[Yr7-10it] weapons...comment by Kent.

Mon Mar 9 12:07:52 EST 2009

I dont usually comment on many of the posts of Stephen but this one proved interesting/compelling reading.
The fact that we are presently in an information age that is being used to not only help people and industry but also **gasp** to 'kill' people.  
Its sad to know that those same technologies we use to call loved ones and friends daily...are also used to end people's lives.  Perhaps the manufacturers of these products could/should consider creating appropriate algorithm cryptogrophies so as to 'discourage' potential abuse of the intended use of the hardware.  

Its odd to know that two subjects I enjoy so much...the Maths/Computing combo...are also used as tools of war.

Why are such Engineering and analytical talents being abused?  MONEY and perceived POWER...seems a shame really when we should be helping reduce the worlds ills rather than doing such horrid things...

Back in the classroom...
This could make for a great topic of the 'issue' outcome we need to do in VCE.  Not only that, but those of you folk who are SOSE teachers could perhaps discuss this as an issue with your students too?

KB.

Kent Beveridge,
I.C.T. co-ordinator
St. Brigids Catholic Sec. College
 http://www.stbc.vic.edu.au/ <http://www.stbc.vic.edu.au/> 
Horsham Ph (03) 5382 3545
kbeveridge at stbc.vic.edu.au
"This email and any attachments may be confidential.  You must not disclose or use the information in this email if you are not the intended recipient.  If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately and delete the email and all copies.  The School does not guarantee that this email is virus or error free.  The attached files are provided and my only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not.  The content and opinions in this email are not necessarily those of the School."

________________________________

From: yr7-10it-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of stephen at melbpc.org.au
Sent: Sun 3/8/2009 10:01 PM
To: link at anu.edu.au; yr7-10it at edulists.com.au
Subject: [Yr7-10it] weaponize the spectrum

Army Developing Teams for Electronic Warfare

By THOM SHANKER nytimes.com Published: March 7, 2009

WASHINGTON - Viewed by its sister services as the less brainy branch of
the armed forces, the Army over recent years had neglected to maintain
its own ability to fight electronic warfare, relying instead on the
expertise of the Air Force and the Navy.

But the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have introduced deadly new
threats and proved how that lack of attention to electronic warfare has
put soldiers directly at risk.

Information-age attacks, like improvised explosive devices detonated by
cellphones, radios and garage door openers, have claimed more lives than
any other type.

And there are high-tech benefits that must be managed, including friend-
or-foe tracking devices and surveillance drones that beam video straight
to troops in battle.

In response, the Army is developing its own electronic warfare teams.

The initial goal is to train more than 1,600 people from enlisted ranks
through the officer corps by 2013, and to double that in the following
years, giving the Army enough of these specialists to rival its sister
services and surpass all of the NATO allies combined.

Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli was the first person to sound an alarm that the
Army's neglect of electronic warfare was endangering troops.

General Chiarelli was serving as the No. 2 commander in Iraq when he sent
a memorandum to Army leadership at the Pentagon in February 2006, warning
that soldiers were unable to operate the new high-tech gear that was
being rushed to the war zone to counter the rising threat of improvised
explosive devices, or I.E.D.s.

General Chiarelli also warned Army headquarters that the ability of
commanders and troops to communicate was diminishing as allied and
American radios and electronic jamming gear fought for space on the
limited broadcast bands, degrading the quality of transmissions all
across the spectrum.

"When I first got over there in 2004 and in 2005, we didn't have any Army
electronic warfare capabilities," said General Chiarelli, who is now the
Army vice chief of staff.

"It became deadly apparent in 2006, with the rise of I.E.D.s. At the same
time, we were having big problems with the jammers and how to deconflict
them with all of the other radio and signals traffic."

The Army reached out to the other services for help. Adm. Mike Mullen,
then the chief of naval operations but since promoted to chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, immediately ordered to Iraq hundreds of sailors
who specialized in electronic warfare.

"They saved a lot of lives when they came over," General Chiarelli said.

"They became the most important person in each formation down to the
battalion level. They were sought out by soldiers who knew they had to
learn this kind of warfare."

In the three years since, hundreds of Air Force personnel have also
served as electronic warfare specialists with ground units in Iraq.

In that time, the Army has produced a doctrine on electronic warfare that
will join other new field manuals, including a better known one on
counterinsurgency, that are transforming how the service prepares for and
fights wars.

The Army's new field manual, "FM 3-36, Electronic Warfare in Operations,"
instructs commanders in how to integrate electronic warfare into all
tasks, from planning to carrying out military operations. It also lays
out a program for training personnel and sets the requirements for
equipment.

"We simply have to look at ways to attack, and to protect ourselves, all
across the frequency spectrum," said Col. Laurie Moe Buckhout, chief of
the Army's electronic warfare division.

Managing communications, and protecting those transmissions, is
complicated enough in the civilian world, but the problem is magnified in
a combat zone, which is cluttered with sometimes conflicting radio
signals from various American and allied units.

Military risk assessments note that potential adversaries, from nation
states to terrorist groups, are seeking to increase their abilities to
attack electronic frequencies.

The goal would be to scramble radio and cellphone traffic, block signals
from convoys that allow headquarters to track the movements of troops and
supplies, or jam data from satellites that feed vital navigation systems.

"The enemy's ability to weaponize the spectrum to detonate an I.E.D. was
just the tip of the iceberg," Colonel Buckhout said.

Electronic warfare is among the military's most highly classified
efforts, routinely carried out in conjunction with the nation's
intelligence agencies. It focuses on signals carried by radio and
microwave frequencies, and is usually confined to a tactical battlefield
setting.

It is separate from the other growing field of combat, cyber warfare,
which deals with defending or attacking computer networks, with local,
national and even international impact.

» A version of this article appeared in print on March 8, 2009, on page
A20 of the New York edition.

--
Cheers
Stephen
_______________________________________________
http://www.edulists.com.au <http://www.edulists.com.au/>  - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
Year 7 - 10 IT Mailing List kindly supported by
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au <http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/>  - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and
http://www.vitta.org.au <http://www.vitta.org.au/>   - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association Inc

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 10683 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/yr7-10it/attachments/20090309/8723b38a/attachment.bin