Could Tech Have Stopped ISIS From Using Our Own Heavy Weapons Against Us? 448
JonZittrain writes: This summer, ISIS insurgents captured Mosul — with with it, three divisions' worth of advanced American military hardware. After ISIS used it to capture the Mosul Dam, the U.S. started bombing its own pirated equipment. Could sophisticated military tanks and anti-aircraft missiles given or sold to countries like Iraq be equipped with a way to disable them if they're compromised, without opening them up to hacking by an enemy?
We already require extra authentication at a distance to arm nuclear weapons, and last season's 24 notwithstanding, we routinely operate military drones at a distance. Reportedly in the Falkland Islands war, Margaret Thatcher was able to extract codes to disable Argentina's Exocet missiles from the French. The simplest implementation might be like the proposal for land mines that expire after a certain time. Perhaps tanks — currently usable without even an ignition key — could require a renewal code digitally signed by the owning country to be entered manually or received by satellite every six months or so.
I'm a skeptic of kill switches, especially in consumer devices, but still found myself writing up the case for a way to disable military hardware in the field. There are lots of reasons it might not work — or work too well — but is there a way to improve on what we face now?
We already require extra authentication at a distance to arm nuclear weapons, and last season's 24 notwithstanding, we routinely operate military drones at a distance. Reportedly in the Falkland Islands war, Margaret Thatcher was able to extract codes to disable Argentina's Exocet missiles from the French. The simplest implementation might be like the proposal for land mines that expire after a certain time. Perhaps tanks — currently usable without even an ignition key — could require a renewal code digitally signed by the owning country to be entered manually or received by satellite every six months or so.
I'm a skeptic of kill switches, especially in consumer devices, but still found myself writing up the case for a way to disable military hardware in the field. There are lots of reasons it might not work — or work too well — but is there a way to improve on what we face now?
Just use a relay... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am reminded of Asimov's story "The Mayors," in Foundation (first published in Astounding Science-Fiction, June 1942, in which an "ultrawave relay" disables the warship that the Foundation sold to the Anacreonian navy when the Anacreons try to use it against them.
Mod up 1000+ (Score:4, Interesting)
I immediately thought of the 1st episode of the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, where 99.9% of their modern military force was rendered inoperable. No. Thank. You.
The best "kill switch" is to kill the idea of leaving a ton of advanced military hardware in the hands of less-than-solid governments in the first place (no matter how much defense contractors want to sell their wares). You'd think we would have learned from Iran and the F-14s we left in Iran in the late 1970s as the Islamic Revolution took place.
Re:Like DRM? (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming the tank is capable of receiving the signal... Defeating such a system could be as simple as wrapping the antenna in tin foil. If the tank requires a signal to operate at all, then the enemy would just invest in signal jamming equipment.
DRM schemes are inherently ineffective, and often cause more trouble for the legitimate users...
The best thing they can realistically do, is have a very comprehensive understanding of the weapons weaknesses, and deploy appropriate countermeasures against them.
Re:Like DRM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your servers with the pads will get Pwned so fast it will make your head spin.
Indeed. We have already had American soldiers kill other American soldiers [wikipedia.org] because they objected to our wars. It would be much less risky to leak the pads to our enemies, or use the pads to wipe out all our weapons. How would the "destruct" signal work anyway? It would need to be a radio signal, which means an antenna and battery on each weapon. So when the enemy captures the weapons, the first thing they would do was break off the antenna and take out the battery. Anyone who thinks we can send out the destruct signal before they could do that has clearly never dealt with the military bureaucracy's decision making process.
When I was in the Marines, we had a much simpler solution: Thermite grenades [wikipedia.org]. Every artillery battery, and every tank platoon had them. If equipment ever had to be abandoned, we were trained to toss a thermite grenade into the breech of each weapon, and to place another grenade on the engine block. If the Iraqi Army was too incompetent to do this when they were overrun by ISIS, then they never should have been entrusted with the weapons in the first place.
Re:Mod up 1000+ (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the Iranian F-14 debacle contains the kernel of a workable approach. Fighters require scads of maintenance and parts to keep flying. Iran lost that channel. I would be surprised if they actually had a single airframe in combat ready status even only 10 years after the seizure.
I propose all arms going to third parties be given rounds with propellants / explosives that chemically degrade over time. Yes, this would be sensitive to storage conditions, but make them stable enough for, say, 18 months viability in the desert. At least that would keep us from having to worry about Stingers we gave away 3 decades ago.
If the third parties reverse engineer how to create/bind/mold a replacement propellant or explosive, then I believe they deserve to be able to shoot it at us... they earned it.
Re:Like DRM? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you check out the history of the region, it wasn't exactly great before the British drew those lines.
What really happened with Exocet (Score:4, Interesting)
The French gave the British potentially valuable information on the Exocet's capabilities and limitations, and details on how it operated (e.g. its radar frequency, which you need to know if you want to use jamming).
Despite this, 4 of the 5 Exocets launched were hits, and damaged or sank British ships.
Re:QUESTION? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, we should execute John McCain as a traitor to the US, for providing material support to a terror organization and providing aid and comfort to an enemy?
Because you really don't know what's happening, do you? Mr. Jones?
http://www.inquisitr.com/13261... [inquisitr.com]
http://countercurrentnews.com/... [countercurrentnews.com]
http://topconservativenews.com... [topconservativenews.com]
http://www.theminorityreportbl... [theminorit...rtblog.com]
I call BS (Score:5, Interesting)
"Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made missiles during the Falklands war"
Bologna.
I've seen the insides of 70's era AM39 Exocet. They don't have codes. They certainly don't have remote turn-off codes.
And then there's the fact that they worked perfectly. Six (five AMs, one SM) launches, four hits. Two sinkings. Much better results than anyone could have predicted.