Is this a perfect example of our misdirecting ourselves?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Airborne_Aircrew, Aug 8, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm reading a periodical called Federal Computer Week, (July 30 2007), which has the cover story "IED's: Hidden Killers" and a picture of a large artillery shell with a cellphone wired in where the fuse goes.

    Ok... That's all well and good but it has this sidebar that has the usual quotes etc. with the headline:-

    The text reads as follows:-

    What I see here is someone that has sold the DoD a new catchphrase, "Information Superiority", at a time when they are grasping for straws.

    Quite rightly attention must be paid to information/data acquisition and collation in a conflict against an information reliant enemy but to try to apply such principles to the insurgent foot soldier is a grave misdirection of resources. Yes, the insurgent on the ground may use "throwaway" cell phones to detonate his IEDs but he doesn't appear digitally, (and probably not on paper), in any ORBAT anywhere nor does he use computers on any scale and for any purpose sufficient to warrant addressing information "explicitly". Thus, trying to determine "who" he is is a simple waste of time - and therefore in Defense circles a waste of a colossal amount of money.

    One might be able to gain "information superiority" in the upper echelons of the insurgency, (those who plan and direct but are not usually found dirtying their hands), but to think that Mohammed Jihad who moves the assets around etc. can be defeated with a bunch of high priced laptops and an even higher priced software package is proof that the powers that be like the idea of high tech but have got so high in the rank system they have forgotten what their enemy looks like.

  2. He's obviously had enough of Doom and wants an XP upgrade to play Second Life.

    But seriously...what you said.
  3. Oh dear. You're a bit thick really aren't you.

    Why do you think we're going to all the trouble of trying to achieve NEC? It's not just about knowing the terrorist on the ground is called pete.

    Why don't you go away, read JSP777 and come back when you know what you're talking about. Yet another example of people having a rant on a subject which they don't understand.
  4. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Which is all rather a bit rich coming from you. I thought you'd fcuked off for good, shame really we'd all be much better off for it.
  5. It must be a cultural thing. I seem to remember the CIA getting It in the neck because they did not have feet on the ground and relied on elint too much.

    I am sure that the model and demo this charlatan is selling will look very good and work, but a year down the line there will still be two or three guys with a shovel in the dark digging wholes for large bangs that do not fit his model of the terrorist world.
  6. The technology for defeating a cell phone triggered IED is available, I know I've made one. The problem is selling it to a very closed group who only looks to specific companies to provide equipment.

    "information superiority" is just another buzz word.
  7. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The technology to counter wireless command detonated IEDs has been around for a looooong time now.

    Agreed on the buzz word theory. We need to do something - talking rubbish is something therefore we must do it. Same sh1te different day/war.
  8. Yep... That was during Clinton's First Dynasty. It was determined by the drooling libs that it wasn't right to be getting int from people who were not proud, upstanding members of their community. The rules basically made it such that if you aren't the pope himself, or at least his best buddy you could not be used for intelligence gathering by US int gatherers. This meant that the three people remaining in the world that the policy would allow to be used knew f$ck all of use to anyone. All they had left was elint... and the enemy don't make use of electronics like we do - but the assumption is that they do - because we do - there is little acceptance that they are different to us mainly because many of the policy makers here still seem to believe that the world ends at the left and right coast and Iraq is actually a suburb of Toledo.


    It appears that you are held in contempt here by others. Not one to rock the old boat I'll maintain the status quo.

    Yeah... We used to drive the lanny towards the building/whatever with the Clansman 353 on 50Hz(?) to see if the fatherless would go off. No Bang = No RCIED... :oops:
  9. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Well the how and so on are not public domain as far as I know so best leave the details there, no point in making it any easier for the other side. Besides theres two blokes in a dark sedan parked outside.
  10. AA, technology has certainly moved on since that was employed.......not much of it seems to have been delivered though.
  11. LOL... I'd hope so... That was early 80's... Hardly a major shocker to find that deliveries are delayed... It's just a variation of "The cheque's in the mail"...
  12. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    I meant there are several methods available and no matter how small or seemingly old ways of doing things, lets not give anyone inadvertantly a starter for ten.
  13. Agreed. Sounds as if you know your stuff OS. Interested in some consultancy??
  14. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Thanks but I've been out for a while and while the principles probably haven't changed much I'm pretty sure the equipment and procedures have.

    Besides I prefer the safety of my armchair these days - its a young mans world and sadly that aint me anymore. :cry:
  15. Prefer letting the OC drive in the vehicle in front :wink: