US Cybersecurity Plan Includes Offense 101
z4ns4stu writes "Shane Harris of the National Journal describes how the US government plans to use, and has successfully used, cyber-warfare to disrupt the communications of insurgents in Iraq. 'In a 2008 article in Armed Forces Journal, Col. Charles Williamson III, a legal adviser for the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines. Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly. "America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere," he wrote. ... Responding to critics who say that by building up its own offensive power, the United States risks starting a new arms race, Williamson said, "We are in one, and we are losing."'"
Well (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what's a better idea? Leave those damn servers alone and let everyone see for themselves what a nutjob your enemies are. Bringing their servers down won't bring the poor sod in the video back to life, but it might make sure that next time you have something tangible to act on (like invading a "rogue" country) other countries will root for you.
Reminiscent of the Cold War (Score:4, Insightful)
And when the USSR collapsed, we learned that the entire time they had been at least two steps behind us.
My opinion is that our infrastructure is in such disrepair that if hostile powers had the capability of cyperterrorism, they would have to practice extreme restraint not to use it to put the entire nation in a blackout for a month. If that means they're waiting for a combined-arms assault, then offense is not going to help us when our "military botnet" doesn't have any electricity to run on.
The recent scare about cyberterrorism causing blackouts in Brazil, only to find that those blackouts were more likely due to natural causes in a poorly maintained electrical grid [slashdot.org], supports my point.
Re:what about anonymous? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you can't budget for internet hooligans.
In the 90s the military establishment began to realize and fear that the methods we had in place were dedicated to force on force conflicts but that terrorists - especially postulated nuclear ones - had no solution. Within a decade, that proved prophetic (although thankfully, not the nuke part).
From TFS:
Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly.
Looks like déjà vu all over again.
No one is ever ready for the upcoming threat - they're too busy safeguarding against the last surprise.
This Is Not Flamebait (Score:1, Insightful)
I love when commments get modded down simply for expressing an opinion the moderator doesn't like.
Did you guys really expect no offensive strategies? I think nerds on this site need to get real about the real world.
Re:Just give it time (Score:4, Insightful)
In ten or twenty years USA won't be a country worthy of attacking
You must be too young to remember - that was a popular 70s meme, with the US being the new Roman Empire on its way to an accelerated collapse.
Don't count the US out until you can count 10. Maybe the reason for its endurance is that the US is really never just one nation of one people.
;-)
:-P
Re:Reminiscent of the Cold War (Score:4, Insightful)
And when the USSR collapsed, we learned that the entire time they had been at least two steps behind us.
Would you have had it any other way? If we had not maintained our paranoia of the Russians one-upping us, would we have maintained our edge? I'll let history stand as the best outcome of the cold war without trying to second guess what would have happened if we had not taken the position we did. The illusion of a perpetual stalemate is certainly preferable to the alternatives.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really understand how this is even an issue. I seem to remember reading an article almost a decade ago [sadly I don't remember the source] which explained how the NSA operated their networking and it was EXACTLY what you're saying. The only connection their networks had to the outside world were stations with two terminals, internal network on one and external networks on the other with the agent in the chair being the ONLY connection between the two.
No amount of efficiency gained is worth having truly sensitive data being ANYWHERE on an exposed network.
Re:what about anonymous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the british, french or the romans, most of the countries they conquered don't hate them... and the US was just liberating countries. Something to do with trade, peace, talks, cultural exchange, improving the country and oh... not killing them in droves followed by massively dropping the standard of living.
The British , French, and Romans killed lots of natives building their empires, they had no compunctions about doing it, and they certainly didn't feel bad about it after. So did the Spanish, for that matter. They also imposed their own laws on other cultures, and taxed their new "subjects", drawing more wealth out of the colonies than they put in, thereby driving down the local economy. The primary reason for being a colonial power has always been to exploit someone else's wealth.
The US has built (or rebuilt) a lot of infrastructure in the wake of its various invasions. The standard of living in these places would be a lot higher if said infrastructure wasn't still being blown up, this time by people other than the US.
Not justifying invasions or civilian deaths, just saying I don't agree with your comparison.
Re:what about anonymous? (Score:4, Insightful)
> In the 90s the military establishment began to realize and fear that the methods we had in place were dedicated to force on force conflicts but
> that terrorists - especially postulated nuclear ones - had no solution. Within a decade, that proved prophetic (although thankfully, not the nuke
> part).
Actually, I tend to think Lawrence Lessig's essay "Insanely Destructive Devices" addressed the issue quite nicely. Technology that can be used for good can always be turned for evil. As technology expands what a person may easily do, or what a small group of people may do, it MUST ALSO expand the amount of harm a person can do.
Its hard to argue that explosives and guns have not increased the damage of an individual with access to them going psychotic and deciding to kill. I am afraid that this threat is unavoidable. So too the threat of determined individuals with a rational or semi-rational goal of destruction are even more amplified. Terrorism *IS* rational from a soldier at war's viewpoint.
So, in the end, the ONLY viable solution, besides attempting to raise the bar just enough to mitigate as much as possible the "crazy lone wolf" threats, is decreasing the rationality of terrorism. ONLY by stopping such groups from forming in the first place and growing will they be stopped.
This is why I actually believe that things like torture programs get more people killed. The hypocrisy of championing due process, the rule of law, and civil rights and then instituting secret programs of detention, rendition, and torture are not lost on the enemy. They join up BECAUSE they know we are hypocrites, it is why they joined.
Hearts and minds are the only battlefields that matter in the end. The rest is just those victories and defeats playing out.
-Steve
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Second: Any rational, independent-thinking person knows there is a considerable difference between filming action between armed combatants on a battlefield, and the producing a video of the execution of an innocent, helpless, non-combatant hostage. Furthermore, in the first situation the video is a by-product of the main action. If anything, knowledge that the battle is documented may inhibit excessive violence. In the second situation, the video is the primary aim of the action, and because the nature of the video is to cause terror, it encourages greater inhumanity in its actors. But then again, you already knew that.
The hypocrisy and filthy double standard here is in those who would equate the actions of nameless, faceless terrorists with those of the US military. While they are far from perfect, all branches of the US military bring court martials against those in their command believed to have committed atrocities. There are those who would argue that little has resulted from them, (and they would mostly be right) but that misses the point: No terrorist organization holds (or attempts to hold) itself to nearly the same standards that the US does. No member of al Quaida has ever faced a disciplinary hearing for bombing a mosque, market or school. No insurgent has ever been indicted by his own organization for intentionally targeting innocent civilians. Far from being despised, they are called heros. But then again, you already knew that.
There are times the US should listen more closely to other voices in the world. Just not to yours. Quite frankly, I wonder why you think the US should give a damn about your opinion, or the opinion of people like you. Not because you think differently, or because we're evil, or we don't listen to our neighbors, but because you obviously care more about your anti-American agenda than you do about dialog. But then again, you already knew that.
Re:Just give it time (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, if the Chinese Gov was really involved, the US Gov will just call the Chinese ambassador in, and say: "Hey stop that now".
And then he could reply: "no, and stop bothering us or we'll just start devaluating your currency so much, you're gonna be ruined".
You were speaking about the huge size of the US defence budget, yet it won't help much if most of your equivalently huge debt is owned by a foreign country.
Re:Just give it time (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, it's probably not going to be pretty when China starts calling in its markers and pushes the US. the the breaking point (either a domestic or international one).
Re:what about anonymous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. The places the US out and out invades usually get rebuilt pretty well, from Germany and Japan through 1990s and 2000s Iraq and 200s Afghanistan.
The ones that don't actually get invaded though... those are the ones that really generate the anti-US sentiment. From all the destabilizing and dictator installing that was done in South America to the fooling around in Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq in the 80s.
Re:Just give it time (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? You really think it's a wee bit early to attack the idea that the US will be of no consequence within two decades?
The Roman Empire, as I mentioned it, was in comparison to our stated decline and decadence in the 70s.
I never said - nor even got in the neighbor of saying - or predicting - how long the US would endure. All I said was that I question less than 20.
If you're gonna snipe, pick words, concepts or sentiments that I actually express as a target.
Re:what about anonymous? (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to assume that all empires other than the USA were patterned after the Belgian Congo.
Didn't the British Empire leave an infrastructure of railways, telegraphs, hospitals and universities? Is the export of trial by jury, common law, and parliamentary democracy a legacy to be reviled? Are people forced to play soccer, rugby, and cricket?
Re:Just give it time (Score:3, Insightful)
No country would start a war with the USA. Not now or in twenty years. Just look at the USA's "defense" budget compared to the rest of the world _total_..
Um, wake up we are at war on several fronts.
We have organized entities trying to kill us. ( perhaps not overly effective to date, but that isnt the point )
We have organized countries trying to crush our economy.
How do YOU define war?
Re:Just give it time (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't noticed, during that period of time the US *HAS* followed in the steps of the Roman Republic. Not precisely in lock-step, but close. I hope that there's enough play that we escape the horrendous Marius vs. Sulla civil war, but the democracy of the country has declined severely during this period. The presidency has become more imperial. The orders of the president are less subject to question. Etc.
OTOH, now that the US has defeated it's last major enemy (Russia....for some reason China doesn't count. Probably because they defeated us financially without our even noticing it. They own so much US debt they could sink us totally if they ever wanted to take the hit. But they probably won't. I did say there was a lot of play in the model.) the country seems to be collapsing. It's not for lack of military spending, either. We waste more money on the military than most countries spend. (I don't count all military spending as waste. But lots of it is.)
There are differences. E.g., the computer games that are our substitute for the arena, don't actually injure anyone. And they encourage a level of direct participation rather than mere voyeurism. If we go to virtual reality, this level of engagement will increase. But that isn't what killed the Roman Republic. The excesses of the arena happened mainly after the transition to the Empire, though they'd certainly been building up during the later days of the Republic.
What we have is the decay of the power of the common people, and the concentration of power into the hands of a few aristocrats. One of the basic tools of that in the US is the division of political parties into two, and an election system that practically guarantees that the winner will be one of those two. That means that anyone sufficiently wealthy can purchase the loyalty of BOTH candidates before the election. Since there are only two real contenders, it's not even a gamble. And the bribery laws have sufficient loopholes that anyone who is knowledgeable can bid for the vote of an office-holder. It's dangerous for the inexperienced, though. This serves to concentrate power in those who are wealthy enough to buy both sides, and, after them, the politicians and, after them, those with enough money and skills to "convince" the office-holder.
This has long been a problem, but it's become much worse since the 70's. And one of the vehicles of this was a decision by the FCC that networks weren't required to offer equal time to all candidates.
It's possible that the net could reform this, but my bet would be that the laws are instead somehow changed to provide more benefit to those currently in office. And to maintain the expense of campaigning.
It's quite possible that there won't be any dramatic assassination followed by a usurpation as was involved in the shift from the Roman Republic to the Empire, but that didn't really change anything. That merely consolidated changes that either had already happened or were already well in motion. (Note that at first the Imperial mantel was not hereditary, an Augustus initially had to share power with two other co-rulers.)
We've come a long way towards the transition in a shorter period than I had expected. We certainly did it a lot faster than the Romans did. But the signs of the collapse are writ large for those to see who can.
OTOH, the Imperial period of Rome wasn't a bad period for those who stayed out of politics. (Well, and weren't enemies of Rome.) The politics got a lot bloodier, but the lot of the common folk didn't become much worse until quite a bit later.
However, it's worth noting that the Imperial period of Rome was considerably shorter than the Republic was. And it wasn't invaders that destroyed Rome, they merely delivered the final coup, it was internal dissension. Various powerful groups fighting against each other without regard for law or custom striving for ultimate power. If you don't see the roots of that in the here-and-now, you're being willfully blind.
Re:Just give it time (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what I said. I said, and I quote, "It might be a wee bit early to go claiming endurance." You said, and again, I quote, "Maybe the reason for its endurance is that the US is really never just one nation of one people."
The US is far too young to have shown much "endurance" and certainly too young to need explanations like because it "is really never just one nation of one people."
If the US makes it, in recognizable form, to the magic thousand years that all the big empires seem to aim for, THEN you can start looking for the something special that the US has and all the others lacked.
Re:Just give it time (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. China would only hurt themselves if they tried to start dumping their US treasury holdings, and of course since they peg the yuan to the dollar they would kill their exports. In any case the US is already devaluing the dollar tacitly.
And the US defense budget would have no affect on the strength of the dollar. That is just rubbish.
Please take some time to read up on current events before spouting off your uninformed nonsense.