Subject: IW Mailing List iw/951209
Forwarded message:
From: Istvan von Keszi 
To: Martin Libicki
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 07:51:11 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Some of your papers

I thought I'd introduce myself and comment about some things you've
written.  Some unsolicited criticism from the peanut gallery, ...  as it

I've recently read a number of your papers...
In your paper, "Standards: A Rough Road ..." you wrote:

  "Tomorrow's integrated data communications networks are likely to be a
  complex patchwork of proprietary protocols built around mainframes and
  servers (e.g., SNA and Novell's) plus Internet standards (for
  internetworking and systems management) and some OSI protocols (e.g.,
  X.400 and X.500).  Had the major computer companies and the government
  thrown their weight behind TCP/IP rather than OSI, perhaps much of the
  complexity might have been avoided."

This statement left me with some confusion.  Perhaps it lies in my
understanding of the conventional use of "complex" and "complicated".
I always thought that the patchwork you described is generally not
thought of as a complex system, but rather, one that is complicated.

I always liked to use a food analogy to explain to my audience the
differing characteristics, at least in so far as I understood the

  Complicated systems, tend to behave as mixtures do, much like a tossed

  Complex systems tend to interact more as elements in solution, similar
  perhaps to a Hollandaise Sauce where the "sauce" actually has no
  resemblance whatsoever to the individual components. 

It would be extremely difficult to identify or separate the egg yolk,
butter, and vinegar that combine to make the sauce -- and the sauce in
fact retains none of the characteristics of the individual ingredients
(components).  In the complicated tossed salad though, it's trivial to
identify and remove radishes, or alfalfa sprouts, if as an example, you
don't particularly care for sprouts or radishes in your salad. 

No matter what you remove from the salad, it still "essentially" retains
its characteristic as a salad -- even if you remove the greens.  In the
sauce however, if you remove any element, the "essential" characteristic
is completely altered. 
Thanks for providing the opportunity to read them and learn from them.
Date: Sat,  9 Dec 95 16:54:00 UTC 0000

(reprint of part of the "lines of communication" posting)
Much of what is currently being discussed as "Information Warfare" is
just various forms of deception using a new medium.  Or is it that new?
During the American Civil War, the new (less than 20 years old)
telegraph was spoofed, jammed and used for deception (a telegraphist who
could imitate other operators "fist" was a very valuable asset.) Same
thing happened when radio came along.  The air war over Europe in WW II
involved a lot of what we would now call Information Warfare.  Do we now
have to rewrite all the history books to get the nomenclature updated?
Moderator's note:
	It would be valuable to see specific examples of these things,
	how they were used, their effectiveness, the defenses, how
	warriors at that time thought about them, and how they relate to
	modern warfare.
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 15:47:12 -0500
From: (Arnold Abraham)

My view of IW:
1- Any action to affect adversary information, information systems, or
information processess;
2 - Protecting oneself against those same actions;
3 - Optimizing use of info, info systems, and info processes.
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 13:41:35 -0800
From: (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: IW Mailing List iw/951207

steve trolan wrote:
>usage.  Everyone is getting connected, friend and foe alike.  Like Sam
>Colt's invention, this too is making everyone equal. 

I'd ask members of non-technologicaly oriented/based societies,
especially those without significant methods of mass production, how
they feel about that last statement. 

I think there's yet another facet of IW/propaganda here -- the class
structure of access to high-bandwidth information.  (...and the
potential to be overlooked as a target of IW because it's too expensive
to target someone...)