Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Act of War?
Topic Started: May 31 2011, 05:12 PM (217 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Cyber Combat: Act of War


The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.


The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official.

Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems—as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm—have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. A key moment occurred in 2008, when at least one U.S. military computer system was penetrated. This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.

The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.

One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Well now that's just dumb.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I have no problem with this position. An attack is an attack. The problem is in assessing responsibility. Still, I think a strong stance is the best policy and will serve as a better deterrent to any attempt than no policy or a weak one.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Rainman
May 31 2011, 05:26 PM
Well now that's just dumb.
Why do you say that?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Hack the U.S. and get a visit from Seal Team 6.

Now, that'll get your attention...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
So let me see if I understand this.

A group of evil hackers in Canada screw up our power grid, just because they tried long and hard, and got lucky.

BOOOOOOMMMM!!!! :mad2:

I have a better idea. U.S. policy should be simple, like:
If cyberwar from an individual or country is identified, the U.S. will respond with a delete function of its choice.

"Hey, anyone seen Achmed and the three guys named Mohammad? Seems like they just disappeared in the middle of the night!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Just more excuses for perpetual war.

1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Rainman
May 31 2011, 05:44 PM
So let me see if I understand this.

A group of evil hackers in Canada screw up our power grid, just because they tried long and hard, and got lucky.

BOOOOOOMMMM!!!! :mad2:



I refuse to believe that that is your interpretation of this policy.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
jon-nyc
May 31 2011, 06:57 PM
Rainman
May 31 2011, 05:44 PM
So let me see if I understand this.

A group of evil hackers in Canada screw up our power grid, just because they tried long and hard, and got lucky.

BOOOOOOMMMM!!!! :mad2:



I refuse to believe that that is your interpretation of this policy.
+1. Either that or I'd say no, I don't think your grasp of what they're saying is all that firm.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply