Comments on: No Cyberwar, Says White House Official

By: Cyberwar? Avoiding the Question « ubiwar :: conflict in n dimensions

Cyberwar? Avoiding the Question « ubiwar :: conflict in n dimensions — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:01:46 +0000

[...] that’s the word I used to describe the Wired piece in a post for Kings of War on 5 March, No Cyberwar, Says White House Official. Pure coincidence, no doubt. At the annual RSA security conference Howard Schmidt, the newly [...]

By: To Cyberwar, Or Not to Cyberwar « ubiwar :: conflict in n dimensions

To Cyberwar, Or Not to Cyberwar « ubiwar :: conflict in n dimensions — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:03:26 +0000

[...] the view that we’re not in a cyberwar and said so in a short piece at Kings of War last week, No Cyberwar, Says White House Official. I also wrote an op-ed for The Guardian, The US is Not at Cyberwar, restating the sentiments of [...]

By: Words Matter, Says UK Office of Cyber Security | Kings of War

Words Matter, Says UK Office of Cyber Security | Kings of War — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:55:54 +0000

[...] commenters took me to task a bit for my recent assertion here at KoW that the US is not in the midst of a cyberwar. My argument – one I’ve consistently made over the last year or so, including again in [...]

By: Sunday UK Strategic Defence Review: Chapter 2 | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:26:49 +0000

[...] up, working, and open to all than it could possibly have in disrupting it. Very like the sea. The White House appears also to be heading this way, as Kings of War points out. The National Security Strategy [...]

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:19:10 +0000

Cyberspace is like the sea, or space itself – we have far greater interests in maintaining open multilateral access to it than we could possibly have in disrupting it.

I am cheered by this and also by the SDR consultation paper that notably turns down the volume on “cyberwar”.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:06:50 +0000

Tim, what about the “dual-use” nature of electronic espionage? Can it even be classified as espionage? I can understand the duality of espi0nage/act of war in a cold war context (that is, locating America’s nuclear silos and capabilities is vastly different to pilfering a nuclear warhead). But in an electronic context, the line between such things is blurred, if it exists at all. After all, if someone can gain access to DoD networks, then they are theoretically in a considerable position of power to do damage or cripple America’s military. Going back to the cold war duality of espionage, it’s as if locating a nuclear silo is commensurate with being able to walk off with the warhead.

By: Gunrunner

Gunrunner — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:59:07 +0000

To be clear, when I say “. . . . in DC, and therefore, by rare exception only,. . . ” I mean it is rare that military leadership has nothing but the best in mind for the troops and nation, and are not driven by some sort of political or venal agenda.

By: Formerly Grant

Formerly Grant — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:18:04 +0000

Considering the nature of the problem I’d argue that at most probably only a few thousand people* in the U.S could say if we actually are fighting a cyberwar, and if we are then who is winning. ‘Cyberwarfare’ has not been defined sufficiently in my opinion, the mechanics of fighting one are largely unknown to the public, and since the marks of such a war are mostly confined to the computers involved it isn’t easy for anyone not involved to find out about it – especially since one method of this type of attack is to prevent the victim from learning of it.

*That might sound like a large number, but that makes up a rather small percentage when you consider how many people work for the U.S government.

By: Formerly Grant

Formerly Grant — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:11:56 +0000

You can’t fight a war (in the legal sense) against terrorists. The legal framework and force brought to bear simply aren’t applicable. A useful way of sidestepping this could be recognizing that groups (such as FARC or Al Qaeda) have areas where they can be called terrorists and areas where they can be called insurgents. Of course one of the problems with theories in general is that they can only partially define a subjective reality.

By: Gunrunner

Gunrunner — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:41:08 +0000

My point was simply that there is a cyber-war going on and the current US administration appears, in my opinion for the purposes noted, not to accept that fact.

What is an act of war or a mere act of espionage is a good question. However, the sheer number of the attacks and the confirmed sources of these attacks indicate that a cyber-war is in progress, not just espionage.

How do we know the attack is coming from a hostile country rather than some angst-ridden teenage brat? How can we be sure that if we “hack-back” and blow up his screen we are actually striking at a state/non-state player possessing hostile intent? Well, we do have ways. . .hamstrung by archaic laws.

Regarding political agendas, curious you find my position “weird.” Personally, I may be weird (right, Rob?) but my position certainly isn’t without merit. You see, after decades of military service, from the field to touch with the White House, and after a little more than a decade of working outside the military and in DC, I’ve seen plenty of military agendas. Military agendas are not classically political in nature, as in partisan for party or movement.

As you know, life taking is not a game. It’s serious real world stuff and military leadership knows it. Their brother servicemen pay the price in blood for decisions they make, or recommend, in DC, and therefore, by rare exception only, military agendas are driven by efforts to buy the right kit, maintain what they have, train better and fight more effectively.

Intelligence agencies. Not as much direct experience, but enough to know that political appointees are subject to the winds of politics much more than the career intelligence agent or analyst. I respect deeply career intelligence men, not so much the politico’s.

Which leave the administration, current or otherwise. White House administrations are a fickle lot. Some come into power dedicated to doing what is right, some, not so much. Right now, not so much.