Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

The Soldier is the Network 278

Posted by michael from the ping-sergeant-jones dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "This article from InfoWorld says that "in the battle of the future, the helmet becomes a data retrieval device." It describes a scenario where soldiers are equipped with sensors and other networking equipment. "Each person is a network with routing capability to everyone else," says Peter Marcotullio, director of development at SRI International. This technology should be available in five years for the military, which probably means that we'll become networks ourselves ten years from now. Check this column for a summary. Please note that this article is part of a special report called "From the battlefield to the enterprise" which looks at why some key technologies -- deployed on a massive scale in Afghanistan and Iraq -- may hold promise for corporate IT."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Soldier is the Network More

The Soldier is the Network

Comments Filter:
  • we are becoming Ender's Hive Queen. Does this mean i'll have a job before the unemployment runs out?

  • Mesh Networking (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can someone explain how this differs from mesh networking?

    • Re:Mesh Networking (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mafiew ( 620133 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:34PM (#6091600)
      I think the point of the article is that this technology already exists and it's the implementation that's really innovative. The challenge is making such a system practical for use on the battlefield so that a soldier isn't lugging around a couple of car batteries, a PC, bulky wireless equipment etc...

  • Other tech from the battlefield to the enterprise. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:04PM (#6091449)
    I can think of some other technologies [remtek.com] that I would have liked to have available at work, some days.

    • Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:42PM (#6091631) Homepage
      Designed especially for the American Law Enforcement user

      providing the operator with sixty rounds of available firepower right on the weapon.

      So American cops reguarly need to shoot 60 people without the inceonvenient delay of a reload? Blimey, it must be like living in a war zone over there.

      • Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri (Score:5, Funny)

        by Hanji ( 626246 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:47PM (#6091657)
        Nah ... they're just REALLY inaccurate.

      • Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:58PM (#6091694)
        So American cops reguarly need to shoot 60 people without the inceonvenient delay of a reload? Blimey, it must be like living in a war zone over there.

        You misunderstand the special and dramatic needs of Drug law enforcement officers. It isn't a matter of 60 people, it's just a matter of sometimes, they really need to shoot one person 60 times very quickly. After all, think of the horrors that could happen if they only shot them 30 times; some of the people these brave officers are up against are armed with wallets. God knows what the druggies could do if they were only shot 10 or 20 times in quick succession by an unmarked officer busting into their house in the middle of the night with no explanation. They could retaliate. Do you want to put policemen in the line of danger like that?

      • Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) * on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:01PM (#6091712) Journal
        So American cops reguarly need to shoot 60 people without the inceonvenient delay of a reload?

        60 people? No. Try to stop a car by shooting out the tires/engine? Yes. Also, remember "law enforcement" covers SWAT teams; using 3-round bursts, this will give you 20 pulls of the trigger before it needs to be reloaded. Still a bit excessive for most situations - but better to have too many rounds than to be first into a drug den, and be up against 11 people with only enough to take out 10...

        Blimey, it must be like living in a war zone over there.

        Not from what I've seen - and no, the police don't carry these things on patrol! They just have a lot of stuff "just in case", for dealing with really serious problems. Everything from adapted tanks for breaking down doors, to helicopters for chasing getaway cars without endangering other traffic.

      • Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri (Score:5, Insightful)

        by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:12PM (#6091765)

        Here in the US, we're pretty generous with our "bullet to person" ratio, so 60 bullets does not imply anywhere close to 60 people. I mean, seriously, even when running with the counterstrike cheats, nobody's that good.

        P.S. Last time I was in England, we couldn't find a trash can anywhere. They had mostly been removed because of the possiblity that someone would leave a bomb in one. How's that war zone thing going with you guys?

      • Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @08:49PM (#6092340)
        SWAT teams do, yes. Most cops carry only a pistol with them, but speical units like SWAT teams need more firepower. PArt of it is simply the threat of overwhelming force can often difuse a situation. If a gunman is faced with 10 heavily armed SWAT members, they are much mroe likely to give up than if they are faced with one normal officer. However, part of having that threat is the need to be ready if you get called out on it. It wouldn't do any good to have guns that just LOOK scary, they need to be powerful as well.

  • This will be the end of a long tradition (Score:5, Funny)

    by IainMH ( 176964 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:06PM (#6091459)
    of soilders taking Playboy into battle. Why bother when you can get thehun on your HUD?

  • Helmet...?!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Paddyish ( 612430 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:07PM (#6091475)
    the helmet becomes a data retrieval device

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see scenes from 'Spaceballs'...

  • Health concerns (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rxed ( 634882 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:08PM (#6091477)
    Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time? A booklet I have (from my wireless router) states that "The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted safety standard for human exposure to RF energy emitted: 1) Do not touch or move antennas while unit is transmitting or receiving."

    • Re:Health concerns (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:36PM (#6091604) Journal
      Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time? A booklet I have (from my wireless router) states that "The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted safety standard for human exposure to RF energy emitted: 1) Do not touch or move antennas while unit is transmitting or receiving."

      You bring up a very good point. But, when has any military (US or otherwise) really cared about the long-term welfare of its soldiers?

      Look at the evidence over the years: soldiers acting as guinea pigs during the post World War II atomic bomb tests, chemical stimulants used on US soldiers in Vietnam (and bromide tea given to troops in World War I), antitodes that have lead to serious side-effects being administered during the first Gulf War, who knows how many instances of post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.

      It has been said that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Politicians aren't exactly reknowned for looking beyond the short-term, and the use (or, more accurately, misuse) of soldiers throughout the ages is fact, not fiction.

    • Re:Health concerns (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Imperator ( 17614 )
      Though I'm lucky enough to have never had this experience, I'm imagine that when people are shooting at you, a little bit of RF energy is the least of your worries.

      Also, why not put the antenna on top of the helmet? The helmet than then incorporate a layer of RF shielding. (It's already got layers of protection against shrapnel.
    • Do you really believe, that if US military tested nuclear bomb radiation effects on their soldiers, they really care about soldiers being exposed to RF energy?
    • Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time?

      This is the same sort of question as "Do cell-phones cause brain cancer". We have a lot of experimental data on this, with few answers.

      The impact of RF on biological systems has been controversial for a very long time. Some studies have shown that there is an effect, however reproducability is very poor, and the issue is still under study with no clear-cut answer available. Surely any logical perso

  • I see some problems with this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nemaispuke ( 624303 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:10PM (#6091492)
    With DARPA and DoD's never ending penchant for technology to solve every problem, I see potential for numerous problems with the "wired soldier". DoD has a bandwidth problem now trying to control and get imagery from airborne Predator UAV's, what happens when you wire the individual soldier? Where is this bandwidth going to come from? Can this be subject to monitoring and how is it going to be secured? For that matter can it withstand an EMP pulse? If I wanted to take out communicating enemy forces using modern comm gear that is not hardened, a small tactical nuke would do just fine. And what about the possibility of interception even if it is secure? What if a unit that has a base unit to receive updates is captured, then parts of the system (or the whole system) is compromized. This will take years of testing before it ever becomes reality, I wouldn't hold my breath.

    • Re:I see some problems with this (Score:5, Informative)

      by malakai ( 136531 ) * on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:46PM (#6091653) Journal
      DoD has a bandwidth problem now trying to control and get imagery from airborne Predator UAV's, what happens when you wire the individual soldier?

      They don't have a bandwidth problem, CNN, FOX.. et. al have a bandwidth problem. The Military bought all the commercial sat times for the war. It was very cost effective. They have enough bandwidth using commercial sats, and that will last them until the new comm constellation goes online in 2010. Not to mention, their stake in Global Crossing keeps their terrestial bandwidth in huge supply.

      Where is this bandwidth going to come from?

      When all your soldiers are routers and are sharing spectrum, the aggregate of them ADDS to your bandwidth, not subtracts. You no longer have just one path (humvee->sattelite->another humvee) you now could possible relay over a 'human' network. The more nodes, the more possible paths. Setup a fixed node with some high long range emf link back to home base, or bounce it off a sat.

      Can this be subject to monitoring and how is it going to be secured?

      I laugh everytime I see a statement like this on slashdot. I sometime forget everyone on slashdot believes they are somehow unique and think of things noone else could. Gee, do you think they should encrypt the network? Gee can it be monitored? The fact you even thought of this should tell you the military has thought of it as well.
      For that matter can it withstand an EMP pulse?
      Probably not. But just because their is some way for the enemy to take away your advantage doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. If they EMP you, it won't be a big area. A few units in close proximity to each other could all go down at once, but again, so what. They are trained to use the advantage when they have it. When they don't, they issue orders using vocal resonance called SHOUTING.

      If I wanted to take out communicating enemy forces using modern comm gear that is not hardened, a small tactical nuke would do just fine
      Umm, a small tactical nuke will kill them. Lack of communication at that point is moot. See above comment.

      And what about the possibility of interception even if it is secure?
      Well then it wouldn't be secure would it.

      What if a unit that has a base unit to receive updates is captured, then parts of the system (or the whole system) is compromized
      What if you capture and torture a prisoner for the information? Is the war lost? No, you expect and antcipate your enemys move. You anticipate that they may get to a Humvee which the engine is still running (the keys reset when the engine is turned off, and after a idle timeout). You are vulnerable while that stolen humvee goes unreported. But your troops should never be out of contact. At worse, you enemy has a few hours of information to the whereabouts of some of your troops. At best, you know they stole the humvee, you know they are using it, and you feed them false data. So the enemy knows your location, again, you lost an advantge, not the war. They still have to act on that information, and in the end, some grunt with a finger on the trigger can save the day by killing before being killed.

      This will take years of testing before it ever becomes reality, I wouldn't hold my breath.


      It was used in Iraq. So you could have held your breath. Not the full power of it, and not as many sensors, but Captains in the field had realtime data and video communication via a distributed wirless net. The net had to be setup by grunts, and pushed forward with the troops, but it was done. There's lots of space the EM world. Especially when you dont have to care about the FCC.

      I know slashdot is home of the cynics, but for once, i'd like to see comments about "wow, this is cool technology, i wonder how we could find out more about it, i wonder if we could get an interview with people making this stuff, talk to the geeks, discuss their routing choices...etc". Instead of all this "this is dumb, some script kiddie is going to DDOS our soldier, as they look up porn on their embedded internet connections.

      -malakai

      • Re:I see some problems with this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nemaispuke ( 624303 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:28PM (#6091837)
        I am a twenty year veteran and I will give you an example of this "they have thought of this". In 1987 a certain aircraft carrier was participating in an operation called Earnest Will (reflagged Kuwaiti tankers). We had people from various Intelligence commands onboard and one of them forgot to mention the film one of these assets was going to be shooting. Since photo intelligence was a critical part of this operation don't you think it would be important to pass on pertinent information to those concerned?! The Photo Labs on an aircraft carrier have certain capabilities, and the people responsible for thinking these things up don't always know everything (or are told everything). That is usually the result of a four star Admiral to Captain conversation "Captain, get this done", response "Yes sir". Don't tell me "they have thought of everything" from personal experience I can tell you they haven't! So it's cool, so what. This isn't no Linux laptop we are talking about. Actual people are going to using this equipment to stay alive, I sure as Hell hope it works!

      • Re:I see some problems with this (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Monday June 02, 2003 @04:02AM (#6093927)
        They don't have a bandwidth problem

        The limiting factor to the number of Predators that can be airborne at once is not available drones, but bandwidth contention.

        Gee, do you think they should encrypt the network? Gee can it be monitored? The fact you even thought of this should tell you the military has thought of it as well.

        Yes, it sounds obvious and logical. But yet, the military only noticed this after UK satellite-dish hobbyists started recording unencrypted Predator feeds from the Middle East.

        If they EMP you, it won't be a big area.

        EMPs have been known to have a diamter greater than 2000 miles. Refer to Test Shot Starfish [williamson-labs.com] for background. Creating an EMP that is controlled (directional) and yet still powerful is actually more technologically challenging than firing a large one.

        Umm, a small tactical nuke will kill them. Lack of communication at that point is moot. See above comment.

        A nuke explosion at a high altitude is the easiest way to create a widespread EMP blast. Electronics will be damaged at a distance 100s of times greater than the human-lethal blast range.

        There are obvious reasons why a nation with atomic weapons might be more willing to employ them for EMP against equipment, rather than targeting troops on the ground.

        Russia still maintains a capability to fire a large nuke into the upper atmosphere, which would blackout London and Berlin in a single shot. The US State Department claims that North Korea has a system with similar power.
    • So dropping thousands of shards of extremely fine foil strip on top of advancing American soldiers seems like a good bet.

      I seem to remember this stuff plays havoc with just about all radio signals :)

  • Scenario (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:10PM (#6091494)
    The date is 2199. A unit of the Fourth French Resistence, a ragtag bunch, hide in a canyon. The commander listens into his radio for a minute

    [commander [in french]] the americans are coming. we should shortly be attacked by a robotic flying drone capable of dropping bombs sucking all air out of a 500 foot radius, followed by a mopup crew of several hundred armored networked hive soldiers. everyone put on your air mask.

    the commander begins to get a piece of equipment out of a duffel bag. he hovers intently over a red button on it, watching.

    [recruit] What's that?
    [commander] EMP blast. It's the only weapon we have against them.

    • Re:Scenario (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Cappy Red ( 576737 )
      Yup, DDoSing, hacking, EMP blasting, or just staticing it all to hell.

      "Walking internet cafes with laser blasters brought down by ragtag group with sticks and stones, and a freak electrical storm"

      *honk*

  • P2P Soldier? (Score:5, Funny)

    by fonetik ( 181656 ) <fonetik@NOspam.onebox.com> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:11PM (#6091497)
    Sounds like these guys are going to want to put a check in the box for "Do not function as a Supernode". =)

  • Inter-Battle LinkUp (Score:3, Funny)

    by Arc04 ( 601196 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:12PM (#6091504)
    Wow! This has so much potential!
    The soldiers could install CS or UT2003 on their HUDs, and then play with other soldiers over the net who are githing in different battles, or just training at HQ - ultimate VR!!!!

    They could then pretend to kill people on the game, whilst killing people in real life!

    (Did I use too many exclamation marks???)

  • A day, when... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:15PM (#6091513) Homepage Journal
    ...each platoon has a cracker or a few, who is able to jam the opponent's displays temporarily, hack into older models to confuse the enemy's friend-or-foe identification, protect his own people from such attacks, snoop on enemy data transfers, fry their heads or change the intelligent helmet into guided missile attractor beacon...

    Future? Maybe not, but certainly a good idea for a computer game.
  • "Each person is a network with routing capability to everyone else"

    Looks like P2P networking to me (Person-To-Person of course). [Obvious RIAA reference deleted]

    • "As usual, the Grunt Rash Band will host the Saturday Virtual Party on channel 82 at 7 PM. Appear as you are, dance wherever you are."

  • Just what I need... (Score:4, Funny)

    by big_groo ( 237634 ) <groovis AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:21PM (#6091533) Homepage
    "the helmet...may hold promise for corporate IT."

    For those instances when we *all* want to just bang our heads into the wall - eg. 'My internet is broken.' or 'The laptop won't turn on!' etc.

  • A fat lot of good.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:25PM (#6091553) Homepage
    .. all that fancy equipment will do if the enemy has some of those EMP bombs that they were itching to try out in Iraq. (Did they ever use one, or is that classified?)

    • Re:A fat lot of good.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:34PM (#6091597) Homepage Journal
      Nowadays EMP protection is not a big problem in military environment - the "faraday's cage" is simple and effective enough. (Put an electronic watch ON TOP of a working microwave oven. Nothing happens. Now put it inside.) so either the pulse would have to be VERY strong or the equipment would have to be "civil grade" (unprotected) or quite old (pre-EMP-threat). I guess such a helmet would be quite easy to protect. Maybe except the antenna.

      • Re:A fat lot of good.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:07PM (#6091743)
        Nowadays EMP protection is not a big problem in military environment - the "faraday's cage" is simple and effective enough.

        A faraday cage around a radio is pretty pointless, as it prevents your radio from transmitting or receiving.

        Any break in the shield allows leaks. Any antenna penetrating the shield acts as a waveguide - you might as well not have the shield in the first place if you do this.

        EMP hardening for transceivers is done by making them able to tolerate large induced currents in the antennas. There will always be a point at which this ceases to work well (you try to make it past the point where it's no longer worth lobbing EMP bombs around).
      • Yes, but that is a protected part of the microwave. Send a large spike down the power lines and it'll become useless very quickly. Sure, you can save the parts inside, but at very least a breaker in the device needs to go off.

        Now consider the final stage of the tranmitter and initial stage of the receiver would be (mostly) unprotected. The device might be fine, but it's no longer able to communicate with external sources.

        Plug the antenna of your wireless lan system into a wall socket and see what happen
        • Note I've assummed your faraday cage is properly grounded on this mobile device -- which will rarely be true.
        • ...That's why I imagine these parts would be KISS and easily replaceable (possibly even automatically). I may put my cellular phone antenna into the wall socket and as long as it's not connected with the phone itself (or connected through a sophisticated and durable enough protection circuit), it's safe.

          Besides, Radio is not the only means of transmission... What about ultrasounds, infrared, laser, and quite a lot of EMP-proof media? With p2p-style network, if your radio is broken, you can try to reach th
        • Plug the antenna of your wireless lan system into a wall socket and see what happens...

          ASSHOLE! it blew up. i bet you knew that was going to happen and didn't wanr everyone. Those things cost money you know.

  • Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:30PM (#6091577) Homepage Journal
    Train your soldiers to rely on their eqipment and you'll end up with a bunch of soldiers who are useless when the eqipment fails. I'm not saying technology on the battlefield is bad, but your guys better have a back-up plan in case the enemy happens to have a HERF gun handy.

    This is also why I'm against putting additional electronics in guns. Sure, a gun that self destructs if an identity check fails seems like a good idea, right up until someone loses an arm because the mechanism malfunctioned. Sometimes keeping it simple is still the best policy.

    • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by razvedchik ( 107358 )
      Agreed. We're seeing this in land navigation, where some of the younger soldiers are more reliant on GPS than they are on a map. The "crufty old ones" (I'm about halfway there) rely on a map rather than something that needs batteries. I've seen guys who were totally lost once their GPS battery died and they couldn't get another one. I ended up giving them mine, and working solely on my map.

      There are places where GPS is really handy, don't get me wrong, though. It's just that it's a tool to help you, t
    • You're not the only one who thought of that - the military experts did too.
      That's why the soldiers are still taught how to kill the enemy with a shovel, how to make fire without matches or any other equipment, and a lot of stuff none of them will ever need in a war, because they have some superior equipment. But ther MUST know how to handle the situation without that equipment and that doctrine of the army is not going to change anytime soon.
    • Sure, but if a piece of equipment will save a thousand lives in battle at the cost of a couple accidents in training, the military will take it. That's just the calculus of war. Why do we have planes? They put pilots in danger, after all. But they save more friendly lives than they take, so they're worth it.
    • Soldier still need to be trained for events when you have no technologies to use. Like batteries run out, none of them are with you, etc.
    • Didn't the H&K G-11 have a microprocessor controlling things because that was the only way to deal with the firing speeds of caseless ammunition?

      I seem to recall that being one of the problems with it, potential EMP vulnerability.
  • I'm pretty sure the problem should be solved by now, but I was just wondering, with so many soldiers having RF equipment on them, how do you "fight" against triangulation ? (why you'd do that is kinda' obvious)
    • I imagine the planes drop a few thousands of tiny "dummy emiters" over the whole area, so the enemy can't distinguish a soldier from a small harmless device. Besides that - beam antennas, screened equipment, etc... but I agree, locating electronic circuits may be the future and the bane of future military.

      Hmm... When Einstein said the WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones... did he mean stealth assassin teams, who carry no metal nor electronics so they can't be tracked?
    • You could use directional/LOS signals where possible. Phased array devices can do some pretty tricky things. Our you could make every node a router, and dynamicly adjust siganal strength so that any signal only goes as far as the next node.
      Still, I could see this being hard to totaly combat. Even a simple device that could detect any leakage from aproaching soldiers would be a usefull countermeasure.
  • the helmet becomes a data retrieval device

    I sure hope for these guys that the helmet will still be effective to stop bullets (at the appropriate angle), shrapnel and the like. Otherwise their heads will be filled with metal before they'll get their next command from doctor Strangelove.

    • Helmets don't really stop bullets when they hit straight-on. They're more to stop fragments of exploding stuff. I'm just hoping that we can figure out a way to make them lighter, thinner, and more comfortable.
  • ...Dolph Lundegren and Claude Van Damme. If they can sober up the latter one, that is.
  • Windows:
    1. BSOD really is BSOD
    2. WarriorNT crashes more often than crack addicts
    3. Before going into conflict all soldiers must hum the windows start up tune
    4. ... and the intel inside tune
    5. finally:

    Linux:
    1. ITS GNU/FIGHTIX not just FIGHTIX
    2. Think free ammo not free beer
    3. Eventually some kernal hacker will make soldiers invinseble
    4. KDEKILL vs GNUKE
    5. linux-targeting-with-caffeen-HOWTO

    any other suggrestions?
    • Win:

      6. The HUD will display uphgrade commercials in the middle of the battle.
      7. Targetting... Please insert WinMilitary installation CD into drive E:
      8. The enemy may pay M$ to put evil stuff in the source.
      9. The exploits will be fixed within 1 year since found.
      10. It's not really you who controls the soldiers. It's Microsoft...

      Linux:

      6. If you get root, you may kill -9 the enemy.
      7. The enemy must have access to your source code.
      8. Poor entertainment software support.
      9. Dictators won't agree to support FRE
    • Will soldiers be able to complain in real-time when somebody starts Team Killing?

      And I presume that the court-martial procedure will be simplified with a KICK followed by a BAN.

  • Rumsfeld Doctrine (Score:5, Informative)

    by razvedchik ( 107358 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:44PM (#6091639)
    Before everybody starts thinking that the generals at the top of the DoD will have real-time information on what the individual soldier is doing, it's a misinterpretation of what the military is trying to do with their technology.

    Basically, the first tenet of war has been "massing of firepower at critical locations," which has been said very inelegantly as "get there the fastest with the mostest." This has been a strength of units such as calvary, who rely on strong reconnaisance to defeat a stronger enemy with a smaller force by being smarter and faster. What the systems that are being developed bring to the battlefield is better communications to mass at decisive places. We aren't to the point where every soldier has a network sensor system on their bodies, because we really don't need that.

    It's called the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" and it's a doctrine that uses our technological advantage to do more with less manpower because we can mass faster and better when we know the situation.

    What's happening is that from the commander level up to the higher commanders, there is a very good information flow. That has always existed, in reports sent in by radio, such as a situation report (sitrep), mainenance report, or kia report. The only changes are that it's now faster because of the technology, and that we're starting to see information being collected at the higher levels then pushed down to the lower commanders in the field.

    This helps the decision-makers because they have better situational awareness. If you've never been on the ground looking for stuff to kill, you'd be amazed at how easy it is to focus on your little part of the war, and then get surprised when you forget that you're one little piece of what's going on.

  • Please, stop it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WetCat ( 558132 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @05:44PM (#6091640)
    GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!
    No more arm races and unnecessary wars!
    Killing people in wars is a crime.
    • With glorious new technology like this around the place, how can we possibly give peace a chance? Everyone's itching to see the new smart-bombs/dumb-soldiers/whatever at work.

      Blood and guts, cool new machines, women crying, high-brow political debate...

      War: It's got something for everyone.
    • I am more then willing to give peace a chance, and as soon as you talk the middle eastern counties (among others) supporting terrorists groups and religious nuts in to giving it a chance too I will join you on stopping the arms race. Seems how I do not think you have much of a chance in succeeding at that I am going to go ahead and support my military so they can protect my civilian ass.

      I say thank you to those men and women, I do not yell at them to stop protecting me!
  • When can I get one of these as an add-on for my copy of America's Army? [americasarmy.com]

    Maybe they can give them away for free to kids to get an early start on training.

    Heinlein would be proud.

  • To address the number of devices they'll need, I'd bet on their making the transition to ipv6 [sun.com], which has been, unfortunately, stymied and postponed for years now.

    Just demonstrating the transition in a rather large real-world application would be one of the more useful spinoffs. At the very least, it will help keep ipv6 efforts alive.

  • Picture / Alternate Story (Score:3, Informative)

    by Stone Rhino ( 532581 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [ekrapm]> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:17PM (#6091790) Homepage Journal
    Hmm, seems FARK [fark.com] had slashdot scooped here. This story has a picture and some more information:
    http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2003/06/01/s tory001.html [rednova.com]

  • Tech Overkill (Score:2, Insightful)

    by crmsndude ( 640858 )
    This is ridiculous. Why an individual soldier would need that much information in the middle of combat is beyond me, and probably all of these gee-whiz wonks who've never even served. Case in point, when it came down to Infantry fighting in Iraq all of the personal technology, the GPS and whatnot meant nothing when the troops were concerned with keeping themselves from getting killed. When it comes to actual combat situations, anything that isn't going to immediately serve as a weapon is worthless. Look at

    • Re:Tech Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:44PM (#6091903) Homepage Journal
      1. "Retreat NOW, they try to surround us".
      2. "Red markers on your HUD are the enemy positions. Blue are ours."
      3. With current wind and angle, your grenade launcher will reach THIS point."
      4."Friendly fireline comes through here. Stay cautious"
      5. "A friendly soldier wants to walk past your fireline. Cease fire for 10 seconds"
      6. "Red marks enemy positions behind the wall as seen from friendly camera"
      (think WallCheat in counterstrike)
      7. "Nearest medic: 300m North ( --->that direction)"
      8. Map with all positions marked.
      9. "SOS, they are two steps away from my foxhole and my gun has jammed, but they don't see me yet!"
      10. "The 2000 pound bomb will fall here: X"

      Aww, that sight "+300" rising over enemy's corpse and score counter running up by 300, what could possibly encourage you to fight more effectively?!

  • **boooinnngg** (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    HELLO!! it looks like you're trying to kill some evil-doers...

    would you like some help with that!?!?!?!

  • A whole new meaning to "Blue Screen of Death" (Score:3, Informative)

    by SmoothTom ( 455688 ) <Tomas@TiJiL.org> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:31PM (#6091850) Homepage
    Seriously, though, this sounds very much like the comm units described by Robert Anson Heinlein in Starship Troopers (the BOOK not the movie!).

    Properly designed and used this sort of communication capability can greatly expand effectiveness and survivability.

    Just don't let Microsoft do the software ...

    --
    Tomas
  • I wouldn't like to know how a DoS, or ping-of-death attack will be. A remote exploit?
    Too scary....

  • Next comes the Smarter Bullet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:41PM (#6091889)
    And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet -- and at a whole lot lower cost than the helmet itself?
    • And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet ...

      Anti-radiation missiles [globalsecurity.org] are actually pretty expensive, and if they could make them sensitive enough to home in on such low levels of EM-radiation then they would already be using them as anti-tank weapons.

      Even when transmiting military radio [iapplianceweb.com] communications gear is already very stealthy. It uses packets sent on varying frequencies, so there is no constant signal to lock on to.

  • Another Stupid Idea... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This perceived soldier of the future is gonna get wacked pretty easily. Being a former airborne veteran and now engineer, I'm glad that I'm not going to be wearing one of these things. Let's just see...the average pack weighs ~60lbs. Add ~20 for body armor and you get ~80 lbs of gear the average joe has to hump.

    Let's see now...we want to stick another 20 lbs of crap on. The makes the average weight for a solder over 100 lbs. And that doesn't take into account the friggin batteries or the fact that the

  • What is the first use of any new medium? (Score:3, Funny)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:55PM (#6091937)
    I can just see it now. pr0n and spam delivered right to my helmet.

  • Steam tactics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ironduke-particle ( 134903 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:59PM (#6091952) Homepage
    What is being proposed has been tried before.

    The Royal Navy led the world in the mid-19th century in adopting steam propulsion, with ships proceeding in formation at constant speed, with evolutions being carried out as per flag signals from the flagship. Signal books became more complicated; signalling became a job for the brightest and best, among both officers and seamen. New signalling mechanisms such as Morse code over wireless, or Morse over signal lamp, were adopted with alacrity. People sent signals because they could, and having sent signals to the commander, whose orders they were supposed to follow, they expected replies.

    Consequently, after a couple of decades of this, the Royal Navy couldn't fight worth shit.

    There are two anecdotes involving Nelson and signalling -- the "blind eye" at Copenhagen, and the "England expects" before Trafalgar. These weren't tactical signals. These were Nelson having a laugh. Nelson had no truck with centralised command and this signalling malarkey; he trained his commanders as he was trained, to understand their job and to get on with it as they saw fit. Nelson and his like put the fear of God (or rather, the fear of the Royal Navy) so thoroughly that it lasted a century.

    This "the soldier is the network" business means that a soldier is going to get flooded with urgent requests for tax records at a moment when he might expect to be being given information about at which window to point his grenade launcher. But then, that information would probably be coming from a major in a bunker in the Pentagon who's never handled a grenade launcher, and whose orders are going to be at best meaningless and at worst horribly counterproductive.

    Maybe the DoD should consult at the militaries of other nations, that have efficient armed forces and smaller budgets, and see what'd spend the money on, given the choice. Wouldn't be this. But it might be a smaller, lighter, more reliable, more powerful, strongly-encrypted radio comms system with extensions for a whiteboard mode.

  • civilians (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Espen ( 96293 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @08:48PM (#6092337)
    As it stands, civilians, necessarily mostly unprotected from the benefits of technology, are going to represent the majority of casualties in 'armed conflict'. I'm the only one to think that this is perverse?

  • Man-in-the-middle Attack (Score:3, Funny)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @09:43PM (#6092544) Homepage Journal
    This gives an entirely new meaning to the legendary "Man-In-The-Middle Attack."

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Close