South Korea.
Are they a big enough threat to national security for you?
People may comment, 'but china and the US are major economic partners etc etc etc. They wouldnt threaten their own economic situation just for North Korea'.
China will support and very likely defend North Korea if a war broke out. Because North Korea provide a convenient military buffer between themselves and South Korea. Keep in mind that China is still a communist country, and would not be adverse to sacrificing their economic goals, to bolster their internal and external political/strategic goals. We should not try and project our capitalist views on another country, especially as many have mis-judged them quite badly in the past.
They do have the weapons, the manpower and the ability to wage effective war when they see fit. Those who doubt this should perhaps remember that china does have a long and proud military history.
So dont ever underestimate any countries ability to wage war. The smallest enemy, can become your deepest worry.
As to the question, 'is China a threat to National Security?', that is debatable, depending on US intelligence estimates and their related threat estimates of China's strategic Forces, but one would have to catagorize any nuclear capable enemy as a potential threat to ones national security.
Even if a their nuclear birds dont fly due to whatever, it isnt hard to sneak a low yeild nuclear weapon into a country with vast borders, such as the US, slap it in a delivery truck and park it within a kilometer of the white house. Or perhaps in Pearl Harbour. Or close by any strategic target you might want to name in the US.
Dont get me wrong, the US has relatively good defenses, both military and civilian, but they are not omnipotent. Hence where a project like echelon comes in, to fill the some of the gap. It aint pretty, not even legal, but from the point of view of any Chief of Staff, or nuke weary politico, knowing where the enemy may be, or may strike, or his plans, are invaluable.
So debate among yourselves the merits of echelon and your national security agency, but dont doubt their are threats out there, domestic and foreign, there certainly are, and they will perhaps join us when slashdot has its first nerds revoloution, overthrows world governments, installs linux on everything including my TV remote control, and software, pizza and caffeine beverages are free for all.
Oh my god! Now it all makes perfect sense why NT runs like a dog! and IIS 4 just makes it worse!
Either that or those trained chimpanzes, err programmers, that write it are just too plain lazy to debug their code once in awhile....
Maybe SP6 doesnt stand for service pack 6, it stands for secret project 6! and its whole intent is to add new bugs until it pisses off admins to the point that we grab an axe and bury it in the head of the nearest person in the Server Room, thus slowly dumbing the world down to a controllable level....hey you never know.
-The government is bombarding us with paranoia waves! are you looking at me?
PS i wasnt being sarcastic about NT, it really DOES run like a dog!
The actions of the FBI in this case may have been illegal. I dont claim to be a legal expert in the US. The ACLU will sue the Government.
Will this get the author his web service back? Maybe, but i doubt it. Will it get him money in damages from a lawsuit? Perhaps. Will this stop the government from intimidating anyone ever again if they are found guilty? Hell no!
Just because something may be illegal, it doesnt make it impossible. Murder is illegal, but they happen every day. Some guns are illegal to own in some countries, but they exist. Some substances are illegal to import, but they are. Piracy is illegal, but i bet a few of you have one or two not quite paid for applications on your PC?
Time to stop pulling the pins on lawyers and throwing them at your enemy. They are costly, and in many cases incompetant in my experience.
In short, I believe alot of the internet community is used to living outside the laws and and boundaries of mere governments and countries.
If your website provider is a weany, get a new one.
If the laws in your country regarding your Providor are crap, get a server in another country.
You cant beat people who operate outside a law they claim to enforce. Your only option is to operate outside or around it aswell. Until you decide to do so, feel free to pay the lawyers as much as you can, i hear they like that.
Definately an interesting document, although unfortunately incomplete. I think this highlights an important part of our history, the granfather of electronic information warfare as we know it today. In WW2 the use and breaking of "unbreakable" codes were key to unit mobility and strategy, or to fending off such an advantage. Although not all Field Marshalls and Generals understood or adopted this as fact... The breaking of ENIGMA was a major part of the WW2 ground war, and the eventual breaking of the German Navy's code (The code name for which escapes me now)being a major part in hunting the U-Boat wolfpacks of the atlantic ocean. Each break when combined with inventions like sonar, radar and new military technology, such as destroyers armed with hedgehogs and depth charges, enabled the allies to avoid the heavy blow from the axis powers that each major strike was intended to be. It also enabled various Allied groups to start campaigns of disinformation before D-day, such as the creation of an entire mythical US Army located in the UK, spoon fed to the Germans, and then confirmed by intercepting german encrypted radio traffic. Today information warfare has many more facets and exploitations in the field, but the general goal never changes, know what the enemy is thinking, and if you cant, tell them what to think. So the real question is, what form will electronic warfare evolve into in say 100 years?
Slashdot Mirror
I dub thee Jub Jub
This is nothing new for the telecommunications industry in this Country.
Those in the US who enjoy unlimited local calls?
We dont, we pay for each one.
Those who enjoy ADSL?
Telstra here are testing it to the point of stupidity, we will be lucky to see it before 2001. And even then, only in sydney.
Those who enjoy cable in the US?
Only one, perhaps two cities(Sydney, perhaps melbourne) in all of Australia even have cable. So most of us dont even have it.
Australia is an internet Dinosaur in regards to integration of emerging technology and services for internet access, and Telstra charge ridiculous fees to users and ISP's alike. To the point where it is rare to find a decent unlimited data dialup connection.
Until we get some large well funded competition in this country(at&t, bell, MCI, sprint etc), and can loosen telstra's strangle hold on the larger internet fibre pipes and services here, we will still be that dinosaur, and will be poorer for it aswell.
On behalf of the Roach Overlords of the disinformation caste, I assure you that your probes will never become public knowledge to the general roach population, as they are not yet ready to accept the concept of intelligent life other then the supreme roach race.
We have to be careful, as one relic labeled 'Windows' nearly brought the destruction of our race.
However after carefully examining some of your technology, we wish to know of the secrets of the 8 track, the hoola hoop, and we wish further information about Grand Emporer Gates, the ruler of your planet for a period of time in the 21st century.
I never said heavy armor on Commercial 747's, i said transportation of some light armored units in commercial 747 cargo planes. Hell you could even pull IFF transponders from 747's fit them to military cargo planes if you want to.
I didnt say for the aircraft not to use IFF transponders, but to make full use of them, travelling along standard routes for air traffic.
Hence its a surprise attack, not a surprise suicide.
Second, transporting armor in a car carrier is not going to be sunk if as far as everyone knows it has a legitimate manifest and is due to dock legally.
Yes the US would know that China would be massing vehicles at ports and airports by satellite data, but how many times has China had excercises near taiwan? Quite often. Especially involving army/navy amphibious deployments. Satellites are great for taking photos, but they dont tell you what the enemy intends or thinks 90% of the time.
Lastly, read the previous postings, and get the drift that i have all along said this is highly unlikely, highly difficult, that the plan has operational holes in it as all plans do, that its only a broad hypothetical concept.
I dont believe you have read the document and all the related posts that have added to the entire plan thoroughly. I have said a couple of times, the addition of a chemical or biological or nuclear element into the mix, would make events quite different, also added a diversionary force from a bordering country adding pressure as ive mentioned twice also.
So feel free to read the threads fully, instead of getting the gist, grunting, and clicking reply.
If you believe the US has absolutely no vulnerabilities at all on any border, I would politely suggest, you are deluded.
If you can think of a better operational concept, post it here, and then maybe we can pick holes in your plan.
Im not sure its easy to compare the 117 with those two aircraft, as both of those are multi-role combat aircraft, while the 117 is primarily a bomber. It is obvious though that those aircraft would have been in more dangerous situations, but mostly because they are rather easily detected by standard SAM sites, and air to air threats(even with ECM pods), thus they would attract more enemy attention. However, I would say that the 117 missions over baghdad, given the amount of flak that went up during those missions, amazes me that not one of the aircraft was shot down, even by chance, disregarding the technology. I agree though that we are at a point where the aircraft is worth more then the pilot, I wonder if we will reach a point one day where the pilot is considered ballast and redundant.
Here is a reply to some of the threads below, didnt think the post would generate such interest but here goes, ill try and answer some of your criticisms.
Firstly, the above plan isnt THE plan for total victory over the US. It is an invasion plan.
Invasion meaning, 'your troops set foot on enemy soil', not 'you accept the presidents surrender and youre home in time for tea.' Such campaigns dont exist, and never will.
A war is a set of campaigns, an invasion is just one campaign of a war. So set that straight now.
An invasion that could possibly happen, but obviously not from China, as i said in my earlier post, china's armed forces are very limited in what they can do, the above was hypothetical, but marginally possible. If the planets are aligned and the wind is blowing just right.
The strategy does have some holes, no strategy is without them, or wars would last only hours. The best strategy is one that has the fewest holes, and assumes the least about the enemy, and most often the simplest and quickest to execute.
Also remember, few plans survive the first shot.
Now i have assumed a few things about the enemy, hitting upon the night of a holiday or weekend, when many US personell are away, getting laid, on shore leave, or getting drunk in the O club. I am assuming he wont be prepared, wont have defensive assets in place, and will be on a low level of alert.
This is the crux of the surprise attack, if the enemy were prepared, we would attack a different way eh? or not attack at all.
Now response WILL be slow, for one good reason.
How many US invasions have you had? Would you recognize one? Would you quickly be on the phone to the local base commander telling him so? Chances are not. And if you were, he probably wouldnt talk to you, cause he is a busy man, and will wait for word from official channels ie the cops.
So things are chaotic for awhile. Alot of people are running around, some with guns, some in uniform. The base commander is waiting for field intelligence, if he is awake at all. Eventually the local cops will realise they are against a too well organized enemy, and will call in support from the National Guard, or a Regular Army Base. They arent home though are they? they are out or away on liberty. So it takes time to assemble troops. In that time, a well organised enemy is already knocking down your gates, and troops are fanning across your perimeters ready to turn people into lunch meat.
Dont overestimate your own response time to an emergency that has never taken place before in recent memory on US soil, atleast not with ground troops.
As to a retalitory nuclear strike from the US so quickly, id be doubtful of that. FOr various reasons some mentioned by others of the force for force policies of some politicians, it usually depends on the thoughts of the man at the desk at the time. You would have atleast 24 hours before a response would become official from the US regarding a nuclear strike. Information doesnt flow that fast(alot of desk drivers between grunt and president), and neither do tough decisions.
Also it is hard to block access to armor units, as they are all terrain vehicles plus a bit more. Road blocked? go through a building then through a few hundred backyards. Once the armor is out in the open, even better luck blocking access, tanks were built for ploughing over barbed wire at 40mph.
Now someone mentioned that superpowers who try to exert pressure from afar usually failed, which is why i mentioned perhaps an allie in south america, or cuba, who could exert diversionary force on another front. Allied missions from afar do sometimes work well, World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, GulfWar, Bosnia, Kosovo. These are all examples where the US has been successfull in influencing an area through alliegences and munitions. And korea did require a huge movement of troops over the ocean, from the US to korea.
Now the NRA are an element, but unless you have anti tank weapons, you will have difficulties stopping APC's and medium armor once they emerge from the airport. Not even the US is THAT liberal with weapons:) I work with a few people who wish it were otherwise.
Now Goosekirk had some good criticism's about our 'lil' invasion, and they are noted. You are right, SAC would sure as hell notice the cargo planes, and thats an element that would require some thinking on, perhaps use commercial 747 cargo planes to deliver the vehicles. This would strike out private airfields, cargo planes can stop relatively quickly on a private field, 747's are another matter.
Now as to re-routing traffic, that could be accomplished one way, send troops before hand unarmed, and send your weapons along with your first wave, arming your already present troops.
This enables your troops to arrive over say a 12 hour period on a miriad of different flights, with various stop overs in different countries perhaps.
As to why using air landings at all, why not use everything at hand? The whole idea is to invade an enemy at as many points of entry as possible. Even if the air landed troops dont make it, they provide a great distraction for army groups until the heavy guns arrive.
Evading the US carriers as i said earlier would be almost impossible, but if the vehicles arrive on standard trade routes, using standard expected vehicles, you dont need to evade much at all.
Now as to Why China would invade? I dont think they will ever, or even think of it, if they were to invade anyone it would be siberia. I said i doubted they would invade in my previous post.
The concept behind the first post was to explain that an invasion could take place, not a total victory, that would require on the spot decisions regarding the actions of the US, and noone can say 100% exactly what the US would do in that situation.
Anyways I hope that answered some of criticisms out there, i expected them anyways, as the post wasnt written as a prophecy:) just a hypothetical
SO what if its detected? its irrelevant.
What is important is when that radar detecting you is able to switch to fire control mode and guide a missle into your burners. Few fire control radars can lock onto a 117.
Operationally, stealth has done well compared to other aircraft. For example 117's never lost a plane over the Gulf. That in itself is a hell of an achievement in any war zone, especially given that random effect that bullets and flak tend to have on your life when you are over a war zone.
One stealth went down over Kosovo, which is a loss, but hardly a huge tragedy or blow to the stealth program. And this 117 was only shot down when its bomb bays were opened, giving a slight radar signature that was locked onto.
Another stealth fell from the sky without being shot at, which is bad, but nothing compared to some of the incidents regarding russian made aircraft, or even some aircraft such as the f-16a, or the f/a 18, which had some major teething troubles, resulting in deaths.
regardless if a radar can detect you, someone still has to shoot you down, and standard fire control radars in migs cant do it, no standard fire control radars on russian designed sams can do it.
I havent read or heard anything saying this PCL system has fire control capabilities, thus is only a pain in the ass, and not a show stopper.
Best they can do is direct planes that cant easily lock onto you in your direction. And most pilots know how to deal with that. Hit the turf on full burner and get the hell out of the way.
Sure you could slip in plenty of nationals, but you risk the one true killer of campaigns.
Operational Security.
The more people you involve on the covert side of the operation, the larger your chances of being discovered too early.
Things happen, say one of your nationals gets arrested for something, perhaps he gets into a fight. He talks, or he inadvertantly lets something go in interrorgation. Or even worse, one of the men defects to the US while in country, or even worse, is a double agent.
Kinda gets more complicated the more people you involve. A better option would be to recruit chinese americans, like the Germans did in world war one, recruiting german americans, to sabotage factories, rail roads, munitions and docks in both the US and Canada.
A multicultural country such as the US, or in my case Australia, often has many enemies, some of which, live inside of it.
A 'home grown' guerilla war would be much more effective, as your troops already know the land, they know the lingo, they know the real targets from the imagined and best of all, they can dissappear back into the crowd.
Up to true hostilities these people could be used in a terrorism campaign. Drawing resources from the US into internal security concerns instead of external, allowing your forces to perhaps draw near enough to strike.
An invasion could be undertaken on the US. It would have problems though.
First you send in infiltrators, who set up airstrips in remote locations, and purchase ammunition. They purchase vehicles and fuel. You then take about two dozen chartered commercial jet airlines, you load them with troops and land them at US airports all friendly like, most likely the east coast. It doesnt take long for 500 or so armed troops to capture an airport, and then fortify their position quickly. The 747's can carry anti-tank/heavy weaponary, and plenty of ammunition. No food, cause that isnt neccessary. These troops are the first wave and will only be the front line for a short period. 10-20 minutes behind these 747's, are standard long range cargo planes, carrying light armor vehicles and more troops, these land at the commercial airports and at the private airstrips you have set up.
Your troops take the LAU's and go like hell towards your assigned targets. Airbases, Army Bases, Naval Bases, Police Stations, Gun Stores.
The trick is to move fast and capture quickly. A night attack on a weekend would be best, as you would capture quite afew bases relatively lightly manned and vulnerable, you might even bring pilots/tankers/sailors with you to take the captured vechiles and add to the chaos. You continue to bring in troops from china by air and land them at your secured areas.
At this stage it gets sticky. Your main mode of transport of large armor and troops is by sea. Getting by SOSUS is quite hard, and you have to deal with naval assests in the pacific. Hopefully you would attack at a time when a carrier isnt present close by in the pacific. You have to get your tanks in, so one way would be by using normal car carriers, who are on scheduled runs to make landfall on the same day as your attack to deliver vehicles. If you were serious about your plan, you might even nuke pearl/guam in the first 24 hours of your attack, to make it easier to move more heavy units from china to the US. This would also allow you to move a chinese carrier closer to the US to provide air support for the grunts and eventually transferring all aircraft to captured US runways.
You have to link up your heavy armor, light armor and infantry to push inland, obviously after securing your captured cities. You then utilise these cities, and the railroads to supply food and munitions to your front lines as they spread inland. Time elapsed is about 48-72 hours, more then enough time for the US army to mobilise and to present a good front line, possibly near the rockies.
Attack of the US is not an easy task, and requires exquisite timing of delivery of assets. It requires china to send troops a huge distance, and to get past pearl with ships. It would obviously be easier to attack with an allie close by, say from cuba or south america, to attack other borders at the same time. This draws units away from your main assault.
Now this is a possible scenario, if, china had the logistical assets to do this. The Chinese army is much like the soviet army used to be. A large club to bludgeon your opponent to death with numbers, aslong as he is relatively close. China has never had to move huge amounts of troops over an entire ocean to attack an enemy so far from home. It isnt easy logistically. But possible. To make it more interesting, an enemy may even release chemical/biological weapons before he attacks. He may poison water supplies. He may release anthrax or similar diseases. He may sabotage power stations, he may cause an increase in terrorism before hand.
There are alot of things in warfares bag-o-dirty tricks.
As for disabling the US nuclear counter attack, that is a tough nut to crack, and would require unconventional techniques im sure. For example purchasing properties near known ICBM silos, buying a few hundred stingers and praying you can cripple a few missles before they hit your country. Perhaps small backpack nukes could be used to crack the silos at close range, but thats debatable, as those silos are hardened and quite well built. Maybe wait till they open up to launch? Who knows.
Naval nukes are even harder to disable apart from an intense naval campaign by your forces to kill the subs, even then, they can launch from almost anywhere, and damn but their quiet.
Carrier based nukes are also a concern. It is unlikely you would attack the US without first developing a good ABM defence.
So in answer to your comment
'It would be exceedingly difficult to come anywhere near the US shore with any kind of sizable force.'
True, but not impossible. Give war a chance!:)
I think, given the gist of the thread we are on, that we have somehow justified the existance of the NSA. We can't even agree on ONE true threat to National Security in the US(Apart from Thermonuclear weapons)
If the issue can be so convoluted for a group of educated, well adjusted(my friends call me moon unit), and according to us, well informed people, imagine the job the NSA or the CIA has?
Instead of one large menacing enemy, such as the Soviet Union to concentrate on, we have 10,000 smaller but equally threatening enemies. NSA have to account for them all, cause if they dont, im sure the media, and us the public, will rip them limb from limb cause someone got through the net....again...
so what do we want? We want an NSA with carte blanch to operate and take out all the 'bad guys' John Wayne style, but we dont want them to have any power to do so or the ability to use technology to track them...
damn i already got a headache....
There is a balance out there im sure, but as usual, not one that will keep everyone happy.
Technology and the Net is our playground, and we tend to like keeping it free from cops, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, NCA, ASIO, DGSE, KGB, GRU, ONI, ATF, and ELMO,(I hate that muppet), we dont want censorship, we dont want governments trying to regulate our Internet Usage, and hoooray for us, damn straight....so what do we do about terrorism?
We have to do something, cause us innocent bystanders are the targets, it wont be bill clinton, unless an all female jilted lover terrorist group emerges from akansas.
Once again there must be a balance, but im sure it will piss off greatly. The price we will pay for peace, is eternal aggrivation, and most likely, lack of privacy:)
Dont let the Bastards grind you down.
North Korea is a large threat because of their alliegances.
If some of the older slash dotters around here might cast their minds back[might require some straining], we may remember exactly who the UN were fighting in the Korean War. Mostly it wasnt the North Koreans, but the Peoples Republic of China, who entered the war when McArthur proceeded to invade North Korean Territory after successfully capturing and securing South Korea.
Are they a big enough threat to national security for you?
People may comment, 'but china and the US are major economic partners etc etc etc. They wouldnt threaten their own economic situation just for North Korea'.
China will support and very likely defend North Korea if a war broke out.
Because North Korea provide a convenient military buffer between themselves and South Korea. Keep in mind that China is still a communist country, and would not be adverse to sacrificing their economic goals, to bolster their internal and external political/strategic goals. We should not try and project our capitalist views on another country, especially as many have mis-judged them quite badly in the past.
They do have the weapons, the manpower and the ability to wage effective war when they see fit. Those who doubt this should perhaps remember that china does have a long and proud military history.
So dont ever underestimate any countries ability to wage war. The smallest enemy, can become your deepest worry.
As to the question, 'is China a threat to National Security?', that is debatable, depending on US intelligence estimates and their related threat estimates of China's strategic Forces, but one would have to catagorize any nuclear capable enemy as a potential threat to ones national security.
Even if a their nuclear birds dont fly due to whatever, it isnt hard to sneak a low yeild nuclear weapon into a country with vast borders, such as the US, slap it in a delivery truck and park it within a kilometer of the white house. Or perhaps in Pearl Harbour. Or close by any strategic target you might want to name in the US.
Dont get me wrong, the US has relatively good defenses, both military and civilian, but they are not omnipotent. Hence where a project like echelon comes in, to fill the some of the gap. It aint pretty, not even legal, but from the point of view of any Chief of Staff, or nuke weary politico, knowing where the enemy may be, or may strike, or his plans, are invaluable.
So debate among yourselves the merits of echelon and your national security agency, but dont doubt their are threats out there, domestic and foreign, there certainly are, and they will perhaps join us when slashdot has its first nerds revoloution, overthrows world governments, installs linux on everything including my TV remote control, and software, pizza and caffeine beverages are free for all.
Oh my god! Now it all makes perfect sense why NT runs like a dog! and IIS 4 just makes it worse!
Either that or those trained chimpanzes, err programmers, that write it are just too plain lazy to debug their code once in awhile....
Maybe SP6 doesnt stand for service pack 6, it stands for secret project 6! and its whole intent is to add new bugs until it pisses off admins to the point that we grab an axe and bury it in the head of the nearest person in the Server Room, thus slowly dumbing the world down to a controllable level....hey you never know.
-The government is bombarding us with paranoia waves! are you looking at me?
PS i wasnt being sarcastic about NT, it really DOES run like a dog!
The actions of the FBI in this case may have been illegal. I dont claim to be a legal expert in the US. The ACLU will sue the Government.
Will this get the author his web service back? Maybe, but i doubt it.
Will it get him money in damages from a lawsuit? Perhaps.
Will this stop the government from intimidating anyone ever again if they are found guilty?
Hell no!
Just because something may be illegal, it doesnt make it impossible. Murder is illegal, but they happen every day. Some guns are illegal to own in some countries, but they exist. Some substances are illegal to import, but they are. Piracy is illegal, but i bet a few of you have one or two not quite paid for applications on your PC?
Time to stop pulling the pins on lawyers and throwing them at your enemy. They are costly, and in many cases incompetant in my experience.
In short, I believe alot of the internet community is used to living outside the laws and and boundaries of mere governments and countries.
If your website provider is a weany, get a new one.
If the laws in your country regarding your Providor are crap, get a server in another country.
You cant beat people who operate outside a law they claim to enforce. Your only option is to operate outside or around it aswell. Until you decide to do so, feel free to pay the lawyers as much as you can, i hear they like that.
Definately an interesting document, although unfortunately incomplete. I think this highlights an important part of our history, the granfather of electronic information warfare as we know it today. In WW2 the use and breaking of "unbreakable" codes were key to unit mobility and strategy, or to fending off such an advantage. Although not all Field Marshalls and Generals understood or adopted this as fact... The breaking of ENIGMA was a major part of the WW2 ground war, and the eventual breaking of the German Navy's code (The code name for which escapes me now)being a major part in hunting the U-Boat wolfpacks of the atlantic ocean. Each break when combined with inventions like sonar, radar and new military technology, such as destroyers armed with hedgehogs and depth charges, enabled the allies to avoid the heavy blow from the axis powers that each major strike was intended to be. It also enabled various Allied groups to start campaigns of disinformation before D-day, such as the creation of an entire mythical US Army located in the UK, spoon fed to the Germans, and then confirmed by intercepting german encrypted radio traffic. Today information warfare has many more facets and exploitations in the field, but the general goal never changes, know what the enemy is thinking, and if you cant, tell them what to think. So the real question is, what form will electronic warfare evolve into in say 100 years?