If world at war ..Can we connect to WORLD WIDE WEB ?

Hewlett-packard / Hp dx2810 mt
May 2, 2013 at 23:58:06
Specs: Windows XP, 2.599 GHz / 989 MB
Just asking...
Maybe some day...my country will be at war...
For those who know the setup ? networking... feel free to share :D


See More: If world at war ..Can we connect to WORLD WIDE WEB ?

Report •

#1
May 3, 2013 at 02:04:04
It will probably still work but with severe restrictions.

It will cease to be tbe WWW and become the NWW - Nation Wide Web. This will happen as various domain name servers become non-operational. The only TLD likely to survive intact is the ,.com domain as that is hosted within the USA. National domain names will like .co.uk will be restricted to the country of origin.

It is my guess that in the event of a of World War on the scale of WWII, the US Military will take over the Internet, lock stock and barrel which they have the means to do so, after all, it was them that started it all.

However, the chances of that happening are so remote I wont be losing any sleep over it.

Stuart


Report •

#2
May 3, 2013 at 07:27:56
I beg to differ a little with you StuartS

While the US Military can certainly attempt to takeover the fiber optic networks in the US, unless they plan on invading every other country in the world simultaneously, they won't be taking over the entire internet.

While the internet has military origins, the WWW as we know it now, is not run by, the US Military. The vast majority of routers and fiber optic cabling throughout the world is all privately owned. While some is government owned, how much success would the US Military have taking over privately owned routers and cabling? I suspect in order to do so, they'd have to invade business' in the US while invading the rest of the world. We all know what the US's second amendment is really about (ie: private ownership of firearms to prevent internal government/military takeover of the country) so I suspect such a takeover wouldn't go over too well in the US, much less the rest of the world.

IMHO, should we ever enter into WW III, I suspect most of the fiber optic cabling would be severed and the WWW would cease to exist on the present scale. I wouldn't count on even national networks. Don't forget, pretty much every single country on earth that could be involved in such a war already has spies in place in every other "enemy" country to do such damage. Destroying your enemies ability to communicate is always a top priority.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#3
May 3, 2013 at 08:41:33
Needs must CurtR. Only a couple of days ago I was reading about FDR's confiscation of privately held gold bullion in 1933 to help alleviate the depression. Most people complied, not because of any altruistic patriotism, but because the penalties for not handing it in were draconian

If a president can do that in peacetime, what is he likely to do in wartime.

As for the infrastructure, it is not the national networks that is likely to be a problem, it is the intercontinental undersea cables. Are belligerent countries going to maintain a netwrok connection with the enemy? Especially less developed countries who are not as dependant on the Internet as America is. No need to confiscate the cable, just turn off the tap.

Stuart


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
May 3, 2013 at 08:49:41
"Maybe some day...my country will be at war"

What is your country?

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#5
May 3, 2013 at 09:19:44
Glad I kept my old 14.4, now if I could only find a phone line...

:: mike


Report •

#6
May 3, 2013 at 13:51:01
Glad I kept my old 14.4, now if I could only find a phone line...

LOL

I still have a 56.6 somewhere that was working when I put it away. And, I have a "land line" still. I'm on ADSL through my telco so it's a necessary part of that circuit.

StuartS

I've read about the gold confiscation during the great depression too. As to what a president could do during war time....well, the US has been at war several times since 1990 and it never affected the WWW that I can recall.

I can think of several ways to cut off my enemies internet and physically cutting lines is the last on my list.

You don't have to actually cut any lines into the enemies country to remove them from the internet. All I have to do is tell all the routers on the internet to drop the IP's of all routers in the country in question from their tables and voila, said country ceases to exist on the internet.

They still have their infrastructure and their "national" network. But if all outside routers cut them off, they're done communicating with the rest of the world...and vice versa...........easy peasy. :)

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#7
May 3, 2013 at 14:19:14
the US has been at war several times since 1990 and it never affected the WWW that I can recall.

But nothing even close to the scale of WWII. The Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan are just little local difficulties in comparison. Imagine what the response would be if the Cold War had turned hot, not that there was any WWW during the Cold War.

I find it a little more than coincidence that the Internet went public at around the same time as the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Stuart


Report •

#8
May 3, 2013 at 14:54:50
On another note, this might be an interesting read, noticed it today right around the same time. :)

:: mike


Report •

#9
May 3, 2013 at 20:30:43
Whether or not the internet can survive the carnage of a world war depends on unpredictable events like what gets blown up and where power and transmission lines are cut. The real question is whether politicians will let it survive. At the first hint of major international problems that may lead to world war the politicians will figuratively pop the plastic cover off the internet kill switch. They'll do that not because it's necessary but because it gives them power and control.

As Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel said not long ago, "never let a serious crisis go to waste".

DAVEINCAPS - Made with REAL high fructose corn syrup.


Report •

#10
May 5, 2013 at 14:48:24
I find it a little more than coincidence that the Internet went public at around the same time as the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I don't find that at all coincidental. You aren't a conspiracy theorist are you? I ask because this is sounding like a conspiray theory to me.

If you understand the physical infrastructure of the internet, you'd realize that neither the governent, nor the military owns it. Could the government or the military take it over? I suppose they could take over portions of it but the real question is, why would they bother. They use it. It's a whole lot simpler for them to continue using is as they are now than to try taking it over and running it. Think of the manpower, and specialized technical training to do so. It would take a lot of doing to train people up to do the job.

Government can't even "kill" the internet, and again, why would they. They rely on it as much as every business and private person does.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#11
May 5, 2013 at 16:09:01
You aren't a conspiracy theorist are you?

No I 'm not, just a pragmatist.

I suppose they could take over portions of it but the real question is, why would they bother. .

Fir the reason you yourself stated - Destroying your enemies ability to communicate is always a top priority.

There is no way that in the event of a World War are governments are going to leave to best communication system ever devised intact for anyone to use, especially with the sophisticated encryption that is now available. No need to take it over, Neutralising is is easy peasy and that is all that is required. The military are certainly not dependant on the Internet for its communications.

As for Governments "killing" the Internet, ask the people of North Korea and China about their Governments and the Internet. The western government are much better position than either of those Governments to do the same if they so desire and in the event of a World War, emergency powers could be invoked that would make it possible.

You only have to look back at WWII where private possession of a short wave transmitter could get you locked up. Or if you are unfortunate to live in a cave in California, blown to smithereens.


In one case during World War II a desert cave outside of Landers, California where a hermit was living was blown up by law enforcement officials (with him in it) when it was assumed that the radio antenna he was using to get nearby stations in his remote location was some sort of a short wave transmitter.

http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/fr...

A mundane thing in peacetime but a completely different proposition in wartime.

Stuart


Report •

#12
May 6, 2013 at 07:37:47
StuartS

Do you not understand anything about the infrastructure of the internet and how it works? I've tried explaining it to you but you seem stuck on this idea that the US government has some God-like control of it. Which they don't.

Fir the reason you yourself stated - Destroying your enemies ability to communicate is always a top priority.

As I stated before. One can easily stop another country from accessing the internet by simply removing the IP addresses of that countries internal routers from the routers in the rest of the world. If no traffic goes into the country and all traffic coming out get dumped into the bit bucket (ie: not forwarded) then they are essentially cut off from the rest of the world with regard to the internet.

Alternatively, if you know where the major fiber links going into/out of that country are physically located, a backhoe and about 15 min's work per bundle takes care of that. Physically cutting their lines however does not prevent them from using wireless or satellite capabilities should they have them. In any case, doing so would require a lot of man power.

As for Governments "killing" the Internet, ask the people of North Korea and China about their Governments and the Internet.

North Korea and China limit what their citizens can access. Beyond their borders (ie: outside of their internal national routers and network) they don't control squat as far as physical hardware and cabling goes. If every other nation in the world removed their internal (national) routers IP's from their own, China and North Korea would find they can't access anything.

No the US military is not dependent on the internet. But considering my son is a US Marine, works in IT and has done two tours in Afghanistan, I can tell you with they do utilize it heavily. There's a reason spend the money to build fiber optic networks at their bases. I recently read an article about how the US military protects their fiber optic installations abroad. In their vernacular, it's called "hardening". They wouldn't spend that kind of time and money to protect buried fiber bundles from direct hits with mortars and most bombs if it was not important to them. If all they cared about was internet access (think wifi hotspot) they could easily use satellite for that. But they don't, instead they go for high bandwidth fiber optic.

As for neutralizing the internet, you tell me how some foreign country is going to neutralize the internet here in North America. Sure, you could send spies in and cause some disruption (easily fixed) but to stop it from working and to stop us from communicating internationally would require the ability to knock satellites out of they sky, destroy all microwave transmitting stations as well as break every fiber cable and router out there. Good luck with that because the amount of equipment out there they'd have to break to be at all effective in disrupting it is phenomenal. And, it's owned by the US, Canada and our friends and allies.

Back to what I said at the beginning of this response. I don't believe you grasp the infrastructure of the internet and what it would take to "kill it" which is why you're thinking it could easily be done. Trust me, it can't easily be broken.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#13
May 6, 2013 at 10:27:33
I think it is you missing the point Curt. True the US Government cant do much about what happens in other countries and vice versa. That why I referred to the Nation Wide Web in my original post. The Internet would just become a collection of unconnected networks.

But what they can do is restrict their own citizens access to the Internet for the same reason that they blew up that guy in his cave in California.

The simple fact is that in the event of a World War, the Internet will not survive in its present form as individual countries will restrict the ability of its own citizens to communicate. Too much international co-operation is needed to make it all work

Then there is the IP numbering scheme which is controlled by IANA and ICANN, both with their headquarters in California. I cant see them issuing IP numbers to the enemy.

Stuart


Report •

#14
May 6, 2013 at 14:33:32
The Internet would just become a collection of unconnected networks.

So lets say we have WWW 3 and it starts in Asia and encompasses all of the major players in the world.. Lets say North Korea drops some serious missiles on Japan and South Korea. Now we have the rest of the world, including China (because China is their immediate neighbor and who wants a crazy person with nuclear weapons for a neighbor right) against North Korea.

So here we have the European countries, Russia, Japan, India, Canada, USA, and all South American countries against North Korea. Do you really think the US government is going to "take over", "kill" the internet or even turn it into "national networks" as you say?

Heck no. as I said...all major players will simply delete North Koreas DNS server IP's from their to/from list and voila, North Korea ceases to exist on the world wide web. They can't get out, nothing gets in. Where N Korea used to be in the WWW is now a big black hole of nothingness.

All IPv4 addresses have been allocated and all countries capable of accessing the WWW already have blocks of IP's. So "the enemy" already has IP addresses. This is why we're moving to IPv6 worldwide....because we've run out of IPv4 addresses. The last IPv4 blocks were doled out almost a year ago.

If you're concerned about spies or citizens sending info to the enemy my method of blocking the "enemy" country would prevent any transmission of data to them from anywhere else in the world. So again I say, killing the internet or taking it over is moot and useless.

If you're concerned about the internet then they (the governments) had best kill all telephone, television, microwave and satellite communication while they're at it because you can still communicate through those even if the internet is shut down or marginalized to "national networks" as you suggest.

Trust me, in the event of another world war the rest of the world would still have the internet as we know it. As I pointed out, the US has gone to war several times since the 80's and they didn't even bother shutting down that country's internet connection. They just went in and kicked ass.

Yes, I know what you're going to say, "they weren't world wars" but I beg to differ. Most all NATO countries were involved in the Gulf Wars......so how could those not be considered "world wars" when the majority of the free world went in and kicked some petty tyrant's ass? Point in fact, they didn't shut the internet down, or even disrupt it's normal operations, back during the gulf wars and didn't again in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan. Heck, they didn't even cut that country's access.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#15
May 6, 2013 at 21:39:23
The concept of an 'internet kill switch' was fairly heavily discussed in the media a few months ago. Internationally some felt it should be under the authority of the United Nations. In the states cybersecurity and national defense acts could easily give the president the power to shut down the internet, if not completely then shutting it down for everyone except the military. Many feel he already has that power under existing laws. Here's just one link:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57...

So it's obviously possible and anyone who thinks that power wouldn't be used is naively ignoring current events.

DAVEINCAPS - Made with REAL high fructose corn syrup.


Report •

#16
May 6, 2013 at 23:28:47
Wow ... Such an amazing feedback...
I just wondering... if world at war... or my country on war...I'm sure people will miss the INTERNET...anyways this is really interesting feedback..and lot of knowledge I got :D


Report •

#17
May 7, 2013 at 04:50:41
In the 1930s Britain was transmitting TV programmes. In 1939 the TV transmitters were turned off because, quite rightly, it was feared that German bombers would use them as homing beacons and were not turned on again until 1946. I should imagine that turning off a communications satiate would be a relatively simple thing and a microwave transmitter is not something you would carry around with you. As for telephones, I doubt very much whether you could have phoned Berlin from London during WW II. Although a British Commando unit did send a telegram to Berlin when they came across a live circuit during a raid in occupied Norway,

(Operation Claymore: 4 March 1941)

To call post-1992 conflicts as world wars just because NATO and most of its members where involved, some more than others, is quite frankly ludicrous. For the most part they were just one group of countries ganging up on one another. Where were all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries in these conflicts? Not to mention countries those that were neither members of NATO or the Warsaw Pact.

I use 1992 as that was the date of the Bosnian war which was the first time that NATO were actively involved in anything which was basically the last hurrah of the Soviet Union. About the same time as the Internet went public.

In the last World War there are lots of things than happened that have not happened since. That doesn't mean they won't happen again if there is another real world war. Rationing, blackouts and travel restrictions. Ships being sunk in the middle of the ocean and planes shot out of the sky all over the place, mass movements of populations as armies sweep across continents. That’s a world war.

How about Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Sudia Arabia., Egypt, Libya and Morocco plus a few others all joining together and declaring war on the infidel west. That would be a world war. Not just one group of countries ganging up one another

Stuart


Report •

#18
May 7, 2013 at 07:45:43
Took you a while to find that article didn't it DAVEINCAPS ;)

I remembered reading about that a year or so back when it was made public knowledge.

So the US gov't has made legal provision to take over the internet, in the US. They can't touch it in other countries. Do keep in mind though that the US military has it's own resources that aren't the internet the rest of the world and private citizens like us use.

StuartS

I doubt very much whether you could have phoned Berlin from London during WW II.

Maybe not, but I wager you could have called the US or Canada from the UK had there been a transatlantic phone line at the time. If memory servers me, it wasn't until after WW II that a transatlantic cable was put in place. I'm wondering if there was any cabling in place at that point in time that even allowed the UK to call mainland Europe.

What do you want to bet you could call from the US to Canada and vice versa. I wager phones worked just fine between France and Germany during WW II as well.

If there's another world war, it won't be like the last one. It'll involve nuclear weapons and the survivors will have a lot more to worry about than whether or not they have internet or a telephone.

How about Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Sudia Arabia., Egypt, Libya and Morocco plus a few others all joining together and declaring war on the infidel west. That would be a world war. Not just one group of countries ganging up one another

You don't think the rest of the countries fighting against your bad guys would want to communicate with each other?

Using your own logic, if you're going to kill the internet, you should kill all means of international communication.....right?? I mean, why just pick on the internet??

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#19
May 7, 2013 at 09:48:20
I'm wondering if there was any cabling in place at that point in time that even allowed the UK to call mainland Europe.

The first cross channel cable was laid in 1850. The first voice capable cable was laid in 1891. By 31 March 1938, Britain had handled 1,887,000 international telephone calls. International telephone services were suspended on 30 August 1939 and not restored until 23 June 1945 .

http://www.britishtelephones.com/hi...

According to this, telephone conversations were possible between London and New York prior to the suspension of services but I suspect radio was involved.

The shortest rout between Britain and mainland Europe is only 22 miles. A lot less than the shortest route across the Atlantic between Scotland and Newfoundland.

Of course there were telephone calls between France and Germany during WWI. France was occupied and under the control of Germany.

Incidentally, because of Britain's dominance in the submarine cable business, during WW1 it was able to maintain it own world wide communications while at the same time severely disrupting those of Germany.

The fisrt transatlantic cable was laid in 1866. No voice, just telegraph at a painfully slow rate. Voice capable cable didn't come till the 1956.

99% of Intercontinental Internet traffic still goes by undersea cable, not by satellite as a lot of people believe.

This makes interesting reading.

http://www.ewi.info/undersea-cables...

Stuart


Report •

#20
May 7, 2013 at 10:47:12
According to this, telephone conversations were possible between London and New York prior to the suspension of services but I suspect radio was involved

Yep, they used radiophone and it was expensive so that technology only handled a few thousand calls a year.

99% of Intercontinental Internet traffic still goes by undersea cable, not by satellite as a lot of people believe.

This is very true. That's high capacity fiber optic cabling. If I'm not mistaken the newer stuff is all 10 Gig capable and the older 1 GB. But each cable has so many strands and there are multiple submarine cables located throughout the world. The following link gives you a rough idea what you're dealing with in terms of submarine cables:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=map+o...


Satellite is still very slow compared to hard wired or even wireless solutions so it's only used by people with no other choice.

While it's ideal to disrupt your enemies communications as much as possible, you still want to maintain your own..........all of it. While I agree that an another world war would be detrimental to the internet as we know it now (speaking solely to the internet and ignoring the human cost) I suspect the opposing sides would still have it working with regard to their allies as much as they could in order to facilitate communication.

Honestly though, I can't see the government trying to "kill" the internet. I expect they would limit some access but there are so many networks out there, it would be very hard to control it all. That's one reason the military builds it's own that it doesn't share with anybody.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#21
May 7, 2013 at 11:07:25
Well the article was one of the first to pop up when I googled obama "internet kill switch" but yeah, it's not hard to locate discussions on the subject. I needed to make sure my vague memories were correct.

The idea expressed there was that those laws were necessary so the military would have internet access even if no one else did. Of course they have other means to communicate but probably none easier than the internet. Also as I mentioned above, it's not that they would necessarily need to take over/shut off the internet--but having that ability gives them more of the power and control they crave.

And even if the internet was turned off only for US citizens it's no consolation to them that it may still be available in disjointed chunks elsewhere. Gone is gone.

DAVEINCAPS - Made with REAL high fructose corn syrup.


Report •

#22
May 7, 2013 at 15:03:18
I think you hit the nail on the head:

but having that ability gives them more of the power and control they crave.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#23
May 7, 2013 at 22:49:00
Unfortunately that's what motivates politicians. The good ones simply don't last long enough to have an affect.

DAVEINCAPS - Made with REAL high fructose corn syrup.


Report •

#24
May 8, 2013 at 01:28:41
If my country facing a war... example like syria...what i need to do ?Example I Have a laptop only in my hand...and that time I really need an internet... :D

Report •

#25
May 8, 2013 at 07:08:42
Unfortunately that's what motivates politicians.

Don't forget greed!

They do love to vote themselves circuses and parades whenever possible. I'm not sure about the US but here in Canada, if a politician in the federal gov't servers two full terms they get the loveliest pension............full salary and benefits for life.

You know we (the citizens) didn't vote for that.

If we reduced the number of politicians back down to the "minimum required" level and cut their pay by about 30% and took away the benefits and pensions they vote themselves not only would you save a ton of money (which in return would reduce our taxes a lot) but you'd weed out the horses behinds that are just there to rape the taxpayers and give nothing in return. In fact, you might actually find you have politicians that want to serve the people, not themselves.

Oh well, it'll never happen.............but one can dream..................

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#26
May 8, 2013 at 22:32:13
It's pretty much the same here. They're eligible for life-time benefits after a term or two.

Unfortunately a majority of voters base their votes on who promises them the most goodies from the public trough so those least likely to do the right thing get returned to office.

DAVEINCAPS - Made with REAL high fructose corn syrup.


Report •

Ask Question