Photo from International Affairs Review
Mutually Assured Cyberdestruction? -- David Sanger, New York Times
IT took years after the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima for the nation to develop a common national understanding of when and how to use a weapon of such magnitude. Not until after the Cuban Missile Crisis, 50 years ago this October, did a consensus emerge that the weapon was too terrible ever to employ again, save as a deterrent and a weapon of last resort.
Over the past decade, on a far smaller scale, the country’s military and intelligence leadership have gone through a parallel debate about how to use the Predator drone. Because it is precisely targeted, often on an individual, it is used almost every week.
Read more ....
My Comment: My observations and conclusions are slightly different from David Sanger's. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki .... the impact of using atomic weapons were understood right away (not 50 years) .... and the decision to use them (if ever) was quickly slated as the "last option" for the White House in any future conflict. The same can be said about drones. Drones were developed precisely because of their precision and ability to knock out targets in situations that would be suicidal for a manned helicopter or aircraft to undertake. The fact that this debate has now evolved on how to expand this program into other areas .... army, naval, etc. is also expected .... and not a surprise.
Cyber war is also a discussion that is only repeating what many realized years ago. Communications .... information transfer .... and how this information is analyzed and acted upon .... will be playing a larger and more important role in any future war. Disrupting these networks while maintaining yours untouched will give one side a tactical advantage over the other .... but like conventional warfare where there will always be collateral damage .... which in this case will be disruptions in financial networks, power grids, and communication hubs.
No comments:
Post a Comment