Navy Developing Cyber-Attack Weaponry
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Although (I want to put out i'm just kinda guessing here) Wouldn't the cyber attack allow you to access all the data inside the computer unlike an EMP so you could essentially learn everything you needed about the colonis... enemies plans?Caliostro said:
I like to think this was a reaction to all the chinese cyber attacks and America just decided fuck it, I want them but as a robot.
Absolutely. The fact that the Revolution in Military affairs and the doctrine of pre-emptive war has been proven totally worthless, costly, and essentially another Vietnam.Cryo84R said:
Conflict with China, while some would have us believe is inevitable, is realistically not on the cards. China and the US have far too much to lose economically.
Developing ways of guarding againsts cyber attacks and even developing Cyber warfare capabilities is all well and good, but only when there aren't thousands of troops deployed far across the world that badly need all the resources they can get.
This project shows that already the Pentagon is trying to forget about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Very true, the biggest advantage to gaining access to your enemies' network is that you could then find out where they were and what they were saying to each other. Also you could shut it down.
It is too late to start developing weapons for the current conflict. By the time you get them into service the conflict has changed. You don't develop weapons for a specific conflict and enemy. The weapons become too specialized. Besides we don't need fancy weapons to take on terrorists. We need manpower, intel, and the government letting us do our f'ing job.Cryo84R said:
Battlefield networks have to be wireless. You can't hook a ethernet cable up to a main battle tank.Asehujiko said:
Fair enough, I was just trying to come up with a possible reason why they might be wanting to develop it. Perhaps they want robots as A. It's fracking awesome and B. The required number of hackers, trolls and otherwise evil parts of the internet underbelly all would reside in the 7th circle of internet hell, you know, /b/. It's possible the American government doesn't want to make a deal with the devilCaliostro said:
Yes, I am joking. It's horrible that I feel I have to point that out on these forums
You can't hack a battlefield comms network. It isn't connected to the internet therefor no outside access. This provides a way into the closed system by getting on their ecrypted radio networks and using that to further dig into their network.
I have to take issue with this. It is nothing at all like Vietnam. Vietnam started out as a small advisory action that built up to full battlefield conflict. Vietnam was lost because the White House and Congress wouldn't allow the Armed Services to win. They wouldn't let the Air Force bomb a SAM site until it was operational thus ensuring that it would get a chance to fire at US pilots. The conflict we are in now is well on it's way to being mostly won. The problem we have is simply that the native government doesn't have the police capacity to combat the terrorists. The people are turning more and more against the terrorists in their own country as they see they no longer have to fear them. With the US and allies there in country we are allowing them to not live in fear of these elements. This allows them breathing room to build up to the level where they can combat the enemy themselves.Boba Frag said:
I doubt it would be so simple to counter that all you'd have to do is plug in an ethernet cable. Odds are your probably not smarter than the Navy's engineers, and they probably thought of that, and know how to counteract it. There also smart enough to not go around telling everyone.
If they say there are developing it, they are. And its going to work.
If they say there are developing it, they are. And its going to work.
It could be foiled by a wired network but that doesn't matter because you can't hook a wire up to a moving object. The units have to be able to interface and network with command so therefor they have to use wireless comms, thus leaving them open to intrusion.
I'm now kinda thankful that my net connection at home is slow as hell.......Tom Goldman said:Navy Developing Cyber-Attack Weaponry
All your electronics will belong to the U.S. military once it completes its new line of cyber-attack weaponry.
If there's one thing I've learned from watching Battlestar Galactica, it's that networked systems are vulnerable to cyber-attack, which is why I've un-networked all of my systems as of last year. It appears I did so it right on time, as the Navy is developing an airborne electronic attack system that seems remarkably similar to what allowed the planet of Caprica to be destroyed by the Cylons.
In BSG, humanity's space fleet was disabled by a Cylon cyber-attack that left it completely defenseless, and it was summarily destroyed save for a small fraction of ships. As detailed in an article on Military.com [http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,212940,00.html], the U.S. Navy wants a similar system in place by 2018. It would be "a weapon system that can deliver cyber-effects through free space into an aperture."
I don't know about everybody else, but I have no desire for cyber-effects to be delivered into any of my apertures. The cyber-attack system is being designed for a fighter-size aircraft such as a UAV. It would emit "data beams ... packed with specialized waveforms and algorithms that work like keys to open networks."
The article gets quite complicated and details the various development hurdles and possibilities. Another reason the cyber-attack system sounds like Cylon-inspired technology, if I'm reading the article right, is because some of its behavior is expected to be automated. I hope none of you have networked systems out there. The end is near!
(Via: Slashdot [http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/04/03/053240/Navy-Wants-Cyber-Weapons-That-Shoot-Data-Beams])
Permalink
I think I'm more afraid of dying from rubberized rocket fuel balls than having my cellphone jammed by this thing. Damn you DARPA!
Torpedoes were often guided by wire, as were/are TOW missiles. It's possible to hook up wires to them, its just a pain in the ass though.DarkSpectre said:
I think the big thing we'll see this technology employed is in shutting down cellular and radio communications for everyone; terrorists/rebels often use cellphones as their means of communications. But fucking up an entire military's communications would be epic. Think of DEFCON but wihtout any retaliation!
. . . . does ANYONE in the military watch science-fiction, or do they just think they've already planned for that eventuality?
Good god.
Good god.
We don't have anything to fear from the equipment overriding and turning on the user. The program can't go against code. It doesn't matter how complex and sophisticated you make the learning algorithms and neural networks. The thing can never disobey programming. If you hard code something into it that when yo press button A it will self destruct then no matter what it will always self destruct. A program can't go beyond parameters. The only thing we have to actually worry about is bad programing. If you don't think the whole way through the logic of your code and the parameters that you set you can end up with unexpected results. The result is still within program parameters just not within what the programmer had thought he had written. A machine is still a machine only man can cause it, even inadvertently, to cause damage.
When I said you couldn't hook a wire up to a moving object I was referring to vehicles and troops. I mean theoretically you could but could you imagine the mess that your force would be if your tanks had to have cables running all the way back to HQ? An infantry squad all tied together with wired headsets? If you want to get data from HQ to your men at the front you have to use some wireless comms somewhere and then you are open to attack.
When I said you couldn't hook a wire up to a moving object I was referring to vehicles and troops. I mean theoretically you could but could you imagine the mess that your force would be if your tanks had to have cables running all the way back to HQ? An infantry squad all tied together with wired headsets? If you want to get data from HQ to your men at the front you have to use some wireless comms somewhere and then you are open to attack.
I'm really confused about what this is supposed to do. Is it some kind of localised EMP-like effect that will disable all enemy electronics?
It is in short a wireless broadcast that is coded so as to break into a wireless network that isn't connected to the internet thus allowing them to access the data on that network.
That has been the constant thread throughout history. We constantly get better and better at killing and maiming each other. Every innovation can eventually be weaponized. If the past tells us anything it is that certain men have an insatiable appetite for violence and lack any respect for others and will engage in violence to take what they want. We just have to constantly stay stronger than them so we don't look like a target.
Not if the navy are trying to acquire sensitive information instead of destroying it utterly.Caliostro said:
For all those people wondering why the government doesn't just develop an EMP weapon, there are two reasons.
1. It'd destroy every electronic device in the blast radius, including their own.
and
2. An EMP requires an enormous amount of energy (There's a reason everyone who describes it usually includes the fact that it is generated by a nuclear device, it requires that level of energy to create a pulse of effective strength and size), so it's just not an efficient weapon.
1. It'd destroy every electronic device in the blast radius, including their own.
and
2. An EMP requires an enormous amount of energy (There's a reason everyone who describes it usually includes the fact that it is generated by a nuclear device, it requires that level of energy to create a pulse of effective strength and size), so it's just not an efficient weapon.