ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/09/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 9, 1986 2:46PM
Volume 6, Issue 15.3
Today's Topics:
See 15.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 12:28:53 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: [august: Aliens Among Us]
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 07:55:55 PST
From: august at JPL-VLSI.ARPA
To: arms-d-request
Re: Aliens Among Us
Here is an article which may be of interest to those who think that
cultural and scientific exchanges with the Soviets (or any other
potential enemy of the U.S.) will "bring our people closer" without
any adverse side effects.
**********************************************************************
OTHER TOPICS IN THIS (HUMAN-NETS) DIGEST HAVE BEEN DELETED TO
SAVE SPACE.
**********************************************************************
Subj: HUMAN-NETS Digest V9 #1
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 7 Jan 1986 Volume 9 : Issue 1
Today's Topics:
Aliens Among Us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange Students Spying?
Trade Expert Warns They Could Crack DoD Computers
-California Computer News
-January 1986, Volume IV, No 1
By Lona White - CCN Contributing Writer
LOS ANGELES - Approximately 11,000 Communist Chinese
foregin exchange students enrolled in the most technically-
orientated U.S. universities may possibly have cracked the top-
secret Defense Department computers.
According to Dr. Miles Costick, Washington, D.C.-based
private trade expert, many of these alleged "students" hold
high-level degrees and have acquired considerable practical
experence in advanced science.
"Obviously the majority are students and experts and to a
lesser degree graduate and post-graduate students," he said.
They are studying at such heavyweight institutions as Los
Alamos, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cal
Tech, Stanford, Lawrence Livermore and the University of
California, Berkley.
At the California Institute of Technology, they are studying
composite materials, which are compounds for making heat
resistant nuclear missile nose cones.
At MIT they are involved in physics, propulsion and
navigation studies, but computer technology, especially hybrid
technology, appears to be the primary goal. These hybrids are
the product of digital and analog computers and are most suitable
for military intelligence operations.
They are also interested in microelectronics, production
technology for advanced microchips, nuclear weapons technology,
advanced fiber optics, astronomics, areonautics, and advanced
telecommunications systems, including satellites and satellite
ground stations.
"The Chinese students have free access to everything," said
Costick, "even at our nuclear weapons defense facilities where
lasers and particle beam weapons research is conducted for the
President's Strategic Defense Initative (SDI). Our own people
are required to have top security clearance in these areas," he
said.
At Los Alamos or California's Lawrence Livermore they have
access to terminals where much of the U.S. military intelligence
research work is done. "For a good mathematician it takes less
then 15 minutes to break into the codes," Costick said.
"Our entire data bank is extremely vulnerable," he
continued. "A very skillful person with access to the terminals
which lead into the data bank could conceivably penetrate CIA's
data bank."
In addition, they are working in the areas where the Defense
Departments' electronic mail network terminals are located, the
ARPA network (Advanced Research Projects Agency). Costick
suspects they have broken into that network and have been "spying
for two or three years."
The ARPA system, connects to the entire military complex,
including the daily electronic mail sent to the secretary of
defense. It describes the latest developments in military
research and the extent of our research in the newest weapons and
intelligence systems.
This open-arms policy exists for the sake of good Chinese-
Americans relations. By contrast, however, the under-400
American students studying in the People's Republic of China are
denied any activities that remotely approach the freedom allowed
visiting Chinese here.
They are restricted to one particular area or to the
university and can be arrested or expelled if they are found
driving in forbidden areas. The secret police even prevent them
from mingling with Chinese students at the schools.
The Chinese, however, are not the only communists interested
in gaining access to our universities' computers. A Defense
Department report revealed scores of American universities,
including six in California, which are prime targets for the
Russian KGB and Eastern bloc nations.
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal Tech, and the Universities of
California at San Diego and Berkley are listed as among the top
American educational institutions possessing technology desires
by the Soviets to enhance their industrial and military power.
In addition, four supercomputer centers at Princeton,
Cornell, and the the Universities of Illinois and California at
San Diego are available to members of the academic community
involved in highly technical research.
=====
I do hope I haven't triggered anyones strange editing program...
And I hope that this send is of interest to those interested in
the media coverage of your little world.....
Victor O'Rear-- {ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!victoro
San Diego, California or bix!victoro
------------------------------
*****************************************************************
END OF MESSAGE
*****************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 13:22:37 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Deep Strike
Glad to hear you are aware of the OMG's. They are actually a carry over of the
Mobile Groups, a concept that has been around since WWII.
The OMGs are not specific tactical units assigned specific missions as you
state, but are a concept for task organizing of combined arms groups anywhere
in size and strength from the battalion to the front (army group), depending
on the opportunity presented the Direction commander.
You have your terms mixed-up - it is AirLand Battle 2000 that is currently
called Army 21 (not Army 20), since tha innovations envisaged now extend a
couple of decades past the turn of the 21st century.
AirLand Battle and AirLand Battle 2000 are not different birds, altogether or
separately. ALB is the basic concept, again, akin to the concept of the OMG,
whereby the Army is attempting to switch emphasis from the defensive set-piece
battle relying on continuous frontal lines fighting either in retrograde
defense based on strongpoint anchors or linear offensive, to the notion of
penetrating in strength at weakpoints, going deep in the enemy's rear to
disrupt his second and third echelon follow-on forces and his supply and LOCs
as well. This is somewhat revolutionary for us as it concedes that the
enemy's local superiority will disadvantage our traditional approach to
conventional warfighting; fat, dumb and happy - i.e. counting on our
traditionally expected high consumption of supply based on our traditionally
ample availability of bullets, beans and bodies. Now our leaders must be
prepared to live off the land, travel with less baggage, use captured
materiel, and practice other areas of resourcefulness which we historically
didn't have to worry about.
ALB 2000 is/was the projections out thru the turn of the century as to how we
would carry out this concept in the future. Unfortunately, in my opinion, a
lot of the pragmatic rightthinking involved in adopting this approach to
warfighting is diluted by the overemphasis on hi-tech gizmos envisaged to help
fight this difficult sort of battle, thus promoting the notion of a "Genie in
the bottle" to save our forces butts, replacing the older notion that our
wealth of resources would save our butts.
Again, the tactical concept of deep penetration to cut off and disrupt local
enemy forces, and the strategic concept of deep penetration to ultimately
sever enemy theater forces from support, are not fundamentally new ideas in
warfare, and if either sides' adoption of them can be said to be more
"dangerous" than any other tactic, I don't see how.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************