4 ms·

Sure, let's intentionally omit locks from equipment that is designed not to fall into enemy hands. Let's not have a kill switch, either. Sure, makes sense for a

by EGreg 3y ago

Sure, let's intentionally omit locks from equipment that is designed not to fall into enemy hands. Let's not have a kill switch, either. Sure, makes sense for an agency with more money to spend than every corporation in America!

kube-system 3y ago
Yes, it does make sense that the DoD is more concerned about their own soldiers' lives than whether or not the Iraqi military has their vehicles stolen from them. These vehicles were already given away, adding some stupid biometric system would increase both the price of the vehicles and the number of lives lost due to failures. Throwing technology at problems is not always a solution. The vehicles typically have better security than a lock anyway, they're occupied or guarded by soldiers with guns. You might be familiar with locks on vehicles due to your own experiences, but deterrence to unoccupied theft is a requirement that is somewhat unique to civilian passenger vehicles. It is completely normal for many other types of vehicles to have very minimal or zero theft mitigations due to operating in different conditions with different requirements. For example, multi-million dollar jets have no anti-theft systems at all.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  > Throwing technology at problems is not always a solution It's a fine solution to the very pressing "VCs aren't giving me money" problem. You can't have a blockchain or AI startup, say, without throwing technology at random things!
seabird 3y ago
Even if you put the locks on, they would never be used. If you need it you need it right now, and it's usually life or death. If somebody is trying to steal it, you shoot them. The last thing you want to be doing in a gunfight is fucking with a lock.
- EGreg 3y ago
  This is a strawman All you have to do is have every soldier who is authorized to use your equipment unlock the vehicle through an affirmative phrase — and the vehicle can check their voice for instance, or other biometrics like their fingerprint. Or each of them can wear a beacon or smartphone which does that. Cars today open with you just getting into the car. This is easy stuff man
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Solders in warzones frequently wear gloves, encounter debris, shoot guns, or are exposed to extremely noisy conditions, which would result in an inadequate signal-to-noise ratio for reliably and quickly sensing fingerprints and/or voices. They also tend to avoid unnecessarily emitting RF which would give away their position to enemy forces who have advanced signals intelligence gathering. Yes, it would be possible to do what you are saying. However, militaries find this undesirable because they find the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Voice recognition under combat stress? That shit barely works under optimal conditions.
    - EGreg 3y ago
      Not true, now it is very robust
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        When shrapnel and bullets are flying and your nerves are completely shot, your voice wavering and you're croaking from smoke inhalation, do you really want to entrust your life to voice recognition? Come on dude, you're being absurd. We're talking about military hardware, not tech gadgets for your home.
        alistairSH 3y ago
Terr_ 3y ago
> Sure, let's intentionally omit locks from equipment that is designed not to fall into enemy hands. Slow down there with the sarcasm and think about the actual requirements or use-cases first. Your average operable military vehicle is in one of three situations: 1. Actively occupied or guarded from theft by current owners/operators with guns who will not tolerate strangers getting close. 2. Parked somewhere in the middle of a whole bunch of people who are generally guarding the whole area, and those people may need to be able to operate it very quickly. 3. In some long-term storage which is well-fenced, under surveillance, guarded by people with guns, and typically very far from both overt enemies and opportunistic thieves. So there's already an access control system tuned to a particular set of needs... and one of those needs includes "using it to escape from something dangerous even if the prior-driver and everything in their pockets got vaporized."
- EGreg 3y ago
  How many tanks and materiel did Ukrainians take from the Russians? On October 2022 it was an estimated 453 Russian tanks. I guess 1, 2, 3 don't work that well in battle https://www.newsweek.com/how-russian-tanks-captured-ukraine-helping-fight-vladimir-putin-1750115 https://www.newsweek.com/how-russian-tanks-captured-ukraine-... Also for other things too: https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/ukrainians-strike-russians-with-their-own-anti-tank-missile/ https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/ukrainians-strike-russians-wit...
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Are you suggesting that locks would have prevented this?
    - EGreg 3y ago
      Certainly kill switches would Every TV show has a self destruct mechanism to prevent a ship from falling into enemy hands and blabla etc
      - kube-system 3y ago
habinero 3y ago
My guy, I believe the enemy already knows about our WWII-era "large truck" technology. It's fine. You don't want either of those things in a widely used military vehicle. Soldiers do not need to die because they're fumbling and dropping keys under fire. They also don't need their truck dying in the middle of a maneuver because the kill switch accidentally went off. Also, in war, trucks will be getting destroyed left and right. It'll literally be a rounding error.
elzbardico 3y ago
If the enemy gets physical access to the vehicle that you're going to use to escape, you're already toasted. And on the other hand, if you are ambushed, you don't want you and your unit to die because the soldier who had the keys just got fragged by the enemy and now you can't escape.

by EGreg 3y ago

kube-system 3y ago

Yes, it does make sense that the DoD is more concerned about their own soldiers' lives than whether or not the Iraqi military has their vehicles stolen from them. These vehicles were already given away, adding some stupid biometric system would increase both the price of the vehicles and the number of lives lost due to failures. Throwing technology at problems is not always a solution. The vehicles typically have better security than a lock anyway, they're occupied or guarded by soldiers with guns. You might be familiar with locks on vehicles due to your own experiences, but deterrence to unoccupied theft is a requirement that is somewhat unique to civilian passenger vehicles. It is completely normal for many other types of vehicles to have very minimal or zero theft mitigations due to operating in different conditions with different requirements. For example, multi-million dollar jets have no anti-theft systems at all.

adhesive_wombat 3y ago
> Throwing technology at problems is not always a solution It's a fine solution to the very pressing "VCs aren't giving me money" problem. You can't have a blockchain or AI startup, say, without throwing technology at random things!

seabird 3y ago

Even if you put the locks on, they would never be used. If you need it you need it right now, and it's usually life or death. If somebody is trying to steal it, you shoot them. The last thing you want to be doing in a gunfight is fucking with a lock.

EGreg 3y ago
This is a strawman All you have to do is have every soldier who is authorized to use your equipment unlock the vehicle through an affirmative phrase — and the vehicle can check their voice for instance, or other biometrics like their fingerprint. Or each of them can wear a beacon or smartphone which does that. Cars today open with you just getting into the car. This is easy stuff man
- kube-system 3y ago
  Solders in warzones frequently wear gloves, encounter debris, shoot guns, or are exposed to extremely noisy conditions, which would result in an inadequate signal-to-noise ratio for reliably and quickly sensing fingerprints and/or voices. They also tend to avoid unnecessarily emitting RF which would give away their position to enemy forces who have advanced signals intelligence gathering. Yes, it would be possible to do what you are saying. However, militaries find this undesirable because they find the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Voice recognition under combat stress? That shit barely works under optimal conditions.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Not true, now it is very robust
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      When shrapnel and bullets are flying and your nerves are completely shot, your voice wavering and you're croaking from smoke inhalation, do you really want to entrust your life to voice recognition? Come on dude, you're being absurd. We're talking about military hardware, not tech gadgets for your home.
      - alistairSH 3y ago

Terr_ 3y ago

> Sure, let's intentionally omit locks from equipment that is designed not to fall into enemy hands. Slow down there with the sarcasm and think about the actual requirements or use-cases first. Your average operable military vehicle is in one of three situations: 1. Actively occupied or guarded from theft by current owners/operators with guns who will not tolerate strangers getting close. 2. Parked somewhere in the middle of a whole bunch of people who are generally guarding the whole area, and those people may need to be able to operate it very quickly. 3. In some long-term storage which is well-fenced, under surveillance, guarded by people with guns, and typically very far from both overt enemies and opportunistic thieves. So there's already an access control system tuned to a particular set of needs... and one of those needs includes "using it to escape from something dangerous even if the prior-driver and everything in their pockets got vaporized."

EGreg 3y ago
How many tanks and materiel did Ukrainians take from the Russians? On October 2022 it was an estimated 453 Russian tanks. I guess 1, 2, 3 don't work that well in battle https://www.newsweek.com/how-russian-tanks-captured-ukraine-helping-fight-vladimir-putin-1750115 https://www.newsweek.com/how-russian-tanks-captured-ukraine-... Also for other things too: https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/ukrainians-strike-russians-with-their-own-anti-tank-missile/ https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/ukrainians-strike-russians-wit...
- kube-system 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that locks would have prevented this?
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Certainly kill switches would Every TV show has a self destruct mechanism to prevent a ship from falling into enemy hands and blabla etc
    - kube-system 3y ago

habinero 3y ago

My guy, I believe the enemy already knows about our WWII-era "large truck" technology. It's fine. You don't want either of those things in a widely used military vehicle. Soldiers do not need to die because they're fumbling and dropping keys under fire. They also don't need their truck dying in the middle of a maneuver because the kill switch accidentally went off. Also, in war, trucks will be getting destroyed left and right. It'll literally be a rounding error.

elzbardico 3y ago

If the enemy gets physical access to the vehicle that you're going to use to escape, you're already toasted. And on the other hand, if you are ambushed, you don't want you and your unit to die because the soldier who had the keys just got fragged by the enemy and now you can't escape.