Weekend Gedankenexperiment - The Kill Switch

Sun Feb 6 05:00:15 UTC 2011

On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 08:29:44PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
> >>> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
> >>> the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
> >>> survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic
> >>> nuclear strikes)
> >> 
> >> Urban legend, although widely believed. Someone probably made the observation.
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe not quite an UL...
> > 
> >   <http://www.rand.org/about/history/baran.html>
> > 
> > On the average, The Rand Corp is extremely careful about what it publishes, yet here it is, repeating the claim.
> 
> But Len Kleinrock adamantly disputes it.
> 
> > Back in the '70s, I always heard "survive hostile battlefield conditions" and never heard anyone talk about comms survival of a nuclear event, but I wasn't in any interesting conversations, such as in front of funding agencies...
> 
> To survive an EMP, electronics needs some fancy circuitry. I've never worked with a bit of equipment that had it. It would therefore have to have been through path redundancy.


	i suspect that the idea of survivalbility has everything to do 
	w/ packet oriented communications vs circuit switching.
	packets work best w/ path redundancy... :)

	i've worked w/ EMP resistnt kit.  its not something a commercial
	offering would ever have.  

--bill