You are here: Home / Books / Want a new information superiority idea? Read an old book

Want a new information superiority idea? Read an old book

December 18, 2009 By

070931-M-5827M-013Newspapers and blogs around the globe have been carrying an amazing story of technological arrogance and organizational ineptitude regarding security of a key data feed from US intelligence systems.  We read headlines like: “Iraq Insurgents Hack US Drones” (WSJ), “Hacked Drones: How Secure Are US Spy Planes?(ABC)”, “Insurgents Hack Into US Spy Drone Videos“(AP), “Officers Warned of Drones Flaw in 04 (WSJ).”  As worrisome as those articles are, perhaps the more scary one was titled “Adm. Mullen says hacked drones caused no damage” (AP).  That article indicates he cares about cybersecurity, but he seems to be taking this all rather nonchalantly.  If he is leaping to the conclusion that everything is ok without a real assessment then that is cause for us all to be concerned.  And it sends a horrible message to his enterprise.  It is like saying “well, try not to screw up, but don’t worry, there is no way our technologically superior force can be defeated, and I don’t understand how this stuff works so the bad guys certainly can’t.”

Reminds me, sadly, of an incredible story by Arthur C. Clarke titled “Superiority” (available in the collection: The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke).  This short story, written in 1951, is such a great read because it captures some key, apparently enduring qualities of militaries that become seduced by their technological superiority. The result: Even though the story was written almost six decades ago Clarke gave us all a lens perfect for the viewing of technological arrogance.  And he gave us warnings that apply across the full spectrum of technologies, not just UAVs.

From the book:

“The situation was now both serious and infuriating.  With stubborn conservatism and complete lack of imagination the enemy continued to advance with his old-fashioned and inefficient but now vastly more numerous ships.”

More on the story:

  • The setting is a SciFi future, where battles occur in space. But the human drama was actually based on Clarke’s observations of Allied victory in Europe in WWII.
  • In the story, A losing Admiral has a request of his captors.  He hopes to clear up the record on a few things, and especially wants to be sure he is not forced to share a cell with the CTO-type person who got them into the mess he is in (Professor Norden, Chief of the Research Staff) .
  • Failures were not due to lack of bravery or the fault of operational decisions.  Failure was due to the inferior science of the enemy.  Clarke reveals how in a way that is laughable but also causes anyone with military service pause (I believe most veterans have seen situations that the story will remind them of).

My big hope in sharing this is to get you to read this short story and think about it in a context of today’s military.  The lessons from this story are the same lessons which should be learned from Thucydides and Sun Tzu and countless others.  These are the same lessons that should have been learned when the entire national security apparatus underestimated the enemy in Vietnam.  The lessons are, unfortunately, learned again and again. Look for these lessons in every US military battle lost, and look for them in the movies and books that come out of the battles (one very clear example of our arrogance at work and its cost in lives is “Black Hawk Down“).  The big lesson, learned again and again:   If you start relying too heavily on your technology and allow arrogance to set in, you open yourself up to defeat by a technologically inferior force.

Some of the worst problems arise when leaders start to think their technology is so superior it can have no flaws. When you start assuming you are superior to a thinking, creative adversary it is time to question your assumptions (before it is too late).

And, another point that should not be a shock to anyone in uniform or out:  The bad guys want to steal our secrets, and we should want to prevent them from doing so.  It is hard to accomplish this goal, but one thing we should not be doing is making it easy for them to intercept our data in the clear.

Filed Under: Books, CTO, Gov2.0
About BobGourley

Bob Gourley is Crucial Point LLC’s founder and editor of CTOvision.com. Bob has received industry recognition including Infoworld top CTO award, AFCEA’s meritorious service award, and recognition as one of the top 100 “Tech Titans” in DC by Washingtonian magazine. He was named one of the “Top 25 Most Fascinating Communicators in Government IT.”

  • http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/fireunderembers/ Zachary Tumin

    Nice critique, Bob and I look forward to reading the AC Clarke story. Of all the disasters here the most disconcerting may be the AP-reported account offered by Adm Mullen that all's well. Its been 15 years in the making, impossible to solve during that time, and overnight there's no damage looking backwards, and everything's fixed going forward. I'm willing to pass this off on an incomplete AP account. But the vendor lock-in issue, if I understand it correctly, is and will continue to be particularly acute and the bane of these systems when fielded. It's not unlike the ARCI problem, perhaps, when in the aftermath of Walker we had to rip out the sonar systems in their entirety. Fortunately, that episode led (as I understand it) to the adoption of open systems architecture for the submarine service. One might hope the same consequence will result for the UAV fleet.

  • http://ctovision.com ctovision

    Thanks for the comment Zach. Your raise some good points here. I do hope a consequence of this will be a more open architecture for the UAV fleet. Seems like we need a way to rapidly change/patch/fix/improve our fielded platforms without having to send them all back to the factory for an update.

  • joeboutte

    Thanks for the reference and the reminders! I may download the book to my Kindle.

  • http://ctovision.com ctovision

    Joe, Thanks for the comment. I'll see you around.

  • floralwater

    Bob — I think you've got the allegory backwards. This is exactly the opposite of "Superiority". Rather than wait for the perfect, hit it out of the ball park solution (reliable, secure, wide-spread, high-speed encryption in a field portable receiver for every Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine) to field a capability that has apparently been vital to success, the US went with what worked immediately. It's better to have an imperfect capability that's there now, and has proved its worth, and then to improve it as needed. If this were "Superiority", I'm thinking that we'd currently have next to nothing, and everyone would still be waiting on the X-45 or X-47 or some such to be coming out "soon, real soon, trust us!".

  • http://ctovision.com ctovision

    Those are really good points too and those were brought out in the short story exactly as you laid out. But did you also see the threads I highlight about arrogance and a belief in being superior? Anyway, the short story is a great read and should be re-read by every military decision-maker and planner and acquisition type, I think. Thanks for commenting.

  • peterbartram

    Bob,Great observations Bob.. Clarke was very insightful (also on satellites).It would have been interesting if the WSJ reporter had gone to various CRYPTO experts and companies and asked how long they think it would take to get the feed out of the clear based on off-the-shelf CRYPTO technology. Then maybe the DoD brass would light-a-fire and get the security deployed next week. I agree with your point Bob, it's also symbolic of the disconnect in understanding of the asymmetric cyber threat.BTW to florwater, we don't need to wait for the technology, we have it. It's just lazy software programming,scheduling, and lack of investment on the part of the drone vendor. Sadly for our forces and our success, our enemy is laughing at us while taking evasive action.

  • http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/fireunderembers/ Zachary Tumin

    Nice critique, Bob and I look forward to reading the AC Clarke story. Of all the disasters here the most disconcerting may be the AP-reported account offered by Adm Mullen that all’s well. Its been 15 years in the making, impossible to solve during that time, and overnight there’s no damage looking backwards, and everything’s fixed going forward. I’m willing to pass this off on an incomplete AP account. But the vendor lock-in issue, if I understand it correctly, is and will continue to be particularly acute and the bane of these systems when fielded. It’s not unlike the ARCI problem, perhaps, when in the aftermath of Walker we had to rip out the sonar systems in their entirety. Fortunately, that episode led (as I understand it) to the adoption of open systems architecture for the submarine service. One might hope the same consequence will result for the UAV fleet.

    • http://ctovision.com Bob Gourley

      Thanks for the comment Zach. Your raise some good points here. I do hope a consequence of this will be a more open architecture for the UAV fleet. Seems like we need a way to rapidly change/patch/fix/improve our fielded platforms without having to send them all back to the factory for an update.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeboutte Joe Boutte

    Thanks for the reference and the reminders! I may download the book to my Kindle.

    • http://ctovision.com Bob Gourley

      Joe, Thanks for the comment. I’ll see you around.

  • floralwater

    Bob — I think you’ve got the allegory backwards. This is exactly the opposite of “Superiority”. Rather than wait for the perfect, hit it out of the ball park solution (reliable, secure, wide-spread, high-speed encryption in a field portable receiver for every Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine) to field a capability that has apparently been vital to success, the US went with what worked immediately. It’s better to have an imperfect capability that’s there now, and has proved its worth, and then to improve it as needed. If this were “Superiority”, I’m thinking that we’d currently have next to nothing, and everyone would still be waiting on the X-45 or X-47 or some such to be coming out “soon, real soon, trust us!”.

    • http://ctovision.com Bob Gourley

      Those are really good points too and those were brought out in the short story exactly as you laid out. But did you also see the threads I highlight about arrogance and a belief in being superior? Anyway, the short story is a great read and should be re-read by every military decision-maker and planner and acquisition type, I think. Thanks for commenting.

  • http://ctovision.com ctovision

    Peter, Thanks for the note. I'm amazed at Clarke and how he can make us think with open minds. I also appreciate your bias for action. When things are a priority our nation can get things done, and I think this should be a priority. Bob

  • Anonymous

    Bob,

    Great observations Bob.. Clarke was very insightful (also on satellites).

    It would have been interesting if the WSJ reporter had gone to various CRYPTO experts and companies and asked how long they think it would take to get the feed out of the clear based on off-the-shelf CRYPTO technology. Then maybe the DoD brass would light-a-fire and get the security deployed next week. I agree with your point Bob, it’s also symbolic of the disconnect in understanding of the asymmetric cyber threat.

    BTW to florwater, we don’t need to wait for the technology, we have it. It’s just lazy software programming,scheduling, and lack of investment on the part of the drone vendor. Sadly for our forces and our success, our enemy is laughing at us while taking evasive action.

    • http://ctovision.com Bob Gourley

      Peter,

      Thanks for the note. I’m amazed at Clarke and how he can make us think with open minds. I also appreciate your bias for action. When things are a priority our nation can get things done, and I think this should be a priority.

      Bob

  • peterbartram

    Bob,Great observations Bob.. Clarke was very insightful (also on satellites).It would have been interesting if the WSJ reporter had gone to various CRYPTO experts and companies and asked how long they think it would take to get the feed out of the clear based on off-the-shelf CRYPTO technology. Then maybe the DoD brass would light-a-fire and get the security deployed next week. I agree with your point Bob, it's also symbolic of the disconnect in understanding of the asymmetric cyber threat.BTW to florwater, we don't need to wait for the technology, we have it. It's just lazy software programming,scheduling, and lack of investment on the part of the drone vendor. Sadly for our forces and our success, our enemy is laughing at us while taking evasive action.

  • http://ctovision.com ctovision

    Peter, Thanks for the note. I'm amazed at Clarke and how he can make us think with open minds. I also appreciate your bias for action. When things are a priority our nation can get things done, and I think this should be a priority. Bob