5 ms·

28 soldiers die due to .34 second clock offset (1992)

27 points by spiffytech 12y ago

rdl 12y ago
Pretty amazing how great Iron Dome is vs. Patriot.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Iron Dome is, of course, just a tad newer. This report is from 1992, regarding an incident in 1991. Iron Dome went into service in 2011.
  - altcognito 12y ago
    Also, Patriot was made for hitting much larger targets and a whole host of other considerations (like being mobile instead of fixed). Iron Dome doesn't even attempt to take something down until the target is over a safe region. It's just a completely different beast: http://blog.vdcresearch.com/embedded_hw/2012/11/iron-dome-vs-patriot-missile-systems-key-architectural-differences.html http://blog.vdcresearch.com/embedded_hw/2012/11/iron-dome-vs...
- dalke 12y ago
  Can you really make that statement? How effective was Patriot? According to Postol, it wasn't effective at all - and I assume that's who you are referencing when you say "vs. Patriot." Others say it was effective. But the same researcher, Postol, says that Iron Dome hasn't been proven to be effective either. See http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-o... . Instead, he argues that the combination of an early warning system and shelter is a much more effective missile defense system. As http://thebulletin.org/iron-dome-public-relations-weapon7308 http://thebulletin.org/iron-dome-public-relations-weapon7308 points out, there is a "long history of inflated claims of missile defense efficiency." One HN discussion about this is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8067427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8067427 .
nandemo 12y ago
"You can get much farther with a slightly wrong clock and a Scud than you can with a slightly wrong clock alone."
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
makmanalp 12y ago
"Consequently, Army officials modified the software to improve the system's accuracy. However, the modified software did not reach Dhahran until February 26, 1991--the day after the Scud incident. " That, to me, makes it doubly tragic. When they knew, they should have alerted everyone immediately, and the update should have been top priority. At least they could have known of the risk and taken precautions. Does bring up an interesting angle to the zero day / responsible disclosure question. I guess if the baddies know of a vulnerability already, delaying disclosure might cause more harm then less.
manicdee 12y ago
The soldiers died due to a Patriot system that was active for over 100 hours failing to detect the incoming missile. The error in tracking was over 600m. The submitted title is misleading and indicates that the submitter didn't actually read the article (or is attempting to produce a click bait headline).
holograham 12y ago
An interesting take-away from this article is how good military software was back in the day -- to think a system developed in the 60's was re-purposed 30 years later to track and intercept smaller objects traveling 2.5 times faster is impressive. Once, working on military software projects were practically the ONLY programming jobs and naturally attracted the best and brightest minds. Now-a-days with decreased military R&D budgets and the rise of the software startup most developers do not even consider the stodgy military industrial complex as a career decision.

27 points by spiffytech 12y ago

rdl 12y ago

Pretty amazing how great Iron Dome is vs. Patriot.

sliverstorm 12y ago
Iron Dome is, of course, just a tad newer. This report is from 1992, regarding an incident in 1991. Iron Dome went into service in 2011.
- altcognito 12y ago
  Also, Patriot was made for hitting much larger targets and a whole host of other considerations (like being mobile instead of fixed). Iron Dome doesn't even attempt to take something down until the target is over a safe region. It's just a completely different beast: http://blog.vdcresearch.com/embedded_hw/2012/11/iron-dome-vs-patriot-missile-systems-key-architectural-differences.html http://blog.vdcresearch.com/embedded_hw/2012/11/iron-dome-vs...
dalke 12y ago
Can you really make that statement? How effective was Patriot? According to Postol, it wasn't effective at all - and I assume that's who you are referencing when you say "vs. Patriot." Others say it was effective. But the same researcher, Postol, says that Iron Dome hasn't been proven to be effective either. See http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-o... . Instead, he argues that the combination of an early warning system and shelter is a much more effective missile defense system. As http://thebulletin.org/iron-dome-public-relations-weapon7308 http://thebulletin.org/iron-dome-public-relations-weapon7308 points out, there is a "long history of inflated claims of missile defense efficiency." One HN discussion about this is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8067427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8067427 .

nandemo 12y ago

"You can get much farther with a slightly wrong clock and a Scud than you can with a slightly wrong clock alone."

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

makmanalp 12y ago

"Consequently, Army officials modified the software to improve the system's accuracy. However, the modified software did not reach Dhahran until February 26, 1991--the day after the Scud incident. " That, to me, makes it doubly tragic. When they knew, they should have alerted everyone immediately, and the update should have been top priority. At least they could have known of the risk and taken precautions. Does bring up an interesting angle to the zero day / responsible disclosure question. I guess if the baddies know of a vulnerability already, delaying disclosure might cause more harm then less.

manicdee 12y ago

The soldiers died due to a Patriot system that was active for over 100 hours failing to detect the incoming missile. The error in tracking was over 600m. The submitted title is misleading and indicates that the submitter didn't actually read the article (or is attempting to produce a click bait headline).

holograham 12y ago

An interesting take-away from this article is how good military software was back in the day -- to think a system developed in the 60's was re-purposed 30 years later to track and intercept smaller objects traveling 2.5 times faster is impressive. Once, working on military software projects were practically the ONLY programming jobs and naturally attracted the best and brightest minds. Now-a-days with decreased military R&D budgets and the rise of the software startup most developers do not even consider the stodgy military industrial complex as a career decision.