Re: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:15:18 -0500, Adrian Johnson
<ajohnson@idirect.com>
wrote:

>Destroying a nation's economy is like declaring a nuke war - you gotta
be
>really sure you are going to win, 'cause it's total war from then on.

You have a point, although killing people and destroying an economy are
two
different morale levels. You can maintain a morale high ground if all
you do
is destroy and economy (this is done regularly with sanctions). I think
economy destruction can be scaled easier. You can hurt a nation in nice
multi
billion dollar chunks until they give in. You can also maintain probable
deniability. "I'm sorry that illegal hackers in our country are causing
you
such problems. Believe me, once we find them they are SOOOO in
trouble!!!
*ahem*"...

>Going after a local area data network would be part of the tactical
>operations of a high-tech military - and would not be seen as the kind
of
>"escalation" of the conflict that taking out a stock market would... 
The
>new strategic stalemate would be MAED rather than MAD - Mutually
Assured
>Economic Destruction...

Except that this is where NOT being high tech gives you an advantage.
It's
hard to do a lot more damage to some of the worst Third World economies.
This
is where Clancy missed the boat. Japan isn't going to risk collapsing
the US
economy, it has too much to lose itself. However, how about Rowanda?
Nigeria?
Zaire? Albania? Or how about a cross-nation religious group? For that
matter,
how about a radical element in an allied country? Radical elements in
Israel,
or neo-Nazis in Germany come to mind.

>I guess that depends on the assumptions you make about how the tech
works
>in your universe.  How about a situation where the tech becomes so
good,
>the measures/countermeasures so complex and capable, that the military
>forces resort to using lower-tech equipment simply to keep it from
being
>spoofed -  keep a low-tech backup (like telecommunications by landline)
to
>provide some kind of assistance while the datawarriors fight it out.

That could work...

I think you could game a denial of service attack, too. In this case,
the idea
isn't to break into the computer but to drop it off the network. The
defender
in this case would work to maintain the node on the network. I still
think it
would be more of a FMA Skirmish game than an SG2 game, though.

>Also - in this future universe of ours we shouldn't, I think, assume a
>universal penetration of super-high-tech - what about colony worlds
which
>have a low-tech local militia fighting another low-tech militia.  The
FSE
>invades a NAC allied colony, but the FSE and NAC forces deployed are
only
>Battalion size.  Lots of local allies on both sides, and limited
high-tech.
> The locals scout on horseback.  They have ordinary radio communication
>nets.	Their military forces are run "the good old way" ah la 20th
>century...  etc.  

Or you can ignore hidden units and jamming entirely because all
participants
are SO advanced... This gives you an actual reason for no hidden units
on a
battlefield! Modern battlefields may start to look like those "I know
everything possible" wargames...!

Allan Goodall	       agoodall@sympatico.ca

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart