Is Cyber a new warfare? Debate (catch all)

[Brett Patron]

Why wait for the definition to get reified in doctrine? It's not like doctrine will end the debate anyway; did FM3-24 put "COIN" as theory and practice to rest? My interest is in out-of-the-box thinking on that thing (some of which is new, some of which is old as dirt) that people call "cyberwar." DoD shouldn't be held up as the ultimate arbiter here, because frankly they may not have it right. It wouldn't be the first time, would it

You can't think "outside the box" if you don't know where the box is. You need doctrine if for no other reason than to have either a point of departure or something to ignore.

Also, for the less informed, without a doctrinal basis it is difficult to budget for capabilities.

We are held up/held hostage by the zealots who insist on cyberspace as a separate domain, rather than capabilities and/or a dimension within the existing physical domains. When you change verbs to nouns (i.e "conducting cyberspace ops/CNO" -verb to "cyberspace is a domain - noun), you need doctrine to justify budget line items. Nature of the beast folks.

That's why DOD is properly resourced and DHS/State are not so much so.

[Erich G. Simmers]

You can't think "outside the box" if you don't know where the box is. You need doctrine if for no other reason than to have either a point of departure or something to ignore.

Also, for the less informed, without a doctrinal basis it is difficult to budget for capabilities.

Within the limited purview of DoD, I don't disagree with either of these points. However, the larger conversation on this started long, long ago and isn't waiting for DoD to release some publication on it. My view is that we should get out in front with the non-DoD, non-government folks.

We are held up/held hostage by the zealots who insist on cyberspace as a separate domain, rather than capabilities and/or a dimension within the existing physical domains. When you change verbs to nouns (i.e "conducting cyberspace ops/CNO" -verb to "cyberspace is a domain - noun), you need doctrine to justify budget line items. Nature of the beast folks.

That's why DOD is properly resourced and DHS/State are not so much so.

I do agree that cyberspace as a separate domain, perhaps, misdirects the focus of what we are discussing. After all, when someone writes an exploit or takes advantage of some misconfiguration in a network to gain or deny access, they are attacking humans and human processe ultimately. The medium--a wireless network, an embedded device, whatever--is inconsequential.

Where I think the distinction is useful is in the cultural differences of practitioners. Plus, there has been a proliferation of new technologies (either in outright invention or creation of 'mash-ups') that are worth flagging with a new term.

It's been with us because the zealots want to have it both ways..use "cyber" in a sentence and feel manly by saying "war"...

Who in this thread is handing out valor awards to "cyberwarriors"? You're setting up a silly strawman here.

[selil]

Within the limited purview of DoD, I don't disagree with either of these points. However, the larger conversation on this started long, long ago and isn't waiting for DoD to release some publication on it. My view is that we should get out in front with the non-DoD, non-government folks.

Very true. But, there are a lot of concrete thinkers who can't figure that out.

[Brett Patron]

Gents: we need some intellectual honesty and parameters in this debate.

Are we talking about this topic in broad and academic terms, unconstrained by actual policy? Clearly two correspondents here are not focused on the processes by which the DOD funds it's operations, and therefore how DOD can posture itself to operate in this new realm.

It is cute and smarmy to rail against "concrete thinkers" when the subject of doctrine is raised. And, if correspondents are not actually responsible for implementing policy, it is easy to claim to have the answers.

Want to know why the non-DOD interagency is handcuffed? They don't have anything akin to "doctrine" and therefore no way to justify the capabilities it requires to operate in the cyberspace domain. Consequently, they are unfunded or woefully underfunded.

Private concerns or other Nation-States may not use the term "doctrine" but they have something like it that helps them establish parameters for what they want to be able to do, how they want to operate in cyberspace, how they will defend and, if such is in their interest, how to conduct offensive operations.

[selil]

It is cute and smarmy to rail against "concrete thinkers" when the subject of doctrine is raised.

Cute and smarmy in the same sentence? Put a fork in me I'm done.