Re: [iwar] Digest Number 251


From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com

Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:42:33 -0700


fc  Wed Oct 18 14:31:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Wed Oct 18 21:31:08 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-549-971904606-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com  Wed Oct 18 16:30:03 2000
Received: from ei.egroups.com (ei.egroups.com [208.50.99.235]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id QAA20719 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:30:03 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-549-971904606-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.37] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Oct 2000 21:30:10 -0000
X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 18 Oct 2000 21:30:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 1882 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2000 21:30:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Oct 2000 21:30:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.41.70) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 21:30:04 -0000
Received: from catalyst (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id OAA15197 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001018143318.00a80760@poptop.llnl.gov>
X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: 
References: <4.2.2.20001018134220.00ad45a0@poptop.llnl.gov>
From: Tony Bartoletti 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:42:33 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Digest Number 251
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael,

We are in agreement about the overall remoteness of the EMP issue, given the
broad range of other cyber-type attacks that are more easily pursued, (and
I am happy you are not a "hardened shell" advocate :)

I did not want Fred's observation to be construed to mean that such an
attack could be outright dismissed for all but "national-level" combatants.

True, those corporate holders of infrastructure will get what's coming if
they are unprepared for reasonable eventualities.  Unfortunately, the public
(and who knows how many dependent functions) will suffer "collateral" damage.

___tony___

At 02:05 PM 10/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm not discounting the devolution of destructive capacity down (go read my
>_Waging IWAR_ when you have a moment).  What I do think is more than slightly
>unrealistic is the drama associated with HERF, 'directed energy weapons,' and
>the like.  Given even a 'low yield' device, I could think of any number of
>uses, only a few of which involve the generated EMP.
>
>As for Nero...  Any business that depends on IT infrastructure and doesn't 
>have
>mechanisms in place to handle the full spectrum of credible threats gets what
>they have coming to them.  Recently finding out exactly how little Corporate
>America actually cares about infrastructure assurance, I suspect that a number
>of players would be caught out.  (Incidentally, I'm on the far extreme from
>'hardened facility' thinking: go read my _Defense-in-Depth_ when you have a
>moment.)
>
>Pardon my on-going sarcasm, but 'Pearl Harbor' and related scenario thinking
>(including directed energy weapons--I'm not saying they aren't possible, I'm
>saying they occupy a pretty tiny section of a realistic threat spectrum) miss
>the point.
>
>MW
>Managing Partner, 7Pillars Partners
>A Professional Military & Intelligence Advisory Firm
>(aka, we actually do IO for a living, among other things)
>
>On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tony Bartoletti wrote:
>
> > Forgive me, but some degrees of "nuke" capability will become easier to
> > develop and deploy, especially for those with enough patience.  Something
> > the size of a suitcase carried to the top of a tall downtown building, a
> > device constructed almost entirely "domestically".  It need not have a
> > high-efficiency yield -- 10% would produce an impressive display.
> >
> > Yes, we have "key sites" that have been hardened against such eventualities
> > for years.  Again, forgive me, but that sounds a bit like "protected by his
> > hardened facility, Nero fiddled while Rome burned."  Given the potential
> > degree of social and financial collapse that could ensue from such an 
> event,
> > the prospect that certain hardened facilities would remain unscathed is of
> > scant comfort.
> >
> > ___tony___
> >
> > At 07:48 AM 10/18/00 -0700, Michael Wilson wrote:
> > >Go Fred.  That's the big problem when people talk about directed or
> > >environmental energy weapons--they tend to forget that nucs are the 
> primary
> > >known powersource.  They also forget the law of the inverse 
> square.  Would it
> > >also be worth mentioning that key sites have been hardened for years
> > >(particularly the old, 'Cold War' installations) for just that reason?  My
> > >recollection was that entire development efforts (such as GA chips) were
> > >pursued for these reasons.
> > >
> > >Sigh, no general sense of science or history.
> > >
> > >MW
> > >www.7pillars.com
> > >
> > >On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Fred Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Per the message sent by DrewSchaefer@ftnetwork.com:
> > > >
> > > > > Back to our point.  IF an EMP bomb is somehow built and delivered by
> > > > > some UNNAMED country with lots of sand against some advanced, 
> IT-dense
> > > > > urban area in Europe or USA, with a capacity to take out ALL EM
> > > > > communications (TV, radio, electrical grids, Newspaper [having 
> lost its
> > > > > capacity to create newsprint, now virtually all done electronically],
> > > > > Phone, Internet and cellular, [forgive me if this list seems 
> ignorant, I
> > > > > am still searching best sources]), a hugely devastating effect 
> would be
> > > > > rendered against populations that prior, were 'immunized' by the 
> Rules
> > > > > of War against such involvement.
> > > >
> > > > Read nuclear weapon.  If you anaylze it, you may find that in order to
> > > > build this EMP bomb that takes out 'ALL EM communications' over any
> > > > significant area (on the magnitude of a city) you will need so much
> > > > energy that only a nuclear weapon can achieve it in a deliverable
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > FC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > > http://all.net/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------
> > >http://all.net/
> >
> > Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
> > Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
> > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> > Livermore, CA 94551-9900
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------
> > http://all.net/
> >
>
>
>
>------------------
>http://all.net/

Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get FREE long-distance phone calls on Tellme!
Dial 1-800-555-TELL, say "Phone Booth"
http://click.egroups.com/1/9816/14/_/595019/_/971904606/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

------------------
http://all.net/