[iwar] [fc:US.Commandos.Armed.Like.'Inspector.Gadgets']

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-25 10:41:32


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3418-1004031691-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9423 invoked by uid 510); 25 Oct 2001 17:40:58 -0000
Received: from n7.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.57) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 25 Oct 2001 17:40:58 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3418-1004031691-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.220] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2001 17:41:31 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 25 Oct 2001 17:41:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 99039 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2001 17:41:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 25 Oct 2001 17:41:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Oct 2001 17:41:30 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9PHfXQ14949 for iwar@onelist.com; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:41:33 -0700
Message-Id: <200110251741.f9PHfXQ14949@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:US.Commandos.Armed.Like.'Inspector.Gadgets']
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christian Science Monitor
October 25,2001
US Commandos Armed Like 'Inspector Gadgets' 
By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 
Washington -- US Special Operations Forces like to play up their image as an
elite band of "snake eaters" who can survive long periods in the desert or
jungle with little more than a knife and their wits. But as the recent raids
into Afghanistan show, they are equipped with gear that makes James Bond
look low-tech.
In addition to a knife, their rucksack includes laser-guided weapons,
thermal-imaging guns that see through fog, laptops as tough as Humvees,
night-vision goggles, and little satellite-based Global Positioning Systems
units that tell them (and their comrades and commanders) exactly where they
are. Back in the lab, scientists are working on devices to shoot around
corners.
Meanwhile, above this stealthy, high-tech battle scene, satellites and
unmanned aircraft (some of them controlled by the Central Intelligence
Agency) are providing instant intelligence, communication, and fire-control.
Much of this new gear has been developed since the Gulf War, and it could
prove critical in a "war on terrorism" that - for political as well as
geographic reasons - is unlikely to include large, armored, slow-moving land
forces. A good part of the $40 billion recently appropriated for the war on
terrorism is designated for such gear as production and upgrade schedules
are accelerated.
For Special Forces troops, stealth and surprise are among their main assets,
and this often means working in an unfamiliar environment at night.
Parachuting in, as US Army Rangers did last weekend in Afghanistan, requires
night-vision equipment and GPS systems to know precisely where the soldier
(or his target) is located. Such equipment is more precise and reliable now
than it was 10 years ago.
"Night-vision [gear] has improved substantially. It's 50 to 70 percent
better," says former Army Special Forces Officer Michael Vickers. The same
is true for the small GPS units that can pinpoint a location to within 30
feet - anywhere on the globe. "It was really just demonstration stuff in the
Gulf War," says Mr. Vickers, now director of strategic studies at the Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Grainy, green videos of the recent night parachute drop and assault by US
Special Ops troops in Afghanistan provided a test of a new tactical video
system. As reported recently in Aviation Week &amp; Space Technology, "It allows
troops on the ground to relay in near-real time digital imagery and could
allow almost instantaneous battle-damage assessment or video to be provided
of an intended target before a strike is authorized."
Pre-mission planning also is enhanced. During the Gulf War, battlefield
commanders had to wait for satellite images of strategic targets and enemy
assets to be faxed over phone lines. Now, Special Forces units can acquire
the imagery themselves and use it to create virtual-reality exercises to
figure out how the mission could be accomplished.
Then, on the way to the battle zone, the aircraft carrying Special Forces
"operators" (as they call themselves) have an intelligence capability that
allows them to adjust or scrub the mission based on signals from satellites
or pilotless drones flying over enemy territory.
The airplanes and helicopters assigned to Special Forces are more robust and
sophisticated as well. "This means changes in the way we project power,"
says Vickers. "It's creating new missions as well."
What makes it all possible, says military analyst John Pike of
GlobalSecurity.org, is the information revolution - high-speed computers and
advanced communication systems.
But all this gee-whiz gear does not guarantee success in a wartime
environment that is as risky as it gets. Moreover, there is always the "fog
of war" that inevitably presents unanticipated circumstances. In last
weekend's raid in Afghanistan, a helicopter "extracting" troops from the
attack site hit something that knocked off part of the landing gear.
"It is much easier to describe how this stuff is supposed to work than it is
to predict how it will work," says Mr. Pike. "Does it mean we're going to
win the war? I don't know."
In some ways, in fact, the war in Afghanistan could resemble the last major
use of Special Forces by the United States - in Vietnam. "It's going to look
a lot like hunting for Charlie, hunting for the Viet Cong," says Pike. "The
problem is not just finding Osama bin laden, it's finding a dozen guys here
and a dozen guys there."
The difference now is that US Special Forces are vastly better equipped than
they were then - "Basically, the pointy end of a large and extraordinarily
diverse information-collection system," as Pike puts it. And as a result of
this vastly improved capability, he adds, "The Americans are going to be
doing the ambushing rather than being ambushed."
But in the end, say experts, success or failure in such a scenario still
comes back to the cunning and initiative of the individual commando. "Don't
be doctrinaire," says Wayne Downing, a retired Army general who commanded
Special Operations Forces. "Think like a bank robber."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:57 PST