Re: Every incident is an opportunity
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:05:08 GMT From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Every incident is an opportunity
During the cold war American kids were trained to hide beneath their desktops in caseof a nuclear attack. Much good that would have done.
It could have kept them from running around the streets screaming we're all going to die.
It may well save people if they are on the edge of the survival zone, that may not be a good idea but at least they know what to expect
I don't pretend to know the real reason but keeping control is usually better even if you can't change the outcome.
There is a 'relatively small' area around ground-zero where it wouldn't make any difference what action was taken -- virtually everyone in that radius would be a 'prompt kill' causalty, regardless. 0utside the 'prompt kill' radius, there is a much larger circle where blast/concussion/over-pressure effects are the major cause of _immediate_ injury. _Most_ school-buildings in metro areas were of 'relatively' _survivable_ construction. Although there was likely to be significant damage -- flying glass from broken windows, airborne 'projectile' objects, possible minor thermal-flash triggered fires, etc. -- the buildings were not likely to suffer total collapse. 'Tornado safety' precautions -- "get underground, if you can,", and "get under something _solid_" -- are effective in minimizing immediate injuries. Many urban schools simply _did_not_ have basements. So that 'safety hatch' was not available. In the event of an imminent nuclear 'event', you just DON'T have any 'good' options. Depending on the delivery system, you may have a _maximum_ of from three (3) to 25 minutes warning. This isn't enough time to send the kids home. Assuming home provides better protection than the school building. *BIG* assumption. You don't have a basement to retreat to. You sure-as-hell don't want the kids gawking out the window, and ending up looking into the blast -- even from a range that wouldn't break windows. So, you make the 'best use' of what resources you _do_ have available. You cannot do much about preveting/reducing radiation injury. Given the situational constraints you have to work within. Blast/concussion/over-pressure is another story. When that procedure was promulgated, many classrooms had heavy wooden trestle-type desks. Getting _under_ them was some of the 'best protection available' against flying/falling 'foreign objects'. It is also a matter of experimental fact that having a _plan_ to do 'something' in event of an emergency -- 'right', 'wrong', or 'worthless' -- *IS* better than having no plans. "No plans" degenerates very quicly into 'panic', which is virtually always the 'worst possible thing'. 'Duck and cover' may not have appreciably incresed survival odds for those relatively near ground-zero, but it was (a) "better than nothing", and (b) about the "best that could be done", given the real-world constraints that did exist. BTW, I was in school (elementary/seconndary) in those days (1958-71), in a mid-sized Midwestern city. We -never- had any of those kind of drills. Apparently 'the powers that be' concluded that there was nothing in our vicinity that would be worth dropping a nuke on. :)
On February 12, 2007 at 04:28 bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: Mostly the same as what I said, but one important difference: duck and cover was a response to seeing the flash (only seconds), not to sirens going off (minutes) which was generally get your coat and go into the hallway and close the classroom doors and await further instruction like maybe head to the basement, being sent home was discussed and there's even some cultish early 60's? movie that revolves around the teachers sending the kids home upon hearing nuclear attack was imminent, etc.
BTW, I was in school (elementary/seconndary) in those days (1958-71), in a mid-sized Midwestern city. We -never- had any of those kind of drills. Apparently 'the powers that be' concluded that there was nothing in our vicinity that would be worth dropping a nuke on. :)
POSSIBLE OPERATIONAL CONTENT: In the late 60s I remember having an interesting conversation with someone who did this kind of strategizing for the Dept of Civil Defense. His scenarios were markedly diferent from the "urban folklore" you'd hear from people about what the Russkies were likely to nuke, other than everyone agreed they'd try to get the silos and a few other key military assets to try to prevent retaliation. But by and large his scenarios worked forward from the assumption that it was a prelude to an invasion and if you're going to invade you don't want to destroy immediately valuable assets like big factories etc. which usually meant you didn't want, or have any good reason, to nuke major cities, they'd make good slaves. Notice how this "they'll nuke the big cities first to kill as many of us as possible" presumption carries forward even today to the central plot of the current US TV show Jericho (it's summarized in the wikipedia) tho of course the enemy and its strategy has changed since the end of the cold war. Then again much of 9/11 did kinda happen in a big city. Anyhow, far be it for me to try to outline an invasion for fun and profit scenario in less words than you'll tire of reading. But it's somewhat different than a white-hot grudge match fling them all at major population centers extermination scenario. The operational content is to be careful of folkloric wisdom in regards to major disaster no one involved has ever really personally experienced. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:05:45 -0500 Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
In the late 60s I remember having an interesting conversation with someone who did this kind of strategizing for the Dept of Civil Defense.
His scenarios were markedly diferent from the "urban folklore" you'd hear from people about what the Russkies were likely to nuke, other than everyone agreed they'd try to get the silos and a few other key military assets to try to prevent retaliation.
Targeting strategy changed over time, because of changes in technology, quantity of bombs available, accuracy, perceived threats, and internal politics. For a good history of US nuclear targeting strategy, see "The Wizards of Armageddon", Fred Kaplan, 1983. The short answer, though, is that it changed markedly over time. To give just one example, at one time the US targeted cities, with very big bombs, because the missiles of the day couldn't reliably hit anything smaller. Since that's what was possible, a strategic rationale evolved to make that seem sensible. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe (i.e., the TV show Jericho) that the goal of a USSR attack was purely vindictive, complete annhilation. Apparently Civil Defense leaned more towards invasion as a goal. No doubt as weapons systems evolve how you achieve one goal or the other evolves. Either goal leads to different targeting strategies, as possible. If your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories, bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers. On February 12, 2007 at 16:17 smb@cs.columbia.edu (Steven M. Bellovin) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:05:45 -0500 Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
In the late 60s I remember having an interesting conversation with someone who did this kind of strategizing for the Dept of Civil Defense.
His scenarios were markedly diferent from the "urban folklore" you'd hear from people about what the Russkies were likely to nuke, other than everyone agreed they'd try to get the silos and a few other key military assets to try to prevent retaliation.
Targeting strategy changed over time, because of changes in technology, quantity of bombs available, accuracy, perceived threats, and internal politics. For a good history of US nuclear targeting strategy, see "The Wizards of Armageddon", Fred Kaplan, 1983. The short answer, though, is that it changed markedly over time. To give just one example, at one time the US targeted cities, with very big bombs, because the missiles of the day couldn't reliably hit anything smaller. Since that's what was possible, a strategic rationale evolved to make that seem sensible.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe [snip] If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
To borrow from snarky comments past: Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv and/or topic that spawned it. Cold War strategy is fascinating and all (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for anything list-relevant? -Feren Sr Network Engineer DeVry University
Hmm, let's see. Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet Yup, looks ok. On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <jolsen@devry.com> wrote:
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe [snip] If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
To borrow from snarky comments past:
Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv and/or topic that spawned it. Cold War strategy is fascinating and all (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for anything list-relevant?
-Feren Sr Network Engineer DeVry University
Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely? On 2/12/07, micky coughes <coughes@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, let's see.
Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
Yup, looks ok.
On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <jolsen@devry.com> wrote:
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe [snip] If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
To borrow from snarky comments past:
Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv and/or topic that spawned it. Cold War strategy is fascinating and all (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for anything list-relevant?
-Feren Sr Network Engineer DeVry University
Come on guys... Some more originality please... Internet--->Al-Qaeda fundraising---->Afghanistan--->USSR vs. US---->Cold war----> Arpanet---> Internet. Vicious cycle. -mike On 2/12/07, Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com> wrote:
Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely?
On 2/12/07, micky coughes <coughes@gmail.com > wrote:
Hmm, let's see.
Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
Yup, looks ok.
On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <jolsen@devry.com> wrote:
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe [snip] If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
To borrow from snarky comments past:
Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv and/or topic that spawned it. Cold War strategy is fascinating and all (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for anything list-relevant?
-Feren Sr Network Engineer DeVry University
On 2/12/2007 at 3:13 PM, "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com> wrote: Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely?
Hitler=>WW2=>... Godwin! Please? Anyway, we all know Al Gore invented the Internet.
On 2/12/07, micky coughes <coughes@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, let's see.
Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
Yup, looks ok.
On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <jolsen@devry.com> wrote:
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe [snip] If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
To borrow from snarky comments past:
Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv and/or topic that spawned it. Cold War strategy is fascinating and all (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for anything list-relevant?
-Feren Sr Network Engineer DeVry University
B¼information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact postmaster@globalstar.com
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely?
Heh. We're that > < close to invoking Godwin's Law here. :-)
On 2/12/07, *micky coughes* <coughes@gmail.com <mailto:coughes@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hmm, let's see.
Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
Yup, looks ok.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:12:56 -0500 Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe (i.e., the TV show Jericho) that the goal of a USSR attack was purely vindictive, complete annhilation. Apparently Civil Defense leaned more towards invasion as a goal.
No doubt as weapons systems evolve how you achieve one goal or the other evolves.
Either goal leads to different targeting strategies, as possible. If your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories, bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
Some of the time, that was the goal... It's not that anyone wanted that; however, it was (a) achievable, and (b) it was part of the MAD -- mutual assured destruction -- deterrent strategy. One could argue that that part, at least, worked, though I would assert that that was at least partially by accident. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
warning-- this thread is so far off topic, i can't even REMEMBER a topic that it might once have had. hit D now. bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
... If your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories, bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) ...
so if the last remaining superpower were to bomb a country in the middle east in preparation for invasion, regime change, etc., that superpower would be well advised to avoid hitting civilian infrastructure, assuming that its bombs were smart enough to target like that? (i'm sorry, but your theory doesn't sound plausible given recent events.) -- Paul Vixie
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:12:05AM +0000, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> wrote a message of 17 lines which said:
so if the last remaining superpower were to bomb a country in the middle east in preparation for invasion, regime change, etc., that superpower would be well advised to avoid hitting civilian infrastructure, assuming that its bombs were smart enough to target like that?
I believe that Barry Shein was assuming "invasion for a long-term occupation and exploitation", like the Romans did in Gaule in 52 bc. Not "invasion for destroying a regime" like the Allied did in Germany in 1945.
At 5:12 +0000 2/13/07, Paul Vixie wrote:
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
... If your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories, bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) ...
so if the last remaining superpower were to bomb a country in the middle east in preparation for invasion, regime change, etc., that superpower would be well advised to avoid hitting civilian infrastructure, assuming that its bombs were smart enough to target like that?
(i'm sorry, but your theory doesn't sound plausible given recent events.)
What theory is plausible? DNSSEC even sounded good on the drawing board. ;) I think that war strategists have always only wanted to attack the other side's war machine and political machine. (Said sarcastically:) A bullet in a civilian is a waste of metal after all. The problem is that theory and operations don't mesh well. A bomb that killed only warriors and their infrastructure and left schools and children safe is as likely to exist as an electronic messaging protocol that prevented spam but let good email through. (How's that at trying to come back to being on topic?) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar "Two years ago you said we had 5-7 years, now you are saying 3-5. What I need from you is a consistent story..."
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:12:05AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
warning-- this thread is so far off topic, i can't even REMEMBER a topic that it might once have had. hit D now.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
... If your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories, bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) ...
so if the last remaining superpower were to bomb a country in the middle east in preparation for invasion, regime change, etc., that superpower would be well advised to avoid hitting civilian infrastructure, assuming that its bombs were smart enough to target like that?
(i'm sorry, but your theory doesn't sound plausible given recent events.)
Neutron bombs? [Mild apologies re continuing this thread] -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
participants (13)
-
Alexander Harrowell -
Barry Shein -
Crist Clark -
Edward Lewis -
Jay Hennigan -
Joseph S D Yao -
micky coughes -
Mike Lyon -
Olsen, Jason -
Paul Vixie -
Robert Bonomi -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Steven M. Bellovin