Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Technology and the Future of Warfare

Continued from page 3

By Mark Williams

Thursday, March 23, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

TR: What should we be doing against both the insurgency in Iraq and al-Qaeda?

JA: The terrorists have a technology strategy designed to get the most effective, most usable tools out there for their use. They've learned to ride the rails of our technology to strike at us. One area of short-term research that the U.S. is emphasizing is the effort to deal in a technological way with the problem of the improvised explosive device. Of course, our opponents have figured out a variety of systems allowing them to detonate these weapons in a way that cannot be jammed. I can't talk in more detail, but these leaderless networks we're fighting in Iraq are giving as good as they get in technological terms.

The real answer is about understanding the enemy as a system and trying to pull that system apart. But we're not doing that. We're going simply for the technological fix and that's one reason we've had so much trouble with these IEDs. Since we're spending so much on military affairs, maybe some of that should be directed towards technologies that will break our opponents' communications. In World War II, there was an investment in creating the first high-performance computers, for that very purpose. Today, it may be an investment in creating the most effective quantum computing or figuring out how to structure the vast ocean of data that masks the movements of al-Qaeda on the Net and the Web. We need a new Bletchley Park [the country house where the German WWII codes were broken], if we're going to win this war.

TR: Aren't our enemies in Iraq an entirely human network? It's not clear that breaking into their Internet communications...

JA: Oh, but they don't exist without the Web and the Net. You don't move around that country easily and even the old-school Baathist insurgent elements rely on the Web. A networked insurgency doesn't have anything like a traditional leadership. Most of the leadership they get is by going on websites, where they share information very quickly.

TR: Could we take down the Net in Iraq and would it have the effect of downing the insurgency to a significant degree?

JA: You could end all Internet access in Iraq and it would in many ways cripple the insurgents, in terms of slowing them down tremendously. But you'd also cripple reconstruction.

TR: So, in other words, we should data-mine Net exchanges within Iraq?

JA: There you go. The great figure in all this is Admiral John Poindexter. He suffered from his vaguely Orwellian-seeming tendencies and his connections with the Iran-Contra scandal. But the truth is he's had the most important ideas in decades about how to revolutionize intelligence-gathering. He understands the Web and the Net. He's one of the original, great military computer scientists and it's a tragedy that his ideas were discredited for very poor reasons.

TR: Why were those reasons poor?

JA: We live in an era when the power of small groups and individuals has expanded beyond our imaginations. We live in a virtually transparent world. The truth is that to have more security we have to give up some privacy.

Comments

  • money in weapons
    I only skimmed this long article... but did it mention THERE IS MONEY IN THE WEAPONS?

    as per the Bush Administration (and other admins) who cares if it makes sense, as long as it makes lots of money for our group?

    I mean it is only taxpayer money, anyhow...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (David Anderson)
    03/23/2006
    Posts:1
  • Skitzo
    We face more than two types of enemies.  The terrorist and chinese are the 2 biggest.  The represent the agile land warrior and major war machine needs.
    We also have friends and not so friends that we must impress.
    Park a HUGE ship in a harbor and the locals will re-think the US.
    Many think of the US as the guys that ran in Somalia.  "We can beat these fat boys."  The big iron is to intimidate them.  Scare a few, you will have fewer to fight later.
    Militaries have been doing this for thousands of years.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (SirLanse)
    03/23/2006
    Posts:1
    • Patton's words still ring true
      “Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.”

      That's your "Big Iron" for you.  It's so big and slow it might as well be fixed.

      Swarming, distributed semi or totally autonomous robots are the future. 

      Send 'em out on patrol with instructions to give control to a human when the sensors go off.

      Need millions of soldiers to run them?  Re-instate the draft, except this time the soldiers are never in the line of fire, so there won't be any public outcry. 

      Conscientious objectors?  No problem:  There's ten guys weaned on video games ready to step in and fill the breach.

      Shoot one or blow it up, who cares?  Send in a dozen more, that'll teach 'em.

      Phillip K. Dick got it right (again).
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Dave Narby)
      03/23/2006
      Posts:1
      • Swarming is right!!!
        swarming, did you say swarming? ok... well..

        go to the darpa site and you will find a request for putting mems divices in the larva of insects to control them.

        even hollyweird never thought that was plausible enough!!!
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Artfldgr)
        03/24/2006
        Posts:1
    • you can never scare a great nation
      if all the American are like you, then it's very nice, because the end of the USA comes, be careful unilateralist.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Dr. Fu)
      03/31/2006
      Posts:1
  • Tech & the Future of Warfare
    An excellent article, which should be read by all and in particular our military planners.  We have now what Pres Eisenhower warned us about about in the 50's.  We should learn from our past.  Why we haven't is all about money and competion.  Such a waste of our assets such as; human and monetary.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Ronald Zien)
    03/23/2006
    Posts:1
    • Waste?
      Yeah, it's a big waste of money...

      Until you get attacked!

      HuUUUururrrRRrr...!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Spartacus Galt)
      03/23/2006
      Posts:1
  • emerging technologies
    i need serious help my assignment is due 4 skool and i dont no how to explain emerging technologies plz help me
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (sam)
    03/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • The Right Mix
    Sending people onto space cost lives and dollars compared to sending brave little sats. I cannot see what is gained by the manned space program that would not be cheaper and better with sats and robotic weapons.
    The enemy will sometimes suprise us by being smart and prescient. We must out-think and out-guess him.
    Our enemies do not hold their lives as dear as we do ours. We must not be thwarted by body counts or setbacks. Pretend that our lives and country are at stake.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Colin)
    03/26/2006
    Posts:1
  • other enemies: bureaucracy and corruption
    The terrorist can buy weapons and devices where ever they find them. The US military civilian bureaucracy stymies development with out of date MIL SPECS requirements and incomprehensible procurement regulations. Corrupt contractors cut through all that by paying off corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Bruce Nicholson)
    03/31/2006
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.