Is Cyber a new warfare? Debate (catch all)

[SJPONeill]

Nope, doesn't count as a kinetic kill, or even as a homocide unless somebody investigates my death and can prove you turned off my pacemaker. I'll still be dead, but my death won't be counted as a cyberwar KIA if you cover your tracks right.

Might as well the Unknown Soldiers don't count either because the cause of death isn't clear...there are many ways, legal and otherwise of killing people in war, declared or otherwise, that are difficult to determine...the fact is that you are still dead and if done well, that creates an effect desired by your (collective) killers...

From your statements, I'm not sure you have a good grasp of cyberspace yet and your arguments are really just hair-splitting...sorry...

Oh and BTW, I just cancelled all your bank accounts and all traces of you as you...I couldn't do it in the physical world because they wouldn't let me in the gate but in cyberspace, a piece of jolly...

[anonamatic]

I don't care so much about the semantics of it. I just want to turn off the pacemaker, make your phone catch fire or explode, run down the batteries on your bombs before you go to drop them etc. In short, I only care about what mayhem and damage I can cause, and I don't care about all that semantic stuff.

I have a very good reason for taking that approach too. It's because you're busy constructing boxes to think inside of, and I don't want to do that. I want to remain focused on creatively doing as ugly things as I possibly can. If you haven't thought of them because you're too busy worrying about semantic boxes, well hey for me that's even better.

[Bob's World]

Cyber is likely to join the long list of technological tools created by the rich and powerful to expand their wealth and power, and then co-opted by the weak and powerless to re-balance the equation a bit.

Such thinks are inevitable. Understanding that allows one to mitigate how much balancing actually takes place.

I see the cyber domain as a rich playground for Special Forces to do what SF guys do best. As to whether or not is it our SF or cyber guerrilla's of another ilk that steps up to seize this advantage is yet to be seen.

[Fuchs]

I argued once for adding electronic warfare as the fourth pillar of combined arms, but I guess declaring 'cyber warfare' a "fifth domain" sounds more sexy.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Oh and BTW, I just cancelled all your bank accounts and all traces of you as you...I couldn't do it in the physical world because they wouldn't let me in the gate but in cyberspace, a piece of jolly...

Smile when you say things like that, pilgrim, lest you be taken seriously.

[Presley Cannady]

Damn, I was hoping for "Thirty Sixth Chamber of Shaolin."

[charliebravo]

What say you all to the idea that the "new" domain is the information domain and that cyberwarfare is just one aspect of operating in this domain?

An additional thought about effects of this type of warfare: wreaking havoc on your economic and information systems (to name a just a few potential targets) through cyber certainly qualifies in my book as a violent act designed to bend an opponent to your will. Instead of physically breaking things like tanks, aircraft, or people, which is theoritically still possible through cyber, you are destroying parts of systems that play a critical part in a modern nation's ability to conduct its affairs and look after its interest. My point is that you dont have to punch someone in the nose to perpetrate a violent act against them and that the legitimacy of a domain in which to conduct warfare doesn't depend on whether you can physically break something in it.

[Bob's World]

Isn't "information" a line of operations that takes place in many domains?

Beyond that vast bucket of "Information Operations" that DoD dumped half a dozen things into. I know at SOCOM, for instance, they felt compelled to say they do "IO" even though SOF really only has major equities in a couple of niche aspects of IO. Better if SOCOM narrowed their aperture and said they did "IO (-)"

I think it is best that we look at cyber as a domain to conduct a range of operations within, not all of which are to "inform."

For instance, if I were to say, stand up a smart team of guys in a high-tech facility to conduct UW in some foreign country where physical presence is not practical in order to support or enact US foreign policy there; that is not an information operation. Certainly it would use info tools but that does not define the operation or the unit (on a related note to the army re Stryker BDES, WTF on naming your unit after your vehicle?).

[selil]

One of the issues is "cyber" it is a domain that reaches from the technology through the physical, onwards through logical, to information, to cognitive and back". When you see quotes like "Cyber, is the first man made domain" well yes it is. But, it is much more than that. Much like any other domain/terrain cyber has layers. To expect them not to exist is to ignore the realities. The military (and government) likes to define and limit a concept to the ideas and conclusions they have already made. Regardless of that the capabilities and abilities of adversaries to operate within a domain are not similarly constrained. Many people fall into the trap of silos or limiting cyber. The information operations (psyops, strategic communications, etc.) want to own it. The TCP/IP monkeys think they own it. The telecom guys think they own it. Pishaww. It is a domain with many layers and is much more than the Internet or even GIG. Cyber is not merely information it is inclusive of emotion and electro magnetic spectrum. It is both the tool and the channel, but not merely limited to that.

Think of it this way. What is the domain "air". Why everybody has to land sooner or later why aren't all "airmen" soldiers? The limitations of an analogy or metaphor will soon limit the considerations of the strategic and tactical implications of the domain in question. Air existed as a valid domain long before airplanes become warplanes. Cyber in various forms has existed as a valid domain for a long time. Cyber is a domain in which information operations exists, but is more than information operations itself. There are a variety of ways to describe this... (see here for more detailed than you are willing to likely read analysis).

[charliebravo]

Isn't "information" a line of operations that takes place in many domains?

That sounds reasonable to me. My question was prompted by some reading that I had to do for school lately that suggested that information was the 5th domain and that cyber was a function within the information domain.

A related argument is whether IO should be adopted as a warfighting function. I am not sure whether making it an "official" warfighting function has any real value, other than ensuring that it is in the forefront of planner's minds as they seek to synchronize their operations, but if it is on par with the other 6 WFs then it would make sense that it is something that should be a consideration in all domains and not a domain itself.

[Bob's World]

Getting the message right and designing every operation to best convey the intended message is definitely something we suck at all levels.

I think "intended message" should be briefed back to the commander following mission analsys, and that he should approve it along with the restated mission. He then should direct his staff to incorporate "conveys intended message" in the COA comparison and anlysis matrix and direct that it be weighted by a factor of 2 or 3.

By doing this the commander has exercised his duty in defining and prioritizing the message of the operation (be it a convoy, a deliberate attack, or a humanitarian assistance event) and ensured that his planners shaped their COAs to be consistent with and help project that message.

Currently it is typically something the MISO/PSYOP guy buries in an annex or does off in some corner while the "real operation" is given all the focus. Getting the message right and designing the operation to convey it IS the real operation more often than not in places like Afg or Iraq, or other OEF locations.

[Presley Cannady]

Cyberwarfare is conducted on the same substrates as electronic warfare. And since even most EW applications are digitally managed, why bother the distinction? The only difference is the degree of abstraction in you accept in implementing your attack or defense: cutting a wire or shielding a receiver versus blocking a port and installing an SSH server.

[selil]

Cyberwarfare is conducted on the same substrates as electronic warfare. And since even most EW applications are digitally managed, why bother the distinction? The only difference is the degree of abstraction in you accept in implementing your attack or defense: cutting a wire or shielding a receiver versus blocking a port and installing an SSH server.

That is a very self limiting view of cyber. A very network centric view of cyber. Yet cyber is much more than just the network. It is found in the operating systems, the thinking of users, and much more. It is is the electro magnetic spectrum. Since cyber really comes from command and control (as discussed by Norbert Wiener fifty or so years ago, and we can see cyber going back centuries it is not just an Internet fad. Even William Gibson realized when coining cyber space that there was more to cyber than just the network.