Navy Developing Cyber-Attack Weaponry

DarkSpectre

New member
Jan 25, 2010
127
0
0
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.
 

Lepre-Khan

New member
Apr 1, 2010
235
0
0
Caliostro said:
I realize this is raining on your parade a bit, but they already have wayyy more destructive methods of dealing with electronics: an EMP.

That said, this seems like a WIFI broadcast point setup to an UAV that's simply uploading viruses... it's probably way more complex, but at the end of the day a really good hacker could probably accomplish the same.

... Or an EMP.
Not if the navy are trying to acquire sensitive information instead of destroying it utterly.
 

Mray3460

New member
Jul 27, 2008
437
0
0
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.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Boba Frag said:
wow

The Pentagon's dream of skynet comes closer and closer to fruition! lol
Faulty metaphor, Skynet is a series of linked networks. This weapon disrupts or destroys them.

It could be they devised the means of stopping their "Skynet" should it ever get out of control.
 

Cap'n Moe

New member
Apr 14, 2009
46
0
0
Yeah the Navy may be doing it...But the idea for it originated from the Air Force. That's why we have a US Cyber Command,that essentially brings the Navy/Marine Corps, Army, and Coast Guard into the fold. I hate it when the Navy takes credit for things they had little to no input on.
 

FiveSpeedf150

New member
Sep 30, 2009
224
0
0
Boba Frag said:
wow

The Pentagon's dream of skynet comes closer and closer to fruition! lol

Now, anyone is free to disagree with me on this, but I must insist on not being flamed as not being patriotic to the US. This is impossible. I am not a US citizen.
Ok, disclaimer out of the way.

What is the bloody point of this project??
There are currently two major wars (or "conflicts" if you prefer) being fought in the middle east, primarily against very low tech, traditionally armed insurgents who generally don't communicate or structure themselves via encrypted channels, command nets, wifi, or generally have many computers. While the levels of technical expertise vary hugely, especially depending on local cells/ militia resources and which theatre of operations under discussion... I can't help but think that this money should be going somewhere else.

Technology has not provided the sufficient edge on the battlefields of Afghanistan that was assumed in 2001. Nor has it enabled the US military to claim what can be credibly called victory in Iraq. Violence in Iraq abated for myriad reasons, the major ones being
1) a total reversal in attitudes towards the local population,
2)holding dozens of small bases in urban areas rather than concentrating in fortified bases (the 'Take and hold' tactic), and
3)the decision by many militia groups and insurgents of Sunni extraction to either cease cooperation with Al Qaeda and join Awakening Councils; stop fighting the US and start protecting their own areas.

Modern war has plenty of scope for technological advances, and I realise the importance of cyber warfare and guarding against it. The cyber attacks on google originating from China are cause for concern. However, this should surely not be a concern for the US military at this juncture.
I also surmise that the Navy, to use a hackneyed phrase, wants to get back into the game. Apart from providing much needed fire support, transport capability, supply, and the occasional (secret) deployment of the Naval Special Warfare group (aka Seal Team 6), there really hasn't been a whole lot of action involving classic Naval warfare.

I have serious reservations about this project's feasibility in the current conflicts that should be the major focus of the US military.
Actually, something that has always bugged the US Military is planning to fight the last war again. This is a bit of foresight on the US Navy's part, planning for the next global conflict (god forbid). The USN isn't neglecting the current conflict either.
 

Vitor Goncalves

New member
Mar 22, 2010
1,157
0
0
Damn, no more online videogames?! No more skype?! No more Escapist forums?! How will I be able to live?!
 

AntiAntagonist

Neither good or bad
Apr 17, 2008
652
0
0
It makes me think of a model airplane with a cantenna made by a bunch of war drivers... with a budget several billion times bigger.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
Boba Frag said:
The point of this project? To make some people money.

The point of this article? To stop this project from being laughed all to hell and make it actually seem they are onto something.

Seems to me the majority of times information is released about a project it is to stir up intrest in it. Either to keep the project going and secure funding, or to because it is a really high profile project. Figure which one you think it is.

Think they can keep a secret if they want to? Say hello to the F-117 Night Hawk, otherwise known as the Stealth Fighter. Not it was a little before my time, so I am sure it way before most of you lots time, but when it was unveiled to the public in 1988 when a photo of it was released. The first production models of the plane where made in 1982 and the first test flight was in 1981. This wasn't a quick project either. It all started in 1975.


Hopeless Bastard said:
Twixley said:
Do the military have EMPs yet though? I mean, I know they exist in labs, but I haven't heard of one actually successfully weaponized yet, despite what the movies try to tell you.
A nuclear blast creates one of course, but then you're not gonna worry about your iPod frying, are you.
I'm pretty sure they can airburst one of the "cleaner" bombs to release a strong electromagnetic pulse without causing much surface damage.

It'd fry everything in several middle eastern countries (uh... for example) around the target and there'd still be a littlefallout... but there'd be some time for ground operations without fear of retaliatory goatse floods.
EMPs are over rated. Vastly over rated. All military grade targets and targets of importance are shielded against EMP as a product of being hardened targets. Any vitally important targets are hardened even against a nuclear blast, and they have known for a very long time that nukes make an EMP. A Faraday cage is a cheap simple way to stop an EMP from destroying a system. Hell a solid medal box (like a cargo container) that is sufficiently grounded will stop an EMP. The concert walls in most buildings are thick enough to dissipate the vast majority of energy in high altitude blast like that. The inverse-square law applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. Each time you double the distance between the receiver and the transmitter you get 1/4 the power at the receiver.

That is why even through it may seem like a great idea they haven't really worked on weaponing it. They probably will in the future, when it is likely that an enemy army is going to be carrying and relying on electronics packages carried on each soldier, but for now it makes no sense.

As for fallout, from a high altitude blast. It would still happen, just over a wide area, and a long time.
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
DarkSpectre said:
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.

Boba Frag said:
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.

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.
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.
Your assessment of the Iraq conflict is naive at best. Vietnam was never winnable- it was civil war that was mistaken for some sort of global Communist takeover. It was no such thing.
And quite frankly, there are plenty of parrellels with Vietnam.
Both were classic examples of how a lumbering, powerful military has great desructive power, but is next to useless against highly mobile guerrilla units. Troops would go for weeks without encountering Vietcong fighters.

The Iraq insurgency has seen similar tactics which bedevilled the US military for years. Yes, the tide has turned somewhat, but only because as you said the people in the country are turning against those elements of the wildly differing array of factions and interests that are involved.

Furthermore, you make it sound like Iraq was some sort of terrorist training camp before the US invasion. This is not only incorrect, but ignores the fact that Al Qaeda and the various militias started operating *after* the invasion. The integrity of the Iraqi state had crumbled with the decision to practically dismantle every aspect of the country's political structure's ability to maintain order.
There has been an incredible surge in sectarian killings in Iraq because of religious, ethnic and tribal tensions which has largely been ignored in favour of reporting dramatic gun battles, suicide bombings and raids against insurgents.
That's another thing- Iraq has few actual terrorists, but plenty of insurgents. They locate themselves in their own country, attack coalition troops when their own control and power over an area or district is threatened, not because they all fervently believe the US is satan in Ray Bans.

I know to some sections of the population that's hard to grasp, but the reality is that the Iraq invasion was based on lies and deceit. The plan to blitz through Iraq was tactically effective, but a major strategic cock up. Saddam was a tyrant, true, but what alternative was put in place?
There was no effort to establish order once a town was captured, the units involved generally just moved on to their next objective.

So.. we have a misunderstanding of the local cultures, power relationships.. like in Vietnam
We have an ill-equipped force doing the job... like in Vietnam.
And we have a huge number civilian deaths due to ignorance, poor intelligence, accident, or from over stressed, highly aggressive troops that can't make distinctions between civilians or enemies because the enemy is not wearing uniforms.... like in Vietnam.

Sad but true- if there had been no invasion, there would be no need to prop up a weak government with insufficiently trained, inexperienced security forces that require American military might to keep the country stable.

I recommend anyone interested reads Thomas E. Ricks' book The Gamble which details why levels of violence dropped so dramatically.
 

DarkSpectre

New member
Jan 25, 2010
127
0
0
If you detonate a nuke in space the energy is almost entirely converted to an electromagnetic wave because their is no medium for a pressure wave to propagate. This is how you really make an EMP dangerous. An EMP so isn't meant to take out military targets. The existence of EMPs have been known for quite awhile so most military targets and government facilities have been shielded. It is mainly the civilian infrastructure that you are targeting. Everybody's cells die. Their computers fry. Their cars won't work any more. Planes would crash. Traffic lights would go off line. The entire electricity grid would go down because the wires would absorb and spread the wave. The lines would transfer this power along the whole grid overloading most switching stations and causing failures and massive blackouts. The civilian populace would be in total panic. The police radios wouldn't work. The wave of energy released from space bursting a nuke above a nation would be massive. All the normal kinetic force would now be em waves. There is a ton of energy in a nuke. This is what we are afraid of when it comes to EMPs. Not something you have to worry about a terrorist using but still a large threat.
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
manaman said:
Boba Frag said:
Think they can keep a secret if they want to? Say hello to the F-117 Night Hawk, otherwise known as the Stealth Fighter.


EMPs are over rated. Vastly over rated. All military grade targets and targets of importance are shielded against EMP as a product of being hardened targets. Any vitally important targets are hardened even against a nuclear blast, and they have known for a very long time that nukes make an EMP. A Faraday cage is a cheap simple way to stop an EMP from destroying a system. Hell a solid medal box (like a cargo container) that is sufficiently grounded will stop an EMP. The concert walls in most buildings are thick enough to dissipate the vast majority of energy in high altitude blast like that. The inverse-square law applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. Each time you double the distance between the receiver and the transmitter you get 1/4 the power at the receiver.

That is why even through it may seem like a great idea they haven't really worked on weaponing it. They probably will in the future, when it is likely that an enemy army is going to be carrying and relying on electronics packages carried on each soldier, but for now it makes no sense.

As for fallout, from a high altitude blast. It would still happen, just over a wide area, and a long time.
Thanks for that, very informative.

While I agree that the Pentagon is able to keep secrets, it must be said that the adage about Washington leaking like a sieve does tend to hold true.

I'm more than accepting about the face that there are probably a few secret projects which will stun us in the near future.

However... your example is from the 1980s. Who was President then? Reagon authorised vast amounts of funding to be made available to the military because of the perceived threat from the Soviet Union, the "evil empire" in his mind.
So, while I wouldn't be surprised if there's something new and impressive in the pipeline.. I would seriously doubt if there's as much funding around as in the Gipper's time.
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
FiveSpeedf150 said:
Boba Frag said:
I have serious reservations about this project's feasibility in the current conflicts that should be the major focus of the US military.
Actually, something that has always bugged the US Military is planning to fight the last war again. This is a bit of foresight on the US Navy's part, planning for the next global conflict (god forbid). The USN isn't neglecting the current conflict either.
Well, that's a fair point. And you're absolutely right about that. I think all militaries have a dose of that "let's see how we can win the last one" syndrome. France built a bunker system after WW1 after all.

The idea of maintaining a technological and tactically edge is always going to yield worthwhile results... but that's the problem with war in the 21st century- it's an ever changing world. I'd like to point out that I have a great amount of respect for the US Navy, I just have my reservations about this new project of theirs.
 

DarkSpectre

New member
Jan 25, 2010
127
0
0
The DoD doesn't have to report to congress on any spending projects below a million, I do believe that is the number it may be lower. Congress is usually where most of the leaks come from. So if they are creative with their bookkeeping they don't have to report it to congress. This is how the SR-71 was kept highly secret. The Nighthawk was in service for quite sometime before the public knew about it through the same means. It also helped that both project where contracted through skunk works which has a nice relationship with the DoD. Though currently the funding has been cut way down. We are facing the choice of deciding whether to pay for personnel or upgrade old equipment. Fancy stuff like this is usually put on the back burner cost wise. The cost of project like this pails in comparison to what the DoD spends on just salary. Something like this isn't really harming the war effort by sucking funds away.

Boba Frag said:
Your assessment of the Iraq conflict is naive at best. Vietnam was never winnable- it was civil war that was mistaken for some sort of global Communist takeover. It was no such thing.
And quite frankly, there are plenty of parrellels with Vietnam.
Both were classic examples of how a lumbering, powerful military has great desructive power, but is next to useless against highly mobile guerrilla units. Troops would go for weeks without encountering Vietcong fighters.

The Iraq insurgency has seen similar tactics which bedevilled the US military for years. Yes, the tide has turned somewhat, but only because as you said the people in the country are turning against those elements of the wildly differing array of factions and interests that are involved.

Furthermore, you make it sound like Iraq was some sort of terrorist training camp before the US invasion. This is not only incorrect, but ignores the fact that Al Qaeda and the various militias started operating *after* the invasion. The integrity of the Iraqi state had crumbled with the decision to practically dismantle every aspect of the country's political structure's ability to maintain order.
There has been an incredible surge in sectarian killings in Iraq because of religious, ethnic and tribal tensions which has largely been ignored in favour of reporting dramatic gun battles, suicide bombings and raids against insurgents.
That's another thing- Iraq has few actual terrorists, but plenty of insurgents. They locate themselves in their own country, attack coalition troops when their own control and power over an area or district is threatened, not because they all fervently believe the US is satan in Ray Bans.

I know to some sections of the population that's hard to grasp, but the reality is that the Iraq invasion was based on lies and deceit. The plan to blitz through Iraq was tactically effective, but a major strategic cock up. Saddam was a tyrant, true, but what alternative was put in place?
There was no effort to establish order once a town was captured, the units involved generally just moved on to their next objective.

So.. we have a misunderstanding of the local cultures, power relationships.. like in Vietnam
We have an ill-equipped force doing the job... like in Vietnam.
And we have a huge number civilian deaths due to ignorance, poor intelligence, accident, or from over stressed, highly aggressive troops that can't make distinctions between civilians or enemies because the enemy is not wearing uniforms.... like in Vietnam.

Sad but true- if there had been no invasion, there would be no need to prop up a weak government with insufficiently trained, inexperienced security forces that require American military might to keep the country stable.

I recommend anyone interested reads Thomas E. Ricks' book The Gamble which details why levels of violence dropped so dramatically.
The US didn't have problems dealing with guerrilla tactics in Vietnam. The Force Recon, Green Berets, Rangers, SEALS were all very capable and knowledgeable about how to deal with Viet Cong. What stopped them is that they couldn't take the gloves off. The same thing hampered the Air Force. The insane ROE caused high losses. The Viet Cong was supplied buy the North but the ROE wouldn't allow for things such as destroying a SAM site until it was operational. This goes against one the most basic tenets of military doctrine. Don't let your enemy have the chance to fight back.

Another problem we experienced in that conflict was that we didn't understand the culturally importance of the "Hand of God". The locals would side with whomever appeared to be winning because that meant that god was on their side. This is not a problem with the current conflict. We have invested a ton of effort and manpower into understanding the local culture so as to win their hearts. This is why SpecOps warriors are allowed to wear beards. This is most important in Afghanistan because the Pashtuns respect old age and wisdom and a beard is a sign of that. The military that fought in Vietnam is nothing like the military that is fighting now. Doctrine was changed significantly and training altered due to that conflict.
The US isn't a lumbering massive force. It only appears inflexible from the outside. The culture rewards innovation and bold thinking. It is stressed over and over in train that you have to be creative in battle. Training exercises are designed to make you think on your feet.

As far as the two current conflicts that the US is engaged in we are winning quite handily. The boys on the ground see what isn't reported. The officers that come back will all tell you it isn't as bad as people try to make it sound.

Iraq went the way it did because we underestimated our own abilities. We didn't expect to be able to push that far that fast. You seem to think that it was a fuck up that the military totally dismantled the government, but that was a primary objective. We just didn't think we would get that done so fast, so we didn't have the infrastructure in place to deal with it all right then. We have since put that in place. Right now we are mainly training the locals to fight off the terrorists in their own country. It was honestly a good sign when the insurgents stopped attacking military targets and switched to civilian targets because that means they are getting desperate. They started terrorizing their own countrymen even more which has help turn the locals against them. This helped us win their hearts and minds. That has been the main focus in the past few years and it is showing fruition. Within a few years we could be able to leave because the local police should be able to deal with the terrorists in their own country. Afghanistan will be the same situation, though harder to pull off because the landscape makes centralized government hard to maintain. The main thing we are worried about it seeing Balkanization take place in both theaters. Iraq is much more stable than Afghanistan but that is due to the increase in manpower. The Iraqi government is getting much more able to deal with their own home grown terrorists everyday. It is looking quite positive. Hopefully they'll be stable enough that we can come home before this current President's term is up. Afghanistan will take longer but it has its own special issues. It is going to take longer to stabilize that region and we'll have to place in a lot of infrastructure to allow the central government to maintain law and order, but it isn't too hard. The guys on the ground are confident they can do it and they have the best perspective of anybody because they are there in the fight. The only thing I worry about is another theater opening because with so many men involved with maintaining law and order and training local police forces our numbers are stretched thin. This is why the USAFCoS is trying to increase personnel funding by 25%. The more men we have on the ground the quicker and more locals we can train.

Upgrading the transport fleet would help too because we could ferry more supplies into remote places. Most likely both conflict will end up resulting in a permanent though limited presence like after the Korean war or the first Gulf War. Operations Northern and Southern watched went straight from that war to the current with no end in sight. I would imagine the same for the current war.
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
DarkSpectre said:
The US didn't have problems dealing with guerrilla tactics in Vietnam. The Force Recon, Green Berets, Rangers, SEALS were all very capable and knowledgeable about how to deal with Viet Cong. What stopped them is that they couldn't take the gloves off.



As far as the two current conflicts that the US is engaged in we are winning quite handily. The boys on the ground see what isn't reported. The officers that come back will all tell you it isn't as bad as people try to make it sound.

You seem to think that it was a fuck up that the military totally dismantled the government, but that was a primary objective.

Upgrading the transport fleet would help too because we could ferry more supplies into remote places. Most likely both conflict will end up resulting in a permanent though limited presence like after the Korean war or the first Gulf War. Operations Northern and Southern watched went straight from that war to the current with no end in sight. I would imagine the same for the current war.
The SEALS and other special warfare units, particularly they Green Berets were more than a match for the Vietcong, but were not used correctly by the command structure.
Your arguments focus on the tactical levels, not the strategic ones. The strategic is what is inmportant in the bigger picture of a war, the tactical matters in firefights.

I don't think it was a fuck up that the military dismantled the government- I know it was.
The country descended into absolute anarchy!

Making something a primary objective does not in any way mean that it's automatically the correct course of action. You talk about innovation, but that only applies on the ground for tactical situation - not in the bureacracy, and certainly not at the highest command levels.
Generals tend to take a very dim view of having any of their orders or rationales questioned by their underlings.

people returning home really don't share the full truth about what they've experienced in ongoing wars, so I'll have to take issue with your assumption there. They can't either deal with it, find it difficult to express, or they don't want to upset their families.
If it wasn't so bad, why are there huge numbers of troops taking anti-depressents such as Prozac?

To be honest, I view the whole Iraq war as a fiasco. And an illegal fiasco at that.
There was no "terrorist" threat from Iraq before 2003- The country was in no state to feed its children, never mind finance terror cells. Furthermore- Hussein would never have tolerated Bin Laden in Iraq.

This has gotten a bit off topic, so in closing...
I hope the US Navy doesn't blow all its funding on this cyber war thing just yet, although it would certainly make for a good investment sometime in the future.
 

DarkSpectre

New member
Jan 25, 2010
127
0
0
The navy won't blow all their money on this. It is a tiny portion of the budget. The cyberspace is the Air Forces' realm of oversight anyway.

The reason so many more men are taking anti-depressants after being involved in combat is that it exists. War has always been hard on the war-fighters. My best friend had some rough time transitioning back. Facing death is hard, in the past the only drug that was available was booze. Now they have drugs for that. This is the first real combat we have been involved in since the development and spread of anti-depressants, so obviously there is more men using them. The toughest part of coming back is when you come back and are no longer part of your old unit. The lack of brotherhood makes it hard to talk about facing death and danger. We have to be tough and strong to the world otherwise we can't do what we need to, but in the unit with your mates you can talk about the terror. It is something the outside world won't understand. You grow closer than brothers with those men you fight with. When they aren't there it is really tough to deal with. I've yet to meet another soldier, airman, or marine that has come back and said it is bad over there. Everyone from my brother who is a PFC to a Maj that came back for leave last week said it was better than what is being told. I'd believe their assessment since they are the ones that have to suffer if doesn't get fixed. I can't give firsthand accounts because I don't go for at least three years now.

Off topic but the capabilities and strength of my friends and colleagues can't be called into question without giving a defense. I could care less whether people understand the way war works, but don't doubt us.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
Boba Frag said:
Thanks for that, very informative.

While I agree that the Pentagon is able to keep secrets, it must be said that the adage about Washington leaking like a sieve does tend to hold true.

I'm more than accepting about the face that there are probably a few secret projects which will stun us in the near future.

However... your example is from the 1980s. Who was President then? Reagon authorised vast amounts of funding to be made available to the military because of the perceived threat from the Soviet Union, the "evil empire" in his mind.
So, while I wouldn't be surprised if there's something new and impressive in the pipeline.. I would seriously doubt if there's as much funding around as in the Gipper's time.
I agree there is going to be much less funding, all the more reason to trump up the concept that you have to ensure you get your cut of the pie before it's all gone. That's what the announcements are about. A weapon isn't all that much use to anyone, especially one like this, when everyone knows you have it and what it can do. Unless maybe they just want everyone to start working on countermeasures so they can laugh at them in a couple of years and say "You thought we where serious?"

More likely they are just looking for something to overwhelm computer systems on other ships during a battle. Should they actually be looking for something to cripple the infrastructure of a nation, then bombs do a much better job, with the added bonus that they have to fix everything rather then just finding a way to plug the virtual hole.
 

sarge1942

New member
May 24, 2009
143
0
0
ok, so far i got that if the us army invades then my cellphone won't work and i'll hae to cross the street to talk to my friends.. what happened to good old fashioned guns?honestly, much better times... even better let's just use sticks.