Suche innerhalb des Archivs / Search the Archive All words Any words

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[] USA Today: If U.S. Launches Cyberattack, It Could Change Nature Of War,

USA Today
February 12, 2003 
Pg. 3B


If U.S. Launches Cyberattack, It Could Change Nature Of War

By Kevin Maney

Imagine Saddam Hussein sitting in one of his palaces, tapping on his
laptop, maybe shopping at Uranium Online.

Which actually exists, by the way. Tag line: "The nuclear fuel
e-commerce solution."

All of a sudden, Saddam's computer explodes with e-mail. It's all spam,
made in America ? thousands of offers. Consolidate your debt. Earn money
working at home. Enlarge your breasts.

It would be like Internet carpet bombing. He'd surrender within days.

In reality, the U.S. military is developing cyberwarfare weapons.
Details of the program are top secret. OK, it probably doesn't involve
unleashing spammers on Iraq, but you never know.

Whatever the plan, the concept of cyberwar brings up a whole boatload of
questions. No nation has ever used Internet technology to launch a
military cyberassault. Cyberattacks would be one of those technological
firsts that changes the nature of war, historians say. In that sense, it
could have an effect like the longbow, a technological advantage that
helped the English whip the French, albeit slowly, in the Hundred Years

Although, cyberwar could be more like the first nuclear bombs in one
important sense: As with the first nukes, no one knows what might happen
if cyberwar is unleashed. It could backfire and result in rapacious
attacks on U.S. computer systems. So the United States seems to be
thinking hard about whether and how it would use this new weapon.

Of course, cyberwar doesn't involve a better way to kill people or blow
things up, which is a welcome divergence from the history of new
weapons. As unknowns go, it's not nearly as frightening as biowarfare.
Still, its impact could be great.

"The danger from computer warfare is very real," says Amir Aczel, author
of books such as The Riddle of the Compass, about significant
technologies of the past.

Under U.S. Strategic Command in the Pentagon is a unit called Joint Task
Force-Computer Network Operations. In military parlance, it's the
JTF-CNO, or just the CNO. Under the CNO comes the CND (Computer Network
Defense) and the CNA (Computer Network Attack). All are extremely
secretive. You won't see the CNO, CND or CNA on CNN.

The CND addresses familiar concerns: preventing enemy hackers from
breaking into vital U.S. computer systems or disrupting the Internet.
Its mission is protection, similar to building a wall around a medieval
city to keep out the Goths.

The newer CNA, created in 2000, is working on offensive Internet
weapons. If we attack Iraq, for instance, soldiers armed with PCs might
fire hacker software bullets over the Net to shut down Iraq's electrical
grid or overwhelm computers in Saddam's headquarters. The military might
even get creative, sending code that launches a RealNetworks player on
every Iraqi PC, then shows a digitally altered video of Saddam
instructing everyone to surrender.

The Bush administration remains opaque about what it can or might do.
"We have capabilities, we have organizations, we do not yet have an
elaborated strategy, doctrine, procedures," said Richard Clarke, after
he resigned earlier this month as special adviser to the president on
cyberspace security.

What happens, though, if we launch a cyberassault? You might expect some
al-Qaeda cells to retaliate. Such Internet terrorists could do some
damage. Remember, the network-clogging "I love you" virus was launched
in 2000 by a group of unspectacular students from a Filipino trade
school. Al-Qaeda could no doubt do better.

Yet, enemy hackers attack us all the time anyway, provoked or not.
They're relative amateurs. After NATO began bombing Serbia in 1999,
Serbian-sympathizing hackers from all over the world attacked more than
100 businesses in NATO nations. It had less impact on daily life than a
broken traffic light. Hackers constantly try to break into computers at
the Department of Defense, the CIA and the Department of Energy. As far
as anyone has told the public, the damage
has been minimal.

The scarier scenario, officials point out, is legitimizing cyberwar. If
the U.S. military makes it a part of war, other nations will, too.

Hackers are one thing. A coordinated cyberassault by another nation is
something else. Last year, Air Force General Ralph Eberhart told
reporters that China is developing cyberwarfare capabilities, and he was
pretty darn concerned. There's more chance such an attack could shut
down or clog not only military computers, but financial networks and
other systems that run the U.S. economy.

"God help us if any of these people get to the computers that control
nuclear power plants ? a thought that makes me shudder," author Aczel

"Cyberwarfare could in fact be the tool that allows weaker nations to
offset America's military might," Northrop Grumman CEO Kent Kresa said
in a speech about cyberwar.

The problem is that the United States is more reliant on computers and
the Internet than any other nation. If we trade cybervolleys with
another country, we're more likely to suffer greater damage. In the USA,
the simplest acts ? heating your house, writing a work memo, calling
your mom ? rely on computer networks. Most of us could no more live life
without computers than we could make our own butter. We're such a fat,
vulnerable target.

So we need to be careful. 

Especially if we use the spam strategy. Iraqis could wind up on all
those mass e-mail lists after the war. The Iraqi people would never
forgive us.

Liste verlassen: 
Mail an infowar -
 de-request -!
- infopeace -
 de mit "unsubscribe" im Text.