They grow up so fast ....Most of what we have seen, with very few exceptions, has been cyber-reconaissance or just plain espionage. Cyber war, on the other hand, is a different matter. H. Lucien Gauthier III describes a bit of the theoretical challenges:
In cyber-warfare we are growing our capacity to both wage and defend against this type of warfare. But, we have not even started to get close to being able to define where it is that a kinetic, or real world, response is warranted. If a Nation-state purposefully destroyed the Hoover Dam, it would be unequivocal that we would have to respond in kind. However, in a cyber-attack, if the NYSE was taken offline we would 1) struggle to say who was guilty of the attack and 2) struggle to prove the efficacy of a kinetic/real world response to the attack—does utter economic devastation demand a nuclear response? Is a way of life shattered the same no matter if the cause is nuclear or electronic? We have this ‘gray area’ in our use of force continuum because of the novelty of ‘warfare’ in a completely synthetic domain (online). We do not have thousands of years of experience to fall back on, or to show a precedence to warrant our course of action, or to make the decisions readily understood by the guy on the street. However, to both effectively protect our infrastructure and project force in this domain we have to have a clear ethical and philosophical foundation from which to act.
36 minutes ago
5 comments:
Well, it is along similar lines that US has long declared that not having biological weapons - and lately chemical ones too - it reserves the right to retaliate against such strikes with nukes. If enemy state engaging in cyber-warfare is on an economic level unsuitable for cyber-retaliation, I am sure some kinetic action should be due.
On another note, 71 years ago started the european part of the world war 2. I wish to honour all those who fought the original axis of evil, and those who gave their lives to bring down the tyrannies that spawned Auschwitz, Nanking rape and Bataan death march.
Read that a little while ago when he posted over to USNI. Kid's got a bright future. Glad he's on our side.
You listening, H? :)
"<span><span>In cyber-warfare we are growing our capacity to both wage and defend against this type of warfare."</span></span>
Unfortunately we are not doing this as fast as we are incorporating networks and connectivity into crucial functions in DoD and every business sector in the US economy.
Nor are we growing our capacity nearly as fast as our enemies are growing their ability to explore and exploit our known and unknown vulnerabilities.
But yes. The kid's a hitter.
If a cyber-attack that takes NYSE off-line causes "utter economic devastation" then the operator/owner/regulator bodies of NYSE are just not up to their job. This is independent on whether it is privately or publically owned. In this case the USA would deserve to loose the central hub of global stock markets to Dubai or Shanghai (allthough I would not like to see it in those countries).
This is a matter of (preemptively) civil IT-engineering, appropriate (private) contract set-up and (public) market laws and (post-event) law-fare and sactions. Again, if you need to militarize here, then either somebody is not up to his (civil) job or you are just willfully looking for war.
Try to sue Kim or better yet China... good luck. Only countries that abide to laws - own or international - can e damaged by lawfare, just as only countries having electronic infrastructure can be damaged by cyber warfare, and countries with economy of any size are susceptible to sanctions.
Post a Comment