Geospatial intelligence has no standard
definition. It encompasses many things related to the gathering of
information. It is more a milieu of different concepts rather than a
single concept itself. Acquiring such knowledge is as simple as putting
assets on the ground in the area to be inspected. The data might include
topography, population density, industrial build-up, or even income
demographics. Geoint, as it is sometimes called, also requires study and
processing data regarding the interaction of all these groups.
For example, if a nation were to need a military assessment of a city to determine a likely battle outcome, all of the aforementioned material could be important. The Generals in charge would need to know the topography of the surrounding area to know which route to take to avoid possible enemy ambushes and successful counterattacks. They would also need to know where the population was most densely packed to avoid that area, if possible, and reduce collateral damage. They would further need to know where the industrial areas were so they could be neutralised and reduce enemy military capability. If the purpose of the attack were to capture and freeze monetary assets they might also need to know the income demographics to determine where to strike.
Besides human assets on the ground, geospatial intelligence gathering requires electronic surveillance. This might be an orbiting satellite, unmanned reconnaissance vehicle, or fully crewed aircraft. Each facet of the surveillance would contribute its observations up the chain of command for analysis and action. The single agent on the ground might not know why the assignment is to stand somewhere and unobtrusively report on seemingly inconsequential data. The important people in the chain of command certainly know. By the same token, one tiny detail on a single aerial photograph might be crucial for whatever those in command have planned.
Human analysis will likely be enough to process small amounts of operational geoint With an entire intelligence network collecting data, one will need computer assistance to correctly analyse it all. Make sure to have the best equipment and most highly trained personnel on hand for that analysis since it is very wise to have human input and analysis to supplement the computers. Computers are very good at collating data based on certain criteria, but are a poor substitute for human experience and analysis. The only thing worse than not having any information is having the wrong or incorrectly analysed information.
For example, if a nation were to need a military assessment of a city to determine a likely battle outcome, all of the aforementioned material could be important. The Generals in charge would need to know the topography of the surrounding area to know which route to take to avoid possible enemy ambushes and successful counterattacks. They would also need to know where the population was most densely packed to avoid that area, if possible, and reduce collateral damage. They would further need to know where the industrial areas were so they could be neutralised and reduce enemy military capability. If the purpose of the attack were to capture and freeze monetary assets they might also need to know the income demographics to determine where to strike.
Besides human assets on the ground, geospatial intelligence gathering requires electronic surveillance. This might be an orbiting satellite, unmanned reconnaissance vehicle, or fully crewed aircraft. Each facet of the surveillance would contribute its observations up the chain of command for analysis and action. The single agent on the ground might not know why the assignment is to stand somewhere and unobtrusively report on seemingly inconsequential data. The important people in the chain of command certainly know. By the same token, one tiny detail on a single aerial photograph might be crucial for whatever those in command have planned.
Human analysis will likely be enough to process small amounts of operational geoint With an entire intelligence network collecting data, one will need computer assistance to correctly analyse it all. Make sure to have the best equipment and most highly trained personnel on hand for that analysis since it is very wise to have human input and analysis to supplement the computers. Computers are very good at collating data based on certain criteria, but are a poor substitute for human experience and analysis. The only thing worse than not having any information is having the wrong or incorrectly analysed information.
No comments:
Post a Comment