On another thread a while back, someone suggested treating
Anti-Personnel
Flechette Charges on vehicles basically as CMDs...this idea has been kicking
around in the back of my head for a while now, and I suggest the following
rules, cribbed and translated from DS2:
APFCs on vehicles are basically a ring of outward-facing CMD charges,
connected to some sort of short-range proximity detector and controlled
by
the vehicle's computer or by the crew. They have anti-personnel and
anti-IAVR uses.
In an anti-vehicle role, treat exactly as CMDs. 6" out from all sides of
vehicle, and roll d10 for all figures attacked. There are assumed to be enough
charges on any given face of the vehicle to provide multiple use.(see pg 55
SG2 for CMD rules) (If you want to track ammo, go ahead. I can't be bothered).
VERY IMPORTANT: APFCs _will_not_function_at_all if there is friendly
infantry within 10" of the vehicle - either IFF transponders or the
vehicle crew putting the system on safe to avoid shredding their own grunts.
Safing an APFC system does not require an action, nor does
re-activating the system. (the computer takes care of it, or one switch
is thrown)
OPTION: Have APFCs always live, unless specifically turned off. If friendly
inf get too close, tough luck. This might especially be the case
w/ lo-tech armies - faulty or no IFFs, or faulty/no vehicle computers to
handle it.
In an anti-buzzbomb (IAVR) role, live APFC systems add a d8 to the
vehicles defence roll - roll the range die plus the d8, just like
infatnry
in cover add a d6. APFCs do not function against GMSs - they come in too
fast.(PSB, but it sounds good, and matches the DS2 rules)
APFCs take up one capacity space, just like the DS2 system.
---
These have recieved only basic solo playtesting, but they seem good and are, I
think, fairly close to the DS2 rules for APFCs. I can't recall that we've ever
had an SG2 game where enemy infantry got within 6" of a
vehicle, but anything can happen...the anti-IAVR capability could be
useful.
Let me know what you think,
> Brian Burger wrote:
I'll have to look at the CMD rules on Wednesday night.
> VERY IMPORTANT: APFCs _will_not_function_at_all if there is friendly
Another use for EW troops: disrupting the enemy's IFF communications...
> In an anti-buzzbomb (IAVR) role, live APFC systems add a d8 to the
Low tech forces may not have APFCs capable of intercepting IAVRs. Just a
thought.
> APFCs take up one capacity space, just like the DS2 system.
The rules seem quite reasonable. I'm willing to give them a try.
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
DS2 APFCs do have unlimited shots. Tracking ammunition use by APFCs is
complicated by the fact that they have four facings, so you'd need to track
four ammo levels. I figure if there's a strip of charges the whole length of
each facing, and the charges can be detonated individually (eg each (say) 10cm
section is actually an independant charge) then you can fire charges in such a
way as to cover the whole area needed and still have reserve charges for the
next time...I'm allergic to paperwork, so won't track charges.
APFCs probably won't fire very often in any given game, so limiting ammo
probably isn't going to be a problem...If you want to, go ahead...
> > VERY IMPORTANT: APFCs _will_not_function_at_all if there is
Granted. This is one of those quasi-role playing things - follow what
you see as the character of the force you're playing.
> > OPTION: Have APFCs always live, unless specifically turned off. If
Either way...
> > In an anti-buzzbomb (IAVR) role, live APFC systems add a d8 to the
Modern day, TOW/etc are faster than LAW-type systems. AFAIK, the
TOW-type
missles have in-flight sustainer rockets, while LAW-types just have
launch motors. If I'm actually spouting BS here, please correct me. That is,
however, the assumption I made for these rules.
If APFCs use some sort of short-range proximity detector to function (or
crew-fired) then you can say that GMSs close the distance too fast for
APFC sensors to deal with them - that's the job of more
sophisticated/dedicated Reactive armour. Alternately, GMSs are all
top-attack systems, coming in where there's no APFC coverage...
> > These have recieved only basic solo playtesting, but they seem good
Haven't done a lot of urban combat yet...I'm still getting around to
buildings. This is, however, where a system like this would be a lifesaver...
Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html -DS2/SG2/misc-
> Tom.
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Well Brian, to me these seem quite workable, although the use of an
Pardon? Look again, Mr.Glover! It turns out Brian was against using these Vs.
GMS as DS2 won't let you do this. I think if you did, it should be a second
roll versus GMS if ECM fails.
> One thing I could see happening is a change in anti-infantry tactics
I don't think so. Here's a question: How is the APFC triggered? What stops
trees, fences, etc. from setting it off? Just asking this so that I can
envision what kind of counters the infantry might devise to deal with this
annoyance. I can see tactics evolved to strip a tank of its APFC screen.
> I might suggest the owner of teh tank simply stating at the turn if
I like this idea. I think manually firing your APFCs is in fact an action.
Although driving into infantry with this system active may trigger it....
depending on what it uses for sensors. Stationary infantry who are prone or in
cover may not set it off.
> However I would only play this rule in games when the proposed rules
Agreed.
/************************************************
> Owen Glover wrote:
Actually, he explicitly stated that APFCs do _not_ work against
GMS. They only work against IAVRs.
> One thing I could see happening is a change in anti-infantry tactics
This could be fixed by stating that the APFCs only fire if troops move within
APFC range, i.e. the firing mechanism is motion sensitive.
Thus, if you drive up to a squad, the APFCs wouldn't fire until the squad
moves. They would also fire if the squad moved into the APFC range of a
stationary vehicle.
> I might suggest the owner of teh tank simply stating at the turn if his
Personally, I don't think that this is necessary. IFF as an integrated part of
the future GI's dog tags (or subdermal implant) is more
elegant, if a little dystopic, IMO. Specification of ACTIVE/INACTIVE
could come into play for lower tech forces though.
> However I would only play this rule in games when the proposed rules
More likely it would just change your AT tactics. How often do you destroy
vehicles from a scant 6" away?
> We'll try it and see.
[quoted original message omitted]
The easiest way I've found to represent this VS missiles in SG, is simply
increase the Armour by 1 pt against IAVR, it works well to represent the
possibly reduced impact of being shot down or damaged
first. ie. Armour-2 becomes Armour-3 vs an IAVR.
This works just as well for Ablative vs Lasers & Reactive vs GMS. It also
gives valid reasons for equipping your tanks if you know what your enemies
equipment & tactics are like.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
I was doing a literal translation of the DS2 rules to SG2, as much as
possible. In DS2, IAVRs usually draw Red & yellow chits. Vs APFC equipped
vehicles, they draw Yellow only - a fairly major reduction.
Thus the d8 secondary die, in addition to the range die usually rolled vs
IAVRs in SG2.
> > One thing I could see happening is a change in anti-infantry tactics
I more or less envision APFCs being controlled & triggered by a combination of
sensors, esp. IR, proximity decetors, and target recognition systems, all
controlled by a fast computer. Thus, a tree would trigger the proximity
detectors, but fail to trip the IR or target ID systems, thus the computer
wouldn't trigger APFC charges. A human target would trip the IR, prox and ID
sensors, and eat a flechette load. It's not
an entirely independant system - it draws from the vehicles overall
sensor net, and is tied into the target ID system.
> > I might suggest the owner of teh tank simply stating at the turn if
Manual triggering would be an action. The automatic system going off should
not be.
> > However I would only play this rule in games when the proposed rules
Of course. I haven't used the Vehicle Assault rules, but I'll take another
look at them - this and the Assault rules are natural counterparts.
Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html -DS2/SG2/misc-
> /************************************************
> John Atkinson wrote:
<<mass snip of lots of fascinating 'smart dogtag/IFF' ideas>>
This is very cool - and virtually in existance, as well. There are times
when people underestimate technological advances adn the speed of same...looks
like our IFF discussion is one of those.
When real life starts to seem like science fiction, it's time to read newer or
better scifi...
Suddenly, assuming near-universal IFFs and good sensor gear on almost
all combat vehicles in nearly all armies isn't a stretch at all. Even 'poor'
armies like the IF could afford to stick a near-microscopic ID/IFF unit
in
the back of every recuit's skull...they've got FTL starships, so ID/IFF
systems sound plausible.
> Tony Christney wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that this is necessary. IFF as an integrated
Two years ago, I went to the AUSA convention here in DC. One of the projects
they had there was a "smart dog tag" project, which included the soldier's
entire medical files and which could be read by a handheld scanner. Neato
idea, probably will be implemented sometime in the next ten or fifteen years.
But thinking on this, and considering various SF I've read, I've decided what
we'll likely see will be the subdermal implants above, which will be storage
units to hold Basic personal data (Name, Rank, SSN), Medical Records,
Classification held, Military Personell Records Jacket, et al. One would
implanted in the back of the skull, another (emergency backup) elsewhere.
Shortrange IFF, required
to use most military equipment--if you pick up a radio, and you havn't
got one, it blanks out the frequencies automatically and zeros out the crypto
gear. Try to get into a tank and start it, and it silently alerts it's higher
headquarters, and by the way, won't start. So on and so on. Makes using
captured equipment difficult in the extreme, protects sensitive data (The
divisional commander and his staff is dead, your commandos power up the
Divisional AI Mainframe... it asks for an IFF reading anywhere in the
vicinity, finds nothing, and formats the
hard drives), and oh-by-the-way, keeps your grunts from being shredded
by APFCs. It only recieves and responds to IFF interrogations from friendly
equipment, not a continuous transmission, so your guys can't be tracked by
their little brain beacons.
What do ya'll think?
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
<snip>
. Makes using captured equipment difficult in the extreme,
> protects sensitive data (The divisional commander and his staff is
What happens when the other guy figures out the frequency / code to your
implants and mimics the IFF interrogation signal - revealing all your
troops OR creating boobytraps / mines that use your IFF to trigger, etc
etc etc.
Would yours "turn off" if the "carrier" dies? If they did, you wouldn't be
able to use them as easily for identification of casualties. If they didn't,
my commandos would be hacking off the heads of your divisional commander and
staff to use as access keys to the mainframe...
Just a thought
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> You'd have to be careful and make the chip "stealthy".
One would hope that you would keep secret both the series of frequencies you
use, and the correct codes to activate them.
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> What happens when the other guy figures out the frequency / code to
Well, this might be an EW task, and every unit might have some sort of
different code key, with some common factor.
> Would yours "turn off" if the "carrier" dies? If they did, you
Well, I think you might have (as with radio today) alternate frequencies and
codes and just transmit a message like
"X-Ray Six Six to BattleGroup, Code Golan Three". This might
means something like shift to alternate frequency, due to enemy having
compromised your current IFF (or suspicion of same).
The system has its benefits, but like most j'eune ecole technologies, it
doesn't replace solid operational planning and covering contingencies in SOP
like how to deal with these situations. And there will be times you turn it
off entirely (the DMC in Rick Shelley's books track their enemy by their IFF
blips and active
helmet sensors and comms, so you turn them off to sneak around -
handicapping you but your enemy moreso).
> Just a thought
/************************************************
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > > One thing I could see happening is a change in anti-infantry
> > stops trees, fences, etc. from setting it off? Just asking this so
Hmm. And you thought they weren't fast enough to attack GMS? (grin). I think
in order to do the level or target recognition with multiple sensors you are
thinking of (reliably), the system had better be blazing fast. If I have to
lock up a target, determine it is not an obstacle or friendly force, is a
valid target, and engage, it has to be fast.
The problem with this is if the system uses systems like pulsed doppler radar
(looking for the doppler shift of a moving target), IR (looking for the heat
of a valid target), or shape (using visual shape recognition) and requires
more than one of these to corroborate, I can see modern infantry evolving
equipment around that
- IR masking battle dress (esp those in partial armour or full
armour), a ghillie suit (to break up your human shape, and some form of
portable battlefield radar jammer. Also, I'd be sure to evolve a way where I
could throw an arty shell or a man portable attack of some type at the target
vehicle and get it to detonate its APFC belts. I'd do this repeatedly to strip
the tank. Maybe fake pop up silhouettes with IR signature packs. That would
set off all three of the above systems.
Anyway, I guess my point is there should be some way for good infantry to
bollix this and cause either no triggering or premature triggering.
Also, did you envision an APFC able to fire more than once per round?
/************************************************
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Like someone said though, I'd want it able to be turned off (like in SF
especially). You might have a biofeedback technique to deactivate and activate
it.
> John Atkinson wrote:
/************************************************
<snip>
> Would yours "turn off" if the "carrier" dies? If they did, you
The tactics of the DMC sprang to mind when I was reading John's post -
but he was talking about implanted IFFs. I'm sure we could eventually figure
out a way to make these turn off, change frequencies, etc - though it
would
be problematic - but wouldn't that defeat the purpose? The idea, it
seems
to me, is to make the IFF system "soldier-proof" so that your guys don't
get killed by mistake by your systems if they forget to turn it on. Also, your
soldiers would want to be able to turn it off, so they can do stuff
they're not supposed to without getting caught - 'tis the nature of
soldiers... If they could be turned off, they will be - and some fool
will forget to turn it on, and walk with his patrol into an IFFminefield. He
dies, which is good for the gene pool 'cus he's stupid, but he kills his
patrol too.
Having said that, I think the idea of an IFF system is smart and makes a
lot of sense. I'm not sure that I would want it implanted - I much
prefer
the DMC style, or maybe like a Star Trek communicator/transport locator
badge on your uniform.
> True security (at least from an digital-data perspective) is based on
Actually, security for (relatively) unimportant, routine things is based on
mathematics. Security for really important stuff is based on secrecy. For this
though, a little encryption is enough. But I think it should be more of a
simple encryption scheme, rather than an actual protocol.
True security (at least from an digital-data perspective) is based on
mathematics, not secrecy. So in addition to broadcasting the signal on the
right frequency, Require the 'query' command to be encrypted. If the receiver
decrypts the correct command, then the response is sent, otherwise it stays
silent.
Jared Noble
"John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> on 12/16/98 05:37:02 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
We're quickly back to having the troops assemble at mess and having their
brain-tags updated to accept new password/codes. As I said in my other
post, use encrypted challenge codes - So even if the enemy is
bradcasting on the right frequency, the IFF will not respond unless the data
being broadcast decrypts to the correct code.
Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@idirect.com> on 12/16/98 04:55:58 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: [SG2] APFCs in Stargrunt
<snip>
. Makes using captured equipment difficult in the extreme,
> protects sensitive data (The divisional commander and his staff is
What happens when the other guy figures out the frequency / code to your
implants and mimics the IFF interrogation signal - revealing all your
troops OR creating boobytraps / mines that use your IFF to trigger, etc
etc etc.
Would yours "turn off" if the "carrier" dies? If they did, you wouldn't be
able to use them as easily for identification of casualties. If they didn't,
my commandos would be hacking off the heads of your divisional commander and
staff to use as access keys to the mainframe...
Just a thought
Adrian
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > I more or less envision APFCs being controlled & triggered by a
It's not
> > an entirely independant system - it draws from the vehicles overall
Granted - I was thinking that whatever else happens, computer power is
only going to go up and up...As for engaging GMS, there's still a gap between
the response times needed to engage infantry and the time needed
to engage possibly-supersonic or faster GMS missles.
Someone mentioned putting APFC charges on the top deck of a tank to defend
against top attack missles. Given that APFC is primarily an
anti-personnel
system, and the only personel usually on the top deck of a tank are the tank's
crew, I can see said crew objecting to the installation of systems that could
kill them. (If you're riding in an open hatch when
side-mounted
APFCs go off, it's noisy and uncomfortable. If a top-mounted charge
goes, it's messy and fatal...and simply ordering people to always ride
buttoned up won't really work, people being people.)
> The problem with this is if the system uses systems like pulsed
And while you're setting up these complex systems, the target tank is either
charging to the attack or has moved away, forcing you to start setting up
somewhere else. You're better off just trying to kill the tank, and stay out
of APFCs (limited) range.
In an ambush situation, some of these systems would be useful - esp. IR
shielding, ghillie suits, jammers. In a fluid combat situation, they'd be
less useful - especially if, after the shooting starts, tank crews put
their APFCs on twitch mode - if it moves, looks vaugely human and
doesn't have the right IFF, wipe it out. Less accurate target recognition, but
greater security...
> Anyway, I guess my point is there should be some way for good
Yes. It's whole racks of charges, on all four sides of a vehicle, with only a
couple needed, probably, to blanket any given area with a lethal
flecette load. Having multiple firing - even from the same side - seems
a reasonable assumption.
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Someone mentioned putting APFC charges on the top deck of a tank to
Well, I'd work on an APFC for the top deck that can fire in such a pattern as
to exclude a small cone around the hatches. Make the crew safe unless it was
out doing something.... and the system should be off then...plus the IFF
comments mean it could not fire if a commander was in the way....but maybe
another charge near the back of the tank could fire without hitting him. I
think upward APFC charges are viable, if side ones are.
> > The problem with this is if the system uses systems like pulsed
> > (looking for the heat of a valid target), or shape (using visual
> > of portable battlefield radar jammer. Also, I'd be sure to evolve a
> > the above systems.
Well, maybe on the decoy side I'd agree. But having IR masking and shape
masking (the latter of which has been a camo staple for a long time) seems
normal for future infantry. Future IW should be capable of selectively jamming
a vehicles doppler radar for these systems (not to mention fire control).
> In an ambush situation, some of these systems would be useful - esp.
IR
> shielding, ghillie suits, jammers. In a fluid combat situation, they'd
Sure, and potential for accidents. All I want to suggest is that
there are reasons to be careful with this system - it (like anything)
is not the be all end all technology. There are counters (if you have them or
can use them), and there are risks if you put your APFC in promiscuous (hit
anything that event whiffs of danger) mode.
> > Also, did you envision an APFC able to fire more than once per
Perhaps. But perhaps you also have a lag between firings programmed in so that
the falling bodies of the last lot or a wounded guy trying to haul ass don't
cause it to fire again.... maybe this translates to one firing per round.
Alternately, if a unit moves into range, gets hit by APFCs, and routes back or
manually retreats, it should get hit again. I think eventually this will wear
down your APFC defenses, as will getting shot at a lot.
I suspect in real life there might be good reasons not to load your
vehicle with piles of charges on strips - what about a GAC firing at
your vehicle, as it sits in them middle of your infantry? It might
set off some of the APFCs! What about the whack of a non-penetrating
artillery shell (or even a near miss)! It might be enough to set off the APFC.
Anyway, maybe we'll have these. Probably will. But I suspect they will evolve
doctrine that limits them, and the implementaiton will have limited firings.
/************************************************
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
use very strong cryptography! i can't resist looking at the details of the
crypto here. sorry.
<geek:crypto>
the system would use an asymmetric cipher (aka a public/private-key
system, like the RSA cipher used in PGP, etc). basically, the messages
encrypted with the public key can only be decrypted with the private key and
vice versa.
the IFF scanner sends out an interrogation ping, including its own id, a
challenge sequence (different every time) and the challenge sequence encrypted
with its own private key. since all IFF units have a registry of all public
keys, this allows the IFF tag to verify that the IFF scanner is really on its
side. the tag responds with a message consisting of its own id and the
challenge string encrypted with the tag's private key. this allows the scanner
to verify that the tag is who it says it is. the tag's reply is encrypted with
the scanner's public key, so that only the scanner can read it.
thus, before an IFF tag says anything, it makes sure the scanner is
legitimate, and not an enemy EW unit. security is provide by using very long
cipher keys.
for bonus security, the challenge sequence would include a timestamp, to
protect against 'playback' attacks where the enemy records an IFF challenge
and plays it back to stimulate and IFF tag. all IFF units would
need synchronised time - this can be got from the GPS system. also, the
scanner's id should be attached to the tag's message, so that multiple
simultaneous scans do not interfere.
</geek:crypto>
> Would yours "turn off" if the "carrier" dies? If they did, you
the message would include info on the wearer - whether he is alive or
dead, for instance. the mainframe's security manager would not allow access by
dead users.
the thing with IFF is that, unless your tag has a directional emitter, the
enemy will be able to pick up the replies your tag makes to scans. if these
are infrequent (eg only when a scanner notices a new potential
target), or if the reply is made with low-frequency frequency-agile
radio, etc, then it is not too bad.
Tom
<snip lots>
> I suspect in real life there might be good reasons not to load your
Nowadays they're putting fragmentation rounds into the smoke launchers on
armoured vehicles as a potentially very effective anti-infantry device.
Limited numbers (like smoke launchers), but this is for sure the way things
will go.
> Jared E Noble wrote:
> We're quickly back to having the troops assemble at mess and having
No need for that. Even today, many military radios can recieve their "fills"
over the air.
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> the IFF scanner sends out an interrogation ping, including its own id,
In a large organization, PKI management becomes problematic. The national
police here are wrestling with this nightmare now.
> thus, before an IFF tag says anything, it makes sure the scanner is
Too slow potentially. Long keys take time to exchange. And if the key exchange
takes a few transactions (I've seen up to six), that translates to a speed you
don't want to think of on the battlefield (you'll get nuked while this is
processing or slow your guns down a bunch to carry this out), even if you do
use GHz range transmitters (which is like installing a microwave in the back
of your head... no risk of cancer though!).
I work with 800 band comms and they still are no blistering heck. Doing even
private key crypto over them is potentially quite an overhead. Public key
crypto is a brutal thought. Yes, it is far in the future, but if you plan to
put it into someone's head, you'll want it to be a very low level digital
signal, and you have some profound limitations on data rate as a function of
range and power. And if you get down to that level, it begins to be possible
for low power jamming to take out your signal easily. Of course, various error
corrections schemes oppose this, but you could be blocked getting channel
access, etc.
I've worked on public and private radio networks (non-military) and
have talked with comms security gurus (military and intel backgroun) and have
some idea that what you say is possible, but might not be fast enough. And
their may be denial attacks that work
against it. Cracking it is hard. Making your IFF non-functional may
be easier.
> for bonus security, the challenge sequence would include a timestamp,
...slower yet....
and simultaneous scans suggests using multiple frequencies -
otherwise you'll get collisions on the channel. Or timeslicing. Any way you
look at it, RF limits your data rate. As data rate climbs, range declines. (I
think something like range declines as a function
of the square of the increase in data rate - doubling data rate cuts
range by a factor of 4 - but I could be wrong0.
> </geek:crypto>
> the message would include info on the wearer - whether he is alive or
Great. So your health monitor breaks and you can't comm for the arty
support. Joy. There'd still have to be a manual human-verified
backup system.
> the thing with IFF is that, unless your tag has a directional emitter,
And how do you do a subcutaneous directional transmitter?
if
> these are infrequent (eg only when a scanner notices a new potential
But it still could be detected. The only 100% security is not to
encode anything. And the only 100% non-detection is not to use your
comms.
Tom.
/************************************************
> for bonus security, the challenge sequence would include a timestamp,
Just a thought here. If you kill all my GPS satellites, I can still use a
compass. If you kill all my GPS satellites and that perhaps does away with the
time synchronization of my IFF, my tanks will kill me (or my computers won't
work, or whatever).
This system should be integral to the IFF unit and the interrogating
unit -
not requiring "third party" input to operate properly - 'cause that
leaves
you open to spoofing/ew/etc. It would take some effort to kill a GPS
sat
net (with what, 26 satellites or something like that) - but if the
payoff were that the enemy's systems all crapped out and their own weapons
killed
them - it might be worth the effort. And you wouldn't need to take out
ALL the satellites, just enough to create gaps in coverage.
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Hijack that download and you can kill a squad without firing a shot.
> Jared E Noble wrote:
/************************************************
The fact of the matter is that in the future as is the operational standard
now, in many situations you can not physically fill crypto face to face given
the operating environment. This has been an SOP in SOF for a long time. Sure
if your fill is comprimised and the enemy intercepts it ou are in trouble. But
if I fill a raidio manually (from a "can") then wlak out the door and get
snagged by the enemy, you are in the exact same situation. Comprimising crypto
is bad one way of the other. Then again there are oprtational techniques which
will remain nameless to limit the comprimise encountered when someone gets a
hold of your crypto.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Jared E Noble wrote:
Right. That goes without saying.
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> you open to spoofing/ew/etc. It would take some effort to kill a GPS
I envision that any major conflict would be accompanied by massive
sattelite deployment and sattelite-killing programs. Think a ship with
a cargo hold spitting out sattelites and a dozen class C batteries sweeping up
the enemy's sattelites.
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
I can buy that. Just saying that if it was linked to things like automines and
autoguns, you'd get little warning of the bad situation you were in....
> The fact of the matter is that in the future as is the operational
Sure if your
> fill is comprimised and the enemy intercepts it ou are in trouble. But
/************************************************
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >True security (at least from an digital-data perspective) is based on
True enough, and of course bureaucratic foulups ("what do you mean you dropped
the IFF codes in the trash bin! Who knows whose got them
now, and its too damn late to change them - the Ops in progress!"). I
have an InfoSec book that spends about two chapters on computers and the rest
of the work on organizational setup and protocols because the soft squishy
parts of the system are most likely to be the security weakpoints.
/************************************************