I already do all that. But none of that addresses the issue that most of these breaches are not due to some exotic zero-day exploit but from company after company not bothering to properly secure their data storage against the simplest of hacks and phishing attempts. Phish the right secretary who shouldn't have the access to those accounts and yet somehow she does and we have a breach.
Yes there will always be some vulnerabilities. But how often do you hear of Banks having their financial systems hacked? Not very often. And it's because they are liable for the money they are entrusted with. Security is possible, and not that difficult. But too many companies that are so eager to hoover in and aggregate all our data barely bother with security.
It's time to make allowing these breaches criminal. In court if they can prove it was a true zero-day exploit then they can be excused. But if it's determined to be a common and easily blocked attack then they deserve the liability, and any fines that come with it.
Well, a dead pilot isn't going to be able to get the plane to take off let alone crash and kill me. So I might not get very far, but I feel fairly confident I would be safer on such a "flight", than on any flight with a living pilot at the controls.
When are we going to get criminal liability for these companies that do not secure their data. Every week it's another breach, with another release of incredible numbers of peoples account or personal information. Enough is enough. Any company that does not secure it's user data should be criminally liable for this failure
That and maybe they shouldn't be keeping nearly as much data. But then they can't data-mine it and sell it.
Blocking an obnoxious user from your page doesn't infringe on their speech. They can still post their comments, be they valid or obnoxious and obscene trolling on their own page as well as at other locations. I may be missing something but I see this akin to asking a police officer to remove someone who is heckling and disrupting a city council meeting. They aren't removed for having an opinion in opposition, but for disrupting the event. Similarly someone who never contributes anything but hate filled trolling should be block-able. The Government employee or elected official isn't throwing the person in jail or even cutting off their ability to post their information on other venues.
And blocking one individual or even a few from posting on the elected official's page does not deny anyone else the ability to read official statements or quasi-official opinions that may be posted there. The media will still carry the statements. Even if the individual is a reporter, blocking them does not prevent other journalists from participating on the site and reporting what is discussed there.
But this is an issue that really needs a Supreme Court review.
It did NOT make them do it. No other ISP in the state, from Massive Comcast to Google Fiber, to dozens of wi-fi providers did this. We have lots of choices in the main population area of the state and only one ISP interpreted the law in this idiotic manner. The government did not make them do it. They chose to be idiots about how they Notified us of the availability. Other ISP's just sent a letter with their bill, and followed up with an email.
As a Utah resident, who read the law, and as a customer of the ISP in question who had to figure-out why the kids were complaining about not being able to game or watch YouTube via their Xbox. I state that both You and the ISP are wrong. The law required no such interruption, it specifically called for an Obvious notification of the availability. No other ISP in the state chose this route, they did what the lawmakers intended, they sent a letter with the Bill, posted the notice on their home page, and sent an email. That is all they were required to do, even Comcast got this one right.
It didn't just block web access but all access. Not just on computers, but it also blocked internet over mobile devices and other IOT devices. And not everybody blocked by it understood or could easily get around the block. You would lose all internet access but only got the redirect if you were opening a browser. So my Son came up stairs to complain that he couldn't watch Youtube on the Xbox, I was browsing FB G+ and a few other apps and my phone dropped to LTE instead of wifi as I usually use at home. I knew to start digging, restarting the router didn't fix it, so I fired up a browser to look at the router's settings and then and only then did I see the redirect. I cleared it just as son number 2 came complaining that his Roblox games weren't working.
It was not necessarily as easy as just clicking ok either as clicking ok got the PC's working again, but the came consoles and a smart clock needed the router to be rebooted again and then they had to be rebooted.
Being tech savvy, this was not a big deal, but for those non-techie homes it was a much bigger challenge. And then there is the fact that when called on it, Century link lied and claimed it was required by state law to do this. Yet no other ISP interpreted it that way. The law clearly states the notice must be in a conspicuous manner. So most ISP's sent a letter with the Bill, posted the notice on their home page and sent the registered email account an email stating the policy. No other ISP chose to disrupt all internet access on all devices until the browser page was seen and clicked on.
It's still being pushed by these companies. Yes they will let each state set it's rate, but the implementation of the concept is being pushed by this organization made up of... The major ISP's. So yes the GP is correct.
Ever had your hands full and had to juggle stuff while getting the key out and using it? Or been wearing thick gloves in cold weather and had to take the time to take off a glove just to get the key out of your pocket?
With modern cars you just walk up, get in, push a start button and go. Or with Tesla's you just put it in gear and go. No need to handle the key at all.
Stay away from Tesla's then. You just have the fob with you. You walk up to it and it unlocks (and the handles pop out, You get in, put it in gear and drive, the handles retract as you start moving. At destination when you stop the handles pop out., you get out and walk away. And the handles retract again locking the doors. All in the fob.
Or perhaps the comments weren't "meddling" but rather were Russians in the Tech sector who actually supported the concept of Net Neutrality and commented even though they are not US Citizens. And while the FCC implementation was not perfect, as the latest iteration of neutrality rules they'd been trying to implement since the early 00's, it was far better than the nothing we have now.
We use the pejorative, because it is an idiotic conspiracy. No Chemtrails are not real. What you see are contrails. Nothing more. How long it takes for them to dissipate depends on atmospheric conditions and nothing more.
As if the mythical chemtrails rumor isn't hard enough to beat down, now they want thousands of planes spreading "mind control chemicals" world wide? The tinfoil hat crowd will go insane over this idea.
Director Comey laid out clear evidence of over 100 federal felonies. He cited over 100 email conversations that contained classified information, that was classified at the time it was sent. He specifically excluded conversations that contained information that was classified after it was sent as there is no liability for sending information unclassified that someone later decides should be classified. To be otherwise would be ex post facto and thus unconstitutional. over 100 conversations that contained information taken from classified information systems and deliberately or negligently put into the emails on this unclassified system. Each such selection of classified information that she put into an email is one count of either Deliberate Security compromise (10 years) or one count of Negligent mishandling of classified information (10 years) any such information sent to her, could result in a failure to report compromise of security (5 years) if it can be determined by the context of the data in the email that it was classified information. Similarly if anyone sent info to her that would also result in failure to report charges against her, but Comey did not address such so we are stuck with the 100+ email conversations that contained classified information, meaning she sent the emails with the information. That's 10 years per count.
A more clear cut case is seldom found. Then Comey lied and said no prosecutor would take the case. Several prosecutors stated that had they been handed the info that he put out in the press conference they most certainly would have prosecuted.
Yes they did say Hillary committed a crime, several crimes, enough to lock her away for potentially a century (though much less was more likely with her age they probably wouldn't have pushed for more than 20 years, and Obama would have pardoned her in a heartbeat.)
Sure. As there is little to no prison time for the violations Ivanka made, her infractions are subject to fines.. Versus well over 100 years in Federal Prison for Hillary. Put them both in front of a judge.
I honestly don't care if Hillary or Ivanka can beat the charges. But if there are charges that can be pressed, (case closed for Hillary, over 100 felony charges for her alone) then press the charges and give them their day in court.
No Colin Powell did not do the same. Nor did he advise Hillary that it was okay. Also the rules changed between Powell and Hillary's terms in Office. He also never sent classified information over the unclassified internet. Big difference in that last bit. I really don't care that Hillary used a non.gov email server and account. What matters is that she tried to hide and destroy emails that were on that server instead of turning them over for archival as required by law. And even more importantly is that she failed to protect classified information. By intentionally posting it in emails on said unsecured, unclassified server. By law she should face either deliberate security compromise or negligent security compromise for every email she sent that contained classified information. Additionally everybody she sent those emails to is liable for failure to report a security compromise. And should anyone have sent her classified info, then they need to face the deliberate compromise charges and she needs to face the failure to report charges. All are Felonies under the espionage Act with penalties of between 5 and 10 years per count, plus a heft fine as well ($50k to 100k per count).
You lefties say we are trying to deflect to Hillary, well if you want to go after Ivanka for a far smaller series of violations. You'd better put Hillary in front of a Judge as well.
No, it's because the officers had no reason to believe the situation was not what the caller said. They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. If the situation was as reported and they hesitate at the wrong moment innocents die. Their job is to try to stop that from happening and that requires split second decisions and reactions based on what was only determined AFTER THE FACT to be a false report.
The Officer will live with this guilt for the rest of his life. He didn't take the job to kill an innocent man, but to serve and protect the innocent. But he had to act on the information he had and the reactions of the real victim were such that he felt he needed to fire.
Blame the caller, he's the one at fault. He and only he is truly guilty in this tragic death.
They were responding to a report of a dangerous armed individual. They went in ready for action. They have to. They go in half-assed and they die. Their job isn't to die, it's to deal with a supposedly armed and dangerous person who had as per the call, already killed someone. Also at the time SWATTING was still a new phenomenon, police depts. didn't have protocols in place to even assume it might be a hoax. This incident and a couple others have changed that. But at the time they had no reason to not believe the caller and had to treat the threat as very real.
Thus to protect their lives and the lives of innocents living around the home in question they had to go in ready to fire without hesitation. This is fully and entirely on the person who called in the report. The officer, by the very nature of the job had to be ready to fire in an instant, without hesitation. Unfortunately the victim did something that caused the offer's finger to move. The officer has to live with knowing it was an innocent man. But the blame is not on the officer who was just doing what he had to do based on the situation as he then knew it.
We frequently make the mistake of judging the actions of police officers based on information found out after the event. We fail to recognize that the officer isn't operating on our hyper-focused 20/20 look back after the facts have all been investigated. He's there on a call of a dangerous man who has already killed others. That's really all he has to go on, he has to be ready to react to that situation and that situation alone. If he goes in assuming anything else and the situation is exactly as reported, his hesitation could get other innocents killed.
ALL of the Blame and Guilt rests on the hoax caller, who based on his record of such calls should be facing far more than 20 years. Every call he made had this potential outcome, every single one. He deserves 20 for this one and 10 for every other call where the victim managed to not do something to draw fire.
No the Famine was not over when the UN went in (accompanied by the US). Any massacre in Mogadishu was the fault of those who spent the night attacking the troops and the efforts to withdraw. They didn't open fire, they were fired on and returned fire. Had they not been fired on it would have been a clean extraction of the targeted individuals. Had the Blackhawks not been shot down it would have been over quick and clean. As it was two transport helo's were shot down. The Rangers and Delta on the ground had to move to the crash sites to rescue/recover the crews. That could have been done without firing a shot. But they were under heavy fire, and thus returned fire.
The interference in "Tribal politics" was stopping the warlords from stealing all the food sent as aid and using it to control the populace.
There was no Somali government to ask. It was a failed nation state torn apart by warlords fighting for power. Using food sent as aid as one of their most valuable weapons of subjugating the populace. The UN requested the US help secure the food aid sent by the UN and the distribution of it. The US was only part of the UN forces there.
Yep, they don't even have to disable that lead vehicle, Disable the first follow vehicle and hit the lead with enough firepower to make the human occupants decide to flee and you've just given the opposition a supply train full of supplies, most likely including fuel, ammo, some weapons and food. And they can just do the same thing the next day and the next. Make "the bad lands" dangerous enough and they don't even need the entire convoy, just pick off the last 2/3 and make sure the guide vehicle driver knows it's too dangerous to stop.
A great system for resupplying the enemy is what this is.
And no matter how you design the lead vehicle it can still be taken out. MRAP's are great but they still get blown up. They are more survivable when that happens but blowing off the front axel still disables the vehicle, and only takes a little anfo. Tanks are tough against other tanks and combat vehicles, they are like tin cans for an IED, you only need enough blast to break the tracks and it's immobilized. Any convoy in hostile terrain needs a sizeable combat component mixed in along the entire length. It should be well armed and obvious. That is a deterrent that gets the supplies through reliably.
When was the last imperialist war? The US hasn't exercised any imperialistic urges since the end of WWII. We have returned territories to their people, we have not conquered new territories and claimed them as our own. The US is not building an empire. We conduct regime change, and attempt to stabilize to pull out as quickly as possible (but we usually mess it up by trying to do it on the cheap which results in us returning repeatedly (Iraq) or never finishing the Job (Afghanistan).
Okay I guess Russia seizing Crimea from Ukraine would be an imperialist war.
Behind the lines? Wake up, it's the 21st century. The age of asymmetric warfare. There are no lines. Take Afghanistan for example. The nations is ostensibly controlled, but our troops require supplies brought in over the road from Pakistan. That's several hundred miles of road it has to cover to the main base at Baghram and even further down to Kandahar. Those convoys cross no "lines" but can be hit at any point along the route by small groups of Taliban.
Or Iraq once the Iraqi Military was defeated and Hussein was defeated, supplies had to come up from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the Iraqi port of Basra, again through hundreds of miles with no lines, but plenty of insurgents who loved to strike convoys.
Or how about when there are still lines, and a wrong turn took Pvt Jessica Lynch's convoy across the very flexible and rapidly changing lines.
And all it takes to take on a "protected convoy" is a few pounds of Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer, a little diesel fuel and a blasting cap. Cheap, widely available and easy to do.
So you would rather we just pretend that the odds are very good that we'll have to send troops into other countries where some portion of the population doesn't want us?
We weren't in Somalia to take over or conquer anything, we were there with the UN trying to protect food deliveries to the famine stricken country. But because we and the other UN peacekeepers were protecting the food from the warlords who wanted to take and hoard it all, we and the Other UN forces became targets.
We participate in peacekeeping and emergency response actions around the world. There is always someone who wants to disrupt such. We must be able to transport supplies (ours and relief) in quantity and safety.
None of that requires us to have invaded anywhere. And yes there is the possibility that we may have to act against another country. And we would be foolish to not look to be able to operate in hostile terrain. Both on our own and at the request of the rest of the world that claims to be offended that we can project force, but can't dial fast enough when they realize they need a capable military force.
We tried to disengage and let the world handle thing in the early 90's. That resulted in the Genocide of the Balkan wars that happened right in front of the watching eyes of the gutless UN. So then Europe cried to the US for help and we did the job, yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
I already do all that. But none of that addresses the issue that most of these breaches are not due to some exotic zero-day exploit but from company after company not bothering to properly secure their data storage against the simplest of hacks and phishing attempts. Phish the right secretary who shouldn't have the access to those accounts and yet somehow she does and we have a breach.
Yes there will always be some vulnerabilities. But how often do you hear of Banks having their financial systems hacked? Not very often. And it's because they are liable for the money they are entrusted with. Security is possible, and not that difficult. But too many companies that are so eager to hoover in and aggregate all our data barely bother with security.
It's time to make allowing these breaches criminal. In court if they can prove it was a true zero-day exploit then they can be excused. But if it's determined to be a common and easily blocked attack then they deserve the liability, and any fines that come with it.
Well, a dead pilot isn't going to be able to get the plane to take off let alone crash and kill me. So I might not get very far, but I feel fairly confident I would be safer on such a "flight", than on any flight with a living pilot at the controls.
When are we going to get criminal liability for these companies that do not secure their data. Every week it's another breach, with another release of incredible numbers of peoples account or personal information. Enough is enough. Any company that does not secure it's user data should be criminally liable for this failure
That and maybe they shouldn't be keeping nearly as much data. But then they can't data-mine it and sell it.
Blocking an obnoxious user from your page doesn't infringe on their speech. They can still post their comments, be they valid or obnoxious and obscene trolling on their own page as well as at other locations. I may be missing something but I see this akin to asking a police officer to remove someone who is heckling and disrupting a city council meeting. They aren't removed for having an opinion in opposition, but for disrupting the event. Similarly someone who never contributes anything but hate filled trolling should be block-able. The Government employee or elected official isn't throwing the person in jail or even cutting off their ability to post their information on other venues.
And blocking one individual or even a few from posting on the elected official's page does not deny anyone else the ability to read official statements or quasi-official opinions that may be posted there. The media will still carry the statements. Even if the individual is a reporter, blocking them does not prevent other journalists from participating on the site and reporting what is discussed there.
But this is an issue that really needs a Supreme Court review.
It did NOT make them do it. No other ISP in the state, from Massive Comcast to Google Fiber, to dozens of wi-fi providers did this. We have lots of choices in the main population area of the state and only one ISP interpreted the law in this idiotic manner. The government did not make them do it. They chose to be idiots about how they Notified us of the availability. Other ISP's just sent a letter with their bill, and followed up with an email.
As a Utah resident, who read the law, and as a customer of the ISP in question who had to figure-out why the kids were complaining about not being able to game or watch YouTube via their Xbox. I state that both You and the ISP are wrong. The law required no such interruption, it specifically called for an Obvious notification of the availability. No other ISP in the state chose this route, they did what the lawmakers intended, they sent a letter with the Bill, posted the notice on their home page, and sent an email. That is all they were required to do, even Comcast got this one right.
Bingo!
It didn't just block web access but all access. Not just on computers, but it also blocked internet over mobile devices and other IOT devices. And not everybody blocked by it understood or could easily get around the block. You would lose all internet access but only got the redirect if you were opening a browser. So my Son came up stairs to complain that he couldn't watch Youtube on the Xbox, I was browsing FB G+ and a few other apps and my phone dropped to LTE instead of wifi as I usually use at home. I knew to start digging, restarting the router didn't fix it, so I fired up a browser to look at the router's settings and then and only then did I see the redirect. I cleared it just as son number 2 came complaining that his Roblox games weren't working.
It was not necessarily as easy as just clicking ok either as clicking ok got the PC's working again, but the came consoles and a smart clock needed the router to be rebooted again and then they had to be rebooted.
Being tech savvy, this was not a big deal, but for those non-techie homes it was a much bigger challenge. And then there is the fact that when called on it, Century link lied and claimed it was required by state law to do this. Yet no other ISP interpreted it that way. The law clearly states the notice must be in a conspicuous manner. So most ISP's sent a letter with the Bill, posted the notice on their home page and sent the registered email account an email stating the policy. No other ISP chose to disrupt all internet access on all devices until the browser page was seen and clicked on.
It's still being pushed by these companies. Yes they will let each state set it's rate, but the implementation of the concept is being pushed by this organization made up of... The major ISP's. So yes the GP is correct.
Ever had your hands full and had to juggle stuff while getting the key out and using it? Or been wearing thick gloves in cold weather and had to take the time to take off a glove just to get the key out of your pocket?
With modern cars you just walk up, get in, push a start button and go. Or with Tesla's you just put it in gear and go. No need to handle the key at all.
Stay away from Tesla's then. You just have the fob with you. You walk up to it and it unlocks (and the handles pop out, You get in, put it in gear and drive, the handles retract as you start moving. At destination when you stop the handles pop out., you get out and walk away. And the handles retract again locking the doors. All in the fob.
Or perhaps the comments weren't "meddling" but rather were Russians in the Tech sector who actually supported the concept of Net Neutrality and commented even though they are not US Citizens. And while the FCC implementation was not perfect, as the latest iteration of neutrality rules they'd been trying to implement since the early 00's, it was far better than the nothing we have now.
We use the pejorative, because it is an idiotic conspiracy. No Chemtrails are not real. What you see are contrails. Nothing more. How long it takes for them to dissipate depends on atmospheric conditions and nothing more.
As if the mythical chemtrails rumor isn't hard enough to beat down, now they want thousands of planes spreading "mind control chemicals" world wide? The tinfoil hat crowd will go insane over this idea.
Director Comey laid out clear evidence of over 100 federal felonies. He cited over 100 email conversations that contained classified information, that was classified at the time it was sent. He specifically excluded conversations that contained information that was classified after it was sent as there is no liability for sending information unclassified that someone later decides should be classified. To be otherwise would be ex post facto and thus unconstitutional. over 100 conversations that contained information taken from classified information systems and deliberately or negligently put into the emails on this unclassified system. Each such selection of classified information that she put into an email is one count of either Deliberate Security compromise (10 years) or one count of Negligent mishandling of classified information (10 years) any such information sent to her, could result in a failure to report compromise of security (5 years) if it can be determined by the context of the data in the email that it was classified information. Similarly if anyone sent info to her that would also result in failure to report charges against her, but Comey did not address such so we are stuck with the 100+ email conversations that contained classified information, meaning she sent the emails with the information. That's 10 years per count.
A more clear cut case is seldom found. Then Comey lied and said no prosecutor would take the case. Several prosecutors stated that had they been handed the info that he put out in the press conference they most certainly would have prosecuted.
Yes they did say Hillary committed a crime, several crimes, enough to lock her away for potentially a century (though much less was more likely with her age they probably wouldn't have pushed for more than 20 years, and Obama would have pardoned her in a heartbeat.)
Sure. As there is little to no prison time for the violations Ivanka made, her infractions are subject to fines.. Versus well over 100 years in Federal Prison for Hillary. Put them both in front of a judge.
I honestly don't care if Hillary or Ivanka can beat the charges. But if there are charges that can be pressed, (case closed for Hillary, over 100 felony charges for her alone) then press the charges and give them their day in court.
No Colin Powell did not do the same. Nor did he advise Hillary that it was okay. Also the rules changed between Powell and Hillary's terms in Office. He also never sent classified information over the unclassified internet. Big difference in that last bit. I really don't care that Hillary used a non .gov email server and account. What matters is that she tried to hide and destroy emails that were on that server instead of turning them over for archival as required by law. And even more importantly is that she failed to protect classified information. By intentionally posting it in emails on said unsecured, unclassified server. By law she should face either deliberate security compromise or negligent security compromise for every email she sent that contained classified information. Additionally everybody she sent those emails to is liable for failure to report a security compromise. And should anyone have sent her classified info, then they need to face the deliberate compromise charges and she needs to face the failure to report charges. All are Felonies under the espionage Act with penalties of between 5 and 10 years per count, plus a heft fine as well ($50k to 100k per count).
You lefties say we are trying to deflect to Hillary, well if you want to go after Ivanka for a far smaller series of violations. You'd better put Hillary in front of a Judge as well.
Amen! Mod Parent up!
No, it's because the officers had no reason to believe the situation was not what the caller said. They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. If the situation was as reported and they hesitate at the wrong moment innocents die. Their job is to try to stop that from happening and that requires split second decisions and reactions based on what was only determined AFTER THE FACT to be a false report.
The Officer will live with this guilt for the rest of his life. He didn't take the job to kill an innocent man, but to serve and protect the innocent. But he had to act on the information he had and the reactions of the real victim were such that he felt he needed to fire.
Blame the caller, he's the one at fault. He and only he is truly guilty in this tragic death.
They were responding to a report of a dangerous armed individual. They went in ready for action. They have to. They go in half-assed and they die. Their job isn't to die, it's to deal with a supposedly armed and dangerous person who had as per the call, already killed someone. Also at the time SWATTING was still a new phenomenon, police depts. didn't have protocols in place to even assume it might be a hoax. This incident and a couple others have changed that. But at the time they had no reason to not believe the caller and had to treat the threat as very real.
Thus to protect their lives and the lives of innocents living around the home in question they had to go in ready to fire without hesitation. This is fully and entirely on the person who called in the report. The officer, by the very nature of the job had to be ready to fire in an instant, without hesitation. Unfortunately the victim did something that caused the offer's finger to move. The officer has to live with knowing it was an innocent man. But the blame is not on the officer who was just doing what he had to do based on the situation as he then knew it.
We frequently make the mistake of judging the actions of police officers based on information found out after the event. We fail to recognize that the officer isn't operating on our hyper-focused 20/20 look back after the facts have all been investigated. He's there on a call of a dangerous man who has already killed others. That's really all he has to go on, he has to be ready to react to that situation and that situation alone. If he goes in assuming anything else and the situation is exactly as reported, his hesitation could get other innocents killed.
ALL of the Blame and Guilt rests on the hoax caller, who based on his record of such calls should be facing far more than 20 years. Every call he made had this potential outcome, every single one. He deserves 20 for this one and 10 for every other call where the victim managed to not do something to draw fire.
You left out the joke that is CNN, the nearly as bad MSNBC, the serial liars at the WaPo and the almost as frequent liars at the NY Times.
Nice re-write of history there.
No the Famine was not over when the UN went in (accompanied by the US). Any massacre in Mogadishu was the fault of those who spent the night attacking the troops and the efforts to withdraw. They didn't open fire, they were fired on and returned fire. Had they not been fired on it would have been a clean extraction of the targeted individuals. Had the Blackhawks not been shot down it would have been over quick and clean. As it was two transport helo's were shot down. The Rangers and Delta on the ground had to move to the crash sites to rescue/recover the crews. That could have been done without firing a shot. But they were under heavy fire, and thus returned fire.
The interference in "Tribal politics" was stopping the warlords from stealing all the food sent as aid and using it to control the populace.
There was no Somali government to ask. It was a failed nation state torn apart by warlords fighting for power. Using food sent as aid as one of their most valuable weapons of subjugating the populace. The UN requested the US help secure the food aid sent by the UN and the distribution of it. The US was only part of the UN forces there.
Yep, they don't even have to disable that lead vehicle, Disable the first follow vehicle and hit the lead with enough firepower to make the human occupants decide to flee and you've just given the opposition a supply train full of supplies, most likely including fuel, ammo, some weapons and food. And they can just do the same thing the next day and the next. Make "the bad lands" dangerous enough and they don't even need the entire convoy, just pick off the last 2/3 and make sure the guide vehicle driver knows it's too dangerous to stop.
A great system for resupplying the enemy is what this is.
And no matter how you design the lead vehicle it can still be taken out. MRAP's are great but they still get blown up. They are more survivable when that happens but blowing off the front axel still disables the vehicle, and only takes a little anfo. Tanks are tough against other tanks and combat vehicles, they are like tin cans for an IED, you only need enough blast to break the tracks and it's immobilized. Any convoy in hostile terrain needs a sizeable combat component mixed in along the entire length. It should be well armed and obvious. That is a deterrent that gets the supplies through reliably.
When was the last imperialist war? The US hasn't exercised any imperialistic urges since the end of WWII. We have returned territories to their people, we have not conquered new territories and claimed them as our own. The US is not building an empire. We conduct regime change, and attempt to stabilize to pull out as quickly as possible (but we usually mess it up by trying to do it on the cheap which results in us returning repeatedly (Iraq) or never finishing the Job (Afghanistan).
Okay I guess Russia seizing Crimea from Ukraine would be an imperialist war.
Behind the lines? Wake up, it's the 21st century. The age of asymmetric warfare. There are no lines. Take Afghanistan for example. The nations is ostensibly controlled, but our troops require supplies brought in over the road from Pakistan. That's several hundred miles of road it has to cover to the main base at Baghram and even further down to Kandahar. Those convoys cross no "lines" but can be hit at any point along the route by small groups of Taliban.
Or Iraq once the Iraqi Military was defeated and Hussein was defeated, supplies had to come up from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the Iraqi port of Basra, again through hundreds of miles with no lines, but plenty of insurgents who loved to strike convoys.
Or how about when there are still lines, and a wrong turn took Pvt Jessica Lynch's convoy across the very flexible and rapidly changing lines.
And all it takes to take on a "protected convoy" is a few pounds of Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer, a little diesel fuel and a blasting cap. Cheap, widely available and easy to do.
So you would rather we just pretend that the odds are very good that we'll have to send troops into other countries where some portion of the population doesn't want us?
We weren't in Somalia to take over or conquer anything, we were there with the UN trying to protect food deliveries to the famine stricken country. But because we and the other UN peacekeepers were protecting the food from the warlords who wanted to take and hoard it all, we and the Other UN forces became targets.
We participate in peacekeeping and emergency response actions around the world. There is always someone who wants to disrupt such. We must be able to transport supplies (ours and relief) in quantity and safety.
None of that requires us to have invaded anywhere. And yes there is the possibility that we may have to act against another country. And we would be foolish to not look to be able to operate in hostile terrain. Both on our own and at the request of the rest of the world that claims to be offended that we can project force, but can't dial fast enough when they realize they need a capable military force.
We tried to disengage and let the world handle thing in the early 90's. That resulted in the Genocide of the Balkan wars that happened right in front of the watching eyes of the gutless UN. So then Europe cried to the US for help and we did the job, yet again.