Is it time to retire Loud Speakers in Favor of LRAD?

Is it time to retire Loud Speakers in Favor of LRAD?Frankly I didn’t know what a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) was until I saw an article in the June 1, 2017 in black and white edition of the NY Times which you can find on-line at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/nyregion/sound-cannon-protest-lawsuit-long-range-acoustic-device.html?_r=0, (which is also a photo source). The article addressed a law suit filed as a result of LRAD use on December 5, 2014 at a protest in Midtown Manhattan hostile to a grand jury’s failure to indict a police officer whose choke hold killed Eric Garner. Amongst other capabilities, the LRAD can inflict permanent hearing hurt although the article clarification that the LRAD was designed to repel boarders after the attack on the USS Cole. Compared to a noise flame thrower, the LRAD offers a digit of other capabilities as clarified on the vendor website: https://www.lradx.com/, which is another photo source.The vendor shows variants of the LRAD that can provide Mass Notification or Public Address capabilities as well as integrate with existing communication systems. There is also the capability of employing the devices remotely.  If one burrows down a bit in LRAD Corp’s website, under the Investor tab, you will find a Corporate Presentation. Slide 12 which appears here gives the company’s position with in the defense industry. It would seem that the HA & DR application would be a MISO/PSYOP mission while Large Crowd Communications might be a Military Police or MISO/PSYOP mission.As with many of today’s defense systems, the LRAD is complex, yet modular. Thus far the LRAD appears to be vehicle mounted and does not seem to be available in a Man Pack configuration at this time.Given the range of capabilities, operators will need to undergo some very solid training on ROE and the legal aspects of LRAD use. While permanent hearing hurt has been noted as a potential outcome, the lethality of this weapon has not been tested.For example, if the LRAD is ‘fired’ at a moving vehicle disrupting the operation and causing a fatality – does his go LRAD into the lethal force domain or not.  Reader input appreciated.

We were also found by phrases: Read more

PSYOP on the Border?

PSYOP on the Border?A recent article in this area NG deployments in help of security our border with Mexico caught my eye. (See: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/unprecedented-deployment-has-guardsmen-feeling-strain-of-border-mission-1.329060). I’m wondering if MISO engaged from US soil and targeted hostile to smugglers and would be illegal border crossers would:1.     Be legal.2.     Serve national goals.3.     Provide a significant training opportunity.As I be with you the contemporary legal environment MISO (PSYOP) cannot be conducted hostile to US citizens. While the moral fiber of the law may mean (and one would have to do some research on governmental intent, etc) that such operations shouldn’t be conducted on US soil, the text does not say that.Given the above, I believe MISO initiated on US soil hostile to foreign targets is legal.Would this activity help national objectives? If deterring illegal entry is a national objective and the MISO were effective, it would be logical to conclude that these kinds of operation would help national objectives.As for training, there are rich opportunities. The environment would facilitate field craft skills, foreign language skills, Spanish in particular would be exercised, and there are a variety of media that could be employed.These can include mobile phones, loud speakers, and leaflets (wind permitting of course). Selected PsyActs such as helicopter flights on the US side of the border might be useful as well. Perhaps even social media. Social media likely being on thin ice so to speak.I am not aware of these kinds of operations being conducted, so reader input on the history and potential would be appreciated.Photo Source: http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2014/09/national-guard-adjusts-to-its-new-role-on-the-mexico-u-s-border/

We were also found by phrases: Read more

77th Bde – Rebranding of the 15th PSYOPS Group?

77th Bde – Rebranding of the 15th PSYOPS Group?Computerworld UK (see: http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3596459/british-army-set-up-facebook-warriors-unit/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_board, which is also the photo source) and other media have reported that the British military is standing up a 1,500 person Social Media Warrior Battalion. Dubbed the 77th Bde (which of course is larger than a BN), it will be a composite unit made up of reserve forces (Territorial Army) and fleshed out with active forces taken from the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.One wonders if this is simply a re-launch and renaming of the former 15th PSYOPS Assemble (see: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/15_%28UK%29_Psychological_Operations_Group).While there is no doubt that PSYOP is an vital battlefield multiplier, one wonders if the Brits would really devote such a large force to address these missions when their defense budget overall is under a fantastic deal of pressure.The article goes on to state: “It is part of a wider ‘Army 2020’ plot to reduce the size of the regular Army from 91,600 in 2013 to 82,000 regular troops by 2017 and recruit at least 11,000 reserve soldiers to help meet the deficit.”It’s worth a moment to analyze this statement. If we take the statements together at face value it would appear that the British military will include combined units of active and reserve personnel. It would be reasonable to assume that the personnel strategy would be to have a small core and expand the core as needed. If so, the unit personnel would be housed together and presumably train together. Sounds like a model worth considering.Reader feedback, especially those with first hand knowledge of the UK force structure is much appreciated.

We were also found by phrases: Read more

False Tweets = Cyber PSYOP

False Tweets = Cyber PSYOPI’ve posted in this area cyber shape before. When an event happens that confirms or reinforces some of what I’ve concluded I like to post that reference as well. Anti-virus vendor Sophos publishes an nearly daily blurb called “Naked Security”. The November 20, 2104 editions featured an article “Hackers Blamed For Scarce Tweets..” (see: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/11/20/hackers-blamed-for-scarce-tweets-from-jeremy-clarkson-columbian-farc-rebels/which is also the photo source.)The substance of the article is: “TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson and Colombian militia assemble FARC may not have much in common, but this week they were associated by headlines blaming hackers for potentially embarrassing Twitter messages.”The article addresses how hackers can take over a Twitter account and announce their own content to the detriment of the target. In some cases the hacker will identify themselves either directly or indirectly by virtue of the message, in others the hacker is content with remaining nameless.These attacks can be broadly staged such as hostile to governments or large companies, or they can be tightly focused on particular individuals.Depending on the nature of the target, more harm may come from the publicizing of the attack rather than those who follow the target’s tweets. The Twitterverse (if there is such a word) is a community of followers and perhaps some analysts, but IMHO is not indicative of the general public.In some locations Twitter users are likely to be younger, perhaps more affluent and perhaps more educated. Also I suspect there is a higher density of media types caught up as well.Reader comments appreciated.

We were also found by phrases: Read more

IO Refined in New Version of JP 3-13

IO Refined in New Version of JP 3-13 I know that my readers have nothing surpass to do than read manuals when they are hot off the PDF press. The November 2012 version of JP 3-13 Information Operations (IO) can be found at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf(which is also the picture source). Having just wrapped up a two week stint as the IO SME for an implementation, IO is still top of mind for me.I learned or relearned a digit of things last week – first of all the IO or J-39 needs to be more of a band leader or camp counselor than other personnel officers. Even though technically the “39” is the CDR’s IO self, that doesn’t always seem the case because each of the major players feels that they are an entity to themselves. This means the IO needs to be a catalyst to bring in this area the best mix for the CDR.The IO tools are never fixed. One AO demands TV while another can only just read. In others Key Leaders (with Key Leader Engagement emerging as yet another discipline) are best reached via Internet kiosks and smart phones. Which brings me to the only constant regardless of AO – the mobile buzz. It appears that no matter where you go, whether urban or rural, developed or not, the cell buzz is an vital if not the most import means of communication – the way people get or give information. To be effective the IO needs to know how to use mobile phones as a standard, but also how to deny individuals the use of their phones at certain times or perhaps to alter the messages they receive. In any event, the information domain evolves each day and MISO ruins one of the few ways that a CDR get get to the Target Consultation (see Figure from the JP)A sweet excellent summary taken from the publication:“IO is not in this area ownership of individual capabilities but rather the use of those capabilities as force multipliers to make a desired effect. There are many military capabilities that contribute to IO and should be taken into consideration during the plotting process. These include: strategic communication, joint interagency coordination assemble, public affairs, civil-military operations, cyberspace operations (CO), information assurance, space operations, military information help operations (MISO), intelligence, military deception, operations security, unique technical operations, joint electromagnetic spectrum operations, and key leader engagement.”For those of you that would rather watch football (or soccer) than read DoD Manuals, here are some of the more significant changes from the 13 Feb 2006 version. The order is not mine, but taken directly from the publication. Clearly this is not in order of importance.Identifies the information environment as the aggregate of individuals, organizations, and systems that assemble, process, disseminate or act on information.Defines information-related capabilities (IRCs) as tools, techniques or activities employed within a dimension of the information environment, which can be used to achieve a specific end(s).Introduces the information-shape relational framework as a model illustrating the use of means and ways, through the applications of IRCs, to achieve an end(s) through shape of a target consultation (TA).Describes information operations (IO) as the integrated employment, during military operations, of IRCs in concert with other lines of operation, to shape, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the choice making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own.Designates the IO personnel as the opponent mandate focal point for IO and the IO cell as the plotting element responsible for integration and synchronization ofIRCs to achieve national or opponent commander objectives hostile to adversaries or potential adversaries.Emphasizes IO must be integrated into all steps of the joint operation plotting process.Articulates that it is vital to integrate worldwide partners into joint IO plotting, in order to gain agreement on an integrated and achievable IO strategy.As always reader comments appreciated and Pleased Holidays.

We were also found by phrases: Read more