you're reading...
headlines, Iran War, media watch, Military Analysis, products, Psychological Analysis, recommendations, security

My Cost-Less Aerial Defensive Strategy (against Bombings and Surveillance)

An execrise for you: have a look at anything around you, well, they are all very visible, right, by day made so, with the help of the good old sun, and by night, the moon and other natural reflectors that support the eye abilities to spot and recognise the object. This is largely from within the philosophical and psychological experiments and observations (I conducted these, as any would, during young school age), but of immense value to my conception of my cheap aerial defensive strategy.

The Background:

I have been pondering my brains on the question of ‘how to deny air superiority and command to an opposing side with superior air power?’, after months of brain-beating (seriously intense, I will put to shame Talibanis behaviour on women) and observations, and ‘experiments’, I finally and slowly, mind you, began to observe a pattern that will deny, of course, varies as dependent on the capabilities of the opposing sides’ command of air. what was it????

The Inspiration:

Remember the say ”don’t look directly at the sun!”, bingo, there lies the most cost effective, very very cheap, that is, counter-measure against any superior air opponent: Deflect the shine back to these actors. Now, you might ask yourselves, daahhh, but how, and cheaper (shut up!)?

Lets take the example of a state-actor, Iran. How would Iran deny air superiorty against his enemies?

All Iran will have to do is, issue an enforceable mandatory law on it’s citizen that states;

Each House, residents and business, or rather should have said premises (occupied or not), and open spaces in between, should be ‘donned’, i.e. covered, with REFLECTIVE MIRRORS (or any cheap mirrors) on all roofs/tops, while the open spaces can place these as artworks (or blah blah, be inventive, I do not need to think on everything, can’t waste that much time). The mirrors are for the morning time, and the LED or massive spot lights, or just good old christmas lights, but I recommend the more powerful sources of lights, which will light-up the night time into a day time, for observers above, or you can just have reflectors (for both). Rather than ‘darken’ yourselves with ‘curfews’ etc, ‘shine the light’, let the entire country glow ( there goes the earth!).

The Critical Point to remember: the lights should be directed at the heavens, like the traditions spot-lights during aerial bombardments, not on the ground. The light should not provide a relctive surface for the ground ‘structures’, but should be only a source of blinding, sort of what windows do for outside, unable to view inside actiivities during daylight due to reflections from sun, and at night easily, since reflections shines at the ‘structures’ inside, does not hide the ‘outside structure’, the house, itself from observation (hence, use of curfew, it is reflective, not deflective). I really hope I have succeded in making sense, technically speaking (very weak in the matters of sort).

Anyway, let see if I can make it more cleaer. As science-minded individuals will state, and support, by ‘shining the light’, and within closer proximity to each arcs, that not inkbots, but veils of continuance lights, any observers from above will have the most exhaustive inabilities to (a) acquire target (b) differentiate legitimate targets (c) engage target, or even (d) be able to observe, with ease and accuracy, such a target, that track, recon, or surveil.

In short, ‘light up’, 24hrs, ‘shine a light’ to heavens above, and you will be as if working in the dark, a mere shadow.

To succeed, this strategy will require a co-ordinated efforts and support from the entire home front, of course, ”the fifth columns”, or ”traitors”, might use coloured lights to direct observers, sabotage key areas for bombings, all efforts will be used to again make visible the opponents targets.

The guerrillas can not use this, unless supported by entire nation, as some might put up inkbot of lights to confuse, divert, deceive and so forth, for the benefit of the fighting men and women.

This, in short, is my unique, simple, almost cost-less strategy against a superior air power opponents. Those utilising this strategy might hide their HVT (high value targets) under the ‘shine of lights’ unrecognisable and inseparable from non-HVTs civilians properties and infrastructures.

Any comments, welcomed.

Headlines for my readers:





































































About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications


8 thoughts on “My Cost-Less Aerial Defensive Strategy (against Bombings and Surveillance)

  1. Unless of course we use a mult spectral sensor, or radar, or IR 🙂

    Posted by Think Defence | February 23, 2012, 4:58 pm
    • true.left infrared out.but you can do,meaning non-western assymetric states, what allies did during the WWII, reduce or increase radioactive signature, that is so easy a high school students can do it with household appliances ‘at grand multiples’, of course.

      the important, or the key, is denying clearer visibility and freedom to surveil and observe in absolute clarity (like we see drones watching Iraqi fighters or Pakistani et, visualisation is clear, and the need for confirmation is ‘smaller window’, the OODA importance stands, but with our proposals, non visual the OODA cycle is broken—and chaos looms).

      In war it is intiative and time-space, if one can disrupt the ‘natural plans’, that is all one need to do to conduct own freedom of action maneuvers.

      Posted by s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst | February 23, 2012, 5:46 pm
    • a short history of camouflage:

      During the classical age, as long as one party did not have the capabilities to directly observe the other, one can listen to sounds, and watch torches of fire at night etc, but this did not mean then or today (with IR only, i.e. without clean observation), that one was able to deduce correctly formations or order of battles in front of him; but rather one was open to deception.

      Cesaer used to conduct his operations across the enemy from one side of a river, and will deceive the enemy with sounds and horses, while the main body manuever quietly up the stream for an assault on the weaker position.

      Hence, during the period and through to industrial age (modern times), those with a advantages of heights were much more favoured in winning.

      The Gideon story, remember, I believe it was a steal from Chinese tale of sun pin and pan’g tang rivalry, the former advised his ruler to light up more fires in the firts night and in the following consecutive nights to slowly reduce the number to give the opposing camp an impression of desertion, thus to reinforcing the pre-existing perception of the enemy of the sides’ cowardly temprament. When the enemy attacked, he found himself overwhelmed, since he miscalculated the number (due to failure of direct observations, and basing on probablities of sounds and lights).

      Then came planes, and proper art of camouflage as we know it today, the unifrom to fit the battle environment, etc.

      And today, I believe my proposals, and others advnacements of these, might be a step toward new evolution in the art of camouflage, required, since new technological developments have further contracted space-time dimension.

      I hope this little refresher helps.

      Posted by s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst | February 23, 2012, 6:52 pm
  2. to ThinkDefence,

    Remember, camouflage is an essential part of military art.and air power is not invsible, even stealth can be dealt with, military art is intelligence, meaning mind, the ‘genius’ of clausewitz, not technological wizardry.

    Posted by ss | February 23, 2012, 6:02 pm
  3. Don’t think I need a lecture on camouflage but top marks for getting OODA and space-time dimension into the comment, nice one, am impressed.

    Just wondering if you have seen a SAR image, not sure your idea would be of much use against a sophisticated i.e. Western, nation possessed of multi spectral sensors, SAR and other means of identifying targets.

    Consider the resources used to light up the sky and how easily countered they would be.

    Posted by Think Defence | February 27, 2012, 5:03 pm
    • My apologise, old’ chap: yes I was, and even to more recent a member of her majesty armed services–[Rifles]man all the way; gloucestershire and devon light infantry, aka Rifles 1 as reg, and RAR as TA….anyway…

      SAR, right, still applicable within my argument, meaning, nothing still, a waste of money (but of course, you, as a defence lobbyist, have the right to argue otherwise, like the cold war enthusiasts did. They knew the soviets were not a match, and cant play, but still incited fear at the heart of higher policy circles, that on contrary, they, the soviets, are up to the game, so more can be splushed on defence budgets to enrich not to secure, right?). Again, anyway, back to the point, you can name me any list, and I will still tell you it is defeatable, always (thats, the weakness of technologies, and human minds, behind such technologies; there is always a way to cost-effectively counteract these two).

      The achilles of modern armies is the C4ISR, which need not to be directly attacked, but rather disrupted, or overfed, or fed deception, or blinded, silenced, hence, the argument, as long as, since the age of hannibal and before him, your enemy can not directly, and clearly observe you, then all its well, even if they have that SAR capabilities (with ‘probable situational awareness capabilities’, still less than ‘real situational awareness’; and in combat, the smallest, as clausewitz said, and those with experiences will vouch, difference can reset the entire game).

      hope it was okay, not educating, mind you, just a refreshers course.

      Posted by s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst | February 27, 2012, 6:18 pm
  4. Steady on there fella, I am in no way a defence lobbyist which if you read my blog should be abundantly clear.

    I do agree that hi tec can often be defeated by low tech and I equally agree that modern western forces have a dependance on ISTAR to operate in the manner to which they have been accustomed, will have to dig it out but I have covered the use of inflatable decoys complete with matched emissions a number of times. Any technology is defeatable but if history teaches us anything it is that counter technology but will in time also be defeated.

    Your original idea was to shine searchlights into the sky to deny visual targeting, I merely pointed out that there are many ways to skin that cat and that the effort might not be worth it anyway.

    Despite quoting Clausewitz, still not sure you are convincing me 🙂

    Posted by Think Defence | February 28, 2012, 10:31 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: