Letter Never Sent

I haven’t seen anything in the mainstream media lately about Iraq using cheap GPS jammers to mess with the US military’s techno-dependent weaponry. Because of inertial targetting systems the most GPS jammers seem to be able to do is cause GPS-guided weapons to land off target by 100 feet or so. I have not seen anything about these Russian built jammers have affected ground troops or if the Iraqi military are using these at all. It’s likely the US is trying to maintain their image of invulnerability.

I wonder if governments are developing means to not only jam GPS receivers and transmissions but to decrypt transmissions and substitute the locations and coordinates of enemy targets to make them vulnerable to friendly fire. GPS could be used in this way to create battle confusion. Illusions of forces and units as one possible example.

Some links of interest:

1. FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME January 10, 2003: Satellite Jamming
2. Iraq Can Jam Guidance Of US ‘Smart’ Weapons 1/14/03: The global positioning system, developed for the U.S. military, consists of a constellation of 24 satellites that continuously beam navigation signals that can be used by anyone with the proper receiver. The satellites transmit two signals, one available to civilian users, including commercial airliners, to determine their position within a distance of a few metres. The second signal, for use by the military, is encrypted. The Air Force placed GPS receivers on previously “dumb” gravity bombs as a way to enhance their accuracy. Once dropped from an aircraft, the bombs use GPS signals to locate a specific geographical location up to 15 miles from the drop site. GPS-guided JDAMS bombs were used in Kosovo and also in Afghanistan.

   The GPS signals from the satellites are weak and can be overwhelmed by a broadband transmitter that generates enough “noise” at the right wavelengths, experts said. “I would tend to believe that you could jam those encrypted signals with enough power,” said Linn Roth, president of Locus Inc. of Madison, Wis., a maker of radionavigation products. “Those signal levels are so low.”
   

3. U.S. sends mixed signals: military admits its technology is vulnerable:
   Iraq may have also bought Czech or Ukrainian acoustic sensors that can uncloak stealth aircraft. Or it could scatter heat-generating decoys that fool heat-seekers on missiles and infrared sensors on aircraft.

   These tactics have been seen before. The Serbs used them to blunt NATO attacks in 1999. …

   Low-tech ingenuity could also come in handy, with air defense crews scanning night skies for attacking aircraft using spotlights powered by diesel generators – impervious to failures of the electrical grid, said Michael O’Hanlon, defense analyst with the Brookings Institution. …

   A Russian company, Aviaconversia, has exhibited GPS jamming systems at military trade shows, claiming they could cripple GPS systems throughout Iraq. The $4,000 devices on display were less worrisome than powerful GPS jammers apparently available on the international arms market, said Bob Martinage, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

   “We know our GPS systems are vulnerable to jamming because we’ve jammed them ourselves with disturbing ease,” said Hewson of Jane’s. “If you don’t know where you are, you have a real problem.” …

   Despite NATO’s sophisticated sensors and guided weapons, the Serbs safeguarded most of their planes and tanks by replacing them with decoys crafted from plastic sheeting, tires and logs. Some decoys cradled heaters that mimicked engine emissions.

   NATO bombed hundreds of the dummies. Yugoslavs also simulated troop positions with portable heaters left on empty hillsides to dupe infrared sensors. Had a ground war been ordered, NATO would have faced a largely intact Yugoslav army.

   “Our sensors haven’t improved in any significant ways since Kosovo,” O’Hanlon said. “You can try to be aware of decoys, but that doesn’t help if you can’t tell the difference between the real thing and a fake.”

   Serbs also greeted NATO air attacks by firing simple anti-hail rockets – meant to warm hail-bearing clouds and make them rain, said Jeremy Binnie, an Iraq analyst with Jane’s Information Group. Although the basic rockets posed little harm to aircraft, pilots who saw them on radar often aborted their missions, Binnie said.

   “Certainly the Iraqis have been working on these techniques, using civilian areas to shelter troops, mixing military vehicles with civilian ones, learning to confuse our surveillance,” said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

   Some speculate that Iraq may even be able to uncloak radar-evading U.S. aircraft like the F-117 Nighthawk fighter and the B-2 bomber.

   The State Department alleged in November that Iraq obtained stealth-exposing Ukrainian radar that can triangulate an aircraft’s position by the sounds it makes. Analysts say it’s also possible Iraq got a similar Czech-made system called Tamara.

4. ‘Smart war’ gamble put to test: The jamming scenario — and also “spoofing,” sending out a fake GPS signal to confuse the bomb and make it miss its target — has been hotly debated in the months before the war. …

   A Russian company, Aviaconversia, has hawked a portable eight-kilo transmitter at airshows that, it says, denies commercial GPS reception to a range of 200 kilometres around.

   But the Pentagon says the military GPS signal would be harder to interrupt than the civilian; that anyone who sent out a jamming signal would themselves be easy to spot and counter-attack; and that some bombs have been fitted with anti-jamming software.

   I don’t know. That sounds like a bluff. You could easily imagine unmanned, remotely operated GPS jammers.
   

Bush administration uses economic stick to bring ‘allies’ into line to support illegal war against Iraq.

Bush May Use Trade Pacts for Iraq Leverage:

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the Commerce Department announced decisions in recent days to confer “market-based-economy” status on Bulgaria and Romania, two Eastern European countries that support President Bush’s tough stance on Iraq.

And maybe a letter sent this week by a top House Republican to Chile’s president, exhorting him to bring his reluctant government behind the U.S. position at the United Nations, has nothing to do with Chile’s free-trade agreement pending in Congress.

But as those cases suggest, evidence is mounting that the Bush administration and some of its key congressional allies are prepared to use trade concessions for purposes of gaining leverage as diplomatic wrangling over Iraq grows more heated.

Until recently, Washington prided itself on avoiding the use of economic pressure to secure cooperation from foreign countries, with presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer declaring that “no quid pro quos” were being offered. One exception was the U.S. proposal to give Turkey a multibillion-dollar aid and trade package, justified as compensation for the losses the Turkish economy would probably incur from a war in Iraq. That deal is in limbo because Turkey’s parliament rejected a bill that would have allowed U.S. troops to attack Iraq from Turkish soil.

Working through Tony Blair the US has attempted to legitimize its takeover of Iraq.

Blair-Chirac quarrel rages on at EU summit:

The battle within Europe sparked by the Iraq crisis raged on as President Jacques Chirac of France vowed Friday to oppose a British idea for a Security Council resolution that would give the United States and Britain the right to govern Iraq.

And on the second and final day of a summit meeting that brought together the 15 leaders of the European Union, Britain continued its verbal attack against France, while Germany announced that it would join France and Belgium – the countries most opposed to the war – in a summit meeting on how to strengthen Europe’s military capability. …

The sharpest fissure was between Britain and France. Rejecting an idea floated by Prime Minister Tony Blair earlier in the day for a resolution to give international authority to a new administration in Iraq, Chirac said at a news conference, “This idea of a resolution seems to me to be a way of authorizing military intervention after the fact, and so is not, from my point of view, fitting in the current situation.”

Remember this moment. You were here for day one of the American Empire. They’re calling this invasion of Iraq by the US ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom‘. I’m glad our highly-indoctrinated military eggheads have a sense of humor. The saddest part is they might actually believe it. Insanity is catching these days.

I just realized how much of this deceit they’re not even trying to hide. So, the point of this ‘military action’ was to disarm the Iraqi government right? To remove these so-called weapons of mass distruction because of the alleged danger. If that’s the case why are they now calling it ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’? The point for military action was not to free the Iraqi people. This just shows what a huge farce this whole thing really is. Bush and his whole gang are nothing but thieves and charlatans. Bush sends the sons and daughters of America to fight the sons and daughters of Iraq. This, when he and Cheney were too good to fight when their turn came up, the sorry silver-spoon draft dodgers. I am saddened by many of my fellow Americans and their slavish desire to kneel down and worship power. Happy to live on their knees.

At the risk of seeming too macabre I’ve posted an Iraq civilian body count counter on the bottom left of this page. You can get your own here. I hope no one else is killed and I wish the Iraqi people luck in the coming months and years. I’m surprised and yet not surprised that we are going against world opinion to wage this unnecessary, wasteful, and costly war. For our own sake as a nation founded upon principles of freedom, I hope we fail utterly in our mission to occupy this country.

Military regime in place to run Iraq after Saddam:

According to British and American officials, the final touches are being made to the ambitious plan, which envisages deploying an entire civil administration to take over the running of Iraq, from healthcare to education and security.

The Times has learnt that most of the key posts in the future Iraqi civil service will be held by former American generals, diplomats and aid workers, who will report directly to the Pentagon.

The overall head of this de facto Iraqi government will be General Tommy Franks, the commander-in-chief of American and British forces that are now poised to invade the country. Until yesterday Britain’s role in planning for post-Saddam Iraq was kept secret, even though the special inter-ministerial Iraq Planning Unit was created two months ago. It is headed by Dominick Chilcott, a Foreign Office diplomat and former Royal Navy officer, who co-ordinates with officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

A Foreign Office official said that the existence of the unit was not revealed because they did “not want to give the impression that war was inevitable”. …

British and American officials said yesterday that allied forces were bound by international law to take responsibility for running Iraq once the Baathist regime of President Saddam is overthrown. They insisted, however, that they would gladly hand over responsibility for civilian administration to the United Nations and ultimately to an elected Iraqi government once the situation had stabilised.

US officials denied that there was any intention of installing a long-term military “maharajah” and envisage a brief, “necessary occupation” lasting “months”.

Some Iraqis, probably drawn from exiled groups and figures inside the country, will initially be involved on a consultative basis. Later it is hoped that power will be transferred to an Iraqi Interim Authority.

Nevertheless, it is clear that General Franks will become a modern version of General Douglas MacArthur, who defeated and later ran Japan after the Second World War.