Range Gate Stealing

23 June 2011 –

When I was young and full of spit and vinegar, discussions about hot topics of the day would frustrate me. We would start on one subject and end up on another. Nothing was clarified. Nothing was remembered. Others remained stupid and uninformed. As I got older, I realized three facts applied to most conversations about contentious issues. First: I—the obviously brilliant and insightful one—would still allow discussions to stray from the original subject to something else. I learned that to stray is natural and easy; to remain focused is hard. I was not a disciplined conversationalist. Second: I naively believed that my interlocutor had no intended animus when he went topic hopping. I actually assumed that all people wanted to resolve hot issues with agreed upon truth. Three: I realized that arguments and discussions almost never win over the other person to one’s way of thinking. The more realizable objective is to clarify and frame one’s own argument and then stick to it, using only one’s own words and concepts. Winning converts is never as important as staying focused on what is clear and right.

As a young Air Force officer, I found a powerful analogy to clarify these concepts. As is often the case, insight in one area comes as one is reading something seemingly unrelated. I was studying about electronic countermeasures (ECM) in what we now call the battlespace when clarity shone on me. One of the processes that pilots, radar operators, and missileers use to survive and win battles applies directly to how one can survive and, dare we hope it, win a discussion on a hot topic. It is called range gate stealing or range gate pull-off. In the explanation you will see the connection.

I majored in French in college. I am not a “beeps and squeaks” kinda guy. Nonetheless, I think I can explain this in simple terms and still make the point.

If you want to defend an area from air attack, you build radars on the ground that send out streams of electrons at a certain frequency to detect and pinpoint and track the location of incoming enemy aircraft. These radars then send the tracking information to missile batteries that use that information to fire missiles at the attacking aircraft. If God is willing, the missile will hit the aircraft, explode, and send the pilot to the fiery depths of hell.

The ground radar sends out beams of electrons that can cover much of the sky. The frequency of the electron beam is the key to the analogy. All radio wave frequencies are given a number on a spectrum based on the center of the width of the frequency. If the beam’s frequency is 100, for example, the width of the beam may actually be from 95 to 105. The beam usually vacillates between 95 and 105, with the most electrons, the most powerful signal, being sent out right in the middle.

Back to the fight. The radar sweeps the sky back and forth, up and down, constantly sending out beams of 100 frequency electrons. When these electrons hit something in the sky, like one of Darth Vader’s attack ships, the electrons bounce off the aircraft and go everywhere. Because goodness reigns supreme, enough of the electrons do bounce back to the radar dish on the ground. Because the electrons are still on 100 frequency, the radar receives and processes them. The information shows up on the operator’s screen as the well-known blip that indicates that an enemy aircraft is approaching from a certain angle, height, and speed. This information is quickly passed to the missile battery. Great warriors aims their missiles at the aircraft and blow the Evil Empire lackey out of the sky. Yay! Everyone is safe. The Republic and the American way are secure.

That is a simplification of one version of electronic warfare. But, war is never that simple. The Evil Empire has developed electronic countermeasures (ECM) to defeat radars and to render missiles blind and impotent. Darth Vader wants to kill us and boast later of his conquests. The ECM is where the analogy becomes apparent.

Since the enemy can’t afford to have all its aircraft shot down, it develops ECM equipment for its attacking aircraft. The concept is simple. When the ground radar sends out its 100 frequency electron stream, the attack aircraft’s ECM gear detects that those electrons are hitting the aircraft and probably returning to the radar. The ECM gear also detects the frequency of the radar beam at 100. The ECM gear then sends out an identical beam of 100 frequency electrons, but at a slightly stronger rate than the ground radar is sending out. The ECM beam’s 100 frequency electrons find their way to the ground radar and, because they are at a greater rate of return, the radar starts to follow those returns exclusively. The ECM gear continues to emit a strong 100 frequency beam, but then changes its center ever so slightly to, say, 99. But, since the return beam to the ground radar is so clear and strong, the radar tends to follow the false beam of now 99 frequency electrons. After all, the 99 is still well within the overall width of the 100 frequency beam. The ECM gear then changes the still strong beam to have a center of 98, then 97, then 96, then 95. The ground radar is being fooled by the ECM beam’s being pulled off the original center frequency of 100 to one of 95, at the edge of the ground radar’s original frequency. This is the set-up for the kill.

Actually, the ground radar is still sending out the original 100 centered beam of electrons, and its original electrons are still being reflected back to the ground radar. But, since the ECM’s false beam of 95 is stronger, the ground radar ignores the returns from its beam in preference to the stronger, false beam. Darth Vader is ready to strike. He does it by simply turning off the ECM gear’s beam of 95 frequency. What happens is that the ground radar becomes blind. It cannot track the 95 frequency because it no longer exists. The ground radar’s 100 frequency beam is still emitting and returning, but the radar must take time to recalibrate its receivers in order to receive the original signal, process the signal, and display the enemy aircraft again on the screen. Then, the ground radar has to send the correct info to the missile battery. These precious seconds of time, when the radar adjusts to see again the threat, gives the Evil Empire a window in it can operate with impunity. Once the enemy aircraft’s ECM gear shows that the radar’s original emissions are not being received by the ground radar, the pilot attacks either the ground radar, the missile battery, or the local orphanage or hospital. Evil reigns for another day, and Hell is denied it dues.

You are the ground radar. You send out a good message. But, language being what it is, there is always a range of interpretation for the message. In a cunning use of that range, the skilled opponent grabs your message and repeats it, but by pulling it away from your intent and toward the edge of the meaning.

For example, your message at a town council meeting is that we must fund the public library system in town. Everybody smiles and someone asks you what dress you were wearing last evening at the main library. You answer that it was a blue jumper. The opponent repeats that you were wearing a blue dress downtown last night, right? You acquiesce to the looser interpretation and say yes. The opponent then asks why you were wearing a teal cocktail dress on Main Street last night. You stumble and try to correct the opponent by saying that it wasn’t a teal cocktail dress, it was simply a blue dress, but fail to correct him completely on the type. You also do not correct him about the specific time or location—after all, the library is on Main Street, and what’s the difference between last evening and last night? The opponent then contends that someone saw you late last night walking on Main Street near two bars wearing a blue cocktail dress and carrying what seemed to be a bag full of books—or even something else, one can’t be sure. You sputter that you were indeed in the library last night, but you didn’t see anybody dressed like that walking around the library. Since you felt that it wouldn’t do any good now to say that the library is across Main Street from two bars, you feel that you are losing control of everything. All of what the opponent said now is fact in the discussion. You are no longer talking about the library in the way you want to and you are concentrating on defending yourself against groundless accusations. The opponent then demands to know why you would dress so provocatively during late nights in the bars of Main Street when you should have been in the library. Are you really the one who should defend library use? Damage done.

The opponent pulled your message off, brutally preformed range gate stealing and embarrassed you in the process. Your good message became a bad one and you were left sputtering and wondering how you are going to recover and save the library, to say nothing of your reputation.

If your message is going to stay clear, pointed, and dangerous to those who need to be blown out of the sky and sent down to…well, enough of that…you need to stop the range gate stealing EVERY TIME the opponent tries it. You have to stay on frequency, say on message, and don’t let the opponent coopt and then abuse your lexicon. Keep pulling it back to your message, to your words, to your argument. If you don’t, in the end, you will be lost and wondering what happened. Or, you will be dead.