9 ms·

I was an operator on a weapon system within the last decade that did not use encryption. I was horrified, naturally, but the explanations were: 1. Well, this

• WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  > The enemy here is fairly low-tech. Shouldn't be a problem. Would be perfectly acceptable if your hardware was only used for 2-3 years against only low tech enemies that don't have access to electricity during that whole time.
  • pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Sounds like classic underestimation of your opposition.
    • TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Yup. The enemy may be poorest of poor, but in this day and age, their entire population probably has smartphones (or at least dumbphones), and there's plenty of smart people with nothing better to do than to play with computers. There aren't many low-tech places left on this planet, where it comes to computing.
  • maxxxxx 8y ago
    I think this can be a downfall of the US military if they ever get into a conflict with a capable enemy. They are so used to use super complex and expensive weapons against enemies who can't really put up a resistance. I wonder what would happen to the B-2 bomber or aircraft carriers if they had to fight China. My guess is these weapons would be eliminated very quickly.
    • orf 8y ago
      > They are so used to use super complex and expensive weapons against enemies who can't really put up a resistance. Tell that to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Historically the US does well against standing armies (Iraq for example), but absolutely terribly against low-tech enemies who don't engage in a way that allows these super high tech weapons to be used effectively. Reminds me of this: http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm A scrimmage in a Border Station- A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail[1]. The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride, Shot like a rabbit in a ride! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezail
      • maxxxxx 8y ago
        I meant it in a sense of an enemy that can take on the high tech weapons. Since the Korea war nobody challenged the high tech equipment in meaningful way.
        • rphlx 8y ago
          I have to quibble with that a bit. The US regularly overflew the USSR and China through at least the mid 70s, meaning our best aircraft were in a very real sense fighting their best air defense systems 20 years+ after the Korean war ended. There have almost certainly been satellite, submarine and other engagements too, they just aren't generally publicized by either side until 30-40+ years later.
          • maxxxxx 8y ago
            True. However, I think in a real shooting war those aircraft could be attacked by a huge number of low tech weapons and get overwhelmed. From what I know about warfare often large numbers will eventually overwhelm every kind of defense. For example could an aircraft carrier handle 10000 incoming drones? I hope we'll never find out...
            • 8y ago
• dmh2000 8y ago
  The catch is that on DOD systems, encryption is very difficult to add. That is, to be certified by the NSA and compatible with the military key infrastructure. So its better to avoid mentioning it unless its forced on you. Better is a relative term here. I mean, in terms of cost and effort to add. Not security.
  • noobermin 8y ago
    So since it's hard to get the rubber stamp you just do include encryption, that seems worse.
    • metaphor 8y ago
      You're waiving encrypted channels around as if it were de facto mandatory. Without knowing the ConOps of the system, how could you possibly conclude that confidentiality was an imperative? Effective acquisition of weapon systems is about balancing budget, schedule, performance, and risk--a lot easier said that done.