Network centric warefare stream of conciousness

me: AN ANALYSIS OF DEGRADED COMMUNICATIONS IN THE
ARMY’S FUTURE FORCE
me: is the paper i am reading
me: do you wants cpu timing attack?
me wants to send file C:\downloads\to install\Cheat07Security.pdf.
andykerr1 received C:\downloads\to install\Cheat07Security.pdf.
andykerr1 is away at 12:56:35 PM.
me: man, this paper is good good! the communications one
andykerr1 returned at 12:57:05 PM.
me: finally, someone gets what i been saying
me: lol
andykerr1: heh, what have you been saying?
me: that you have to be very VERY careful with network centric warfare
me: its not the uber-thing that the "power to the EDGE!" guys say it is
me: power to the edge!
me: !!
me: lol
me: i need to finish that paper/book
me: ha, when does a paper become a book?
me: at 200 pages?
andykerr1: 100 pages.
me: maybe i missed the second in power to the edge
me: ha, then this thesis is not a paper, its a book
me: lol
me: anyway, i have been ranting the past few weeks about how it might not be smart to transform into a network centric force,
me: if the performance of the force is dependent on the network
me: like, its better to have a force that is capable without the network, with slightly lower performance with the network,
me: rather than a force that requires the network to function, so if you dont have it, you dont have anything
me: .. basically, single points of failure in military (or any) systems are bad
me: and they are doing too much with NCW toward it being required for the effectiveness.
me: SO! its bad
me: its like, what if our group of friends, we all didnt have cell phones for a week?
me: how effective would our hanging out be?
me: where would you be without the interwebs?
andykerr1: but there would have to be multiple points of failure for the network to be disabled severely. without cell phones we'd all use AIM.
me: ok, emp
me: i mean, the point is, its something to consider,
me: rather than not
me: you can design it so that faults dont occur,
me: but the effectiveness changes..
me: even in that example,
me: aim is not the same
me: you cant use it ont eh move
me: we can't swarm a restaurant like we do now
me: where you head out before you ave targeting data
me: in multiple cars to get to the objective (food)
me: (together getting food = objective)
me: the point is that they are making the system's performance dependent on the swarming type concepts like that
me: eh, it actually got me thinking about the most successful predator systems (organisms)
me: as far as,
me: there is a push now to make every part a separate system, like, sensors (eyes), processing (brain), and engagement (claws or teeth?) .. so like it would be a floating eyeball talking to brain talking to teeth, to eat something... but i don't know of any successful organisms like that... like, abstracting out, a wolfpack... they are all basically the same system,, they still use a network (howls) and coordinate actions
me: so, are there pack structures in the wild that use the sensor - processor - engage concept?
me: or is that a bad idea, and should everything be a hunter-killer, and not hunter and killer.