• 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
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.

I am agreeing, and simply disagreeing that this will require a separate branch of active-duty military personnel. The military may push for it in order to secure more funding, but I think they are unlikely to succeed at that push.

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.



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.

Sadly it is 11:18 pm here,and the wife is insisting that i leave alone those poor benighted souls who have the temerity to disagree with me on the internet, and retire to our bed :) another time.
 
What do you expect? It's an election year.

that national secrets actually ARE... self-agrandizement at the expense of national interest is at a minimum, very very bad form.
 
Sadly it is 11:18 pm here,and the wife is insisting that i leave alone those poor benighted souls who have the temerity to disagree with me on the internet, and retire to our bed :) another time.

There was a charming little cartoon in the WSJ a few months ago. Background, woman in nightgown standing in doorway. Foreground, man crouched over keyboard. Caption, "I CAN'T come to bed right now! Somebody's WRONG on the internet!" :lol:
 
I am agreeing, and simply disagreeing that this will require a separate branch of active-duty military personnel. The military may push for it in order to secure more funding, but I think they are unlikely to succeed at that push.

Actually, I would think that the military may resist it as it is another branch they would have to compete with for slices of the defense budget.

And, as I mentioned before, there are some benefits. Another one is that the branch can establish its own regulations concerning the personnel they will admit. I believe that the Air Force has an age limit for enlisted personnel that is lower than that for the Army. The reason why is because the Air Force is much more of a technical branch so they need younger people who can adapt and keep up with technical advances in technology. The Army, on the other hand, will always make do with a grunt who can shoot an assault rifle.

So a separate Cyber Force could benefit by being able to make their own regulations regarding the enlisted personnel they accept.

And, again, I agree with you that it doesn't warrant it's own branch. Yet. My argument, however, is that it's an eventuality.

Sadly it is 11:18 pm here,and the wife is insisting that i leave alone those poor benighted souls who have the temerity to disagree with me on the internet, and retire to our bed :) another time.

Yeah, time for me to start my day and go out and about. Have a good night.

Thomas Jefferson said:
A difference in opinion is not a difference in principle.
 
I think the potential of a separate cyber-warfare unit is very real. However, I'm not so sure that it will necessarily be a military branch. It will most certainly be government, but it may be civilian, i.e. CIA, etc., but have military people assigned to it, or something like that. Not unlike how Homeland Security was created as an anti-terrorism response... which, fills me with concern, considering how fast and far-reaching HS has grown from even its original mission.

That last though alone does not fill me with confidence.
 
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
A "leak" with no evidence to back it up is hardly the same thing as an open admission - or bragging for that matter.


I bet you think Israel has admitted to being a nuclear power, too. ;)
 
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.
Indeed. International brinkmanship is a very convoluted game with many branches, dead ends, and pitfalls. The correct innuendo at the right time and place can have as much impact as moving a carrier fleet.
 
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?
Cyber warfare is similar to spying and just like spying it can have violent and/or non-violent components. Stealing military secrets has never been considered an act of war. Destroying part of a military installation could be considered an act of war. Some of the non-traditional things we can pull off now, like importing a nuclear bomb, are without doubt an act of war. All of these things have their cyber counter-parts. Stealing information is still just stealing information. Destroying an electrical generator might be questionable but something like taking down the east coast power grid should be considered an act of war.
 
Actually, I would think that the military may resist it as it is another branch they would have to compete with for slices of the defense budget.
that would at least partially depend on whether or not they are capturing monies that otherwise would not have been spent within DOD.

So, the stories that leaked out about FLAME and STUXNET, did they leak out of the JCS?
 
A "leak" with no evidence to back it up is hardly the same thing as an open admission - or bragging for that matter.


I bet you think Israel has admitted to being a nuclear power, too. ;)

No, I know for a fact they haven't... the doubt alone is a powerful weapon. Though I assume that there is more than just guessing behind the belief they are one.
 
So, the stories that leaked out about FLAME and STUXNET, did they leak out of the JCS?

Don't ask me anything about FLAME or STUXNET because I know nothing.

However, based on what little I know, it seems that the U.S. military is treating cyberweapons as part of unconventional warfare, and so is keeping it extremely secret. But I know nothing about these, and hope other DPers here can respond.
 
A "leak" with no evidence to back it up is hardly the same thing as an open admission - or bragging for that matter.

on the contrary, given the placement of the leak and the later implicit verification of the White House of the veracity of the information when they described it as a leak of classified information, that is, indeed, what happened.
 
Don't ask me anything about FLAME or STUXNET because I know nothing.

well, since we are talking about defense bureaucracy, the answer to that question could be important to the conversation we are having.
 
well, since we are talking about defense bureaucracy, the answer to that question could be important to the conversation we are having.

In what way? Not arguing the point with you - just don't know the point you wish to make.
 
on the contrary, given the placement of the leak and the later implicit verification of the White House of the veracity of the information when they described it as a leak of classified information, that is, indeed, what happened.
"implicit verification"? What does that even mean? I also note you're presented no links. The last guy said it was an open statement by the Pres. and it ended up being the same "it was leaked" story from the NYT that I read months ago.


You of all people should understand brinkmanship. Wording is very important, so trying to read things into phrases or statements beyond what is actually said is not justified in this case.
 
In what way? Not arguing the point with you - just don't know the point you wish to make.

Well, you have argued that a DOD branch would report to the CinC via the JCS or their relevant Secretary - and here you are quite right. So, if the lead force in cyberwarfare developed STUXNET for us, and it reported to the President in a venue other than the JCS or a SECDEF briefing.... what would that mean for where the lead force in cyberwarfare is currently placed?
 
"implicit verification"? What does that even mean?

im·plic·it/imˈplisit/
Adjective:

Implied though not plainly expressed: "implicit criticism".
Essentially or very closely connected with; always to be found in: "the values implicit in the school ethos".

I also note you're presented no links.

:shrug:

Dictionary.com: Implicit

The last guy said it was an open statement by the Pres. and it ended up being the same "it was leaked" story from the NYT that I read months ago. You of all people should understand brinkmanship. Wording is very important, so trying to read things into phrases or statements beyond what is actually said is not justified in this case.

The White House implicitly confirmed that the information was accurate when it confirmed that it had been leaked. It probably never thought about doing otherwise, as it is at least plausible that the leak was intentional.
 
im·plic·it/imˈplisit/
Adjective:

Implied though not plainly expressed: "implicit criticism".
Essentially or very closely connected with; always to be found in: "the values implicit in the school ethos".

Dictionary.com: Implicit

The White House implicitly confirmed that the information was accurate when it confirmed that it had been leaked. It probably never thought about doing otherwise, as it is at least plausible that the leak was intentional.
So they kinda' sorta' said it was kinda' sorta' real? :lol:

When you get to explicit statements about the subject with links to same let me know.
 
So they kinda' sorta' said it was kinda' sorta' real?

No, the NYT cited sources who had leaked the information, and placed that leaker in a position to know what was said in the NSC, which is a fairly small sample of people. The White House then confirmed that that information was indeed a leak of classified information, implicitly verifying it's accuracy; which they were fine with doing, as the "leaks" made the President look good.
 
No, the NYT cited sources who had leaked the information, and placed that leaker in a position to know what was said in the NSC, which is a fairly small sample of people. The White House then confirmed that that information was indeed a leak of classified information, implicitly verifying it's accuracy; which they were fine with doing, as the "leaks" made the President look good.
All of which still boils down to "they kinda' sorta' said it was kinda' sorta' real". :)
 
All of which still boils down to "they kinda' sorta' said it was kinda' sorta' real". :)

No, the leaker definitely did give operational details of an incredibly destructive nature. No "Kinda Sorta" about it. The White House officially only verified the veracity of the leakers' details by implication. You don't appoint federal prosecutors to hunt down and solve crimes that didn't happen, even if you do intend on hobbling them.
 
No, the leaker definitely did give operational details of an incredibly destructive nature. No "Kinda Sorta" about it. The White House officially only verified the veracity of the leakers' details by implication. You don't appoint federal prosecutors to hunt down and solve crimes that didn't happen, even if you do intend on hobbling them.
The same NYT says ...
The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/w...d-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=1


In other words, there is no official verification. It's all "kinda' sorta'", which doesn't mean a damn thing except to the rumor mongers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom