Smart technology could have disarmed ISIS fighters without the need for bombs and bullets
In the summer of 2014, the Iraqi insurgent group ISIS took control of the city of Mosul, and together with it, equipment of the Iraqi army, which was sourced from the USA, was enough to equip three divisions and included vehicles, helicopters, anti-aircraft guns and M1 Abrams tanks. ISIS members organized a parade where they presented the new weapons, then activated them to capture the strategic Mosul Dam from the hands of the inferior Kurdish defenders. The US began bombing from the air and rearming the Kurds to balance the scales against its own weapons.
A long time ago we should have considered a combination of means for remote neutralization of such dangerous tools in case of an emergency. The number of stolen iPhones dropped this year, after Apple added a remote "off switch" to the product, with the help of which phone owners can ensure that no one will be able to use it if it is lost or stolen. If this is a feature that pays to be incorporated into consumer products, why not include it also in devices that can undergo such a dangerous transformation, including against their owners as a matter of law and religion, as happened in the Mosul Dam?
One of the concerns is that the circuit breaker will not operate at the moment of truth. A big concern with this is that the circuit breaker may trip when it's not supposed to, for example, if enemy hackers hacked it. There's a reason tank operators start them with a switch that doesn't need a key or code even if the price is unauthorized access: on the battlefield it's too easy to lose keys.
But ignition keys were at the forefront of technology in 1949. Today there are already many other options. Some US foreign policy experts have suggested incorporating GPS-based location restrictions into Stinger surface-to-air missiles to help the Free Syrian Army defend itself against airstrikes, while also ensuring that the missiles are worthless outside of that conflict zone. A simpler solution, which can be applied to any device that includes electronic components, such as a Stinger or a modern tank, is an expiration date: the device will only be able to continue operating after this date if it receives an encrypted "renewal" signal from some satellite. The renewal will be performed routinely unless, for example, the weapons are stolen. Such a safety mechanism can be built using basic and proven signature and verification technologies. One example of this is the authorization link devices that secure US nuclear weapons, which can only be activated when certain codes are shared. Another example is the protocols used to operate drones remotely, while protecting them from digital hijacking.
The easiest way to use a kill switch is to give it to gun owners. If the Iraqi government had such a circuit breaker, it could disable the deadly loot displayed in the ISIS parade after the Mosul incident. A more revolutionary use of a kill switch would be to leave it in the hands of the government that supplied the weapon. This will turn ammunition from a product to a service. It is likely that many arms buyers will switch to other suppliers, but those remaining may find that the US is the only country willing to sell to them. Agreed limits already apply to certain arms transactions, including the transactions between the US and Israel. A circuit breaker could be used as a stronger enforcement measure.
And if you believe that the UN Security Council may play an important role in promoting global security, imagine a circuit breaker that can only be activated if the council votes in favor of its use. In the most common case, a member state of the Council that does not agree with the decision can veto the activation of the circuit breaker, but in cases where global opinion is sufficiently unified, such as in the arms embargo imposed on Al-Qaeda (and hence also on ISIS), the Council's decision "will have teeth", and not Military operations will be necessary.
It all depends on the implementation, and policy makers need to think about the situations where circuit breakers might fail. For example, since they would ensure arms control, this could actually lead to a greater number of arms transfers. If it is easy to bypass these circuit breakers, the situation will be worse than it is now.
However, today we make a conscious decision to produce medium and heavy weapons and sell them, without restricting their use. This choice has a very real effect. If the circuit breakers can save even one innocent person standing in front of an American-made barrel, it is worth considering the possibility seriously.
About the author
Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of law and computer science, and director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. He wrote the book "The Future of the Internet and How to Prevent It" (Yale University Press, 2008). Citrein is a member of the Scientific American Advisory Board.
The article was published with the permission of Scientific American Israel
20 תגובות
Very interesting.
Eyal
So that's it, just the opposite... no one is going to touch the steering systems of fighter planes. In addition, in F15, the steering system is not electronic.
These "auxiliary" systems are the weapon systems of the plane... don't underestimate 🙂
Miracles, the difference is that the Israeli systems in the American planes are only auxiliary systems, neutralization will not disable the entire plane, on the other hand, the American systems are the core of the plane (fly to the wire) and can disable the plane and turn it into a useless piece of junk.
Guy, let's really talk about the matter - if Daesh had neutralized their weapons, they would not have been able to terrorize anyone, and would not have been able to carry out their conquest campaigns of cities and villages in Iraq and Syria, they could have been eliminated much more easily.
Friends, let's face it: even if Daesh had neutralized the weapons it would not have harmed them, this is a group of mentally ill people who left everything they had, and traveled far and wide for one purpose only: to rape!!!
Eyal
Israel's fighter jets are not made by "Arab", and the chariot tank is not made by "Israel". The systems were built by large companies, and the components of these systems are made by smaller companies. The engine in the F16 is made by GE or PW, the carriage engine is made by GD and so on. So there's a lot of room to plant something like you described...beyond the fact that the government can plant something - every small company in the chain can also plant something.
On the other hand - the American planes also have Israeli systems 🙂
The truth is that I also find it hard to believe that such mechanisms were not planted, and there is no shortage when it comes to such complex and sophisticated weapon systems and so many electronics and computers.... So wait, what does that actually mean? That the Americans can immediately neutralize all our F-15 and F-16 planes?
Lucky that at least the chariot tanks are self-made 🙂
My hypothesis is that although there are such mechanisms present in many sophisticated weapons that are out there, even the risk level of Daesh is not currently high enough that they would use this means and thus expose the very existence of the switch.
Any reasonable person with a little "criminal" thinking and I'm sure that weapons manufacturers who meet the above definition would have long ago thought of putting some kind of "back door" in the weapons they develop lest it be turned against them. In fact one would have to be quite the idiot not to.
Although in pistols or rifles the solution may be a little more complex engineering, but in any slightly more sophisticated weapon system that uses electronic chips or complex hybrid components, it is relatively easy to embed a radio receiver in some or even all of the components that, as soon as they receive a coded signal, will simply disable that component.
Ehud Vanisim and anyone interested in US nuclear weapons, here is John's noted chapter on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g
Worth watching to understand how .. not smart they are ..
Here are miracles especially for you:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%98%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99
Well, now will you continue to mock?
Trying to understand the meaning of the matter...
Nissim I didn't think they were such a bad thing, I'm just trying to understand the meaning of the matter. If you know just answer.
The thing with the suitcase and the codes appears in many movies, not just one movie (and I really don't remember the names of the movies now) so what do you claim it's just a myth?
Fan
What movie do you remember this from? Do you really think they are that bad?
Tam's question, I remember that the President of the USA travels everywhere with a suitcase containing all the ciphers (codes, keys) to activate the USA's atomic weapons. What happens if, God forbid, the president's plane crashes (due to a malfunction, or an attack), from this moment on the USA cannot activate its nuclear weapons? And exposed to attacks without any ability to defend yourself?
The idea is excellent, but not new. Already today there are such "switches" in many weapon systems.
And I hope the mention of the UN is just a joke. The UN should have been closed a long time ago. A waste of money.
Joseph
Daesh can be defeated with weapons, 10 atomic bombs will erase Daesh's will to fight to a level where they will not harm. It is also possible with less as the Americans did in Afghanistan.
As for the Europeans, there is a chance that when they get tired of the immigrant Muslims and they will send them to gas chambers or something similar. Do not be fulfilled by the beautiful words, the Europeans are very cruel, like the rest of the people when the threats against them become real. The problem with the Europeans is that right now they think they can live a comfortable life with all their ridiculous liberal laws, once they realize it's not possible they'll prefer to physically eliminate the Muslims instead of continuing a social process of voluntary suicide.
Daesh cannot be defeated with weapons. It is a culture and it is also found within Europe, Asia and the USA, Australia, and in the hearts of many Muslims who have spread throughout the world.
Just an article about a weapon that has a huge drawback that allows it to stop its activity. No country will agree to buy such a weapon!
Yehuda
In my opinion, Daesh cannot be extinguished remotely, and there is even a chance that they will take over the world, not because they are the majority, but because the majority will surrender to them. In six months their army grew from 20,000 to 100,000-200,000. When Pakistan reinstates the death penalty for the murderers of 140 children, the United Nations immediately begins its self-righteousness and opposes it.
Looking at the news SKY, BBC, FRANCE24, CNN in the headlines running at the bottom of the page you see every day that in each of the Arab countries 10-12 soldiers are killed every day in the fight against Daesh, and organizations like al-Qaeda and more.
8 Arab countries fell in 3 years: Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, doubt Tunisia, almost Egypt, Afghanistan for me also Turkey. And if we examine who founded al-Qaeda, ISIS - this is one apparently enlightened country.
Hezbollah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and more are fighting for their existence.
in other words implement ACLs on HW. Any HW. In this case weapons.
What army would want to buy a tank that they know someone can stop for them from afar?