One anonymous military official puts it pretty damn succinctly: “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks.” You hack our computers, maybe we’ll blow up your buildings. This is a profound shift, with potentially massive consequences.
But a flaming open question remains: how hard to you punch back IRL if you’re attacked online? That’s a question the Pentagon’s still trying to wrap its five-sided brain around. The main argument is behind a doctrine of “equivalence” – causing as much physical damage as was caused by a digital attack. So, let’s say a foreign power takes out an air traffic control hub and cripples domestic flights – maybe we bomb their airports back.
Or if Chicago’s power is shut down in the dead of winter, putting lives on the line – do we then start shelling cities? Figuring out an equivalent between the digital and the real will be an immense task, and one with lives on the line. It’ll also open up the Pentagon to a panoply of new ways to start flinging ordnance. War… war sometimes changes? [WSJ]
The Cracks
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 11:52 AMNope. War never changes.
Only the ‘justifications’ change.
Awnshegh
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 1:24 PMWith most cyber attacks caused by small unaffiliated (government/country) groups this sounds more like they’d like ot have this as a get out of jail free card when they wan tto bomb someone into oblivion. After all the ‘They’ve got WMDs’ line just won’t cut it anymore.
SeanC
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 2:42 PMI will only support this approach if the US military yell “He’s coming right at us!!” before they begin their attack.
olearymo
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 2:56 PMHaaaaaang on hang on hang on.
I don’t think there’s a huge amount of potential for a digital strike to cause loss of life. Yes it’s possible but far less likely than a bomb.
Is the US really advocating the possible use of deadly force in response to a strike with no casualties?
Daniel
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:09 AMI guess one could argue principle over outcome. Whether or not it’s a deadly one should not matter in terms of a country’s security. That’s just like saying you have a bomb at an airport. Whether or not you do, you’re still getting locked away.
But, i mean it is the US after all, and they’re probably thinking “yeah…. principle (shifts eyes)”
olearymo
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 9:22 AMYeah but getting locked away is a legal police matter. Physical warfare results in loss of human life, in all circumstances, full stop. If the US takes a physical strike of any kind, at least one human life will be lost.
Oh, wait… I kinda lost track of what’s important here! It would probably not be an *American* life… carry on.
Osiris Fox
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:46 PMIt’s the middle of a bitter Winter in the US. A strategic and severe hack/attack is carried out on the electronic infrastructure that manages the power grid accross much of the country. This causes at least 10% reduction in available energy and results in widespread power outages and blackouts that last for days in some areas. The less fortunate, unprepared, or purely unable to access auxilary heating and so on are severely affected. At least 2000 deaths are attributed to hypothermia. Supermarkets in blackout areas run out of backup power eventually and food supplies start running low. This results in sporadic riots and looting accross the country stretching the police and internal security to breaking point.
Daniel
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 10:57 PMObviously, Osiris has thought outside the square, with his open minded comment.
I would have missed something like this, which is why i believe it’s important to treat all attacks equally, regardless of their impact.
A suicide bomber detonates a device in the centre of a busy district in the middle of iran – it may kill one or two people, but the attack has been done.
Or another example. A pedofile tries to abduct a child on the way to school. A bystander comes and saves the kid. Should the law be more lenient because he failed?
All i am saying is that a digital attack is a digital attack. You’re making it look more pleasant than it probably is. How well-placed these attacks are, are irrelevant. What IS relevant however, is that any form of digital attack should be treated as if it had the potential to create something catastrophic – which it does, whether it’s now or in 10 years time, where our lives revolve around machine.
Daniel
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 11:01 PMBut THIS BEING SAID, i also believe that America is taking this to the extreme, and will probably utilise almost any opportunity to create conflict… given their track record.
A digital attack shouldn’t be met with all-out nuclear war, it doesn’t compare. But it should be met with equal force to defend itself from a possible threat.
Goddy
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:26 AMTwo words: Scare tactics.
Daniel
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:06 AMHmm, just seems like they’re preparing future excuses for war. If this does come to fruition, i’d be pretty worried.
I got sudden images of “modern warfare” in the sense that the will of one man can bring the next global conflict (quoted from mw3 trailer).
Kinda scary.