Seems like a really hard problem though. A dead-man switch is likely to get triggered unintentionally if you're literally in a firefight. You could improve a bit with some kind of consensus protocol - "we all agree these six radios have not been compromised" - but coordinating that in practice seems hard, and vulnerable to an enemy capturing a single radio and initiating the consensus protocol.
In a tactical context, it's a huge ask to get intel value out of a radio in a timeframe that'll be useful. On top of that, compromised comms are almost certainly better than no comms. Military radio comms are pretty good (at least in the US), what I though OP was probably referring to was P25 which is a civilian protocol with several issues [1][2]
Very interesting; thanks for the references. I'm no tactical radio expert, and can't quite remember, but I think the radio I'm referring to must have been the EZ-PRR[1], as that's the only similar-looking one that is reportedly in use by the British Army.
> compromised comms are almost certainly better than no comms.
Is this true when undercover though? As a layman, I would assume it is better for each soldier to attempt to find each other at first (like any other human beings, they'd have their 'Schelling points'), and failing that, attempt to get home safely on their own. The alternative - arranging a rendezvous over a potentially compromised comms method - could get them all killed or captured together. Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
