Is Cyber a new warfare? Debate (catch all)

[Brett Patron]

Cyber literally means command and control. Less literally the domain in which all of that happens. Now describe sea without self referencing it or using a synonym.

No. Command and Control means "command and control". Otherwise the Air Force wouldn't have changed all their Comms folks into "Cyber Warriors".

Seriously? Literally means? Where is the "literal" part?

It's not called "the sea". It's called the "maritime domain" which is defined in JP 1-02 as "The oceans, seas, bays, estuaries, islands, coastal areas, and the
airspace above these, including the littorals."

And that is both "littoral" and "literal".

[Brett Patron]

A mentor of mine sent this to me and I thought it was worth sharing...just to keep things in perspective...

It's War!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyeKYQdYISg

[AdamG]

A mentor of mine sent this to me and I thought it was worth sharing...just to keep things in perspective...

It's War!

Quid Pro Quo, Clarice...

[davidbfpo]

Not a YouTube item, but a story that made me wonder:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Cupcake.html

Not really cupcakes, but computer code;

..When followers tried to download the 67-page colour magazine, instead of instructions about how to “Make a bomb in the Kitchen of your Mom” by “The AQ Chef” they were greeted with garbled computer code.

Lookout Main Street Cupcakes in Hudson, Ohio. has someone told DHS?

[Bob's World]

It does not matter what one believes or knows when it comes to declaring such an act to be "war"; what matters is what one can prove.

This is the new reality of the modern age, individuals can commit grievous crimes and states can commit acts of war....and what can the targeted party do in response???

Wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq when one is attacked by men from Saudi Arabia who launched their attack from within the US??? That would be crazy.

States have a challenge on their hands. States still believe that they have "monopolies" on things like "violence" or even "governance." Reality is that arguably states really don't have a monopoly on anything anymore, and any efforts to enforce such fictitious monopolies are sure to end in frustration.

An end of state monopolies does not, however, mean an end of states, but it does mean the "market" for influence and power is evolving; who has the power, how power is applied, etc.

The end of Standard Oil's monopoly did not mean the end of massive oil companies. The end of Ma Bell's monopoly did not mean the end of massive communications companies. But there was a natural evolution.

So too is governance as we know it, and what makes a "state", undergoing evolution as well. The sooner we recognize and embrace the trends, the sooner states get back on track at being the go-to answer.

How people identify is evolving. We all identify at multiple levels, but which of those identity levels is one willing to die for? For your family? Your religion? Your state? Perhaps some internal group that challenges your state? Or perhaps some external group that extends across multiple states?

Cyber is just a domain that has become active. Far more interesting is how activity within that domain changes the rules of the game. To wage war against things we don't like but cannot control within that domain is playing by a rule book that no longer apples. What are the new rules? I don't know. No one does.

[slapout9]

States have a challenge on their hands. States still believe that they have "monopolies" on things like "violence" or even "governance." Reality is that arguably states really don't have a monopoly on anything anymore, and any efforts to enforce such fictitious monopolies are sure to end in frustration.

States are doing it to themselves! They are creating the very crisis they are trying to avoid. Here is a quote by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (under Sec. of Treas. during Pres. Reagan) hardly what you would call a lefty liberal.

The United States is the first country in history to destroy the prospects and living standards of its own working people." It is the "market..

Globalization that is driving most of it.

[Sergeant T]

I wonder if the Pentagon's formal cyber strategy will articulate a threshold for when attacks on private sector resources become a national security issue. The recent attack on RSA SecurID tokens is going to come with one hell of a price tag when all is said and done. But aside from the cost the impressive thing is the sheer reach. Multiple industries, tens of millions of employees and customers, and the daunting physical reality of possibly having to replace 30 to 40 million SecurID tokens. Even replacing 5% of the tokens in circulation will take some time. Money quote from the end of the article:

"Ullrich said the attack “was definitely state-sponsored” espionage because the scheme was so sophisticated."