Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 84

Thread: Replacing the Internet?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,567

    Replacing the Internet?

    The Internet was created by what is now DARPA to serve as a national means of reliable computer communication in case of a global nuclear war. I submit that it seems to have already developed beyond the point where it can usefully carry out that capacity.

    Could a more secure system be put in place? And if so, what would be required?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,056
    I wondered, a while back, if a sort of amateur internet could be made using CB radios.

    Why has it become unable to carry out that capacity? I would have though it still could...
    Formerly Frog march..............

    “One is never alone with a rubber duck.” The Golgafrinchan Ark B captain

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The Internet was created by what is now DARPA to serve as a national means of reliable computer communication in case of a global nuclear war. I submit that it seems to have already developed beyond the point where it can usefully carry out that capacity.

    Could a more secure system be put in place? And if so, what would be required?
    Just a note, but when the March 11 earthquake happened, I wasn't able to communicate with my family by telephone (or mobile), because the lines were all tied up. But we were able to send email. So I don't think the Internet per se has lost that capability. It may be more that the tools that we average people use to communicate are quite vulnerable. Maybe you could overload it, I suppose.
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Just a note, but when the March 11 earthquake happened, I wasn't able to communicate with my family by telephone (or mobile), because the lines were all tied up. But we were able to send email. So I don't think the Internet per se has lost that capability. It may be more that the tools that we average people use to communicate are quite vulnerable. Maybe you could overload it, I suppose.
    I would bet that if the millitary still use the same structure as citizens, that they have the capability to make their messages a priority, or even make their messages the only transactions. I think there is more than one internet network....anyway....there is Japnet for one.
    Formerly Frog march..............

    “One is never alone with a rubber duck.” The Golgafrinchan Ark B captain

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,567
    Well, how is the internet protected from such a circumstance? Are servers EMP shielded for instance? (You can tell I'm not technically minded)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Well, how is the internet protected from such a circumstance? Are servers EMP shielded for instance? (You can tell I'm not technically minded)
    Wouldn't matter if the infrastructure supporting the servers wasn't hardened.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    406
    The shear number of interconnections that make up the internet give it a certain robustness.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    432
    It isn't resistant based on segments never going down, it's resistant by being decentralized and capable of having vast segments destroyed while disconnected ends can still function as smaller local area networks. Sort of like how you can get disconnected from the internet but still share files and such between computers on your wifi. Major centralized services most of us rely on can go down IF they aren't properly distributed, but on a fundamental level you can't destroy the internet without destroying all devices capable of IP communications. Worst case is fragmenting it for a while.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,567
    So it could be only mostly dead.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    406
    It would take a miracle to fix it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So it could be only mostly dead.
    It'd be all alive, just not as massive

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,056
    someone could start wastelandbook.com

    Formerly Frog march..............

    “One is never alone with a rubber duck.” The Golgafrinchan Ark B captain

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    I would bet that if the millitary still use the same structure as citizens, that they have the capability to make their messages a priority, or even make their messages the only transactions. I think there is more than one internet network....anyway....there is Japnet for one.
    Nah, they wouldn't use dedicated lines and high speed routing.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    someone could start wastelandbook.com

    Two-headed Grumpy Cat

    Social Injustice Warriors bemoaning that there's not enough genocide

    Mutant's Rights Advocates and Radical Normals at each other's throats
    Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11,375
    What a lot of people find hard to believe and shocking is that electrical equipment subjected to an nuclear EM pulse while powered on are *permanently* ruined. And not just the transistors or car alternators and such. The bulk wiring won't conduct electricity anymore due to all the atoms aligning. Let that be repeated. That's ALL unprotected wiring everywhere that was under power when exposed to the EM pulse. You would have to pull the wiring out and resmelt the copper to use it for electrical work again. Cars, houses, powerlines. Dead forever until replaced.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,790
    BigDon, that's not true at all. Metals aren't conductive because "their atoms aren't aligned", it's because their outer electrons aren't tightly bound to the nucleus, and can move from atom to atom.
    Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,013
    Indeed a nonsense. Copper will not become any less conductive when exposed to EMP... or a lightning strike.
    What can happen is that excessive currents and voltages due to EMP or lightning strike alter the geometry of wires... either melting down and evaporating thin sections of wires and so stopping them from carrying currents, or else discharging through insulators, welding conductive metals together and thus creating short circuits.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,641
    But the important issue is not the microphysics of conduction, it is whether or not nuclear war should be expected to render modern electrical technology permanently useless. If so, I hardly think the internet will be much use. Even your iphone won't be of any use if the cell towers are fried, and if your computer at home isn't getting power because there is no power grid, good luck posting to twitter. I get that the situation would be better than if all communications were routed through a few hubs in major cities that could be targets of attack, but global nuclear war doesn't mean a few targeted cities, it means widespread destruction of technological infrastructure. The common expression is being "nuked back to the stone age," and I don't think anything is changed by the internet on that score! Do we really have young people that are now so cavalier about nuclear war that they think they'll still be using snapchat?
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Jun-22 at 01:51 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,567
    So as I asked in the OP, what COULD be put into place that would operate after such a scenario?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    406
    It seems like the key issue might be electrical power production and or storage rather than communications equipment.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrell View Post
    It seems like the key issue might be electrical power production and or storage rather than communications equipment.
    I think the key issue will be food and shelter, if we are really talking about an all-out, global nuclear war.

    I think DARPA was working on post-war communications systems when US military and civilian policy was of the mindset of "winning" a nuclear war. To be blunt, I think such a mindset is absurd. As the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War said in their landmark work "The medical consequences of nuclear war", the only conceivable treatment is prevention.

    Here, for example, is an opinion piece from Newsweek magazine from 2015.

    A report released in 2013 by the Nobel Laureate International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its U.S. affiliate Physicians for Social Responsibility demonstrated that a limited nuclear war involving just 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs—less than 0.5 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal—would be devastating. More than 20 million people would be dead in a week from the explosions, firestorms and immediate radiation effects. But the global consequences would be far worse. The climatic disruption and resulting decline in global food production would put two billion people at risk worldwide.
    Last edited by Swift; 2017-Jun-22 at 05:12 PM. Reason: added last paragraph and reference
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,567
    So let me reword the question;

    How could you design a decentralized communication network that could survive EMPs and power grid failures?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,631
    I think the point is, you can't design something that is invulnerable.

    But a decentralized grid is a very good solution, because it will keep operating afterward.

    It's not meant to withstand an exploding star, it's meant to withstand anything that can be feasibly thrown at it.

    For starters, you can't target vulnerable components and knock the whole thing out.
    You'd have to basically take each piece down individually, which would be a Herculean task for an enemy.
    Even if 90% of the country is knocked out (again, Herculean task), the military would still be able to communicate effectively enough to keep operating. (up to and including appropriating private equipment for their purposes).

    BTW, as for power - most server systems have uninterruptible power supplies, so it can operate independently from the power grid for a reasonable time. 'reasonable' being long enough to coordinate a counter attack, stop the assault, put secondary communications in place, and begin repairs.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2017-Jun-23 at 01:34 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11,375
    Okay Clev, silliness aside, what you are asking to know would be highly confidential to begin with.

    So if somebody really has an answer, they couldn't AND shouldn't tell you.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,790
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    Okay Clev, silliness aside, what you are asking to know would be highly confidential to begin with.
    Why? Electronics shielded by Faraday cages aren't secret technology, neither are fiber optic communications--EMP-proof.
    Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11,375
    Skeptic - A non-sequitur.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,790
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    Skeptic - A non-sequitur.
    Clev asked how an EMP-proof internet could be made, you wrote that answering his question of how to make one would be divulging secret information, I pointed out that EMP-proof telecommunications technologies exist, or could exist, that aren't based on classified technology (i.e. a way to make an EMP-proof internet)--the chain is clear to me.
    Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,567
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    Okay Clev, silliness aside, what you are asking to know would be highly confidential to begin with.

    So if somebody really has an answer, they couldn't AND shouldn't tell you.
    I doubt that highly. I'm not asking for state secrets here, but information on a public and well publicized international network used by just about everyone.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    Okay Clev, silliness aside, what you are asking to know would be highly confidential to begin with.

    So if somebody really has an answer, they couldn't AND shouldn't tell you.
    Ed Zachery!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    629
    Although, in theory, the Internet is capable of being highly fault tolerant and capable of dynamically routing around failed sections in practice it doesn't really work that way. Connections cost money and businesses don't like spending money if they can avoid it. Data centers may be capable of many interconnects but in reality they only have just enough. This is why large segments can sometimes "drop off the net" when problems occur. There may be a perfectly good connection a few feet from the failed component but they can't use it because they didn't establish a peering relationship with the owner of that connection.

    Back in the 90s, during the modem days, I played an online game. The server I used was in Michigan and I lived in Illinois. I initially chose it because I had good ping times (fast connection). After a while AT&T got in a price squabble with one of the other companies, I forgot which one, and decided to cut their peering arrangement with them. AT&T had other connections they could use so I didn't completely lose my link to the server but since those connections required that my traffic be sent to a distant hub and then re-routed back to Michigan my ping times became unbearable and the game effectively became unplayable. That went on for about a year before AT&T and the other provider finally re-established a peering arrangement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •