|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Montecresto 
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 18 2013, 9:41 pm |
|
   |
For the first time, NSA chief and head of the U.S. Cyber Command Gen. Keith Alexander admitted America is ready to attack in cyberspace. Never before has a U.S. official acknowledged that the U.S. government is working on or is in possession of malware capable of attacking a foreign nation in a cyber conflict, despite the fact that at least one attack — the famous Stuxnext worm — has been attributed to the U.S.
On Wednesday, in his annual testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Alexander took the cyberwar rethoric coming out of Washington up a notch. "I would like to be clear that this team, this defend-the-nation team, is not a defensive team," he said. "This is an offensive team." In other words, this cyber army is ready to retaliate in case of a cyber attack against the United States.
http://mashable.com/2013/03/14/us-ready-to-cyberattack/
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23906
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 1:33 am |
|
 |
Yep. Something the US was going to do anyway... But just to be on the right side of our own moralizing...
1. We first pick ourselves a boogeyman (China) -- and orchestrate a concerted government and media smear campaign -- spreading shock, fear, hate, and of course, our victimhood.
2. Then we announce our response as OP wrote above (to look like our hand was forced -- never mind that everything was already in place long ago -- e.g. Stuxnet).
Our United States -- a hypocrite and a menace to the world.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 9:20 am |
|
|
That's been my contention all along. Really wish enough Americans would realise it in order to effect a change in policy.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Ecocentric
Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: Jun. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 9:41 am |
|
|
Pandora opened the box 
The fact is, we are the country that is the most susceptible, since our infrastructure is the most dependent on the internet. It is possible that China is where most cyber attacks are launched from, because other countries find Chinese servers the easiest to hack.
Whoever is doing it, our capabilities should be fully capable, but we should also dial down the aggression and seek diplomatic solutions. Once fear is such an integral part of a culture, it is hard to discern threats from paranoia.
--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4056
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 11:14 am |
|
|
+1
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14069
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 11:22 am |
|
|
Yeah, +2 on that.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 11:54 am |
|
|
(Ecocentric @ Mar. 19 2013, 9:41 am)
QUOTE Pandora opened the box The fact is, we are the country that is the most susceptible, since our infrastructure is the most dependent on the internet. It is possible that China is where most cyber attacks are launched from, because other countries find Chinese servers the easiest to hack. Whoever is doing it, our capabilities should be fully capable, but we should also dial down the aggression and seek diplomatic solutions. Once fear is such an integral part of a culture, it is hard to discern threats from paranoia.
Just for clarity. Are you saying that the US should take cyber warfare on the offensive?
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23906
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 12:09 pm |
|
|
(Montecresto @ Mar. 19 2013, 8:54 am)
QUOTE
(Ecocentric @ Mar. 19 2013, 9:41 am)
QUOTE Pandora opened the box The fact is, we are the country that is the most susceptible, since our infrastructure is the most dependent on the internet. It is possible that China is where most cyber attacks are launched from, because other countries find Chinese servers the easiest to hack. Whoever is doing it, our capabilities should be fully capable, but we should also dial down the aggression and seek diplomatic solutions. Once fear is such an integral part of a culture, it is hard to discern threats from paranoia. Just for clarity. Are you saying that the US should take cyber warfare on the offensive?
We already have. Stuxnet being the example -- although merely the one our government chose to publicize. I seriously doubt it's the only one. 
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 12:13 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Mar. 19 2013, 12:09 pm)
QUOTE
(Montecresto @ Mar. 19 2013, 8:54 am)
QUOTE
(Ecocentric @ Mar. 19 2013, 9:41 am)
QUOTE Pandora opened the box The fact is, we are the country that is the most susceptible, since our infrastructure is the most dependent on the internet. It is possible that China is where most cyber attacks are launched from, because other countries find Chinese servers the easiest to hack. Whoever is doing it, our capabilities should be fully capable, but we should also dial down the aggression and seek diplomatic solutions. Once fear is such an integral part of a culture, it is hard to discern threats from paranoia. Just for clarity. Are you saying that the US should take cyber warfare on the offensive? We already have. Stuxnet being the example -- although merely the one our government chose to publicize. I seriously doubt it's the only one.
Oh sure, I know. I'm just wondering if he thinks that's a good thing and an offensive posture should be maintained or not.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23906
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 12:19 pm |
|
|
(Montecresto @ Mar. 19 2013, 9:13 am)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Mar. 19 2013, 12:09 pm)
QUOTE
(Montecresto @ Mar. 19 2013, 8:54 am)
QUOTE
(Ecocentric @ Mar. 19 2013, 9:41 am)
QUOTE Pandora opened the box The fact is, we are the country that is the most susceptible, since our infrastructure is the most dependent on the internet. It is possible that China is where most cyber attacks are launched from, because other countries find Chinese servers the easiest to hack. Whoever is doing it, our capabilities should be fully capable, but we should also dial down the aggression and seek diplomatic solutions. Once fear is such an integral part of a culture, it is hard to discern threats from paranoia. Just for clarity. Are you saying that the US should take cyber warfare on the offensive? We already have. Stuxnet being the example -- although merely the one our government chose to publicize. I seriously doubt it's the only one. Oh sure, I know. I'm just wondering if he thinks that's a good thing and an offensive posture should be maintained or not.
Not directed personally at Eco -- but that goes back to my original post -- orchestrate (and exaggerate) a bunch of threats -- and the American people will support "defending ourselves and safeguarding our freedom and our democracy". Who doesn't like mom and apple pie? Who wouldn't support protecting what we treasure?
But it's not even that. My big hunch is that we already have both defensive and offensive capabilities -- but our government doesn't want us to think of ourselves as the aggressor!
Pandora? She's always someone else. And America is always the victim, forced to defend herself.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Ecocentric
Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: Jun. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 12:14 am |
|
|
I'm going to claim humility and ignorance here. I don't know what the answer is, but my gut tells me that the US should have the ability, but be show great restraint in using it. I don't suppose that we can develop the capability without practicing it, on some scale, but from what I hear, it was a very useful tactic in the invasion of Iraq, even if the strategy of the invasion was a bad idea.
I lean towards believing that the only atomic bombs used in war were an unnecessary attack, but I am glad that we had them first. I'm well aware of the potential cost of invading Japan, but we dropped the atomic bombs before Russia could capture territory in Asia like they did in Europe, which was a strategic decision to deprive Russia of influence in post war Japan. The Allies were barbarous in their practice of firebombing civilian populations. The allies didn't start the war, and they didn't prevent it. I don't approve of barbarism in the struggle to defeat barbarism, which applies to the personal use of weapons.
I believe there are other cultures that would not have used restraint had there not been a threat of retaliation in kind, which is perhaps the reason that we only used that tactic in one conflict. Patton would have used nukes against Russia, MacArthur would have used them against China, and I have little doubt that someone would have used them against the US. I just don't know enough to know what Khrushchev, Mao, or Castro would have done given the chance, but I would bet they would have pushed the button had the had a significant advantage. Maybe that is the result of the propaganda I experienced in my youth.
Smart munitions and drones can inflict more focused damage than earlier weapons in the category of weapons that go boom. Computer viruses are not as destructive as chemical, or worse, biological weapons can be; I think. I just don't know how focused cyber tactics can be. Can they be designed to eliminate collateral damage to non-combatants. I would hate to think that my hard drive could be wiped by a virus that was meant to thwart Iranian uranium enrichment. I also don't want anyone's innovations copied hours after inception by anyone else seeking to profit.
Justice is my word of the week. In world affairs, I would like to see fairness. We need to practice it as a good example. It's kind of complicated though.
--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 8:53 am |
|
|
It is complicated, but I agree. And believe that no countries go the distance necessary to avoid war and fully believe that far too many people benefit from war in differing ways so as to ensure its perpetuation.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 9:50 am |
|
|
Fortunately or unfortunately cyber warfare, IMHO, will be a big part of international conflicts going forward. Eco's point about our infrastructure's growing dependence on the internet and interconnected-ness hit it right on the head.
But of course this has been going on for a while, and will occasionally hit the media when they think it can sell a few rags or generate a few internet clicks (read:irony).
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
