P is for Pathocracy
<# zxcvb #>
I have no military experience so I am not sure how this is relevant, but given the past purges of officers’ ranks and the rise of Ashton Carter (co-authored paper, “Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy” with Zelikow and Deutch; senior partner at Global Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America) to SecDef, I thought maybe someone might have some coherent insight that I lack.
<# zxcvb #>
“… It appears that Vision Airlines is the new ‘Air America’ in support of shadowy operations around the world….”
14 July 2015
Spooky Aircraft at Grand Junction CO
<# zxcvb #>
Much is made in these days of accelerated police action of the act of filming and photography. In a world in which we all are — almost of necessity— citizen journalists, the act of sousveillance is on the increase.
A blogging buddy, the late great Kenny, mirrored an article by Kingsley Davis seven years ago on new instruments or surveillance and control originally posted at GlobalResearch.ca; it was entitled “New Instruments of Surveillance and Social Control: Wireless Technologies which Target the Neuronal Functioning of the Brain”. Even 8 years later, it is recomemnded for your review. This is especially true if you do a lot of online gaming or play MMORPG’s extensively. If you are a serious student of these topics, note especially the footnotes and bibliography in the piece by Davis, as well as the discussion and description of patents, who owns them, and for what purpose.
The article also uses a term introduced in 1998, that of sousveillance. Davis, after noting that we live in a post-millennium state of insecurity, one no longer bound by the old paradigm of binary distinctions, says a “terror suspect can therefore no longer be easily identified as ‘the enemy’ which requires that all civilians be categorised in a state of ‘potential terrorist’. This is especially so since the notion of ‘home–grown terrorist’ is playing out the role of insurgency and resistance from within. This subtle shift in categorisation has seen a parallel move in the increase of the militarization of the civil sphere. By this I argue that civil space is increasingly becoming a ‘censor/sensored zone’ where security issues — surveillance, tracking, identification — are played out.” [Now we’re into Jade Helm territory.]
The term sousveillance “was coined by Mann (1998) who describes it as form of ‘reflectionism’ or as a ‘watchful vigilance from underneath’, which is a form of inverse surveillance. Yet it more than inverses the notion; it embellishes it with a self–reflective responsibility. For Mann, reflectionism “holds up the mirror and asks the question: ‘Do you like what you see?’” (Mann, et al., 2003). Also, in this form, it requires that surveillance is enacted as a form of self–control, as self–maintenance. It is the discipline of being inwardly secure; firstly vigilant towards the self; secondly towards other people/selves. This form of discipline seems to suggest that there is little room for negligence when watchfulness is the order of the day. Yet it also prompts the ‘user’ of sousveillance to be active and participate in the surrounding environment. Sousveillance, whilst it can encourage social responsibility, also suggests the need for the person to be guarded against unwanted intrusions and possible violations.”
We know that a number of people, some organized and some not, some connected to formal organizations, some connected to social media, are actively watching the events of not only Jade Helm but local police activity, some events and incidents that cocur in their vicinity, etc.
Today, Hammacher Schlemmer offers up a ballpoint pen that captures HD 720p video and streams it to an iPhone in realtime. “The pinhole-sized lens also captures still images while a microphone built into the barrel records sound yet is inconspicuous to avoid detection. Videos and images can be stored directly on a smartphone or tablet, or up to 113 minutes of video can be saved on a 32GB microSD card (not included). The rechargeable battery enables up to 30 minutes of continuous recording after a three-hour charge via the included USB adapter. Compatible with iOS 4.3 and later and Android 2.2 and later. 6″ L x 3/4″ Diam. (14 oz.)”
The paper by Davis at GlobalResearch and Kenny’s goes beyond these topics and into the broader topics of informational environments and the impact of surveillance and sousveillance on society.
I posted about sousveillance in mid-November 2013.
“In sousveillance, individuals invert the paradigm by turning their cameras on institutions, promising to document and share misbehavior and malfeasance with a potentially global audience through digital networks.”
<# zxcvb #>
“… if you take careful steps to protect yourself, it’s possible to communicate online in a way that’s private, secret and anonymous. Today I’m going to explain in precise terms how to do that. I’ll take techniques NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden used when contacting me two and a half years ago and boil them down to the essentials. In a nutshell, I’ll show you how to create anonymous real-time chat accounts and how to chat over those accounts using an encryption protocol called Off-the-Record Messaging, or OTR.
If you’re in a hurry, you can skip directly to where I explain, step by step, how to set this up for Mac OS X, Windows, Linux and Android. Then, when you have time, come back and read the important caveats preceding those instructions…..”
<# zxcvb #>
Jade Helm 15 Begins Same Day Service Outages Reported Across America by Multiple Providers | 15 July 2015 | Yesterday we reported a “Major Red List” Alert, where we were made aware of planned power outages at the California-Nevada border, set to begin the very same day Jade Helm 15 was slated to start and this morning, July 15th, we awaken to the news that AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Time Warner, and Cox are all showing “service outages,” some happening across the country. Update: Verizon link and Map have been added. Screen shots were taken Wednesday, July 15, 2015, at 9:15 am ET.
<# zxcvb #>
ADELPHI, Md. (Nov. 28, 2012) — Scientists at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory are pioneering data teleportation — for the real world.
When the USS Enterprise, from the hit television and movie series “Star Trek,” beamed individuals to and from the ship, the ship’s transporters were moving matter.
While fictional technology may stir the imagination, science fiction is more of an inspiration than reality. It often provides a spark of scientific inspiration that can lead to discoveries once considered unimaginable.
Today, Army scientists hope to send information from one location to another without the data being transmitted through the intervening space.
To reach this goal, Ronald E. Meyers leads a project that includes fellow physicist Patricia J. Lee and their teams that are collaborating with the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland at College Park. The groups have a 27-kilometer fiber optic connection between their laboratories.
“We use photons that go through the fiber in order to entangle the atoms at two different locations,” Meyers said.
A photon is an elementary particle and a basic building block of the universe. The team sends photons from one end of the fiber to the other. Once photons are entangled, they mysteriously respond to each other.
“The idea of entanglement is that when one photon is manipulated, the other photon will respond at a distance through a process that Einstein highlighted,” Meyers said. “What we’re going to do is to entangle the distant atoms using these photons. Once they’re entangled, then you do not need the fiber in between. You manipulate atoms here and atoms at another location will respond instantly with nothing in between.”
This effect is known as quantum teleportation using atoms and photons.
“You can communicate between these locations without information appearing to go through the intervening space,” Meyers said. “It’s mind-boggling.”
For the U.S. Army, a secure quantum communications network is a technology investment worth making. Meyers said physicists around the world are pursuing quantum teleportation research.
“One day we will have communication over worldwide distances with quantum repeaters as mediators at nodes in between,” Meyers said. “We’ll be able to teleport information globally. What we’ll have is tamper-resistant security.”
Cyber-security is a major concern for military and civilian sectors.
“This is important,” he said. “The greatest potential that a quantum communications network holds for the Army is secure communications.”
As quantum computing takes hold in the coming decades, the potential for hacking exponentially increases.
“Quantum computers will be able to easily decrypt communications that are currently secure,” Meyers said. “We’re talking decryption in seconds instead of years. That’s one reason why it’s vital for us to explore quantum encryption.”
Quantum research is building momentum, according to Lee.
“There are a lot of people worldwide who work on this type of research, and we are just a part of the community trying to make the next step a reality,” Lee said. “Our contribution is trying to set this up in a real-life. It’s very exciting.”
News reports of quantum research advances are growing.
The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics went to physicist David Wineland for his quantum research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
“We would hope to have the quantum atomic memory fully going within the next year,” Meyers said. “There’s a lot of progress on it.”
The team is also striving to develop quantum repeaters.
“We can perform photon teleportation sooner, but having teleportation with quantum memory adding the atoms is really the key to massive changes in the U.S. communications system,” Meyers said. “We think that teleportation with atoms and photons is an important goal for the United States and we want to get it out of the laboratory and show that it’s possible over long distances.”
Consider a future battlefield with a Soldier, an unmanned aerial vehicle, a command and control element and access to a satellite.
“If you put entangled atoms at each of these locations and they’re moving around, then you can teleport data between the Soldier and the satellite … you can teleport to UAVs … you can teleport to command and control headquarters,” Meyers said. “We think it’s going to be the future for military communications. Now the strategic impact … it’s possible to get information out of your location without others getting it. This is a whole new technology will one day be common.”
Meyers and Lee agree that quantum data teleportation will become a dominant technology.
“There are several important applications for quantum information,” Lee said. “For our project here, one of our goals is to build a quantum sensor. Cold atoms can be used to sense acceleration and rotation and they can make very sensitive inertial navigation systems to guide the Soldier or vehicles. That’s a really important application if we can actually develop that technology.
“It’s also going to be very important for Soldiers on the battlefield to have secure communication and computational power that will offer capabilities exceeding anything that we have access to right now,” Lee said.
Like a perpetual jigsaw puzzle, Lee said their research continues to evolve.
“There will be many ways to use this tool. A lot of them we don’t even know about — they haven’t been thought of,” she said. “New things will come up and that’s how research, technology and science evolve.”
Meyers said the Army continues to fund quantum research in academia and other research institutions.
“The fundamental physics is there,” Meyers said. “We have to learn enough of the physics and some of the engineering to implement it and to demonstrate that it can be done. I think this is an evolutionary process that will cause a huge shift in communications.
“Remember, we put a man on the moon with very primitive computers and we developed an atomic bomb without a computer,” Meyers said. “The fact is we’re going to have these very powerful quantum computers with a lot of intelligence. They’ll be able to work over long distances without being intercepted. It’s going to change the world.”
Document created: 1 March 04
Air & Space Power Journal – Spring 2004
Military Applications of Information Technologies
Paul W. Phister Jr., PE, PhD
Igor G. Plonisch*
Editorial Abstract: The information age has increased the amount of data available to all commanders. Consequently, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate seeks to transform military operations by developing systems that focus on unique Air Force requirements. The major thrusts include Global Awareness, Dynamic Planning and Execution, and the Global Information Enterprise. Supporting these developments are technology-focus areas, ranging from information exploitation, to air and space connectivity, to command and control.
[N.B.: Posted here without graphics and acknowledgements]
Among other reasons, warfare constantly changes because advancements in technology lead to advancements in “the art of war.” Today’s information age has produced an explosion in the amount of information that is (or will be) available to commanders at all levels. Some observers believe that by 2010 “[air and space] planners will have an incredible amount of information about the target state. They’ll never know everything, but they will detect orders of magnitude more about the enemy than in past wars. With this information, commanders will orchestrate operations with unprecedented fidelity and speed. Commanders will take advantage of revolutionary advances in information transfer, storage, recognition, and filtering to direct highly efficient, near-real-time attacks.”1 Some people believe that this scenario has already come to pass, laying the foundation for the transformation of warfare.
This transformation within the military services moves from classic platformcentric warfare to networkcentric warfare (NCW), the latter dealing with human and organizational behavior and based on new ways of thinking and applying those concepts to military operations.2 It is defined as an information-superiority-enabled concept of operations that generates increased combat power by networking sensors, decision makers, and shooters to achieve shared awareness, increased speed of command, heightened tempo of operations, greater lethality, increased survivability, and a degree of self-synchronization.3 A conceptual view of NCW would highlight some of its major elements or building blocks (fig. 1). One may also envision a networkcentric view regarding command and control (C2) in the context of previous work done for C2 concepts (fig. 2).
Critical advances in warfare-related information technology, the foundation of networkcentric operations, have their roots in military laboratories, which provide a critical service to the military by transforming basic information technologies into war-fighting applications. Although the Air Force Command and Control and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center at Langley AFB, Virginia, has assumed the responsibility for the Air Force’s command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) for more than half a century, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate (AFRL/IF) in Rome, New York, has researched and developed technologies that have helped fuel the information revolution. The electronic computer, integrated circuit, storage and retrieval, and Internet, to cite but a few obvious examples, benefited from research performed or guided by scientists and engineers located in Rome. Moreover, AFRL technologies have found and continue to find their way into both military and commercial worlds where they, quite literally, transform operations, practices, and even ways of thinking (i.e., changes in doctrine).
Because information and information technologies often mean different things to different communities, it is important to understand the distinctions that might arise. The word information is commonly used to refer to various points on the information spectrum that convert data to knowledge.4 Therefore, information has a different meaning, depending on the domain in which one operates. For example, David S. Alberts and others have identified three domains—physical, information, and cognitive—each of which describes and defines information differently.5 However, the fundamental fact remains that information is the result of putting individual observations into some sort of meaningful context. Given this distinction, information is defined according to its application or, more specifically, the domain within which it will operate. Consequently, members of the commercial and academic communities treat information differently than do their counterparts in the military community.
Figure 2. Domains of networkcentric warfare. (From briefing, Hanscom AFB, MA, subject: Information Technology for Networkcentric Warfare: An ESC [Electronic Systems Command] Integration Week Event, February 5–6, 2003.)
Aside from the domain distinction just described, there are a number of reasons why the development of information technologies differs between the military and the industrial/ academic communities. For example, the commercial market is driven by profit or return on investment, not by overall system performance. Additionally, in the commercial world, the end user of a new product has become the “beta tester.” In a combat environment, where a fault discovery can literally sink a ship, this practice is unacceptable. Similarly, although a faulty design may cause numerous reboots per day on a commercial system, such recurring faults in a military system can cause injury or death. For example, during Operation Enduring Freedom, the system used by five US soldiers to direct an incoming smart weapon rebooted and, unbeknownst to them, inserted their current location instead of the target location into the system. Consequently, the weapon vectored onto their position instead of the selected target. The bottom line is that military applications demand higher performance at reduced cycle times and cost than do nonmilitary applications. Finally, commercial technologies are more computationally based (e.g., building better calculators, computers, etc.) while military applications are based more on supporting courses of action (e.g., campaign-planning assessment and effects-based operations [EBO]). Clearly, a significant need exists for military-specific information technology, even when such systems do not meet the profitability or return-on-investment criteria of the commercial sector. At this point the value of the AFRL/IF truly comes into play.
Research Efforts in Information Technology
The AFRL/IF seeks to transform military operations by developing information-systems science and technology that focus on unique Air Force requirements. By using commercial practices, it moves affordable capabilities to Air Force ground, air, cyber, and space systems. Broad areas of investment in science and technology include upper-level information fusion, communications, EBO, collaboration environments, distributed-information infrastructures, modeling and simulation, intelligent agents, information assurance, information management, and intelligent information systems and databases. Successful outcomes from these areas provide affordable capability options required for Air Force information dominance and air and space superiority. To provide these capabilities, the AFRL/IF has three major thrusts—Global Awareness, Dynamic Planning and Execution, and the Global Information Enterprise—that receive support from seven technology-focus areas: information exploitation, information fusion and understanding, information management, advanced computing architectures, cyber operations, air and space connectivity, and C2.
Given the growing threat of global terrorism, the potential use and exploitation of readily available information technology by our adversaries make it imperative that the United States continue to invest in technologies for the protection and authentication of digital information systems for the military and homeland defense. Toward that end, the AFRL/IF conducts advanced research and development in the field of digital data-embedding technology. The directorate’s work in such areas as information hiding, steganography, watermarking, steganalysis, and digital data forensics will greatly enhance war fighters’ ability to exploit enemy systems while providing greater security to ensure that an adversary does not have access to US and allied systems.
Information Fusion and Understanding
What is going on? Who is the adversary? What is he up to? Such questions are being addressed in the emerging area of fusion 2+ or situational awareness (fig. 3). Over the past decade, the term fusion has become synonymous with tactical or battlespace awareness after hostilities have begun. As such, work has concentrated on identifying objects, tracking algorithms, and using multiple sources for reducing uncertainty and maximizing coverage. As more situations unfold throughout the world, smart, strategic decisions must be made before the deployment of limited assets. In order to assess adversarial intent and possible strategic impact, we have vastly broadened the scope of fusion to take into account strategic situational awareness and the information technology necessary to support it.
Air Force Space Command’s strategic master plan states that “the first priority is to protect our vital national space systems so they’ll be available to all warfighters when and where they are needed” (emphasis in original).6 This protection also includes the ability to repair damage caused by a wide variety of anomalies that might affect space systems in orbit. As part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Picosat program, the AFRL/IF launched the world’s smallest satellite—the Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems-Based Picosatellite Inspector (MEPSI)—from the space shuttle in November 2002, thus laying the groundwork for an emerging onboard-protection and/or servicing capability for satellites. The InfoBot (fig. 4) is a robust onboard device that receives, processes, correlates, and distributes information reliably, unambiguously, and rapidly. This concept paves the way for numerous emerging capabilities, such as an onboard servicer or an onboard protector.
Space protection requires warning of possible threats (both natural and man-made) to allied space systems, receiving reports of possible attacks against satellites and US cross-cueing of other owners or operators, and directing forces to respond to a threat. To fulfill these needs, space systems must have onboard sensors to detect attacks and quickly report anomalies or suspicious events. The primary goal of these “battle bugs” (fig. 5) would be to provide a rapid-response capability to counteract impending threats that cannot be avoided by other conventional means (e.g., orbital maneuvering, shielding, etc.) in an inexpensive yet effective manner.
The essence of the joint battlespace infosphere (JBI) (fig. 6) consists of globally interoperable “information space” that integrates, aggregates, and intelligently disseminates relevant battlespace information to support effective decision making. The infosphere is part of a global combat-information-management system established to provide individual users at all levels of command with information tailored to their specific functional responsibilities. The JBI brings together all information necessary to support war fighters and their missions and allows them to obtain and integrate data from a wide variety of sources at the touch of a screen, to aggregate this information, and to distribute it in the appropriate form and degree of detail required by users at all levels. The JBI is a true system-of-systems in that it works for users at all echelons, from the remote battle-command center down to the soldier in the foxhole. It is distinct in organization, process, and usage from the communications infrastructure on which it rides and from the user-application systems that it serves.
The JBI is a “place,” independent of fielded C4ISR systems, where information can be brought together. Past attempts to manage information have been system-based. That is, in developing a system (whether communications or user-application) to provide a given capability, developers made decisions on how to define, organize, manipulate, store, and transport information based on what was optimal for the particular system under development. These application-specific systems optimized information based on the storage and access needs of the system’s software, data stores (databases), and intended user interface. Consequently, communication systems were optimized based on routing, bandwidth, throughput, and transfer speed. Management of information based on these optimizations has proven severely detrimental to interoperability—that is, the ability of systems to exchange and use information and services. The JBI acts as an “information layer” that harnesses the discipline of information management by eliminating the current “rigid-layered” information environment and replacing it with interoperable, consistently managed, widely available, secure information spaces that encourage dissemination of information to all who need it. The JBI will provide answers to numerous important questions: Where did the data come from? Who wants it? What is their priority? Is the data “good”? Can I trust it? Does the data need to be transformed, aggregated, or integrated with other information? Who may access it?
The multidomain network manager (MDNM) system (fig. 7) allows system administrators to monitor multiple security domains (e.g., US Only, Coalition, Unclassified) simultaneously on a single set of terminals. It will provide a network common-operating picture, hierarchical views of security domains, a secure boundary device for accessing net information, and a reduced operational footprint. Estimates indicate that the system will make possible a 10–25 percent savings in manpower, will keep costs low (less than $10,000 per installation), and will allow for multilevel attack detection of information warfare as well as response capability. Within an air and space operations center, for example, the MDNM would have the net effect of significantly reducing the number of system administrators required to monitor the various security domains around-the-clock, year-round and of collectively monitoring the system for adversarial intrusions.
An application programmer’s interface, Java View (Jview) (fig. 8) is designed to reduce the time, cost, and effort associated with the creation of computer-visualization applications or the visualization interface of an application. Jview allows for the importing, displaying, and fusing of multiple simultaneous-information sources. What does this mean for the war fighter? Imagine having ultrahigh resolution within a flat screen in an F-15 or a B-2 or an eyepiece for the infantry soldier.
The new Department of Defense (DOD) doctrine for networkcentric operations requires the application of information and simulation technologies in order for the war fighter to function in a knowledgecentric universe that integrates air and space information. Mission commanders need to assimilate a tremendous amount of information, make decisions and responses quickly, and quantify the effects of those decisions in the face of uncertainty. AFRL’s research on the distributed collaborative decision support (fig. 9) environment provides an application-independent collaboration framework of integrated tools, information technologies, and adaptive collaboration services aimed at providing enhanced decision support, knowledge sharing, and resource-control capabilities. These technologies will allow geographically dispersed people, processes, and resources to work together more effectively and efficiently to create the products for distributed-defense enterprises of the future (e.g., collaborative battle management, crisis-response planning, and antiterrorism).
Timely information about enemy forces, friendly forces, and battlefield conditions is especially critical for combat aircrews whose battlefield situation changes rapidly. The common situational awareness (CSA) advanced-technology demonstration (fig. 10) is developing and demonstrating the onboard information-system architecture needed to support task-saturated crews by processing, selecting, and displaying available information. The CSA program, targeted at multiple special-operations-forces mission and aircraft platforms, will integrate information from onboard systems and exploit off-board intelligence databases and imagery products to provide a consistent battlespace picture to the aircrew. The CSA design contains three key elements: connectivity, integrated modular architecture, and a crew/system interface.
Advanced Computing Architectures
Growth of information technology in the twenty-first century will be driven by advanced computing technology brought about through the development and implementation of information-processing paradigms that are novel by today’s standards. Advances in information technology will provide tremendous benefits for war fighters who not only face the enemy on the field, but also struggle to comprehend the overwhelming amount of data coming at them from numerous sources. Future information systems will include biomolecular and quantum computing subsystems (fig. 11) that incorporate data- storage and processing mechanisms with density and performance metrics, such as power and speed, far beyond current state-of-the-art silicon technologies. These information systems are likely to be hybrid systems consisting of biomolecular/silicon, quantum/silicon, or biomolecular/quantum/silicon computing architectures. They will be able to process information faster as well as acquire new attributes that will enable progress toward even faster, more intelligent computing systems.
Current space systems utilize 1970s and 1980s technology in the form of 286/386/ 486/586 microprocessors. However, tying C2 systems, sensors, and weapons via “horizontal integration” requires the ability to rapidly process new as well as previously acquired raw imagery data. A diverse, distributed community of intelligence analysts and battlefield decision makers needs this capability so its members can take appropriate actions based upon these analyses. AFRL/IF is working with its sister directorates—Sensors (AFRL/SN) and Space Vehicles (AFRL/VS)—on the next-generation space computer (fig. 12). Imagine an onboard Cray-like supercomputer that would provide enough processing power so that up to 50 percent of a satellite’s mission ground station could be housed in a single spacecraft. This space computer will enhance a satellite’s processing capability from millions (106) of operations per second to a trillion (1012) operations per second in 2006. Mission ground stations can take advantage of up to a quadrillion (1015) operations per second in 2010. Such capability carries with it significant advantages within the space community: reduction in footprint, significant reduction in operation-and-maintenance costs, and the ability to directly view, process, exploit, and disseminate information throughout a theater of operations without reaching back to a fixed mission ground station.
Software intelligent agents make possible the controlling and “patrolling” of cyberspace. These encapsulated software entities have their own identity, state, behavior, thread of control, and ability to interact and communicate with other entities, including people, other agents, and legacy systems. Essentially “cybervehicles,” often referred to as “infocraft” (fig. 13), they would operate in the cyber domain similar to the way air and space vehicles operate in the atmosphere.
Air and Space Connectivity
Achieving a completely secure, noninterceptable operational environment requires the secure transfer of information using channels dominated by quantum effects—that is, quantum key distribution (QKD) (fig. 14). In most cases, quantum noise is key to developing a communications channel, but recent work employing quantum-limiting behavior independent of noise is making a major contribution to information assurance. In conjunction with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFRL/IF is currently addressing three major problems that inhibit the establishment of a quantum channel: signal-to-noise ratio, channel control, and maintenance of usable data rates.
The timely establishment of communications-network connectivity is vital to the success and survival of US forces in modern-warfare environments. Recent conflicts have proven the need for rapid deployment and quick reaction to fast-changing scenarios. Effective and responsive decision making becomes impossible without adequate and reliable local (e.g., handheld radio, wireline and wireless data networks, and point-to-point microwave) and long-haul (e.g., high-frequency or satellite) communications both within and outside the battlespace. The adaptation of commercial-radio, local-area-network (LAN) technology now makes possible the swift establishment of high-speed Internet-protocol-based data networks in forward locations. The vehicle-mounted mobile satellite communications (SATCOM) terminal (fig. 15) is attached to an Internet protocol router that will provide Internet connectivity for a wireless LAN comprised of laptop computers in separate moving vehicles following the gateway vehicle. Over the past two years, several activities, such as the Warrior and Global Patriot exercises at Fort Drum, New York, have included demonstrations of AFRL’s mobile SATCOM terminal.
Industry-standard commercial wireless LANs, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 family, create an important opportunity for the military to leverage widely available, low-cost technology in applications that are difficult, costly, or impossible to realize with standard wired networks or traditional military-communications systems (fig. 16). These hugely successful standards provide link speeds of up to 54 million bytes per second over distances ranging from hundreds of meters to tens of kilometers, using equipment that seamlessly integrates with the vast majority of commercial data-processing equipment currently used by our forces. In spite of the great potential of this technology, risks abound with its use since the networks operate in unlicensed frequency bands, are easily jammed, lack mutual authentication, use insecure management protocols, employ weak and flawed encryption algorithms, are easily monitored, and are void of intrusion-detection systems, just to name a few shortcomings.
At first glance, this technology seems completely inappropriate for use in critical, high-assurance environments such as those surrounding most military operations. Fortunately, it is possible to reduce or eliminate most of the risks involved in using networks based on IEEE 802.11. One such solution utilizes AFRL’s protected tactical access point, the core of which is an IEEE 802.11b basic service set that uses a commercially available access point as its centerpiece. Because client stations are also based on unmodified IEEE 802.11b hardware, one thus achieves maximum leverage of low-cost commercial technology. Several different approaches and technologies are combined to form a system in order to mitigate inherent risks and increase information assurance on this network. Also, higher-layer mechanisms such as virtual private networks, firewalls, address filtering, strong encryption, and mutual authentication supplement these bottom-layer safeguards to provide a comprehensive information-assurance solution based on defense-in-depth strategies.
The Advanced Transmission Languages and Allocation of New Technologies for International Communications and the Proliferation of Allied Waveforms (ATLANTIC PAW) project (fig. 17) is an international effort among the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to enable interoperability of multinational wireless-communications assets. The program seeks to demonstrate portability of radio-waveform software onto independent radio-hardware platforms. The approach to achieving waveform-software transportability entails the cooperative formulation of a waveform description language to capture radio-waveform functionality and a waveform-development environment to translate this description into operational radio-waveform software.
Airborne tactical data links, a key element of our C2 structure, are essential to the ability of our fighting forces to perform their mission and survive. Transforming war-fighter capabilities by exploiting networkcentric technologies requires a dramatic and affordable overhaul of this capability. The tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) program, funded by DARPA, will develop, evaluate, and demonstrate rapidly reconfigurable, affordable, robust, interoperable, and evolvable communications technologies specifically designed to support emerging networked targeting applications devised to keep fleeting targets at risk. Laboratory and initial flight testing have already indicated that the TTNT design can exceed its goals.
US space missions and services such as on-demand space-launch control and on-orbit space-asset servicing require on-demand access to the satellite to conduct real-time operations. The main bottlenecks of space support include limits and constraints on the availability, operability, and flexibility of reflector antennas that provide links between space assets and space-operation centers on the ground. A novel geodesic-dome, phased-array antenna (fig. 18) under development—enabled by low-cost, innovative transmit/receive module technology—will alleviate the bottleneck. Furthermore, it will meet Air Force transformation needs through new capabilities in multiband, simultaneous access; programmable multifunctionality; and integrated mission operation.
Figure 18. Geodesic dome, phased-array antenna
Command and Control
The Air Force’s commitment to meeting the challenges of tomorrow resides within many of its transformation activities. To frame these activities, the service is adopting an effects-based mind-set to air and space maneuver and warfare. Air and space strategy describes the synchronization in time and space of air and space power to achieve desired objectives. Continuing this logic, EBO orients air and space power and represents a means of articulating the joint force air and space component commander’s air and space strategy to achieve these high-level objectives using either lethal or nonlethal means. This implies leveraging air and space power’s asymmetric advantages to create the desired effects at the right place at the right time. The AFRL has initiated an advanced technology demonstration (ATD) to develop new capabilities for implementing EBO. Current processes for planning, executing, and assessing military operations utilize target- and objectives-based approaches that lack dynamic campaign assessment and fail to address timing considerations, direct and indirect levels of effect, and automated target-system analysis during strategy development. The AFRL/IF’s EBO ATD focuses on building campaign-assessment and strategy-development tools to fill existing voids.
For years the Air Force has struggled to find an approach to campaign assessment more general than the “rollup” of bomb damage assessment. The causal analysis tool (CAT), designed to perform dynamic air-campaign assessment under general conditions of uncertainty, utilizes Bayesian analysis (a statistical approach that takes prior information into account in the determination of probabilities) of uncertain temporal, causal models without requiring analysts to have specialized mathematical knowledge. CAT emphasizes support for modeling such (uncertain) causal notions as synergy, necessity, and sufficiency. Developed as a tool for the analysis of EBO-style air campaign plans, CAT is a critical piece of the strategy-development tool that allows for assessment of the effects-based plan from the plan-authoring component.
According to Lt Gen William Wallace of the Army V Corps during Operation Iraqi Freedom, “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we’d war-gamed against,”7 a statement that offers clear evidence of the need to pursue enhanced methods of war gaming throughout the DOD. In this era of EBO and transformation, war games must evolve accordingly to foster an adequate portrayal not only of US doctrine and systems, but also those of the enemy. War games must be adaptive, agile, and without bias. AFRL/IF is taking initial, collaborative steps to develop this new method of war gaming with the goal of both simulating victory and making it happen—faster and with fewer casualties and less collateral damage. To accomplish these goals, AFRL/IF is developing a capability for a third-generation war game (3GWG). By incorporating three additional, crucial thrusts—decision cycles, human factors, and operational effects—the 3GWG augments second-generation war games that successfully model attrition, movement, and logistics (fig. 19). Additionally, 3GWGs will help educate decision makers by assisting them in making better decisions.
Figure 19. War games for the next century of war fighters
The military commander must be able to live in the future, understanding the impact of decisions made today on the battlespace of tomorrow. The more senior the commander, the farther into the future he or she must be able to see. At all levels, commanders continually make decisions and decide upon courses of action, based on their current understanding of the world and their ability to forecast the outcomes of actions under consideration. This ability typically emerges after years of training, extensive combat experience, and a rigorous selection process. However, even experienced tacticians can consider only two or three possible courses of action for all but the simplest situations. To achieve predictive battlespace awareness (PBA), one must address numerous, complex technical issues; additionally, for the Air Force, PBA must deal with changes in culture, organization, architecture, and technology. A key ingredient of PBA includes providing a simulation capability so the commander can better visualize the potential futures resulting from military decisions. This simulation capability can take on many forms, but it has been dubbed the joint synthetic battlespace (fig. 20). The next five to seven years will witness the emergence of technology that will provide a real-world, synchronized simulation capability for the war fighter.
Figure 20. Joint synthetic battlespace
Not only has information technology improved commanders’ situational awareness, but also it has increased the complexity of the decision-making environment. Successful outcomes from these areas provide affordable capability options that the Air Force requires for information dominance and air and space superiority. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate remains on the cutting edge of transforming information technologies into war-fighting capabilities. The AFRL/IF is committed to the transitioning of science and technology that provide critical war-fighting capabilities in such areas as signals, imagery, measurements intelligence, information fusion, information management, advanced computing, cyber operations, and C2—the critical information-technology areas that will support the war fighter of the future. The directorate is also committed to developing information dominance that supports global awareness by moving relevant information through the predominantly commercial-based Global Information Enterprise environment for the dynamic planning and execution of the commander’s battle plan.
1. Jeffery R. Barnett, Future War: An Assessment of Air and Space Campaigns in 2010 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, January 1996), xx–xxi.
2. The transition from platformcentric to networkcentric is but the beginning of a transformation to higher levels of warfare. The authors believe that the next evolutionary steps will move from informationcentric to knowledgecentric warfare.
3. David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka, and Fredrick P. Stein, Network Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: C4ISR Cooperative Research Program [CCRP], February 2000), 2.
4. David S. Alberts et al., Understanding Information Age Warfare (August 2001; repr., Washington, DC: CCRP, July 2002), 16, http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/ccrp/ UIAW.pdf.
5. Ibid., 16–29.
6. United States Space Command, Long Range Plan, April 1998, chap. 5, “Control of Space,” http://www.fas.org/ spp/military/docops/usspac/lrp/ch05a.htm.
7. Julian Borger, Luke Harding, and Richard Norton-Taylor, “Longer War Is Likely, Says US General,” Guardian Unlimited, March 28, 2003, http://www. guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,924497,00.html (accessed January 19, 2004).
Dr. Paul W. Phister Jr. (BSEE, University of Akron; MS, Saint Mary’s University; MSEE, Air Force Institute of Technology; PhD, California Coast University) is the air and space strategic planner at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate, Rome, New York, where he develops the directorate’s mid-to-long-term technology-investments portfolio. A retired lieutenant colonel, he served 25 years in the Air Force, working primarily in space-systems development and operations. Dr. Phister is a recognized space expert and a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, as well as a licensed professional software engineer from the state of Texas.
Igor G. Plonisch (MS, MSEE, Syracuse University) is chief of the Strategic Planning and Business Operations Division at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate, Rome, New York. Mr. Plonisch is a doctoral candidate in management.
<# zxcvb #>
The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism
Wednesday, 15 July 2015 01:43 Brandon Smith
I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.
Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.
In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects of that strange movement separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.
Rebel Without A Legitimate Cause
I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of ANY person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order and the implementation of mass electronic surveillance without warrant.
But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.
Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.
Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses REGARDLESS of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.
The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society. Their publicly stated intentions are otherwise pointless.
Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.
People Must Be Forced To Bake Gay Cakes
I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is all that matters, whether the Supreme Court dignifies it or not.
The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing. What they do not seem to understand is that recognition by the state does not necessarily translate to recognition by religious organizations, nor should it.
Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?
PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and personal property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for ANY reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years through legal chicanery. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers. Keep in mind, these businesses did not refuse outright service to gays. What they did refuse, was to make gay wedding cakes. To do so would have been in outright conflict with their religious principles.
Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused to do business with.
In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”
My response? Yes, according the dictates of individual liberty, yes it is okay.
First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it, and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.
Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.
If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to the government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Again, marriage has been and always will be a religious institution. The PC crowd will not be happy with government recognition alone. They want to force recognition from everyone.
If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open HIS OWN bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or or do business with them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.
This is fair.
What is not fair is the use of government by some groups to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”
Gender Bending Does Not Make You Special
A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were…
PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the scientific FACT of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will EVER be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.
This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group, and do not necessitate special attention or government protection. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology or a legal battle is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to social distraction and disaster.
There Is No Such Thing As ‘White Privilege’
A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70% of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions only due to sheer numbers.
I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.
I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. All of their concepts of discrimination are based purely on assumption. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?
The Cost Of Cultural Marxism
Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.
Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.