4 ms·

I'm torn. On the one hand, I appreciate a good hack. On the other hand, if it's going to be used day in and day out to save lives, a certain amount of quality

I'm torn. On the one hand, I appreciate a good hack. On the other hand, if it's going to be used day in and day out to save lives, a certain amount of quality and versatility is needed so that you can rely on it. If every scout team uses a two foot tall RC car, bomb trip wires go up to 3 feet above ground, or they quit using trip wires and switch to magnetic induction coils like the trip lights for stop lights, or speed bumps that the car can't handle get built all over, or patrols can't safely go out on rainy days when the streets are muddy. I worry that this only works well when it's a disposable individual hack used as an additional precaution, not as a standard issue primary first line of defense.

krschultz 15y ago
That's a good point. I'd say that the minimum to get through mud for a serious vehicle is something around the size of a small ATV, at which point you are talking about a completely different vehicle. This really only works on dry or paved roads.
shabble 15y ago
Anything that disrupts the enemy's tactics could probably be considered valuable. Induction loops would be harder to build, transport and disguise vs a spool of piano wire and a friction fuze. The tricky part is making sure it doesn't lull the people using it into a false sense of security. Once you identify the new tactic, you can adapt to it; once they start using magnetic triggers, you send your little RC car out with a big Neodymium magnet mounted on it or whatever.
lutorm 15y ago
What you are saying applies to all tactics, which always lead to counter-tactics, etc. It's always more advantageous for everyone to have their own home-brewed methods, because it's harder to counter. It's like in evolution; successful methods become victims of their own success in that there is now more selection pressure on countermeasures. It is, after all, called an arms-race for a reason.
JackWebbHeller 15y ago
I remember reading an article in the UK edition of Wired about IEDs. Soldiers soon realised that roadside bombs were heat-detecting - as soon as the heat being given off from a truck driving past was detected, these IEDs would launch straight into the truck, killing soldiers on several occasions. One morning a soldier had a brainwave and took a long metal pole and gaffer-taped it to the front of the truck. On the front of this he attached a toaster that he rigged to be 'always on'. This heated toaster, protruding three meters forwards, was enough to trick roadside bombs of this kind for months afterwards. They would fire in completely the wrong direction.
- etruong42 15y ago
  These two anecdotes suggest that we should teach a hacker mentality to soldiers. Or have a hacker (or a group of hackers) with each unit where they identify problems, experiment, and implement solutions. Hopefully the military would place more value on the intelligence and creativity of the common soldier and invest more in order to nurture it.
  - spitfire 15y ago
    It's already being taught. It's called maneuver warfare and the marines practice it. Read MCDP-1. Further reading is a guy named John Boyd who developed this stuff (along with the f15, f16, f18, a10 and first iraq invasion) from the 60's through the 90's. People, ideas, hardware. In that order.
  - saraid216 15y ago
    We should teach the hacker mentality to everyone.

krschultz 15y ago

That's a good point. I'd say that the minimum to get through mud for a serious vehicle is something around the size of a small ATV, at which point you are talking about a completely different vehicle. This really only works on dry or paved roads.

shabble 15y ago

Anything that disrupts the enemy's tactics could probably be considered valuable. Induction loops would be harder to build, transport and disguise vs a spool of piano wire and a friction fuze. The tricky part is making sure it doesn't lull the people using it into a false sense of security. Once you identify the new tactic, you can adapt to it; once they start using magnetic triggers, you send your little RC car out with a big Neodymium magnet mounted on it or whatever.

lutorm 15y ago

What you are saying applies to all tactics, which always lead to counter-tactics, etc. It's always more advantageous for everyone to have their own home-brewed methods, because it's harder to counter. It's like in evolution; successful methods become victims of their own success in that there is now more selection pressure on countermeasures. It is, after all, called an arms-race for a reason.

JackWebbHeller 15y ago

I remember reading an article in the UK edition of Wired about IEDs. Soldiers soon realised that roadside bombs were heat-detecting - as soon as the heat being given off from a truck driving past was detected, these IEDs would launch straight into the truck, killing soldiers on several occasions. One morning a soldier had a brainwave and took a long metal pole and gaffer-taped it to the front of the truck. On the front of this he attached a toaster that he rigged to be 'always on'. This heated toaster, protruding three meters forwards, was enough to trick roadside bombs of this kind for months afterwards. They would fire in completely the wrong direction.

etruong42 15y ago
These two anecdotes suggest that we should teach a hacker mentality to soldiers. Or have a hacker (or a group of hackers) with each unit where they identify problems, experiment, and implement solutions. Hopefully the military would place more value on the intelligence and creativity of the common soldier and invest more in order to nurture it.
- spitfire 15y ago
  It's already being taught. It's called maneuver warfare and the marines practice it. Read MCDP-1. Further reading is a guy named John Boyd who developed this stuff (along with the f15, f16, f18, a10 and first iraq invasion) from the 60's through the 90's. People, ideas, hardware. In that order.
- saraid216 15y ago
  We should teach the hacker mentality to everyone.