New Branch?

[TimBit]

Power stations powering military infrastructure, dual-use national comms facilities, railroads... all are legitimate targets according to LOAC which have been and are often targetted legally during conflcts.

 

[chrisf]

I think there's some confusion or at least disagreements over the definition of EW, and some blurring of lines between tactical EW and strategic EW...

It seems to me the original poster is talking about somthing along the lines of China's cyber espionage campaigns (DoS attacks, "cyber-theft", etc), whereas it seems most respondants are talking about SIGINT and ELINT as well as radio jamming....

 

[vonGarvin]

I could understand if there was an entirely separate entity that included all Signals and Intelligence people, but even then...those people are typically co-located with a branch anyway so it would seem silly for them to have their own element.

Pedantic mode on, it's "Signal", not "Signals".

Information Operations (including EW) is now considered a combat function because it is fundamentally different

Source for this?  As I recall, it's a subset of "Command"

Information operations (Info Ops) are defined as: “coordinated actions to create desired effects on the will, understanding and capability of adversaries, potential adversaries and other approved parties in support of overall objectives by affecting their information, information based processes and systems while exploiting and protecting one’s own"

(Source:B-GL-300-001-FP-001, Land Operations)

 

[TimBit]

I think there's some confusion or at least disagreements over the definition of EW, and some blurring of lines between tactical EW and strategic EW...

It seems to me the original poster is talking about somthing along the lines of China's cyber espionage campaigns (DoS attacks, "cyber-theft", etc), whereas it seems most respondants are talking about SIGINT and ELINT as well as radio jamming....

Well cyber espionage falls under SIGINT... But I get your point. Personally I read the OP's post as refering to cyber-warfare vs cyber operations or CNO's, i.e. "taking out" a target vice watching it. The US Cyber Command aims to cover the first while the second still is the domain of NSA/CSS.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think there's some confusion or at least disagreements over the definition of EW and where it fits into the stratagies of/disciplines of Information Operations, and some blurring of lines between tactical EW and strategic EW...

I agree, but added the yellow to expand it some. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Am I the only person to notice this tripe is advocating attacking non-military objectives?

No, and it's not tripe.  When a military attacks, it only attacks military objectives.  Military objectives are a sub-set of national objectives.  The nation has more than the military to attack its objectives.  We have laws that state what domain belongs to the military.  These are (almost) all out of Canada, and it takes special orders to "do stuff" in Canada, and it is (almost) always in support of, or aid to, the Civil Power.

 

[vonGarvin]

EW is part of Information Operations.  (See my definition above)

 

[aesop081]

EW is part of Information Operations.  (See my definition above)

Even that is subject to some vigourous debate.

 

[vonGarvin]

Even that is subject to some vigourous debate.

I'm just basing on the existing definitions.  If "info is power", and if communications are the way to share info, then EW is indeed a subset of Information Operations (which is a heck of a lot more than glad handing the locals).  But, I know exactly what you mean.

 

[SeanNewman]

Pedantic mode on, it's "Signal", not "Signals".

Hate to do this to you, my friend since we've had this same discussion in person:

*Note* In my search I also found some references to "Signal" sans "S", but since that does not support my argument I have obviously not posted those references and I will pretend I did not see them.

 

[SeanNewman]

Source for this?  As I recall, it's a subset of "Command"

Not many more, my friend:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_08/iss_2/CAJ_vol8.2_03_e.pdf

Combat Functions
The army defines six combat functions: command, information operations, manoeuvre, firepower, protection and sustainment.

Don't see "Planning" on that list...booyah! 

 

[vonGarvin]

From what I've seen in that note, is a proposal to make IO a combat function.  Makes sense.

Re: signals/signal, the corps/branch is "signal corps", and the various squadrons are "xx Headquarters and Signal Squadron".  But, the slip on says "SIGNALS" or "TRANSMISSIONS".  Funny bunch they are, anyway, so lets just agree to call them "geeks"  8)

 

[Jammer]

Not all of us are geeks...there are still a few mud rad ops out there

 

[vonGarvin]

:nana:

 

[Jammer]

Ohh that's adult...

 

[Michael OLeary]

No, that's Technoviking, he has been called many things, "adult" isn't one of them.    ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

No, that's Technoviking, he has been called many things, "adult" isn't one of them.    ;D

Damn straight!

 

[Jammer]

Amen to that!

 

[chrisf]

So wait, are we starting Net Force or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy's_Net_Force

 

[SeanNewman]

Net Force?  I think we could use a Marine Corps before that.  Never mind, we can't man what we have now.