Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Government United States

US Military Needs 7th Branch Just For Cyber, Leaders Say (therecord.media) 120

Posted by BeauHD from the it's-only-a-matter-of-time dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Record: A national association of current and former military digital security leaders is calling on Congress to establish a separate cyber service, arguing that the lack of one creates an "unnecessary risk" to U.S. national security. In a March 26 memorandum, the Military Cyber Professional Association urged lawmakers to establish a U.S. Cyber Force in this year's annual defense policy bill.

"For over a decade, each service has taken their own approach to providing United States Cyber Command forces to employ and the predictable results remain inconsistent readiness and effectiveness," according to the group, which boasts around 3,700 members. "Only a service, with all its trappings, can provide the level of focus needed to achieve optimal results in their given domain," the memo states. "Cyberspace, being highly contested and increasingly so, is the only domain of conflict without an aligned service. How much longer will our citizenry endure this unnecessary risk?"

The creation of a Cyber Force would follow the arrival of the Space Force in 2019. It was the first new branch of the U.S. military in 72 years, bringing the total to six. The association's missive is likely to spark fresh debate on Capitol Hill, where an increasing number of policymakers see a cyber-specific military service as an inevitability. [..] In its memo, the association says that while "steps should be taken to establish such a service, with urgency, pursuing it in a hasty manner would likely prove to be a source of great disruption and risk to our own forces and operations." Therefore, any legislative approval of a Cyber Force should be accompanied by a "thorough study to determine what this military service should look like, how it be implemented, and the applicable timeline," according to the group.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Military Needs 7th Branch Just For Cyber, Leaders Say More

US Military Needs 7th Branch Just For Cyber, Leaders Say

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm.... yep (Score:5, Interesting)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:36PM (#63404586)

    I loathe anything that makes the federal government larger, more expensive, less accountable, or take more power from the people (and States). HOWEVER, the idea of consolidating the existing duplicated cyber security efforts in each branch into a single "force" actually sounds like a good idea. Theoretically it is just moving positions and responsibilities around and the needs should be similar (if not almost identical) for each military branch.

    I would love to hear counter-arguments.

    • should be less military and more of civil position for an mostly desk job.
      Yes there are some field needs for tech work on / near the battlefield

      • Hmm. Maybe. But Signals intelligence (and to be clear, thats what this is) has always been something inside of militaries, and to some extent spooky 3 letter word agencies.

        Really the only difference is originally "Signals" spied on radios, now it spies on your teenagers tiktok (or whatever the heck the kids are using these days. Hey man, what was wrong with good old fashioned Usenet, the original social network!)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by igreaterthanu ( 1942456 )

          If this is just SIGINT, then why is this needed at all? Just move some roles into the NSA which already exists and call it a day.

          A Cyber branch of the military sounds more like offensive capabilities, such as Stuxnet. Although that's almost certainly from NSA anyway.

          This whole idea sounds like it would just create a whole lot of duplication of roles.

          • It's another jobs program the right wing will have trouble opposing. We'll eventually have single payer healthcare once each and every citizen is a member of the military, from the Cyber Force, to the Health Force, to the Public Infrastructure Force.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by t0qer ( 230538 )

          I worked for a signal brigade.

          There's a serious issue of cronyism and lack of aptitude in Signal. At least where I worked at. You can look at my accounts age, see how long I've been commenting, get a feel for how long I've been in tech.

          I watched as people with less aptitude get promoted over me. With the exception of my lead who was super smart, which caused strife with our leadership (for some reason they got along with stupid people better)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The problem you get with this approach is group think mentality and they start missing the forest as they are all staring at the same tree, There are a lot of benefits to separate entities working in different ways in this area.

    • You also get 1 point of failure. While I do see the benefits of having one place to do it, I don't see why it has to be a separate branch, can't the separate parts work together? Isn't that a quality you want in your armed forces?

      • The PR people in the Pentagon love to spread the idea that the armed forces are a happy family that are ecstatic about cooperating together. The reality is that fight like ferrets in a sack over gaining larger budgets for themselves rather than the other guys. In that context a single cyber force seems the obvious solution: the only difficulty is how much of the NSA should be inside it.

    • Re:Hmmm.... yep (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @06:37PM (#63404730)
      Counter-argument:

      The best position from which to secure a unit is from within the unit. Presently security duties fall peacemeal to a whole lot of soldiers, airmen, etc. adding somewhere between a little bit to their duties. Each HQ has a specialist or two focusing on that unit's needs and a number of people, such as IT generalists, who help implement security. Most units of the wing/battalion/etc size have a unique threat profile they're responding to. A battalion based in the US which pretty much stays in one place for decades has much different security needs from a battalion which has seen five deployments in the past ten years. A tank battalion has different needs from an air wing or aircraft carrier.

      It may be possible to consolidate all the specialists into one location but not without adding information traffic (and potential interception) friction, and taking people away from the unit in question mentally and physically. The guy securing a carrier may no longer have memories of the sea, which is fine. But he also won't have memories of maintaining that one older program used to run the fuel pumps. The guy securing USAG Ansbach in Germany won't have memories of sweating in fear the first time his previous unit was deployed to a war zone, which is fine. But he also won't remember that the colonel over there in building 3302 is an idiot prone to download anything to see the cute kitten. You're increasing risk and adding somewhat to the overall workload for very little benefit.

      • Re:Hmmm.... yep (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CaptQuark ( 2706165 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @01:40AM (#63405236)

        Exactly right. The different security needs of the frontline troops are difficult to understand by someone not familiar with the mission or equipment. The security needs of long-range bombers, fighter's digital data links, AWAC's overall situational awareness, Identify Friend or Foe encryption, laser designation, etc are all unique to the Air Force. The Army has encrypted drones, targeting networks, encrypted communications, etc. Add in the Navy's surface fleet and submarine communications and you start to see a very broad area of expertise that a new military branch would not have.

        What the military needs is a new Joint Command that deals exclusively with Cyber Security, much like Special Ops Command integrates the different branch's special operations assets to work together. It needs to merge the professional cyber security experts with the equipment specific subject matter experts to make sure security is implemented from the drawing board all the way to the battlefield.

        Imagine the damage that would be done in Ukraine if the telemetry data could be spoofed to feed inaccurate GPS data to the artillery in the rear. The enemy could sit back and let friendly fire destroy half a battalion without firing a shot.

        • What the military needs is a new Joint Command that deals exclusively with Cyber Security, much like Special Ops Command integrates the different branch's special operations assets to work together. It needs to merge the professional cyber security experts with the equipment specific subject matter experts to make sure security is implemented from the drawing board all the way to the battlefield.

          I think you have the right idea there. A JCSC with service members seconded for training, or on assignment from their service branch for long term service. This would serve to establish standards and practices across branches with defined specialist training, while still respecting the chain of command within a unit.

          A much better idea than creating another competing branch of military service.

      • I don't think that is what the various cyber security branches are doing today; their roles are more strategic than sysadmin. I would not expect all cyber security responsibilities to be shifted into this new division; local security would still be a thing-- just hopefully with better guidance from a centralized group that has better resources.

    • I would love to hear counter-arguments.

      Just have the nerds in Space Force do it.

      • counter counter point:

        just imagine the fun the erstwhile nerds will have debating which is cooler[*], the " Space Force" or the " Cyber Force"


        [*] for indeterminate values of "cooler", which could just as well include fucking lame

    • I loathe anything that makes the federal government larger, more expensive, less accountable, or take more power from the people (and States). HOWEVER, the idea of consolidating the existing duplicated cyber security efforts in each branch into a single "force" actually sounds like a good idea. Theoretically it is just moving positions and responsibilities around and the needs should be similar (if not almost identical) for each military branch.

      I would love to hear counter-arguments.

      The main counterargument is interoperability remains mostly a buzzword. If the branches all "got along" that efficiently, we wouldn't be here talking about a seventh branch within the same military force.

      "Cyber" Security is required across ALL aspects of a business. Same goes for the military, unless you plan on taking someones internet toy away completely.

    • Yeah, but now the Shriners will have to get yet another mini Jeep and the Coast Guard won't be the butt of all the jokes anymore... Won't someone think of the Shriners?!

    • > I would love to hear counter-arguments.

      Merge them into one military. Having the army separate from the navy separate from the air force separate from the marines separate from the coast guard? To say nothing of "Space Force", which doesn't need to exist at all.

    • I, too, loathe anything that makes Federal government more expansive and costly.

      But I think this is just an attempted money-grab on the part of the military. The more divisions of the military you have, the more opportunities you have to ask for bigger budgets. You're going to essentially fight for a budget for EACH of them. They're not negotiating for everything as though it's one package.

      I doubt the Air Force or even the Army would give up duplication of cyber efforts anyway, even if this new arm was crea

  • hi (Score:3, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:37PM (#63404588) Homepage Journal

    a/s/l?

    wanna cyber?

  • no boot camp & no age max & no up or out & (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:39PM (#63404592)

    Needs to have
    no boot camp yes the PT + DI in your face one but do have some kind of tech class room.
    no gun skills needed
    no max age join
    no up or out that can push good tech workers into management roles or even out the cyber unit as they may only be so many slots the higher up the ranks you go.
    pay boost over other military

    maybe even an 100% at all times pot waver

    • If you are imagining Cyber warriors as a bunch of tech nerds in the basement of a building protecting cyberspace, then perhaps.

      If you include cyber experts that understand actual weapons, field communications, ICS datalinks, laser designators, etc. then perhaps some actual field time in all three major environments (land, sea, air) would be beneficial.

      Only 6% of the US population are military veterans. Most people have no idea what actually happens in a conflict. Expecting college graduates or tech workers

      • Re:no boot camp & no age max & no up or ou (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Oryan Quest ( 10291375 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @06:10AM (#63405534)

        As a veteran I’d argue the military is deluded thinking it can take random recruits, teach them “the cybers” like a trade, and then get good results. It’d be much easier to turn a nerd into a soldier than a random soldier into a nerd.

        The military has zero respect for us or what we do, our casual culture, distrust of authority, and attitudes about servant-leadership are repulsive to the kind of person who wants to be a career officer.

        • As a veteran I'd argue the military is deluded thinking it can take random recruits, teach them "the cybers" like a trade, and then get good results.

          As a veteran, I totally agree it would be a poor choice to take a random recruit and try to train them as a cyber security specialist. But I think that is true for many of the specialized jobs in the military. There are soldiers/sailors/airmen who are extremely talented as engine mechanics, culinary specialists, heavy equipment operators, avionic technicians, musical specialists, nuclear propulsion ratings, logistical specialists, infantryman, etc. etc.

          Trying to train someone who is mechanically minded in

  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:44PM (#63404606)
    The US does not need a new Cyber branch of the military. The concept is idiotic. Cyber is a part of general operations and technology. How do you separate it?
    • After all, we still don't even know what the new DEI branch of the government does.
    • As a first approximation, any IT operations that are also conducted by Walmart should not be broken out into the separate Cyber branch.

    • Cyber is hot for the military roght now and a bunch of bureaucrat types wanna put out bold announcements and attention grabbing think pieces to see if they can get a place at the table.

      They might not know what a heap or a datagram is but “they have impressive policy experience” and want people to know they’e ready to be in charge of thousands of lowly subject matter experts.

    • I think the current setup would be like having Accounting, Sales, C-level and Management each handle their own cybersecurity, device management, network, with their own little IT fiefdoms.

      It would be better to have centralized security policies, networks, intrusion detection etc. and perhaps a single point for offensive capabilities.

    • We need a Cyber command to protect all the rest of the US from cyber attacks. Ransomware attacks, cyber theft of IP and the like are degrading our private economy. School systems to hospitals are failing victim. We need to stop this. This is much bigger than setting up a secure communication channel for deployed Units. This has to be about protecting all of the United States. (And our Allies).

      If it is just about consolidating the protection of the Department of Defense assets then it’s probably n

    • I don't think it's necessary because the NSA exists, but Cyber is definitely a form of modern warfare that is different from general operations.

      Shutting down enemy systems with offensive cyber tactics is a necessary part of modern warfare, and doesn't fit neatly into the other branches of the military.

      • I would hope some of the NSA's resources would get folded into this division. Maybe not all, but some kind of restructuring seems necessary for today's threats and operational requirements.

  • Isn't this the NSA's mission ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ApproachingLinux ( 756909 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:48PM (#63404620)
    From the NSA's front page:

    Our Mission

    Cybersecurity

    NSA Cybersecurity prevents and eradicates threats to U.S. national security systems with a focus on the Defense Industrial Base and the improvement of our weapons’ security. Through our Cybersecurity Collaboration Center, NSA partners with allies, private industry, academics, and researchers to strengthen awareness and collaboration to advance the state of cybersecurity.

    Government's answer to everything - create a new bill to supplement the 2000 others that supposedly already did the same thing, or create a new federal department because another one isn't performing their mission.

    • Re:Isn't this the NSA's mission ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @06:09PM (#63404666)
      The NSA is a bit like a cyber-version of the FBI/CIA. It’s intelligence, not military. There’s overlap but they’re actually quite different beasts.

      This might actually streamline the current situation. Currently each branch of the military is standing up its own cyber infrastructure. There’s probably massive amounts of duplication there. Having a single professionalized military-cyber organization might even cost less.
      • Id love to believe that but there was this thing called Stuxnet who's code was designed to cripple uranium production in Iran ...sounds vaugely military to me
      • It's part of DoD, unlike the CIA.

      • This might actually streamline the current situation. Currently each branch of the military is standing up its own cyber infrastructure. There’s probably massive amounts of duplication there. Having a single professionalized military-cyber organization might even cost less.

        Or create a new branch to fight over mission, budget, etc. and further fragment responses. Centralized oversight and control of a mission has not worked well in the past, that was the idea behind the CIA and later ODNI; an yet we still have separate intelligence branches in virtually every government agency, none of whom will give up their toys in the name of one unified approach. I doubt a Cyber Force would fair much better, and I fear geeks would come up with an even worse song than Space Force.

  • Good luck (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:54PM (#63404636)

    So lemme get this straight, you want me to go through a boot camp where a double-digit IQ moron gets to yell at me for a couple weeks, only to eventually pay me a fraction of what I can get by sitting on my ass and just doing my work?

    How about no?

    • They’d probably have at least military nerds running the boot camp. It’s been a long time since I was in but in my day the military was laughably bad at IT so you might still get an idiot for a DA (Drill Administrator)

      • Not only that, but an idiot who is pissed at the fact that this egghead will make more money per month than he'll make in a lifetime while sitting on his ass at a desk job, so let's grind him down to the bone extra hard so he at least remembers.

        • Not only that, but an idiot who is pissed at the fact that this egghead will make more money per month than he'll make in a lifetime while sitting on his ass at a desk job, so let's grind him down to the bone extra hard so he at least remembers.

          Pay will certainly be an issue; but the military already does that for pilots, nuclear trained sailors, and other specialties to lessen the gap, while offering job security and a pension that is generous as well as allows for retirement early enough for a second career. Money is important but so are other things.

          As for blindly following orders, that is not how the US or other competent military fights. There certainly is training and dogma on how to fight, but you need independent thinkers for when things

        • Nah contrary to popular belief drill instructors are pretty professional. I’m not inclined to say nice things about the military either. I was shocked when I ran into my “crazy one” about a week after boot camp. He was really nice and told me that I was one of the funniest recruits he’d had in awhile.

          He showed no signs of ever being amused by my antics when I was in boot camp though. When he would yell at us I liked to respond with positive messages of friendship and love and th

    • Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)

      by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @06:32PM (#63404718)

      They would have to relax some rules for the Cyber Command if they want to get the right people. Pay is a real issue though. So is blindly following orders. The thinking people they want are going to question things and are going to want to get paid properly.

      • The thinking people they want are going to question things and are going to want to get paid properly.

        This is already a recruitment problem for all the TLAs, now they want to add an ETLA which will have the same problems...

  • How about audit? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 ) <baloo@ursamundi.org> on Monday March 27, 2023 @06:08PM (#63404664) Homepage Journal
    How about before we expand the military further, we audit their budget for the first time in 200 years?
    • Whadaya mean? One trillion dollars per year, without considering black budgets, is a bargain!

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 )

        I mean the Russians spent a fraction of that on a similarly opaque military to have a similarly impressive arsenal just collapse because superpower militaries are only for show and a default employer of last resort anyway. We can see Russia got a bad deal, spending a fraction the amount we are.

        Let's see the numbers. Because at this point, there's only a few ways this could go.

        • There's nothing fishy going on, and it turns out we can basically outspend everyone else in the world, and we literally, not fig
  • sarcasm on A great idea. Every other branch of the military will happily entrust their most critical information to a completely independent organization where they have zero input. sarcasm off

  • The US can have a Cyber Command, it can protect the government I guess. Maybe they could regulate things like utilities. But a lot of cybersecurity issues happen with private companies. How is the Cyber Command going to protect the average business? They probably can't very easily and won't be able to do anything affordably.

    Anyone ready to have the Great Firewall in the US? Not me.

    • I think this would be the start of a slippery slope where we are suddenly classifying these issues as the military attacks on civilian infrastructure that many of them are. Except mixed in with random opportunists in it for the money. Still, retaliation and escalation would become inevitable.

  • Cool, now get rid of all the wasteful overlap in the other branches.
  • for the moniker of being the true Chair Force?
  • with the front because the Cyber(DEI and ESG) branch has not signed off on the the racial and renewable energy origin requirements of the power sources we are using.
  • Should have been the "Cyber Space Force".
  • US Military Needs 9th Branch, Leaders Say
  • It's called the NSA.
  • undoing mistaken mod by posting

  • I work in a government agency where they created a whole org to handle "cybersecurity". It lead to a weird relationship, where we're all governed by documents we never see or are allowed access to, infrequent internal audits with a confusing agenda, and the lack of training or knowledge of any of our engineers.

    The worst part to me is on the software engineering side: they just kind of said it's "All Cybersecurity" and all they worry about is port scanning and public network holes; nobody here learns how to

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close