Can a nation with only computers stay free?

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm conflicted...
I think military power is important, to some degree. As much as I'm personally a pacifist, I wouldn't strip my country of military assets were I to assume ultimate power.

I do think that military forces are still commonly organized to fight wars that are unlikely to exist, though.

So maybe l save cash on ICBMs and MBTs and spend it on electronic warfare. I mean, that is obviously a simplistic line, but I think the agility of military response needs to be focused on. The prime threats against the sovereignty of my country are not massed invasions, but terrorism of all kinds, with cyber terrorism a distinct future possibility, as flagged by the evil sewer-blockers in this very thread.

Course, I still want well-trained folks with gun for when I FIND the noxious little poo-propagaters, no doubt living with their parents despite being 47 years old.

 

[Curious George]

I'm conflicted...
I think military power is important, to some degree. As much as I'm personally a pacifist, I wouldn't strip my country of military assets were I to assume ultimate power.

I do think that military forces are still commonly organized to fight wars that are unlikely to exist, though.

So maybe l save cash on ICBMs and MBTs and spend it on electronic warfare. I mean, that is obviously a simplistic line, but I think the agility of military response needs to be focused on. The prime threats against the sovereignty of my country are not massed invasions, but terrorism of all kinds, with cyber terrorism a distinct future possibility, as flagged by the evil sewer-blockers in this very thread.

Course, I still want well-trained folks with gun for when I FIND the noxious little poo-propagaters, no doubt living with their parents despite being 47 years old.

Though some of our "poo propogation" may be juvenile, we are still a sophisticated bunch. Any tool is only as good or as evil as its handler.

 

[Riverwolf]

So maybe l save cash on ICBMs and MBTs and spend it on electronic warfare. I mean, that is obviously a simplistic line, but I think the agility of military response needs to be focused on. The prime threats against the sovereignty of my country are not massed invasions, but terrorism of all kinds, with cyber terrorism a distinct future possibility, as flagged by the evil sewer-blockers in this very thread.

A future possibility?? It's been a real possibility for years, now!

 

[esmith]

ay across the world?

Bah. All extremists want that. They're not the terrorists I worry about.

and if it is not Islamic terrorist that you worry about, which terrorist cells do you find troubling?

 

[esmith]

I meant Cannae. ^_^

Still did not recognize the name, but after looking it up I can understand why. My area of interest is focused, at the present time, on the time period leading up to WWII and into the present day. Right now I am really engrossed in the "Forgotten War", Korea. Which includes the political and military interaction between the major players which was China, Russia, and the United States. It is interesting that the political situation was, how should I say, interesting. Especially between Mao and Stalin.

 

[Falvlun]

We need some military, but it doesn't need to be as big as it is. And yes, part of the reason for that is that computers can inflict much more damage to an enemy nation than traditional weaponry.

 

[esmith]

We need some military, but it doesn't need to be as big as it is. And yes, part of the reason for that is that computers can inflict much more damage to an enemy nation than traditional weaponry.

Depends on what you consider "traditional" weaponry doesn't it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Though some of our ". propogation" may be juvenile, we are still a sophisticated bunch. Any tool is only as good or as evil as its handler.

Yup, basically. l kinda had my tongue in my cheek with the poo-related part of the post. Earliest form of germ warfare was poo-flinging and chucking corpses over the wall.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A future possibility?? It's been a real possibility for years, now!

Sure...but my point is we should be planning for future possibilities rather than historical occurrences. Tank battles are a fact as well, but I'd devalue the role of the MBT.

 

[Riverwolf]

and if it is not Islamic terrorist that you worry about, which terrorist cells do you find troubling?

None of them. I treat terrorists the way I treat natural disasters.

 

[esmith]

None of them. I treat terrorists the way I treat natural disasters.

Therefore since no one can do anything to stop natural disasters you obviously think nothing can be done to stop terrorist. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

 

[Riverwolf]

Therefore since no one can do anything to stop natural disasters you obviously think nothing can be done to stop terrorist. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

You can stop individual groups, but there will always be those who seek to impose their ideologies with violence, from King Hermann Son of Segimerus of the Cherusci slaughtering three Roman legions, to George Washington killing British loyalists in their sleep on Christmas.

The "war on terror" is not a war that can be won, because there's no front, no sides, no victory conditions, and if the terrorists succeed, you can bet your keester that they won't be remembered as terrorists, but rather as freedom fighters.

 

[esmith]

You can stop individual groups, but there will always be those who seek to impose their ideologies with violence, from King Hermann Son of Segimerus of the Cherusci slaughtering three Roman legions, to George Washington killing British loyalists in their sleep on Christmas.

The "war on terror" is not a war that can be won, because there's no front, no sides, no victory conditions, and if the terrorists succeed, you can bet your keester that they won't be remembered as terrorists, but rather as freedom fighters.

That is true, the winner always writes the history books. However, at this period of time I think that anything and everything, and I mean everything, should be done to insure that those that wish harm to this country should be dealt with in the most aggressive manner possible.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is true, the winner always writes the history books. However, at this period of time I think that anything and everything, and I mean everything, should be done to insure that those that wish harm to this country should be dealt with in the most aggressive manner possible.

Even harming the country first, preemptively-like? Or committing acts of terrorism first, preemptively-like?

 

[esmith]

Even harming the country first, preemptively-like? Or committing acts of terrorism first, preemptively-like?

Not sure how you would describe "hurting the country". Are you referring to the US or the country harboring the terrorist? I sort of like the idea of the capture, interrogate, and take actions based on the intelligence acquired. And if a few terrorist are taken out during the capture phase it would not pose a problem to me. If the capture is not a viable option then the eradicate option is fine. Oh, and by the way terrorist captured outside or inside the boarders of the US are not criminals they are combatants and do not have the rights accorded to them under our Constitution.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not sure how you would describe "hurting the country". Are you referring to the US or the country harboring the terrorist?

The US. That is, to stop the terrorists (however that's defined), do we destroy the freedom you keep touting (though still undefined), such as by instigating an Orwellian regime? Or do we just become terrorists ourselves and kill innocent families in pursuit of rock-throwers?

That's what I'm asking: do we become that which we're trying to fight?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you think that the possibility of a EMP event whether natural or man-made is "ridiculous". Suggest you read the following
Electromagnetic Pulse - Nuclear EMP - futurescience.com
an additional link referenced in the above article also:
Electromagnetic Pulse - EMP Myths - futurescience.com

I didn't say what you're suggesting is ridiculous because I thought it was impossible; it's technically possible, but insurmountably impractical. You're advocating the Rube Goldberg school of military strategy. James Bond-style movie villains are not a significant threat to the US.

 

[esmith]

I didn't say what you're suggesting is ridiculous because I thought it was impossible; it's technically possible, but insurmountably impractical. You're advocating the Rube Goldberg school of military strategy. James Bond-style movie villains are not a significant threat to the US.

Are you attempting to say that an aggressor country would not use an EMP weapon against another country? An why do you say an EMP weapon is impractical? It is just as practical as a nuclear strike, since an effect EMP weapon is nothing more that a nuclear bomb detonated 200-300 miles above the earth over the desired target area and the pulse is effect in a "line-of-sight" area beneath the weapon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you attempting to say that an aggressor country would not use an EMP weapon against another country? An why do you say an EMP weapon is impractical? It is just as practical as a nuclear strike, since an effect EMP weapon is nothing more that a nuclear bomb detonated 200-300 miles above the earth over the desired target area and the pulse is effect in a "line-of-sight" area beneath the weapon.

I'm saying that no country would go to the expense and political risk of developing a nuclear program and spaceflight program just to do what can mostly be accomplished by a DDOS attack.

 

[idav]

I'm saying that no country would go to the expense and political risk of developing a nuclear program and spaceflight program just to do what can mostly be accomplished by a DDOS attack.

Interesting point. Is it already time to start adding guided missle systems to our computers?