Anyone bought from www.belrion.com before ? heard they are a paypal world seller and are macfee secured. Appreciate some feedback from anyone ^^
buy ffxi
buy eq flat
cheap wow gold
LOTR gold
buy aoc gold
buy L2 adena
buy gils
cheap gold wow

Posted by: priya at August 10, 2008 12:59 AM

The west should be shaking at the prospect of Israel cutting loose anti-satellite weapons. Sure, existing technology can easily support brute counter-space operations, and commercial assets are amongst the most vulnerable. Nonetheless, just as fear of fallout (both literally and figuratively) maintained the nuclear threshold in the days of MAD, so should the concept of counter-space ops be approached.

If the article is correct, several countries are considering (if not maintaining) counter-space capability. Few experienced observers were surprised by Serbian employment of local GPS signal jamming, but disabling space assets themselves crosses several dangerous thresholds:

- weaponization of space
- military engagement of a neutral
- creating an unlimited Area Of Operation

Crossing any of these thresholds is akin to opening Pandora's Box. Immediate tactical gain will almost certainly lead to far greater western losses given its much more advanced reliance upon satellite based systems.

Not that satellites are sacrosanct - protected from all forms of C2W and/or IO - but the process must be kept exceptionally discreet and very narrowly contained. Acceptable actions would likely be jamming a space signal terrestrially within a defined area, uplink signal jamming, and replacing adversary signals with your own. Acceptable because they mimic wartime action already accepted as "normal" military activity.

Risk analysis must examine benefits likely to be won. Probably few. Except in remote ocean regions, commercial satellites are multiple redundant and eager for business. Low cost, high-capacity fibre is rapidly diminishing everyone's reliance upon SATCOM. Landline redundancy is so complete that most circuit architectures are simply depicted as a "cloud". Exceptionally few conflict regions offer a comparison to North American reliance upon satellite for wide area banking, weather, communication, or imagery coverage.

Optics is everything, especially in democracy-sponsored militaries, where targets must possess public legitimacy. The political goal may be removal of the adversary's popular support; hence, an apparently simple target - denial of communication. But attempts to destroy media channels, particularly if disrupting service outside the combat zone, is perceived as media manipulation and truth suppression. And, because of the multiple redundant features built into INTERNET (which has grown to be the prime media distribution tool of many adversaries), denial of service is so brief that it's often transparent to the user. Only the image of an attempt to "muzzle the press" persists.

No military quote is better remembered than "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means". That the USAF develops doctrine to suggest means and methods (now echoed by Israel), does not suggest restraints should be removed. The limits of war, developed after a millennium of armed conflict, must be carefully weighed before sweeping those lessons aside. It was not a rise in social consciousness that treaties, such as the Hague and Geneva conventions, were signed but for long-term advantage to conflict survivors (particularly the victors). Today's massively complex world of global interdependencies cannot accept such freedom of action amongst combatants.

"Be careful of what you wish for".

Posted by: Millie at September 7, 2006 12:04 PM

stop invading lebanon and al manar won't have anything to report on in regards to israel.

Posted by: lester at September 4, 2006 09:39 AM

QUOTE: "Non functional TV would just another subtle reminder to Haji that he was not gaining the upper hand. When you have people with cities reduced to rubble and still claiming "victory", it is important to play every card in the deck."

I don't even know where to being with this. The pejorative use of the term "Haji" is emblematic of how some people clearly don't understand what is going on the Middle East. Allow me to illustrate a simple scenario:

"Haji" doesn't care about television, he cares about selling his socio-political angle. One way or another he will figure a new way of pedaling his views.

Mr. and Mrs. Ahmed Q. Public, on the other hand, were just sitting at home, minding their own business somewhere between Tehran and Cairo when their very expensive satellite TV service went out. Even if this only proves to be a minor annoyance, it still generates negative attitudes towards Israel and U.S. - and worst of all, when "Haji" gets his media machine up and running again, he only has more public grievances to prey on.

The War on Terror isn't about international borders or material goods or fantastical ideological notions. Its about winning hearts and minds and resolving a series of loosely related socio-political struggles across the globe.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at August 31, 2006 12:26 PM

Hmmm, why not employ those "EMP Bombs" we have heard so much about?

If you can't turn off the sat transmission, turn off the TV (...and everything else) receivers in the region. That would also address the issue of the Internet. Haji's sat and cell phone comms would be fried as well.

"I don't see what blocking Al-Manar would accomplish anyway. Israel doesn't have the kind of popular credibility in the Middle East to counter Hezbollah's message even if it could dominate the airwaves."

Non functional TV would just another subtle reminder to Haji that he was not gaining the upper hand. When you have people with cities reduced to rubble and still claiming "victory", it is important to play every card in the deck.

Posted by: Gary at August 31, 2006 11:57 AM

Good Evening Folks,

All you make good points but I don't see what Israel has to gain by jamming TV signals. This is all date technology, with the internet and 24 hour new channels vacuuming up anything that out tere it looks like just a bad case of old thinking.

The one part on the "Information Battlespace" that the terrorists have excelled at is getting the information. They know about Video, Mobile satellite phones, DVD's, 802.11 etc. Unlike the US,s DoD who has to go through a bureaucratic bidding and purchasing process they just go on line and buy what ever they want with US dollars, and get it in there next DHL shipment.

In the US, TV often has video of attacks on FOX or CNN before the OSD even can even put out a press message, in short the US's message is the second version of events to hit the airways.

The only way to defeat the terrorist is to get your message out FIRST. Both the United States and Israel are a distant second to the terrorists on this part of the "Information Battlespace".

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 30, 2006 08:58 PM

'Enemy programming' is quite a loose term, and could just as easily include CNN as MEMRI TV. In essence, any communication is a target in 'total war'. Just look at US strikes on Al Jazerra in Kabul and Baghdad (which only served to increase its popularity).

If anything should have been learned by now, it's that infrastructure is not necessary to wage guerrilla warfare, and that attacks on infrastructure serve to drive the indigenous population towards the insurgency.

Finally, we are not dealing with societies where every house has TV, internet, or even telephone connections. Knocking out satellite communications is more likely to be an attempt to keep ones own population in the dark.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at August 30, 2006 08:54 PM

Pete Brown is on to the second point I was going to make: What if Al-Manar moves onto YouTube? Is Israel going to black out websites as well? Jamming comsats sends Israel down a road similar to the one it took into southern Lebanon in July.

If they escalate on the strategic communications front and Hezbollah out-maneuvers them, they look bad twice over - once for blotting out Arab TV and once for failing to gain the upper hand.

Brown also brings up a good point about pirate signals. Ultimately the only way to stop Al-Manar may involve blotting out all TV sats in range of the Arab Peninsula. There are at least three major sats I can think of off-hand, but there are bound to be more.

Posted by: Robot Economist at August 30, 2006 06:42 PM

Back during my days as an employee of a now defunct defense contractor one of the projects I worked on involved the AAMS. If you have a broadband input on a satellite you can lower the effective power out of that satellite by pumping in a signal that saturates the front end of the receiver.

The satellite is limited to how much power it can transmit at any one time and a booming input signal reduces all other output signals. Put too much power in and the receiver does a graceful shut down.

Posted by: Gen Jack D. Ripper at August 30, 2006 06:32 PM

Peter J. Brown says...

Even if Israel wanted to start knocking out satellite feeds, one option [for Hezbollah] would be a return to a sneaker net approach akin to what supporters in Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini resorted to with audio tapes in the 1970's.

This talk is no doubt fueling the rise in popularity of Al Manar which has suddenly soared into the top 10 channels in the Middle East based on viewership, according to one Beirut-based news service.

Take a look at Javed Iqbal, 42, who was arrested this summer and charged by federal authorities with the illegal satellite-based distribution of Al Manar programming via his Brooklyn-based company, HDTV Ltd. To my knowledge, he was not turning around a live feed, but instead he relied on taped material.

Taped and web-based distribution of Al Manar cannot go unmentioned because the signal easily downlinked in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

I sense that Israel is going to face harsh criticism if it starts to interfere with satellite operations in the region.

Peter also points to this article he wrote back in '02 on Falun Gong's hijhacking of a Chinese satellite: http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/n-sinosat.shtml

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at August 30, 2006 03:15 PM

I don't know. If this works, it has the potential to be a great military asset. You'd need to cut off internet traffic as well, but silencing communications could be a great help in a war. The last thing you want is a reporter for a hostile power pointing a TV camera at your tanks and saying "the Israelis are advancing from the northeast". Even as a propoganda piece, Al-Quaeda TV is effective. I'd say that potential combatants would be much more inspired by such a station staying on the air and continuing to broadcast than they would if it went static in the first wave of a war.

Posted by: Brian at August 30, 2006 03:03 PM

Michael, you are right to a certain extent - I mean, ultimately we're talking about TV. Its not like anyone is likely to die or be directly harmed if they miss the news or latest episode of "Allah in Charge." I believe the Israelis did try to jam, spoof or otherwise disrupt during last month's border war, but their efforts didn't accomplish much.

I'm not concerned about the impact of Israel jamming comsats. I'm concerned that the Israelis are pursuing a strategy that will ultimately produce few positive results, if any, at a substantial cost. The U.S. should defend Israel to the hilt, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage them from taking actions that will significantly raise of the cost of their defense.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather Israel be safe at the cost of $2 billion in annual aid than $10 billion.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at August 30, 2006 12:03 PM

I'm surprised the Israelis didn't do this during the last engagement. It's not like they would lose popular support or anything. They would, however, shut down a rallying point for their enemy.

Even if Hezbollah had backup sats, once one sat went black, I doubt the other carriers would have been willing to risk their equipment to carry the signal. And if Al Cheer-leadia went black as collateral damage, would that have been so terrible?

Posted by: michael at August 30, 2006 10:47 AM

Since when have the Israelis demonstrated a concern for significant collateral damage in the name of their national security? If they can't figure out how to jam just one channel, are they prepared to blot out satellite communications across the Near East? Al Manar is current carried on three comsats, but it wouldn't surprise me if Hezbollah has backup carriers arranged.

I don't see what blocking Al-Manar would accomplish anyway. Israel doesn't have the kind of popular credibility in the Middle East to counter Hezbollah's message even if it could dominate the airwaves..

Posted by: Robot.Economist at August 30, 2006 10:22 AM