How the Militarization of the Internet is Changing Warfare 204
puddingebola writes in with a link to a New York Times article about how the militarization of the internet is changing contemporary warfare. "The decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush's presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet. Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon. If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory. It is one thing to write viruses and lock them away safely for future use should circumstances dictate it. It is quite another to deploy them in peacetime. Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race that is very likely to lead to the spread of similar and still more powerful offensive cyber-weaponry across the Internet. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyber-weapons outside any regulatory framework."
Re:Peacetime? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, according to the Constitution, the US has fought no wars since 1945. We stopped declaring war at about the same time as we renamed our War Department the Department of Defense (after which we continued to attack foreign nations just like we've been doing throughout history).
Laughing out loud (Score:3, Interesting)
...a significant and dangerous turning point.... If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory....
You mean, just like when gunpowder was invented? Or when troops started using wheeled vehicles instead of horses?
Or when militaries started using... GASP!... aircraft?
Get a clue. Warfare is always changing fundamentally as it moves into "uncharted territory" made possible by new technology.
Re:There *IS* WAR here (Score:5, Interesting)
The United States constantly declares war. There's been the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terror" - not to mention the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and undeclared wars in places like Somalia and Yemen - where military actions (or drone-bourne assasinations) take place regularly.
The thing is, wars are wonderful devices for a democratically elected government. They allow a "wartime" footing to be established where a lot of peacetime protections, rights and restrictions can simply be tossed aside. War is as much a state of mind as a military action. If a country considers itself at war, a lot of the things that its citizens would be permitted to do become criminalised, or at least subject to official scrutiny.
This is exactly what's happened since 2001. The problem is that now we have governments all over the world - previously responsible, western governments that were considered "enlightened" are now viewing all their citizens as potential enemies, criminals or terrorists - and are treating them according to that suspicion.
If you think that cyberspace is too abstract a place to have a war, just look out for all the critical infrastructure that is accessible on the internet. Facilities that any government would be mad to let people walk into unchallenged can (I'm told) be hacked. Whether it's by a script-kiddie or a Stuxnet wielding super-power is immaterial. It's a state of conflict and peoples' rights are being squashed in order to counter it. That sure sounds like a war - even if the enemy is us.
Re:Peacetime? (Score:2, Interesting)
Nobodies every answered what makes the US think it can win this type of war? The largest military in the worlds no use in this type pf war. More likely the wells the going to be poisoned and there will be military grade nasties affecting commercial systems for technological generations to com.e