tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post4306200178833274025..comments2024-03-19T00:19:09.117-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: AccelerandoRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger323125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-75217559688325874782011-01-05T09:15:46.792-08:002011-01-05T09:15:46.792-08:00jollyreaper:
"The relevant story here --...&...jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"The relevant story here --..."</i><br /><br />Funny how perspective and life experience moderates how people view the same account. I don't find the technology anywhere near as interesting as the fact that, regardless of the technology, the proper way to approach an attack is still slowly, methodically, and with fire and maneuver.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-86122365249749890672011-01-05T07:30:42.519-08:002011-01-05T07:30:42.519-08:00Ok, my bad. I had the details on this one wrong. I...Ok, my bad. I had the details on this one wrong. It wasn't from one of the live fire ranges, it was training software. <br /><br />http://www.gameprodsvcs.com/projects/project_fsl<br /><br />The relevant story here -- <br /><i><br />OK so the typical scenario is you have about 100 of your guys, the red-force is in the buildings, and you have to get them out. When I played I would get many of my troops killed. When a trained company commander did it, they would take a lot of time to advance, maintain dominant positions etc... <br /><br />When we added the 2020 scenario, we had micro air vehicles ... I believe modeled as tiny helicopters ... and you would just find the opposing forces and lay in mortar fire on the GPS coordinates. <br /><br />The key is this wasn't some drone at 1000's of feet, this was stuff we would fly into buildings. It was pretty effective.</i><br /><br />So the next step would be to take it out of simulation and try it out on the live fire ranges. <br /><br />A pretty scary thing pointed out to me concerning those quad rotors drones that can fly GPS routes, they have a several pound payload. Doesn't take all that much effort to strap on a nail-studded bomb and send it off. Politician is up on stage giving a speech, you press the button and off it flies. I've seen the demos of quads doing suicide dives where they come in at a few thousand feet, beyond where you would hear them, and then they cut the rotors and do a dead drop, powering up in the last hundred feet and coming to a halt right above your head. It's scary enough to see it in the video, I can only imagine the start it would give you in real life. It's like a swarm of angry, mechanical hornets materialized right above you. Add a bomb and kaboom, bye-bye target. So will we see hunter-killer MAV's patrolling events? Who knows.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-53880944892977802082011-01-04T21:01:19.960-08:002011-01-04T21:01:19.960-08:00The story of situational awareness is well told in...The story of situational awareness is well told in Martin Van Crevald's "Comand in War". Limiting and focusing the commander's ability to reach down seems to be a valid lesson (there is a chapter on how micromanagment made life hell for the poor grunts fighting the Viet Nam war, ranging from battalion commanders orbiting overhead in helicopters "helping" platoon commanders in a firefight to LBJ personally approving targets to be bombed on a daily basis.<br /><br />It seems that circumstances worked in General Mattis favour (one can only imagine what would have happened if the various high tech tools brought over had actually worked as advertised). Perhaps the fact the military ran out of bandwidth and had to revert back to FM radio (with some high tech refinements like IM) was a feature rather than a bug...Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-44705392768223516792011-01-04T17:54:57.443-08:002011-01-04T17:54:57.443-08:00And that hasn't changed since 1940.
Probably ...<i>And that hasn't changed since 1940.</i><br /><br />Probably not since 1940 BC.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-74513643041835366312011-01-04T15:20:06.471-08:002011-01-04T15:20:06.471-08:00I'm willing to bet the "situational aware...I'm willing to bet the "situational awareness" is just more timely, more detailed, and possibly more granular data. That doesn't mean it can be integrated into any better, more actionable intelligence.<br /><br />Intelligence and data are two different things, by the way. Data are raw atoms of knowledge. Intelligence -- and information in general -- is data processed into a meaningful picture. For example,<br /><br />123 Any Street<br />Sometown<br />Someregion<br />456789<br /><br />...are data.<br /><br />123 Any Street, Sometown, Someregion 456789<br /><br />Is a piece of information we call an address.<br /><br />Now, adresses can be constructed from a simple set of data, using equally simple, widely accepted conventions that almost everybody knows. The more data you add to a military information processing task, the more conventions have to be developed, and either programmed into data aggregating software or taught to intelligence analysts. And it's not at all clear that conventions that apply today will apply tomorrow. Perhaps the paractical weight of different pieces of data will change. Perhaps data that used to be relevant to one thing is suddenly also relevant to something else entirely, or it's no longer relevant in its initial context, but is still relevant in another. Perhaps new sources of data have to be developed, because not enough data exists to carry out a task. After not too long at all, it becomes obvious that intermediate levels of data collection and filtering have to developed to strain out the data that is relevant to the higher echelons, and form it into reasonably assimilable forms of intelligence that the higher can use.<br /><br />The idea that the commander of tomorrow will have Eye of God(TM) intelligence, and will actually be able to use it, is nonsense. At best, each level may be able to collect and process data more efficiently and pass up more complete and more timely intelligence. But, if done right, the actual volume won't increase. The quality, in terms of accuracy, completeness, and timeliness, will.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-69640804489481213892011-01-04T13:42:01.089-08:002011-01-04T13:42:01.089-08:00I don't work in the field but I have a friend ...I don't work in the field but I have a friend who works in mobile software development. He's been out to the Army proving grounds and seen the systems they're playing around with. I'll ask him what the specific equipment is because I don't remember the details but he says the situational awareness is night and day.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32962214179178432232011-01-04T13:25:27.797-08:002011-01-04T13:25:27.797-08:00The RAF had a hierarchy of ops rooms, and the info...The RAF had a hierarchy of ops rooms, and the information presented to the commander at each level was intentionally kept as simple as possible. They had to work hard to maintain a balance between loss of valuable data through over-distillation, on the one hand, and information overload on the other. It should go without saying that in 1940 the ability to collect and communicate data was very elementary compared to what can be done today, or in the future.<br /><br />The vision of complete situational awareness is a siren song, and that's all. There's no proof that the high level commander will be able to use data better simply because he has more of it, in a more timely manner. It's much more likely that he will either overreact to intentional diversions, because he sees them more quickly and in greater detail, or underreact to real threats because he doesn't want to act without enough data. Andthat hasn't changed since 1940.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-75708088494280725282011-01-04T12:36:42.190-08:002011-01-04T12:36:42.190-08:00The trick is integrating that data. Your classic e...The trick is integrating that data. Your classic example is the tracking board used by the RAF during the Blitz. You've got one giant room where all the information comes together. You have radio intercepts, radar plots, coastal spotters, all generating information. The staffers put the pieces together and put the markers on the plot. The general can see his available resources, the enemy formations, and plan on how he will mount his defense. <br /><br />Of course, the integration process is all manual in the WWII example. Fast forward to today and imagine what something like Google Earth could look like with realtime inputs. The commanding officer knows the disposition of his units down to the foot and the positions are updated on his plot as they change. Reports automatically flow in from the soldiers in the field, sent from their very equipment. A commander can watch his line and see where the probing attacks are coming in and where the enemy decides to consolidate for his main push. His soldiers will be able to call down artillery on precise locations obtained by GPS and laser rangefinders. <br /><br />Compare this with the comical affair of combat in the middle ages where entire battles could be delayed because the rival armies couldn't find each other. The fog of war can often become completely impenetrable and battles could turn on the strangest chance.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57065294575363086882011-01-03T15:25:55.721-08:002011-01-03T15:25:55.721-08:00Ferrell:
"And yes, that is as difficult as i...Ferrell:<br /><br /><i>"And yes, that is as difficult as it sounds..."</i><br /><br />And the solutions may not be as straightforward as one might expect. General Mattis, in command of the 1st Marine Division in 2003, found that his best command tools were an Iridium phone and a 1/50,000 topo map. Because the Iridium phones were limited in distribution -- something like 70-80 were on issue within the division -- mattis couldn't invade micro levels of command, but he could talk to battalion and task force commanders when he needed to get the straight poop. IOW, it was a limitation of resources, and proper placement of those resources that were available, that helped him to run the operation successfully.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-33988222828916642422011-01-03T14:21:47.195-08:002011-01-03T14:21:47.195-08:00The problem with having EVERY soldier, tank, airpl...The problem with having EVERY soldier, tank, airplane, field gun, and truck sending data upstream is that, as noted by several others, you get drowned in data; you actually need to 'reduce' the data load at each level by synthisizing it into a composite that the next level can use, and so on up the chain, until that Col. or General CAN have an acurate 'Big Picture' view of the battlefield. And yes, that is as difficult as it sounds...<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-7736477772038992522011-01-03T14:18:52.858-08:002011-01-03T14:18:52.858-08:00Re: Strategic Corporal
The underlying theory is v...Re: Strategic Corporal<br /><br />The underlying theory is valid. Anybody that lived in Southern California during the whole Rodney King affair and its aftermath -- including thetrial, the riots, the Christopher Commission, and everything else -- can tell you what a small number of people exercising force can cause. But I think there's a misapprehension that anything can be done about it opperationally. The knowledge that small events can have large effects is a spur to more carefully educate the junior leader and raise his awareness of the larger implications of what he is doing.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-28966495878992875182011-01-03T13:33:04.262-08:002011-01-03T13:33:04.262-08:00Also, some colonel or general sitting in a tent or...<i>Also, some colonel or general sitting in a tent or command vehicle somewhere is going to be totally missing context about a firefight going on ten miles away, even if he can collect data about it in real time. So a big justification for retention of the traditional hierarchy is that intermediate leaders possess context that higher levels of command don't.</i><br /><br />Which is entirely true, and also explains why experiments like Force XXI in the US and various models being studied in Canada haven't worked too well; the comand cell(s) are being drowned in a flood of data and the communications models allow the Colonel or General to interact directly down to platoon or even section (squad) level.<br /><br />The Marines had a profound insight with the "Strategic Corporal" model; the actions of a low level element or even a single soldier might have strategic implications since they could be transmitted directly to voters or decision makers halfway around the world. The bear has been to find some way to empower the soldiers and low level leaders to act and react to this in "real time", rather than pass things up the chain and have the media get inside the OODA loop.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-72683828841175904062011-01-03T09:24:45.692-08:002011-01-03T09:24:45.692-08:00Re: Thucydides
The problem with the Wal-mart mode...Re: Thucydides<br /><br />The problem with the Wal-mart model in military logistics is that request-delivery cycles are just too slow when they play out over intercontinental distances with needs generated by something as unpredicatble as combat. I once read that the key thing to remember about military affairs is that warfare is inherrently inefficien, and it's the least <i>in</i>efficient force wins. When a military man talks to you about "efficiency" what he means is that he wants his force to be 5% efficient where theenemy is only 3% efficient.<br /><br />Precision guided munitions have spread the efficiency margin in asymmetrical warfare. But in a symmetrical conflict between technological equals? I think some people will be surprised how inefficient that's going to be.<br /><br />WRT disintermediation, I think what has to be understood is that being able to transmit data more efficiently and quickly does not reduce the amount of data to be assimilated into information. In fact, in many cases it increases the amount of data available. Now, in stable environments where ad hoc self-organization can generate profits, that may be a good thing -- and certainly is a manageable thing, as any investor in Amazon can tell you. But all of this is based on individuals being able to choose what information they want, about what subjects, and how long they want to take to make decisions.<br /><br />But when you start talking about highly dynamic, data-intensive environments, where data cannot be studied at leisure and decisions deferred, cutting out levels of organization is a recipe for disaster. A single person in authority can only assimilate so much, even with staff to help him. Also, some colonel or general sitting in a tent or command vehicle somewhere is going to be totally missing context about a firefight going on ten miles away, even if he can collect data about it in real time. So a big justification for retention of the traditional hierarchy is that intermediate leaders possess context that higher levels of command don't.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-29981009707931643532011-01-02T20:11:52.225-08:002011-01-02T20:11:52.225-08:00I see the Wal Mart model was a bit unfortunate; th...I see the Wal Mart model was a bit unfortunate; the parts the military are studying are concerned with logistics and managing large numbers of people with the smallest and fastest information chains possible.<br /><br />Most military professionals will agree this might work down to the level of considering a base as a "Big Box store", and some might even think you could go farther down (a forward Operating Base [FOB] as a "Sam's Club"? probably not), but I don't know anyone who would think it applies to line units in the field.<br /><br />The sticky factors include how far down you can carry this model (a base? a unit garrisoned in the base?) and the various interfaces to attach real units to the model. Obviously there vast differences between supplying soldiers and going shopping, for example.<br /><br />However the larger social model of disintermediation which allows people to directly access information and resources and cutting out or reducing the role of the middleman will eventually have an impact on how future military forces are organized and operated. If Platoon commanders (or riflemen) can directly access information and energy using a concept like "Server Sky", then old models will have to change. They will just change slowly, tempered with experience.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45763989274531608802011-01-02T14:32:14.278-08:002011-01-02T14:32:14.278-08:00Rick: I find myself in the odd and uncomfortable p...Rick: I find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of agreeing with Tony...<br />The way millitaries do things are because they work, and work on several different levels; practical, emotional, psychological, social. A successful national millitary organization needs these things; using the Wal-mart model would result in Mercs-R-Us, not a professional armed service. Sure, we can study the Wal-mart model to see if there is anything we can adapt to millitary use, but the core structure and traditions aren't going away; they are just too importaint for the long-term success of any millitary organization.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-8473324577150035202011-01-02T14:16:17.023-08:002011-01-02T14:16:17.023-08:00But I suspect that distinguishing pragmatic conser...<i>But I suspect that distinguishing pragmatic conservatism from magical thinking may be a distinction without a difference - or rather, the difference is between traditions we are sympathetic toward and ones we are not.</i><br /><br />The thing that continues to astound me is that magic really does work -- it's confined to what goes on between human ears but damn it all, it works when it ought not to and there's no better word for it than magic. <br /><br />Now some people might not be so astounded at this and just say hey, people can be convinced by bullshit and this is why bullshit artistry is the world's third oldest profession. But to me BS just isn't sufficient to describe it. I know with the people I associate with, the benefit of the doubt is given to someone until he is proven to be a bullshitter and then nobody ever takes what he says seriously. But for much of society, there doesn't ever seem to be a learning process. Even when one bullshitter falls, another one takes his place and nobody ever associates the entire field with being nothing but bullshit. We keep getting televangelists, infomercial real estate gurus, Wall Street bankers keep getting bailed out and people believe in the national myth despite all evidence pointing to its falsehood. <br /><br />There's an old joke that a comedian told. He holds up a glass of water and declares "I am going to turn this water into wine. Ala-kazam, ala-kazing!" He flourishes his hand indicating the water. "It's wine now. I don't need all of you to believe me, just twelve." <br /><br />It doesn't matter whether or not you can work miracles; if you can convince people you can and can keep them ignoring all evidence to the contrary, you've earned the right to call yourself a wizard.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-38387880485574400252011-01-02T11:04:10.742-08:002011-01-02T11:04:10.742-08:00Re: Rick
There's a lot of barnyard fowl dropp...Re: Rick<br /><br />There's a lot of barnyard fowl droppings that goes on in the military, but most of that happens away from combat. In my experience, the closer you get to the shooting, the more practical things get. A lot of what people perceive as military impracticality is really just peacetime routine and wartime away from the battlefield behavior.<br /><br />Yet those things are important in maintaining the institution. The soldiers/sailors/airmen that put up with the peacetime BS for years on end are the ones that preserve the corporate memory and train the wartime troops in their jobs. They have my respect. After Desert Storm, I couldn't tolerate the peacetime routine any more, after having accepted it as the cost of doing business for the previous seven years. If the people that can take it -- and still prove useful after years of taking it -- do things that seem like magical thinking to outsiders, I'm not going to throw rocks.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-67542721729321010412011-01-01T18:27:09.805-08:002011-01-01T18:27:09.805-08:00I didn't have any specific examples in mind, b...I didn't have any specific examples in mind, but - to take a deliberately extreme case - the Aztecs might well have argued that large scale sacrifice of captives had worked out pretty well for them.<br /><br />The 'missions' of Wal-Mart and the military are so entirely different that I'd be very skeptical of their cross applicability.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-2466385132221877002011-01-01T14:01:43.786-08:002011-01-01T14:01:43.786-08:00Thucydides:
"To use the military example, th...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>"To use the military example, there is a lot of discussion in military circles on revising the way the military is constituted, including using "Wal Mart" as an example of how a flattened hierarchy can deal with massive numbers of personnel and global logistics."</i><br /><br />The Wal-mart way of doing things relies on a predictable customer base and business climate, both of which change relatively slowly. Anybody that's been in combat for even a few minutes can tell you why that won't work in a military context.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-27416593280378676702011-01-01T13:43:58.886-08:002011-01-01T13:43:58.886-08:00But I suspect that distinguishing pragmatic conser...<i>But I suspect that distinguishing pragmatic conservatism from magical thinking may be a distinction without a difference - or rather, the difference is between traditions we are sympathetic toward and ones we are not.</i><br /><br />Pragmatic conservatism says "this was observed to work in the past, therefore we change this at our peril", while magical thinking is essentially saying "this will work because I say it will" without reference to contra examples, history or other empirical data.<br /><br />To use the military example, there is a lot of discussion in military circles on revising the way the military is constituted, including using "Wal Mart" as an example of how a flattened hierarchy can deal with massive numbers of personnel and global logistics. Although there seems to be a lot of evidence that this should work, there is a great deal of hesitation to go towards this model, as many questions remain about cohesion under stress, redundancy and so on. Pragmatic conservatism says we need to retain what is known to work and move very cautiously when making changes. <br /><br />On the other hand the record of attempted sudden and radical transformation is not a happy one (the French Revolution is probably the first well recorded one).Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-17888898631241961162011-01-01T13:35:16.262-08:002011-01-01T13:35:16.262-08:00Rick:
"But I suspect that distinguishing pra...Rick:<br /><br /><i>"But I suspect that distinguishing pragmatic conservatism from magical thinking may be a distinction without a difference - or rather, the difference is between traditions we are sympathetic toward and ones we are not."</i><br /><br />Hmmm... I think I would have to know what rituals you're talking about that are evidence of magical thinking. I know a lot of things, like close order drill, that seem meaningless to civlians but which still have real, practical uses.* Are you talking about things like that, or something else?<br /><br />* Close order drill has five recognized justifications in the modern US service:<br /><br />1. Move troops from one place to another in an organized manner.<br /><br />2. Train troops to work as a team.<br /><br />3. Train individuals to repsond to commands.<br /><br />4. Give junior leaders an opportunity to practice handling troops.<br /><br />5. Give troops and opportunity to become familiar with handling their personal weapons.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-75809381331398455972010-12-31T16:21:13.993-08:002010-12-31T16:21:13.993-08:00Boy, that sounds quaint now!
But I suspect that d...Boy, that sounds quaint now!<br /><br />But I suspect that distinguishing pragmatic conservatism from magical thinking may be a distinction without a difference - or rather, the difference is between traditions we are sympathetic toward and ones we are not.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-20474807260886211302010-12-29T08:50:47.617-08:002010-12-29T08:50:47.617-08:00Rick:
"Magical thinking, of a sort, remains ...Rick:<br /><br /><i>"Magical thinking, of a sort, remains widespread in many areas of life, often in ways many of us tend to respect. The military is a good and relevant example. It is filled with rituals and the like, which we hesitate to interfere with because they may relate to unit cohesion and morale, intangible but shown by historical experience to be often crucial to success."</i><br /><br />I don't think adherence to military tradition is so much magical thinking as it is simply being conservative about what has empirically been proven to work. Strangely enough, one kind of magical thinking that <i>was</i> very common when you and I were young was the elevation of Progress and Science to the status of Gods. Remember "Better living through chemistry"?Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-47870787416757866952010-12-29T08:29:49.714-08:002010-12-29T08:29:49.714-08:00Looking up the finer points of Jerry Pournelle'...Looking up the finer points of Jerry Pournelle's opinions is just the sort of thing for which I would <i>not</i> depend on Wikipedia. That said, I can see a pretty strong case for not letting people edit the entries on themselves.<br /><br />In craft trades in general, the artifacts are indeed the primary 'record.' Consider the problems in trying to reconstruct an Athenian trireme without prior examples to work from.<br /><br />Magical thinking, of a sort, remains widespread in many areas of life, often in ways many of us tend to respect. The military is a good and relevant example. It is filled with rituals and the like, which we hesitate to interfere with because they may relate to unit cohesion and morale, intangible but shown by historical experience to be often crucial to success.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-14046907028174396482010-12-29T07:53:12.716-08:002010-12-29T07:53:12.716-08:00Thucydides:
"...or the current Administratio...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>"...or the current Administration purchasing the use of the term "Obamacare" to control the first group of hits on Google are other examples of how data can be manipulated."</i><br /><br />They're doing it on all of the big search engines. But the Administration is only getting itself a single link per response, clearly labeled as an ad. And they can't control counterinformation. On Bing an Yahoo!, right under the .gov link there is a "Repeal 'Obamacare' Now" sponsored link, leading to DemandObamacareRepeal.com. Hardly an effective manipulation, don't you think?Tonynoreply@blogger.com