Wishlist: The Next World War

[shahadi]

In our game we are missing an increasingly urgent aspect of the next major clash between peer armies, and I do not intend to talk about nuclear, but cyberspace warfare.

We've talked about jamming and other tank defense systems, but imagine if the scope of the attack affected comms, brought down navigation systems, and shutdown electronic fire systems akin to a battlefield EMP attack.

Infantry companies not knowing where they are, drones grounded, fire guidance systems retarded. Then ships, planes, and ground combat groups cannot communicate with each other.

The armed services have to teach basic celestial (sea & sky) and land navigation else risk units not being able to coordinate with each other.

A country with a highly skilled IT force, then could mount credible opposition to a dominant power, even rising from near-peer to peer status.

Tehran taking control of a US drone in December of 2011 comes to mind of a near-peer exhibiting peer characteristics viz cyberspace war fighting.

It would be interesting to mod a scenario reflecting the impact of cyber war in our game.

As an example, game visibility reduced to showing only what an individual unit can see, no other red units visible on the map.

[IronDuke99]

"Wishlist: The Next World War"
You did that on purpose, humour right?

[Suhiir]

Well ... radio communication has been a staple of modern armies since WW II (and to some extent during) and so far while people can mess with each others communications they can't shut them down entirely.

I strongly suspect the same would apply to "Cyberwar". As always to people without sufficient technical knowledge (or interest in obtaining it) make worst case assumptions.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

"Wishlist: The Next World War"
You did that on purpose, humour right?

No way am I wishing a world war.

Just trying to spark interest in a way of reducing the "God view" aspect of our game.

For example, if we could model the game in way that the only view of red units are those units seen by the selected blue unit's view.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Well ... radio communication has been a staple of modern armies since WW II (and to some extent during) and so far while people can mess with each others communications they can't shut them down entirely.

I strongly suspect the same would apply to "Cyberwar". As always to people without sufficient technical knowledge (or interest in obtaining it) make worst case assumptions.

There are many articles and papers floating around the public domain talking about cyber warfare of various hues, it's consequences and ramifications for the military services.

Especially after Iran took control of a drone in 2011 and most recently, "monitored" the carrier Truman in the Persian gulf.

To deny or downgrade the emergence of cyber warfare is a mistake.

And I think in future scenarios we could incorporate some consequences of cyber war into our game.

This guy has a great take on what the services are doing right now: http://www.wearethemighty.com/articl...-world-war-iii.

=====

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

There are many articles and papers floating around the public domain talking about cyber warfare of various hues, it's consequences and ramifications for the military services.

Especially after Iran took control of a drone in 2011 and most recently, "monitored" the carrier Truman in the Persian gulf.

To deny or downgrade the emergence of cyber warfare is a mistake.

When you're dealing with "could" vice "has" (and even then more often then not) you're always going to be able to find documentation to support whatever you wish. Even at the last minute some of the folks actually involved in the atomic bomb project thought it would be a dud, others thought it would destroy the entire Earth.

Having worked as a programmer during the Y2K scare (aircraft were going to fall out of the sky, the entire world economy would collapse, etc. etc.) and being fairly familiar with networking (tho I'm by no means a Net Admin) I have no doubt at all there WILL be some problems. But I have serious doubts the entire system is as vulnerable as many people seem to think.

Sure someone can occasionally bring down a drone (I'm actually surprised it took as long as it did), or monitor communications ... you may recall Enigma during WW II ... and various other things. All this will disrupt, not bring down, modern communication systems. And only an idiot assumes the system won't be disrupted to some extent.

[jp10]

The overall 'God' view is not that implausible if you consider you are supposed to be BN or BDE level commander. What is unrealistic is the ability to quickly 'reach' down to squad level and take action on something known to another unit that would be operating on a different comm net.
If you want to simulate a 'more realistic' C&C situation, use the game function to make way points for your subordinate (below A0) formations and turn them over to the AI. Limit yourself to only changing the way points every three turns (6-9 minutes simulated RL time).
For a battle simulating an EW environment, turning the units over to AI and increasing the 'turn control delay' could simulate EW C&C effects.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by jp10

For a battle simulating an EW environment, turning the units over to AI and increasing the 'turn control delay' could simulate EW C&C effects.

Interesting. What has been your results when simulating EW effects?

I'm thinking with an analog radio, a platoon leader is making a sit rep with his location, but his company CO cannot see that platoon because a Chinese EW squad is active jamming the nets.

So, in the game, the player cannot see that platoon on the map. If he selects from the Unit menu he can only see what the selected unit view is.

I would want to retain movement control rather than hand off to the AI. But, so what is your experience with simulating EW effects & CC?

=====

[IronDuke99]

I strongly suspect Suhiir is right about this stuff.

Electronic warfare is hardly new and, like all things in war, the advantage goes back and forward between defence and offense. There is a big difference between effectively jamming more or less regular Ukrainian troops and say The USMC.

The US in particular still has a good lead over potential enemies in technology terms. Also I strongly suspect that operational security would mean we did not hear about any real threats in this regard, rather than threats the military wants to make sure it can mostly counter, and has the money/technology it needs to do so. Call me a cynic if you like.

[Suhiir]

Well a big thing with the US is that there are so damn many communications nets, and these days they're almost all encrypted and/or burst transmission, additionally the call signs and radio frequencies tend to change on a daily basis.

How the hell do you know which one to evesdrop on or jam?
If you try to scramble the thousands of frequencies the US is using at any given moment using some sort of blanket jamming you will almost invariably wind up jamming your own communications! The same applies to using some sort of EMP burst, you'd fry your own equipment as well.
Major communications links tend to use microwave or laser thus are pretty much impossible to jam or intercept.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Well a big thing with the US is that there are so damn many communications nets, and these days they're almost all encrypted and/or burst transmission, additionally the call signs and radio frequencies tend to change on a daily basis.

How the hell do you know which one to evesdrop on or jam?
If you try to scramble the thousands of frequencies the US is using at any given moment using some sort of blanket jamming you will almost invariably wind up jamming your own communications! The same applies to using some sort of EMP burst, you'd fry your own equipment as well.
Major communications links tend to use microwave or laser thus are pretty much impossible to jam or intercept.

It is not traditional EW jamming as such. The trick is a hack into the network, not jam it.

In 2009 the US established a cyber command, we already have EW schools in the services, so why a cyber command.

Cyberspace is about information as warfare and applications and pieces of hardware as weapons.

Iran just didn't jam that drone signal, they took control and landed it.

Israel and the US didn't jam Iranian centrifuges, they infected the network, that's cyber warfare. It was called Stuxnet.

The attacker does not have to know frequencies once he has infected the network.

But, in our game is what I am concerned about. How to simulate cyber warfare consequences on the map, or how to reduce the "God" view. Simple.

jp10 brought forward an interesting suggestions. I don't how to design a scenario limited the player to use waypoints. But, it was most thoughtful idea.

And, that's a major function of this forum, to share and ask what if, how could, what if. In a civil way.

=====