• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is cyber warfare analogous to conventional warfare?

Do you believe cyber warfare is analogous to conventional warfare?

  • Yes (Why?)

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • No (Why not?)

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other.

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Total voters
    12
Das Sozialist

Das Sozialist

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
407
Reaction score
117
Location
Long Island, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Do you consider cyber warfare analogous to conventional warfare? Why or why not?

Would you consider it a declaration of war to participate in cyber warfare against a nation and/or nations?
 
A cyber attack certainly merits a response, but it's not covered in the Geneva Conventions.
 
I voted 'yes', but may be a bit premature on that. I do think that it is evolving in that direction.

To me, 'warfare' is roughly defined at the amount of havoc that one country and/or organization can wreak on another.
 
Das Sozialist said:
Do you consider cyber warfare analogous to conventional warfare? Why or why not?

Would you consider it a declaration of war to participate in cyber warfare against a nation and/or nations?
Click to expand...

If a country, using their personnel resources, were to attack the United States' power grid? Or tried to hack into the computers of a nuclear reactor site? Or our defense systems? Or our financial world? That is an act of war just as surely as if they were dropping bombs on New York City.
 
MaggieD said:
If a country, using their personnel resources, were to attack the United States' power grid? Or tried to hack into the computers of a nuclear reactor site? Or our defense systems? Or our financial world? That is an act of war just as surely as if they were dropping bombs on New York City.
Click to expand...

Do you believe our cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities (Stuxnet, Flame, 'Olympic Games' operation) are acts of war, then?
 
Das Sozialist said:
Do you consider cyber warfare analogous to conventional warfare? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
No, I mean, they're two entirely different things. May as well be comparing apples and differential gears.

Would you consider it a declaration of war to participate in cyber warfare against a nation and/or nations?
Click to expand...
This is the portion that caused me to vote other. Depending on the severity, intent, and nature of the attack, it can be viewed as a declaration of war. Not talking about stupid ****. like spamming the Pentagon with memes and goatsee pics, but an actual attack on our industrial, societal, and economic infrastructures through malicious tampering and manipulation. However, we would have to be very careful in determining identity of the tamperers before making a declaration of war.
 
Das Sozialist said:
Do you consider cyber warfare analogous to conventional warfare? Why or why not?

Would you consider it a declaration of war to participate in cyber warfare against a nation and/or nations?
Click to expand...

Within 50 years the U.S. military will have a Cyber Force as a separate branch of the military that will be tasked with safeguarding American internet infrastructure and developing methods of performing cyber attacks against enemies nations.
 
samsmart said:
Within 50 years the U.S. military will have a Cyber Force as a separate branch of the military that will be tasked with safeguarding American internet infrastructure and developing methods of performing cyber attacks against enemies nations.
Click to expand...

CyberCom is a Joint Command staffed by all the branches; but it's own branch? I find it more likely that some of our current entities already oriented in that direction will swell with the increased mission.

When you are targeting an enemy system, first you determine the effect desired (example: disrupt enemy C2 for 48 hours), and then you do the target system analysis (oh look, there is a central node that would take 48 hours to replace or fix), and then you do the weaponeering. If it is decided that the effect can be produced utilizing a virus v. a bomb; the intent and effect is the same. The only difference is the delivery vector.
 
cpwill said:
CyberCom is a Joint Command staffed by all the branches; but it's own branch? I find it more likely that some of our current entities already oriented in that direction will swell with the increased mission.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it'll eventually be it's own branch. The reason why I think that is because cyber warfare will become so specialized that it will require it's own regimen of recruitment and training that will necessitate it to be separate from the entities in the other branches.

Just like the Royal Marine Corps was originally part of the British Army until it was spun off as part of the Royal Navy, or how the air power became so important that it became it's own separate branch. That's the level of importance I think cyber warfare will get within 50 years.

And even if the military branches keep their own component cyber warfare units, I think, at the very least, a singular branch will come about to defend internet infrastructure from cyber warfare attacks and develop doctrines and methods of doing so. That would be more of a Cyber Guard, however.
 
samsmart said:
Yeah, I think it'll eventually be it's own branch. The reason why I think that is because cyber warfare will become so specialized that it will require it's own regimen of recruitment and training that will necessitate it to be separate from the entities in the other branches.
Click to expand...

You are, in fact, already correct - but that does not necessitate a separate branch of active-duty military.

Just like the Royal Marine Corps was originally part of the British Army until it was spun off as part of the Royal Navy, or how the air power became so important that it became it's own separate branch. That's the level of importance I think cyber warfare will get within 50 years.
Click to expand...

i think if anything you are underestimating.

And even if the military branches keep their own component cyber warfare units, I think, at the very least, a singular branch will come about to defend internet infrastructure from cyber warfare attacks and develop doctrines and methods of doing so. That would be more of a Cyber Guard, however.
Click to expand...

I agree on the function, I simply disagree on where you place it.
 
I think that an attack on internet infrastructure would be considered an act of war. All military sensitive information and all programs used for high tech military are stored in the US's cyber cache. An attack on that could put the United States in a very bad situation.
 
cpwill said:
You are, in fact, already correct - but that does not necessitate a separate branch of active-duty military.
Click to expand...

It doesn't yet. At the end of 50 years, I'm guessing it will.

cpwill said:
i think if anything you are underestimating.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not underestimating cyberwarfare at all. If anything, 50 years is a conservative estimate. But I understand that the U.S. military is rather conservative establishment. The Royal Air Force was established as it's separate branch in 1918, right after the Great War introduced the power of aerial warfare. When Germany started rebuilding it's military during the 1930's, it developed the Luftwaffe as it's own separate branch. But it wasn't until 1947 that the U.S. Air Force was established as it's own separate branch.

So I think that it won't be until after cyberwarfare is used in a major military conflict that a separate branch will be established.

cpwill said:
I agree on the function, I simply disagree on where you place it.
Click to expand...

Well, I admit that I've never been in the military, so I don't know any of the nuts and bolts of what the military has in place for defense from cyberattacks and offensive uses of cyberwarfare. However, study of history is a serious hobby of mine, and I certainly see historical parallels and trends. Once methods of cyberwarfare become mainstream in military conflicts, a separate branch will be established to focus solely on cyberwarfare operations.
 
Schutzengel said:
He signed and executive order for Stuxnet, and then bragged about it ... to show that he was tough. Though I guess he didnt openly say it, it was let leak to the new yourk times.

Cyber Attacks on Iran — Stuxnet and Flame
Click to expand...


Participants in the Stuxnet program told the newspaper it significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyber weapons and that the attacks began during the Bush administration under the code name Olympic Games.

Obama continued, accelerated use of Bush-era Stuxnet computer attacks on Iran | Fox News



Point is Cyber-warfare has been around a long time. See the 1982 situation between US and USSR below:

To illustrate the destructive capability of Stuxnet, the researchers referenced an oft-cited 1982 CIA digital attack on the Siberian pipeline that resulted in an explosion a fifth the size of the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima. According to the never-substantiated story, the United States discovered that Russia was stealing data on United States technology. So the CIA hatched a plot to insert a logic bomb into software that the agency knew the Russians were purchasing from a Canadian firm to operate pumps and valves on their natural gas pipeline. The equipment worked fine initially, but at a preprogrammed point, it caused valves in the pipeline to malfunction, creating a pressure buildup that exploded into a fireball so large it was captured by orbiting satellites.
Click to expand...

How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History | Threat Level | Wired.com
 
Connery said:
Participants in the Stuxnet program told the newspaper it significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyber weapons and that the attacks began during the Bush administration under the code name Olympic Games.

Obama continued, accelerated use of Bush-era Stuxnet computer attacks on Iran | Fox News





Point is Cyber-warfare has been around a long time. See the 1982 situation between US and USSR below:



How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History | Threat Level | Wired.com
Click to expand...

I dont think he did anything wrong by continuing "Olympic Games" What I disagree with is the leaking of information that we did it.
 
There are entities already devoted to the pursuit of cyber warfare. these entities are not built upon the same large-base-triangle model of an active-duty branch of military, and it is not necessarily optimal that it become so. regardless, the power of bureaucratic / governing inertia suggests that it is more likely that groups that currently have this mission set will expand rather than choose to die to the benefit of a new bureaucracy. The Air Force did not spring - anew from Zeus's head like Athena, but rather grew out of the already-existent Army Air Corps.
 
Schutzengel said:
I dont think he did anything wrong by continuing "Olympic Games" What I disagree with is the leaking of information that we did it.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement, however, was Obama the person who leaked the information and if he did was there a strategic reason behind it. We do not know many of the facts, indeed we are fed this information through filters and from that an argument is most likely vacuous and filled with assumptions and inaccuracies.
 
cpwill said:
There are entities already devoted to the pursuit of cyber warfare. these entities are not built upon the same large-base-triangle model of an active-duty branch of military, and it is not necessarily optimal that it become so. regardless, the power of bureaucratic / governing inertia suggests that it is more likely that groups that currently have this mission set will expand rather than choose to die to the benefit of a new bureaucracy. The Air Force did not spring - anew from Zeus's head like Athena, but rather grew out of the already-existent Army Air Corps.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. I understand the history and evolution of military bureaucracy pretty well.

The Army Air Corps was the aerial warfare wing of the U.S. Army, and had several predecessor organizations going back to the 1910s. But you also have to remember that the Army Air Corps became the Army Air Forces in 1941 because there was too much friction between ground commanders and aerial commanders, and the aerial commanders wanted more independence from ground commanders. Full independence was granted when the Air Force was established in 1947.

So the historical trend is consistent. Right now, cyber warfare units are components of the established services. What that means is that most conventional doctrine will see cyber warfare as a component of conventional warfare. In which case it makes sense for cyber warfare units to remain components of the established services.

The question then comes up is, "Can cyber warfare operations be independent of conventional warfare operations?" If so, then that helps to justify an independent service.

Another justification is in regards to promotion of officers. As I understand it, at some point in the military experiencing combat becomes a key to promotion. This is one reason for advocating allowing women to serve in combat roles - because they don't get to experience combat, promotion opportunities are denied to them.

Which brings up the question as to whether combat in cyberwarfare will be considered on par with combat in physical warfare. Sitting at a desk and hitting buttons to activate computer programs to do what they do may not seem dangerous or as a legitimate combat role. Which means that officers in those component units of other branches may have more difficulty in opportunities of promotion.

But by establishing an independent branch, such arguments are rendered rather moot since they focus primarily on combat in the arena of cyberwarfare. This means that they don't have to compete with officers who do experience physical combat, and that ladders of promotion are available to both types of warriors.

Another justification is that the service will have it's own seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and so will be able to advise the President and Congress solely on the United States' ability to perform in the arena of cyberwarfare. Our data networks are getting more and more important with every advance regarding the internet and telecommunications. With that level of importance of that infrastructure, a military official dedicated to the protection of the U.S. grid - and to overpowering that of hostile nations - may be necessary to advise Congress and the President on how to proceed in future conflicts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's going to happen any time soon. By the time all of this is likely to happen I'll be in a retirement home for several years and will be lucky to just remember my name. But, considering historical parallels and trends, I do think it will be an eventuality.
 
samsmart said:
I never said it did. I understand the history and evolution of military bureaucracy pretty well.

The Army Air Corps was the aerial warfare wing of the U.S. Army, and had several predecessor organizations going back to the 1910s. But you also have to remember that the Army Air Corps became the Army Air Forces in 1941 because there was too much friction between ground commanders and aerial commanders, and the aerial commanders wanted more independence from ground commanders. Full independence was granted when the Air Force was established in 1947.

So the historical trend is consistent. Right now, cyber warfare units are components of the established services. What that means is that most conventional doctrine will see cyber warfare as a component of conventional warfare. In which case it makes sense for cyber warfare units to remain components of the established services.
Click to expand...

So, according to Wikileaks and now the White House, the US was behind both Flame and Stuxnet. Do you think those were developed at Cybercom, or any other military entity where the majority of personnel are made up of non-college-educated 19-22 year olds?

Another justification is in regards to promotion of officers. As I understand it, at some point in the military experiencing combat becomes a key to promotion. This is one reason for advocating allowing women to serve in combat roles - because they don't get to experience combat, promotion opportunities are denied to them.
Click to expand...

as a side-note, this is incorrect. any fit-rep done in a combat zone is considered a "combat fitrep", regardless of billet.

Which brings up the question as to whether combat in cyberwarfare will be considered on par with combat in physical warfare. Sitting at a desk and hitting buttons to activate computer programs to do what they do may not seem dangerous or as a legitimate combat role. Which means that officers in those component units of other branches may have more difficulty in opportunities of promotion.
Click to expand...

....that is what the vast majority of officers in "combat zones" receiving "combat fitreps" do. Unless you happen to be a grunt / combat engineer officer at the rank of captain or below.

But by establishing an independent branch, such arguments are rendered rather moot since they focus primarily on combat in the arena of cyberwarfare. This means that they don't have to compete with officers who do experience physical combat, and that ladders of promotion are available to both types of warriors.

Another justification is that the service will have it's own seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and so will be able to advise the President and Congress solely on the United States' ability to perform in the arena of cyberwarfare.
Click to expand...

that will be a need, but why do you assume that their voice will be on the JCS rather than the NSC, or the DNI?
 
Cyber warfare is part of asymmetrical or unconventional warfare.
Unconventional warfare is by definition, not part of conventional warfare.
 
cpwill said:
So, according to Wikileaks and now the White House, the US was behind both Flame and Stuxnet. Do you think those were developed at Cybercom, or any other military entity where the majority of personnel are made up of non-college-educated 19-22 year olds?
Click to expand...

I think you think that I'm saying that cyberwarfare development can only be done as an independent branch, and that the current make up of Cybercom will be adequate for our future needs regarding cyberwarfare, as evidenced by the development of Flame and Stuxnet.

Please note that I'm not, in any way, criticizing the ability of Cybercom to perform its current duties or how it functions as component parts of established branches. That's not what I'm saying.

In fact, I'm saying the opposite - that the development of more cyberwarfare weapons and defenses will put pressures to establish a separate branch to solely focus on the development of cyberwarfare weapons and defenses.

cpwill said:
as a side-note, this is incorrect. any fit-rep done in a combat zone is considered a "combat fitrep", regardless of billet.

....that is what the vast majority of officers in "combat zones" receiving "combat fitreps" do. Unless you happen to be a grunt / combat engineer officer at the rank of captain or below.
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting me in that regard. As I said, I don't know anything of the nuts and bolts of the military, and I admit as much.

Even so, as cyberwarfare becomes more important, I think the promotion of officers trained and experienced in cyberwarfare will be necessary to do concurrently with officers trained and experienced in more conventional types of combat. What I mean by that is that instead of having an officer focusing on, say, tank combat competing for a slot with an officer focusing on cyberwarfare within the same branch that, instead, a separate branch will allow the best in these two different battlefields to rise concurrently.

cpwill said:
that will be a need, but why do you assume that their voice will be on the JCS rather than the NSC, or the DNI?
Click to expand...

Because I think that as time goes on we will have to make distinctions between cyberwarfare, cyberintelligence, and cybersecurity. Once those distinctions require more specialization of effort, bureaucracies will form to allow the managing of those divisions of labor. And when that happens, a Cyber Force can be established that focuses solely on the aspect of cyberwarfare, while other agencies can handle other specializations, such as cyberintelligence or cybersecurity. Or a Cyber Force can establish military aspects of cyberintelligence and cybersecurity, while other agencies handle non-military aspects of those things. Which depends on the type of culture we want to develop, and our evolving needs.

Sure, at this moment, our capabilities and demands don't require such divisions of labor, which is why Cybercom is fine for now. In 50 years time, though, as technological advances increase, I think that we will be required to specialize more, and create a bureaucracy that handles those specializations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom