For all the fund the US spends on defense, we may be defenseless against the next attack against us claims Richard Clarke, author of
Cyber War, who insists that the future of warfare is covert action using "weaponized malware," complex viruses that infect computers can steal information, cut off communication, or even destroy nuclear centrifuges. Cyber-attacks are nearly impossible to trace, but Clarke is incredibly certain that is was the US government who released
Suxnet, which led to the destruction of about one thousand nuclear centrifuges in Iran, slowing the advancement of the country's nuclear program severely. If the government had achieved this objective by physically destroying the centrifuges, it would have been regarded as a declaration of war. Achieving it through a computer virus keeps it as "covert action." The problem with the use of weaponized warfare is that, although the US has a sizable arson of cyber-offence technology, we have no cyber-defense, nor much hope of finding one, according to Clarke.
"catastrophic consequences may result from using our cyberoffense without having a cyberdefense: blowback, revenge beyond our imaginings." -- Richard Clarke
Because covert action requires no notification of other branches of government like deployment of troops does, and no approval from congress like declaration of war, does the expansion of covert action via technology leave too much power in the executive branch? How could we attempt to make a clearer distinction between war and covert action?
Does the anonymity of cyber war protect the country or is that advantage canceled out by the riskiness of not having a solid defense and/or does anonymity lead to chaos á la the classic bar fight that erupts when no one is sure who punched whom?
More of Richard Clarke on Cyber War and how to avoid an attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4aN4T7B-RA
2 comments:
I think that covert action--since it is essentially unregulated by Congress and other branches of government--has potential for widespread abuse by the executive branch. Since the presence of cyberwarfare is on the rise internationally, it is impossible to halt this movement, but I think the US government should proceed with caution, as these attacks do have the potential for backfire (especially since we have not set up a good defense system yet). As of now, the anonymity of cyberwarfare seems to fare an advantage for those countries that are more advanced in such proceedings, but I think that the anonymity will eventually lead to, as Adrienne says "the classic bar fight that erupts when no one is sure who punched whom." Confusion of perpetrator--especially in such large-scaled warfare as this--can lead to monumental errors and drastic consequences.
I think that covert action--since it is essentially unregulated by Congress and other branches of government--has potential for widespread abuse by the executive branch. Since the presence of cyberwarfare is on the rise internationally, it is impossible to halt this movement, but I think the US government should proceed with caution, as these attacks do have the potential for backfire (especially since we have not set up a good defense system yet). As of now, the anonymity of cyberwarfare seems to fare an advantage for those countries that are more advanced in such proceedings, but I think that the anonymity will eventually lead to, as Adrienne says "the classic bar fight that erupts when no one is sure who punched whom." Confusion of perpetrator--especially in such large-scaled warfare as this--can lead to monumental errors and drastic consequences.
Post a Comment