Slashdot Mirror
The New Air Force Mission?
mvnicosia asks: "The US Air Force has released its new mission statement, which reads 'The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.' With the recent rows over US Internet governance, what do you think is the impact of a US government overtly practicing cyberspace warfare? And what are the US's legal limitations?"
to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace
And people wonder why there called the chairforce.....
Is this a mission statement from the early 1990's or something?
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
I think that depends on what they will be doing, doesn't it? Will they be simulating cyberattacks or actually rummage around on the internet to "test things" like they did in Japan?
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace
I'm thinking Tron light cycles in the skies above Iraq. How cool is that?
Damn, they even have a 'Flight Sim' department.
Really though, what the hell has the internet got to do with the wingflapping guys?
My guess is that if the U.S. government felt a threat was so grave that it would resort "cyberwarfare" as well as conventional warfare (knowing the consequences), then I think we'd all have a more serious problem than just worrying about internet governance.
Just like anything, the U.S. has the power to abuse it. But I feel, as with many others, that the U.S. is less likely to abuse it due to its economic reliance upon it. The U.S. would only resort to "cyberwarfar" as one of the last resorts, it would seem.
All of their equipment was made by the lowest bidder.
Read any good sonnets lately?
The term cyberspace includes network security, data transmission and the sharing of information.
Watch out for unmanned drones in your peer2peer networks.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Could this be the beginnings of the first ever war that takes place over the Internet?
There is no god but Google and GTalk is the messenger of Google.
You could be worried about it but if you read it more narrowly and in context, it's not that scary. The USAF will fight in space, air, and cyberspace as it relates to warfare. Given how dependent the US miliary and other militaries are on information, it's reasonable to expect them to practice techniques for attacking and defend networks. Put it another way, while the air force practices gaining air superiority, we rarely ever see them go around downing civilian aircraft in times of peace (though there have been mistakes). Just because they're developing the ability it doesn't mean they're going to recklessly use it on everyone. The military needs to be prepared for things that might happen.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
After spending 22 years wearing the USAF uniform I think I can be confident in saying that the new mission statement has been looked over and discussed by many General officers, public affairs officers and lawyers both civilian and blue-suiters. They don't often post public statements like that without knowing exactly what ramifications might pop up.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
Bluntly speaking, the US's legal limitations are whatever it decides they are.
AFAICT there are no international treaties about cybercrime and information warfare---except those involving copyrights. The U.S. seems happy to prosecute or cause to be prosecuted anybody who is electonically inconvenient to U.S. companies.
This is not my sandwich.
The Airforce has been doing this for years. Now its just official
Old news I though? I worked with a couple ex-air force guys who used to do red-teaming for their infowar group, details are sketchy about what exactly they did obviously. But I do know it was a couple years ago, and the guys i work with at least know their stuff very well.
China has openly stated the intention of using the Internet to try and cripple our economy should we go to war with them. We have to assume many of the same tactics outlined in the linked document are being adopted and developed by other militaries as well. For our government not to be investigating and preparing on this front would be suicidal.
From TFA: ... from security awareness, making sure the networks can't be penetrated, as well as figuring out countermeasures," Secretary Wynne said. "The Air Force is a natural leader in the cyber world and we thought it would be best to recognize that talent."
"We have quite a few of our Airmen dedicated to cyberspace
My questions:
1) Is this to say that the Air Force will be in charge of any "cyberspace"-related activity? As in, the other branches will come to the Air Force when they need computer work done? Or does each branch do this sort of thing independently? When and why?
2) Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing based on the lame terminology. By cyberspace are they just referring to airborne signals, satellites, and the like? Or are they including traditional wired networks (including the WWW) in addition to things like cryptography, et al?
audioLibre - freedom of music
The different branches of the U.S. military spend far more time competing with each other for budgetary dollars than against foriegn powers. Witness the Air Force vs the Navy for fighter plane designs. This new mission statement is from the Secrtary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff - no higher. I'm guessing it represents a turf grab on the part of the Air Force - cyberspace is ours!
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
"what are the US's legal limitations?"
Maybe I'm being a troll here (mod me down if you wish), but the current administration has pretty much made it clear that any "legal limitations" that may have previously existed are now void.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Do you think the airforce do all of their 'cyberspace' flying with a joystick?
Someone at the top's thought. OK, we'll add Space to our mission statement, and someone lower's just grepped for .*space.* ...
The airforce in cyberspace... You couldn't make it up... Well, maybe Pratchet could.
Deleted
US surrenders to Fatal1ty
The US airforce today acknowledged defeat in cyberspace after being challenged by 1 individual, Johnathan Wendel, aka Fatal1ty.
The chief of staff confirmed that after hurling 20 marines at Fatal1ty, they discovered that they were not able to defeat him. Extrapolating this knowledge to the rest of the airforce, they surrendered the complete airforce to him.
There has not been any news yet from other defenses until now. The expectation of this news agency is however, that by the end of the month, the US will have a new president for live.
Note: This news agency is in no way forced to support either party because of continuing cyber attacks. We are not under attack, serious, we mean it.
Backroom noise: Aaahhh, he fragged me for the 10th time this hour. PUBLISH THE ITEM, PUBLISH THE ITEM!
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
hay guys im in ur base killin ur doods
The UK/European reaction has begun: US Air Force To Invade Cyberspace - whatever possessed Wynne to say/write anything so colossally stupid??
Maybe they should target a few cruise missles at Sony, for their second DRM snafu.
After all, a rootkit is a tactic that would be attractive to some terrorist organizations...
Of course, I don't missles fired at me for running MythTV. Maybe its just a bad idea.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
"the United States of America and its global interests"
Once upon a time those two were considered mutuall exclusive.
Enemy 'Command and control' was the first and most important target in the Gulf Wars. Cyberwarfare is another rapid means of attacking it out, along with jamming, and good old iron bombs. I for one welcome our new Air Force overlords.
an ill wind that blows no good
Cyber space war fighting and understanding the combat needs of networks have been part of the airforce mission for over two decades. Adding it to the mission statement is only showing the increased concern and admitting the increased importance that networks and computers are playing in war fighting. For some interesting reading try http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/transformation /oft_implementation_ncw.pdfNetwork-Centric Warfare (1.10 mb) detailing a significant increase in the undertanding and capability. Secondly, there understanding of "cyber-warfare" and most net saavy citizens aren't quite the same.
--- Location Unknown
"seeking out new life" and "exploring strange, new worlds"
Optimists surrender.
Think of the mayhem one could wreak upon a target system or network with the resources the AF could bring to bear! Not only that but it provides a chance for all those fat lazy hackers to get in shape and actually earn a living (basic training ya know...)
Hahahahaha. The US Air Force is going to patrol cyberspace. Bwhhahahahahaha!
I can't even find the words.
http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/johnny.jpg Two pre-teen hackers on your six, moving in for a better shot, over.
Let's see, does a state of war exist between "us" (the people who live, work, play, love on the internet) and the dark forces in the world? Absolutely! Nigerian scam, Chinese Hacker college, phishers, spam, malware of all sorts, greedy companies (SBC, BellSouth, etc). This short list says we do have enemies, and there is a need to defend ourselves.
That said, as ex-Navy (1968-1974) I remember that for close order ground support be well covered before the Air Force starts, they are the premier experts at 'Friendly Fire'.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Maybe they'll be able to outsource most of the work to GeekSquad! They're already skilled in paratroopoing down into residential neighborhoods to fix up Joe Sixpack's computer. ;)
RFC2119
I'm deeply concerned about not only the motives of the U.S. military engaging in 'cyberspace warfare' in terms of whether it would be kept within legal limitations (if that's even possible), but also about the competence of the people who would be carrying it out to make appropriate decisions with respect to the legality of what they are doing. Take a look at this article to see what I mean.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
And where do you draw the line between POLICE ACTION on the internet and CYBERWARFARE? Is monitoring internet traffic for terrorist communications a POLICE ACTION or CYBERWAREFARE? What if you more from passive to active, by sending fake messages to suspected terrorist?
My guess... the US is already there and we're not the only ones in the game.
What worries me most in this new mission statement is the reference to space combat.
How dangerous would space combat be to the US? How much of our economy relies on communications satellites?
It seems to me that a relatively 'backwater' countries that had ICBM missles could do a lot of damage to the US economy (and thus war machine) by shooting down our satellites, even if they posed little challenge on the battlefield.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
>
Google search engine will be flooded with requests like "Want Irak Wepon Evidnce" or "How I spell trrorist?"
because no government operates under any true constraint except those which ends its dominance. If anything the Bush people are just to blunt. Perhaps its the nature of Texans, but subterfuge isn't always the best method either.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
All your cyberspace are belong to us!
You ideologues will believe anything as long as it [1] aligns with your wacky world view and [2] is, somewhere and somehow, in print. The link you posted is by some worthless scumbag who just hates the military and got hoaxed as a result of his own ideological blindness. I just wish there was way to make you see what a complete shithead you are.
An Army grunt stands in the rain after marching 12 miles with 35-pound pack on his back and says, "God, this is shit."
An Army Airborne recruit stands in the rain after jumping from an airplane and marching 18 miles with a 45-pound pack on his back and says with a smile, "God, this is the shit."
An Army Airborne Ranger lies in the mud after jumping from a plane into a swamp and marching 25 miles at night past the enemy with a 55-pound pack on his back and says with a grin, "God, I love this shit!"
A Green Beret kneels in the stinking mud of a swamp with a 65-pound pack on his back after jumping from an airplane into the ocean, swimming ten miles to the swamp and crawling 30 miles through the brush to assault the enemy camp and says with a passionate snarl, "God, give me some more of this shit!"
An Air Force recruit sits in an easy chair in his air-conditioned, carpeted quarters and says, "The internet connection's out? What kind of shit is this?"
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Cyberspace is ours, let the Army, Navy, and Marines sit and spin.
Justifcation of one's budget usually means jumping the gun and laying ownership claims quickly. Expressing it in your mission statement is one good way of doing it. Now the other branches will have to figure out how to keep the Air Force from getting the sole control of that arena.
In other words, we want money and here is our justification, after all Cyberspace is so big and scary!
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
A place without barriers, the alternative for a democratic globalization, its becoming a battlefield. All because the desires of of power and domination of a nation. "From the halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli..."
Speaking as someone who wears the USAF uniform...I'd say a more accurate mission statement of the USAF is to "bury its airmen in piles of bullshit so deep they'll drown in it." That's what the high-ranking officers seem to prioritize at my base, at least.
Kind of interesting that the document starts with a rationale based on the Iraqis having tried to jam GPS during Gulf War II -- "adversaries will target space capabilities" -- and then quickly moves on to a "We've got to be ready to do that to our opponents" stance that's openly aggressive.
Lots of interesting details in there. A sidebar says over 80% of US military satellite communications during GW II used commercial satellites.
Page 49 of the 63 has a scant paragraph about legal considerations. Basically the M.O. is "check with a judge advocate to make sure it's okay."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Cyber Guard
Each branch is going to end up having it's own "Cyberspace" division duplicating the efforts of other branches and wasting taxpayer dollars.
I just hope we don't have a cyber-civil war with the branches trying to out hack each other.
While we are at it, why not redefine the mission of the US Coast Guard to "Border Guard". Give them the resources they need to defend all our Borders.
Anyone who fails to see the strategic military, economic and other importance of comm nets is ... naive.
... Europe has been deliberately trying to undercut US standards, pressuring the UK (for instance) to adopt equipment incompatible with ours. This USAF statement just acknowledges that the EU intentionally is positioning its countries, technology and policies in opposition to the US ... indeed, in many cases in stupid, blind kneejerk opposition.
.. anybody remember the Red Lion attack in March 03? It wasn't the first and it certainly hasn't been the last.
A key asset in our comms capability orbits in space: the constellations of comms satellites, along with GPS and other capabilities (including visual surveillance / reconaissance). Those satellites were put there by USAF in most cases and they retain operational responsibility for many of the military ones.
As far as the announcement goes (and Euro response) well
So be it. We aren't about to roll over and curl into a sobbing heap in response. If we need to go it alone to defend ourselves and those who are allied with us, that's just what we'll do.
Oh and snide boy above? You might be rather surprised at the depth of skill in the infowar ranks. Cyberwarfare has already been tested against us in a variety of probing attacks
That means laws don't apply.
-- Steve van Egmond, b.math
When were talking about an organisation (U.S. Govt) who normally leave their admin passwords null (Words of a currently under inditement U.K. hacker (who they want to try in a military court to keep him silent)) i think cyberspace is going to patroll their servers not the other way round.
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
None.
People need to realize, there is no such thing as international "law." There certainly are things that are called international law, but it is not actually law. They are parts of treaties and agreements built between nations, and they are broken by all nations when it is in their best interest. The U.S. does it; Canada does it; Mexico does it; Japan does it; China does it; They ALL do it. There are no legal implications, unless the U.S. decides that they will allow some other nation to bring legal charges. I really don't see that happening.
Of course, that does not mean there are no other implications... like retaliation.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
and "sovereign options" means that. It's sovereign. They strive for sovereignty and to be viewed as a sovereign entity, with sovereign options. Therefore the relationship between the USAF and the air forces of foreign nations will be one between sovereign entities.
I once was at a lecture by Lieutenant Commander Chris Eagle, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School, who taught courses on cyber defence and cyber warfare and he made an important point: Only uniform wearing members of the United States Armed Forces can actively engage in warfare of any kind, including 'cyberwarfare'. This is because of laws and treaties governing who is and who is not a combatant. Even though many civillians may be involved in developing 'cyberweapons', just as civillians are very involved in developing physical weaponry, when deployed and used it must be an active member of the armed forces pulling the trigger, pushing the button, or, in this case, hitting the enter key.
Man, if I was a terrorist I'd write some code that earased the bios of all those Cisco routers on the backbone. Do it from the edge in so you wouldn't just be chopping up the 'Net into small pieces but actually damaging every link globally. Think of how much economic damage alone this would cause. Seriously, the US has spent what, 250bn?, on Iraq so far, imagine losing just as much in a single day while CNN reports the economy is in chaos.
The fact of the matter is that the USA did not become the world's only superpower by force -- quite the opposite, it got their by being a benevolent power that other countries trusted.
What?!? Are you just, like, making up history as you go along?
We became the world's only superpower by (1) building a giant friggin' arsenal, (2) training a ridiculously immense armed forces, and (3) developing a staggeringly robust economy to sustain both. The previous century's other superpower had (1) and (2), then fell short on (3). (I leave the debate re the efficacy of the respective economic systems to a different thread.)
Now, China teeters on superpower-dom, if it can't be classified as one already. Is that because the Chinese have labored so hard at presenting a benevolent face to the world and building up other nations' trust? Obviously not.
If you got to be a superpower by being nice, Iceland would rule the solar system. Or, at least their women would...
And us blue suiters wouldnt have it any other way! .. excuse me, I need a refil on my mountain dew..
If you're from non-USA country I can understand why you'd like to see the US a less powerful country.
But if you're an American I don't understand why you wouldn't want the USA to have sovereign military options. Why you'd like to see the fight be a little more fair. WTF would you want a fair fight for? I think it's a huge deterrant to the bad guys knowing that we could eliminate them if they gave us a reason to.
In addition, there may be agreements between different countries. But it is not a "sin" to break any one of them. You may loose trust or credibility - but it is not wrong in the literal sense. In fact, there is no higher being that has put a limit on how powerful a nation can get or on what kind of weapons they can build or where they can use or put those weapons. We are the USA and we are Sovereign. Sovereign means that NOBODY has power/control over us (not even a treaty). We do what we need to do and if the government is properly using our tax money, nobody should be able to stop us.
Data retention laws are being prepared, calls for "filtering" the web has been made. I don't think you'll be laughing like this in ten years time.
In the early 1980's, the Air Force Communications Command (AFCC) changed all their flight, squadron, and group names from "Communications" to "Information Systems". So, the 2049 CG (at McClellan AFB, now closed) became the 2049 ISG.
For about a 10 month period.
The culture of the rest of the USAF was not ready for this change, and the other major commands essentially forced AFCC to change them all back by refusing to update all their documentation & correspondence to the new names.
The difference between then and now, is of course 22 calendar years and 60+ internet years. Also, this is the entire USAF, and not a supporting major command. Who knows -- they might actually get this change to stick.
Chip H.
In the time between the Air Force's founding (1947) and NASA's founding (1958), the Air Force was the primary location of space research in the US government.
Traditional Geneva Conventions apply to air. There are few practical constraints here.
There are separate treaties outlawing militarization of space. How prohibitive the treaties will be in practice is yet to be seen. Regardless the US will always act to defend itself, particularly in regards to its satellite system which is today's "high ground" that facilities military dominance. Certainly the US will deploy defensive systems to protect satellites. Whether it will deploy systems designed to disable enemy satellites is uncertain, but likely.
There are no legal treaties explicitly controlling cyber wars. There may be some older international law that could be applied to this new arena. Such would be similar to the desire of some to apply the international laws allowing nations the right to attack and capture pirates to the current war on terrorism -treating terrorists as pirates. If legal scholars can see parallels here, they'll surely see them in cyber warfare.
Today many would consider carpet bombing an entire city filled with civilians in an attempt to destroy a radar tower as a practical violation of the Geneva Conventions' rule against targeting civilians because the same tower could be destroyed with other means that would not endanger a whole city of noncombatants.
Would targeting an entire ISP to take out one terrorist website be similar? If that ISP refused to take down the website, how careful does the US have to be if it chooses to electronically attack it? Can it wipe out the data on all the ISP's servers, thus affecting "noncombatant websites?" Or must it be more careful and try to affect only the enemy's website? Probably not because the collateral damage is not that serious... loss of a website, eh... he'll live.
But what if the US is at war with an entire country, how careful must it be in attacking entire networks in that country? In that case, there may be some serious considerations. Taking out a major ISP may disrupt not only government and military networks of the enemy but also hospital networks or networks that control municipal water systems, etc, etc, which would knowingly endanger civilian lives and possibly affect third party nations. In war a country must differ to saving its citizen's lives over those of the enemy when it has no other options. So, I suppose the legal limitations are such that the US has to decided, what options it has that will likely defeat/incapacitate the enemy and then choose the ones that least endanger civilians (lives and property). Maybe it will be that cruise missiles are safer to civilians than a cyber war.
Aloha!
Since when did the US care about legal limitations when would be in conflict with it's interests?
For a good (amazing) argument about the US vs the world, read the excerpt of the acceptance speech by this years Nobel price winner in literature Harold Pinter:
No news about this speech on CNN however...
The U.S. has signed treaties to treat space like the Antarctic and pursue only peaceful exploration:
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm
"The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers.
After the Treaty entered into force, the United States and the Soviet Union collaborated in jointly planned and manned space enterprises."
If you don't want an air attack from the USA now, all you have to do is block their IP range!
-/What do you mean there's Internet from satellites now?! Damn!
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
The Air Force is not going to take place in "cyber attacks". This mission statement doesnt change what the Air Force has already been doing - PROTECTING its networks against attacks. That is all.
Present reality for the Air Force is that its Airmen are getting used to run convoys and pull guard duty for the Army in Iraq. The Army doen't have the man power to keep that fiasco going, so in addition to abusivly overusing the Army National Guard, they are now using a lot of AF and some Navy personnel to do the Army's work.
mig@rub:~$ nmap f16-1024.airforce.gov
Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2005-12-09 14:59 CET
Interesting ports on f16-1024.airforce.gov (12.34.56.78):
(The 1649 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT STATE SERVICE
25/tcp open bombs
53/tcp open nailgun
80/tcp open mavericks
139/tcp open nukes
Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.293 seconds
mig@rub:~$
Real sovereigns know when to be bound by treaties, and when to acknowledge other powers. They understand that there have to be checks and balances in the world, just as in the US Constitution. If you knew any history, and clearly you don't know any at all, you would know that rogue states - treaty breakers, states that declare their absolute sovereignty and seek to expand continually - end up being pushed back and crushed. Militant Islam was stopped in the passes of Spain thirteen hundred years ago. The Turks, whose foreign policy yo-yoed wildly, had to be stopped in the Near East and were stopped after Lepanto. Japan and Germany were stopped in the 1940s. The Soviet Empire was stopped in Europe and eventually collapsed. What makes you think that, if the US becomes sufficiently unpopular, the same thing will not happen again?
Fortunately, you are not in charge of US foreign policy. And, in the long term, nor will the likes of Wolfowitz and Cheney be. In the meantime, we are living in dangerous times.
Pining for the fjords
They're called the NSA. They're the crazy spooks that do this kind of stuff.
So Uncle Sam is recruiting hackers now?
Arrest them, detain them without trial, review their resume, draft them...
I'll write the script, anyone else want to pitch in?
We're a superpower because our land is rich in precious minerals (we wouldn't be the United States today if it weren't for saltpeter), we can feed our people, and we have enough space to diversify our economic sectors.
GPS-jammer contractor plays both sides of war
IIRC, US special forces were sent in to disable them. (Thank you)
If the Iraqis had the capability to knock out a GPS satellite, and degrade the system upon which their enemy's most effective weapons relied, don't you think they would have done that too? It might not take a lot; just a high powered laser and an accurate tracking device. The Soviet/Russian anti-satelite systems were little more than a missle filled with ball bearings. Messy, but effective.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
"what do you think is the impact of a US government overtly practicing cyberspace warfare?"
None.
Hmmm your name looks familiar, perchance you're an Armagetron player? Excuse me if I confuse you with someone else.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
The word you are looking for is Boondoggle.
Let's charge the tax payers seven billion dollars, we'll buy 1 million dollars in PCs and servers, pay 5 engineers who are managed by 40 managers, and answer no ones questions. oh, and we will need to pay a haliburton owned company 1 billion dollars to build us a 100 million dollar office space.
We won't actually accomplish anything but it sure will look grand.
If anyone asks, We did all we could and we will not loose our resolve.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
*** Disclaimer *** I work for a major defence contractor that sells Sats and stuff
/would/ be doing that kind of thing, among the NSA, CIA, or maybe even the FBI at first.
The Air Force had always launched and maintained most of the military communication satellites. These uplinks usually form the trunk of deployed military networks... after all, it wouldn't be too convenient for the Army to subscribe to the nearest middle east DSL line or for the Navy to spool thousands of miles worth of fiber behind a flotilla. So most of what the military considers the "network" is this wireless communications system, which needs to be heavily secured, defended, etc.
One of the first things the Air Force is responsible for during an invasion is to take out the enemy's command and control infrastructure - destroying their radar, microwave tranceivers, satcomm, and other network and surveillance equipment. Whether this is done using bombs/missiles, jamming equipment, or perhaps some kind of network attack/exploit, I suppose you could agree that the latter modes could be less destructive and more subtle in terms of offering you counterintelligence options ("no, the invading force is actually over *here*". And the less infrastructure you physically destroy, the less you have to rebuild later, I guess.
While some of this might be carried on over the internet, I imagine the vast majority would occur over isolated military intranets.
I'd be pretty surprised if Air Force honeynets and botnets start duking it out with the supposed North Korean hacker army over the normal internet we know and love, playing a game of cat 'n' mouse over the tattered remains of a compromised IIS server... though I wonder who
The Department of Defense realizes that information warfare is a serious business. During Gulf War II we had computers constantly dialing damn near every phone number in Baghdad which overloaded their phone system and forced them to constantly bring it down and back up. The system was practically unusable. The internet has become the communications medium of choice for most everything these days and the Air Force knows this. Thus they realize that they're gonna need a strong ability to conduct warfare in cyberspace if they wish to have every possible advantage when the bullets and bombs start flying. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't understand why someone would have a problem with that. What? You're not patriotic?
What is your penile percentile?
...for Navy cyberspace didn't got named "cybersea", or for Army it wasn't named "cybergrounds"...
This is funny. Cyberwarfare or Netwarfare should be fourth Armed (sic) Force Corp, not subdued to any of existing ones. Perhaps this is yet another shift of gravity center - once the Army was "main military force" and Navy and AirForce were just servicemaids to her. Now when AirForce is winning wars and "dust eaters" just defend airbases or scout for targets, things are pretty much changed and AF gets all the candy.
Well apparently lying in a bloody pool of denal
And also to quote a US general "He[Bush] made a decision that Geneva [conventions] would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees. Any other prisoners of course would be governed by traditional methods, international law, Geneva and so forth".
IMHO the US is acting with total disregard for the basic human rights of people. They apear to be hell-bent on total world domination.
It's a massive shame
Jaj
So the question is why is this a problem? The United States armed forces had damned well better be prepared for military actions in cyberspace, IT IS THEIR JOB. Anything less is gross negligance and dereliction of duty.
Now you may or may not like the policies of the US government, but that has nothing to do with the military - the military's job is to carry out those policies.
And as far as the US's legal obligations, well what does the Constitution say about that? Well, the military has a few limits - it can't board soldiers in your house without compensation, it can't use soldiers for law enforcement in the US. But in terms of carrying out warefare, the legal limitations are that it has to follow the orders of the President, who is ultimately accountable for it's actions. And the President is bound by a few restrictions in his role. For example only Congress can declare war, Congress can impeach, etc.
And WHAT THE HELL does this have to do with the root zone file maintainer? Bupkis, that's what.
It all doesn't matter much, the US military is going to have it's ass handed to them soon:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20051124/bs_prweb/p
The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.
In 20 years, they'll change it again, to:
The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, Cyberspace, Subspace, Inner-Space, and all other spaces we can find.
I think, if you want World Domination, you should go for it.
Stop Whining about World Wide Web Warfare.
Just bomb the g*dshit out of everything.
I am sure I am in copyright violation and therefore due some jail time according to another post, here goes:
From the servers of Montezuma
To the routers of Tripoli ,
We fight our country's battles
Electronically.
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our temp files clean,
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marines.
Our flags unfurl'd to every ping
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a solder gun.
In the jpg snow of far-off northern lands
And in sunny bitmap scenes,
You will scan us always on the job
The United States Marines.
Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a term we've fought the worm
And never lost our nerve.
If the Army and the Navy geeks
Ever try to crack Heaven's scenes,
They will find the ports are guarded
By United States Marines.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I think the use for cyberwarfare is to fuck with communications of your enemies during times of war. :P
or if your enemies decide to start having massive DDOS against US servers, then the airforce would step in and either hack back, or find the source with an f-22 and blast the fuck out of the datacenters
"How did the US get to the "top of the pile"? A combination of a total disregard for human life"
See, the fact that you say that at all, but worse list it first, shows just how far from reality you are.
Do we execute our dissidents? No. Do we execute our POW's? No. Do we blindly and indisciminately use force? No.
The worst you can possibly say is that the US is overzealous, but "complete disregard for human life" is just hyperboilic in the extreme.
Which is why people like you get ignored.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
what the hell are "sovereign options"?? It seems like they wanted that particular adjective in their somewhere but they weren't sure what it should modify.
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
do they plan to fly through cyberspace?
I was supposing that the US Air Force was meant to "do whatever the US Governement asked them for" and not just what is written in their mission statement!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Having been closely involved with the USAF for a long while, I think most readers here on slashdot are misinterpreting this. Cyberspace and Cyberwarfare in this context doesn't mean a bunch of hackers/crackers trying to penetrate other countries' networks and do war stuff. This is not a Matrix/Neuromancer idea of "war in the internet".
The future of US warfare depends heavily on networking, NetCentric Warfare, and using WANs. Cyberspace means the network that exists between headquarters, soldiers, planes, tanks, etc. Think StarCraft or Command and Conquer. Defense of this network is a top priority.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
The saltpeter used in the Revolution came from manure.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Tell us more about these Icelandic women, I think we all want to hear it ;) Do they run Linux? Or better yet OpenBSD?
/me imagines a coulpe thousand Slashdotters drooling lol
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
If the US totally disregarded human life, the numbers would be much higher.
Now address my points. All of them are easy opportunities to show our "total disregard for human life" yet we don't do any of them. Why is that?
Face it, you overstated your position, and now that you se it is indefensible, you're at a loss. Just admit it and get it over with.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
In Ten years, this will be carved in innumerable brass plaques and other permanent medium, and the word "Cyberspace" will look as dated as the "Keep on Truckin'" guy...
to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.
I thought there was an international treaty banning the placement of weapons in space?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
What does the Air Force use when it fights in cyberspace, Flight Simulator?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
are 'sovereign options' and how the arse would one deliver them?
Is this some kind of allegory for 'blow shit up' written by a Mk 1 marketing droid?
Ugh.
I believe the OP was referring to the GPS satellites, which would be vitally important during warfare (and also the spy and communication satellites).
I had the honor of serving with the US air force for 6 years. I was a 3C0x1. Cyber warfare is as much part of the air force as flying planes. The air force has the "brain power" of the military. Airmen run, defend, setup networks on par or even better than their civilian couterparts. Put simply anything involving warfare should be left to the military. Civilians who sit at there computers and email and think they know computers or even war should shut up. You trash the military and government. You say terrorism is wrong. Then you go home kiss you wife and tuck your kids in and go sleep in your nice bed. You have no concept of what it takes to make that happen. Fighting on the ground, dropping bombs, or hacking to destroy the enemy is what it takes. You all want security, you just dont have the stomach to see what it takes to get it.
"No greater friend, no worse enemy."
Play nice with the United States and you have nothing to fear.
Kill our citizens, destroy our buildings, and you should expect the war that you've started.
What don't you get about SOVREIGNTY?
That means the USAF can, and will, do whatever it wants, in the name of defending the good ole US of A!
Sure. My only observation was how fast the document went from "They tried to jam our GPS and we had to swat that down" to "We will also have to be prepared to disable opponents' GPS (and like technologies), whether defensively or aggressively, in space." The sentence involved said "when American lives are at stake" which I imagine could justify anything -- it's always defensive when our people in uniform are in danger, right?
Back in the days of the cold war, the expansion of warfare (as opposed to classic surveillance) into space was regarded as a potentially huge escalation of the conflict. If we sent up "hunter" satellites to disable Soviet surveillance systems, it was kept pretty black ops at least. This unclassified document uses basically ineffectual attempts by the Iraqis to defend themselves as justification for aggressive actions analogous to those the Iraqis themselves used... I'm not dismissing the argument, just observing how easily the doctrine slides over it.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Personally, I'm looking forward to fighting the USAF in cyberspace. A good MMOG in which the players get to fly against each other in jets and starfighters sounds like an entertaining thing.
I can see it now: the USAF version of "America's Army"
Sweet.
As a bonus, the USAF fighter pilots who 'train' using this MMOG would quite literally be able to say 'seen that before' to every crazy move that an enemy pilot would throw at them. (Including undertrained/unskilled opponents).
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Is this a mission statement from the early 1990's or something?
Probably. It's also another chunk of brain cells that I can throw away, having etched the now-obsolete old mission statement into permanent memory back in my ROTC days.
"The mission of the United States Air Force is to organize, train, and equip air forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations in the air." How is it that I remember this off the top of my head after not giving it a thought in over 12 years, yet I can't recall what I had for lunch yesterday?
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
Does this have anything to do with the time Teal'c was trapped in a video game?
Teal'c was in cyberspace, He is from Outerspace, and there is a lot of Airspace between his ears....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Eil said a mouth full I've been working for IT as an airman for a year and I've found it frustrating lately with email servers not working, internet portals being blocked left and right. jascat since you know about emails explain why flash content is block?
I've been thinking about that lately. It occurs to me that, in terms of rearranging the world political landscape, WWI had far more of a lasting effect than WWII. The main difference between the map in 1936 and the map in 1946 was virtual: the Iron Curtain. OTOH, the difference between maps from 1910 and 1920, featuring the carved-up Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires (think: the Balkan Peninsula, Turkey, Iraq, the entire Middle East), is really the shaping of today's world.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
You managed to completely ignore my post.
"You ever wonder why people find the West so abhorrent?"
Not really.
Do you ever wonder why you're so abhorrent?
So far, I've asked about a half-dozen questions, you've given ZERO answers.
Lots of spin, lots of hot air, zero facts.
Why am I not surprised?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Fight, in cyberspace, and in meatspace if necessary, the United States of America's illegitimate extension of its sovereignty and interests to the rest of the globe.
No jurisdiction without representation.
Come get me at 49.21992N 122.24338W
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"But Russia and China were both supporting the cong. If we invaded, there was a good chance that it would go hot.
But, you just keep BSing about stuff that you have no clue about or perhaps just BSing."
And if we had "total disregard for human life" as OP claimed, we wouldn't have cared. Why do have such a hard time understanding english?
"Iran-Contra affair mean anything to you?"
Was it blind, indiscriminate use of force? No, so how do you think this proves anything?
"Also, I really am starting to think that you are just a kid."
And I'm pretty sure you're illiterate. You're supporting MY point, namely that the US is VERY discriminating in how it uses force. How can you adopt such a superior tone when YOUR argument supports ME?
"We use quiet surgical strikes because the politicians do not want it stepped up. They are afraid of the rest of the world boycotting us (who via bush's policies are setting us up for just that)."
Yes we do. You'll notice, that AGAIN you're supporting MY argument, not the OP's.
"a consumate asshole."
Well, I appreciate that you signed your post, now go figure out why you think you're disagreeing when you've supported all of my points.
Thanks for making it so easy.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
To go through the stargate to distant planets and fight go'auld and those new baddies. Orie or something. And wraith, but that's another branch of the Airforce or something ;)
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Ultimately, only the Supreme Court of the US can determine what actions are legal or illegal for the US military to engage in.
Treaties are nice, but all treaties the US enters into are ultimately adjucated by the Supreme Court under Article III, Section 2.
With the Threat of EMP using relatively low tech delivery methods well documented:
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_oct00ghc01.html
the Air Force is compelled to understand and defend CyberSpace wherever US interests are affected. - T
Moderation in All Things... Especially Moderation - gurutc
They want to continue to exist like any organism. This animal needs to consume large amounts of money to survive. I suppose we will see a new ad campaign on the military channel to justify their future feeding needs.
Or you could just say "Redundancy is a good thing."
Best Slashdot Co
Charging the Air Force with this one makes sense - for now. USAF is our "networked" armed force - primarily aviation-related missions, but the AF culture thinks in terms of an enemy distributed functionally and/or geographically. They're also the most technology-friendly branch, inherent to the type of work they do.
As far as letting CIA/NSA run this, you don't want an intelligence agency conducting offensive missions. Period. Yes, they're doing that now, but we already have huge oversight problems of intel groups (even the budget total is classified).
Besides, the Air Force is the US's "standoff" branch. They can attack, cause mayhem, destroy and kill - but air power and cyberwar are both constrained by the fact that they cannot singly defeat an enemy. Both roles are support for another effort, be it political or on-the-ground military. The fact of jointness enjoyed by US commanders makes this seem like a natural fit.
you are correct. the world was dramatically reshaped after ww1, however, it was basically realigned after ww2. much of the world's problems today date from versailles. we never dealt with ethnic nationalism and we basically created pan-arabism. while we dealt with militaristic imperialism, we reverted back to a 19th century model of realpolitik and balance of power. we supported thug dictators so longs they fought communism and we sought alliances such as NATO and SEATO.
funny, as we try to change the calculus of the last 50 years, we're being criticized. it's as if we had a century of peace or something.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Tell me we're not planning to spread freedom over the Internets.
Please show me where I commented about the morality of the interventions.
I'm pretty sure the entire discussion was about the scope and scale of interventions, and my contention, which has not been refuted in any way, is the the US does not "totally disregard human life" as the OP claimed.
Now, it's pretty clear to me, and to anyone readn gyour post, that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. You seem to have fabricated a moral argument out of the aether.
This subject has clearly gone over your head. Stick to shouting about bush in the games forum like you normally do.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
There should be no limits to the US governance of the internet, because after all, it is just an extension of ARPAnet
Refusing to allow German refugees access to areas that had surrendered to the British and the Americans. The idea was that we didn't want to deplete East Germany of their population before Stalin had a chance to take over that area.
The Germans surrendered so fast to the US and Britain because they were afraid of what the Soviets might do to them.
The most interesting look at WWII from a German perspective I have seen is the book "Ten Years and Twenty Days" by Karl Doenitz. For the record, it was Doenitz who actually orchistrated the German surrender after Hitler's death. Dispite his conviction at Nuremberg on what were essentially very minor charges, Doenitz is quite well respected today as a military strategist who did the best he had with very limited resources (at one time, he was in charge of the German navy).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
More importantly, how do you FLY in cyberspace?
As to the Air Force taking the mantle of Cyber Guardian upon itself, I'm not surprised. There is no viable competition for the US Air Force in the air. They've already branched into space, and so far there's no action there. Everyone anticipates that cyberwarfare contracts will only expand in the future. The Air Force wants to be the branch of service running the show and getting all of that money.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
We're a superpower because our land is rich in precious minerals (we wouldn't be the United States today if it weren't for saltpeter), we can feed our people, and we have enough space to diversify our economic sectors.
If that's all it takes, then Canada should pretty much own us, eh?
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
S-M-R-T!
I mean S-M-A-R-T!
He's probably not a racist at all, but that doesn't save you from being called one by "multiculturalists" who disagree with you.
Frankly I think we need to have some sort of 'Godwin's Law' type rule for political discussions. The first person to call the other guy a racist (without a clear indication of that) loses by default.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's not... the Active X control it uses is. Type II mobile code is classified as a medium security risk (AFI 33-202 para 4.6), and therefore blocked.
When is the last time you saw the Air Force fly in space? Yes, they are most likely refering to the defense of satelites but, why dont they develope some space based craft? We have already gone beyond our non-militarization of space with offensive/defensive satelites. I for one would be glad to see some organization besides NASA trying to do something useful, and more universally minded, with space.
"what do you think is the impact of a US government overtly practicing cyberspace warfare? And what are the US's legal limitations?" * The only difference is that now the US government will admit they are involved in "cyberspace warfare". The truth is that there is no real cyber war. There is no cyberspace. William Gibson can verify this as fact. The US can barely even help its own during a natural disaster, what makes you think that homeland security creates safety, or that the US government is actually ready for a REAL cyber war? The truth? The US would lose if it happened today. * There are no legal limitations to what the US government may choose to do with the internet. The US government financed the birth of the internet via the DARPA projects, therefore, it makes sense to assume that they will do whatever they want with the technology. * One point that has not been made is that the new mission statement is also a potential sales/marketing tactic to woo techies to join their high tech organization. Re-enlistment is at a major low-point for all the military branches. They'll do anything to convince kids to "get out of the hood by joining the army".. this new mission statement helps them to more easily target rich white kids. The USAF could barely keep 15 year old kids from illegally accessing their network in the [early] nineties. Let's hope the new mission statement defines a new level of network security. Too bad they don't give civilian jobs to over qualified non-degreed self-taught IT professionals. If they did, they may then find themselves protected by people that actually care to defend.
Just keep it to protecting the US against attacks and drop the idea of bombing the rest of us whenever we refuse to serve your "international interests". Thanks.
The Undersigned, the Rest of The World
Well said. It is in the law in most countiers also ( as far as I know.. ). And it is as it should be - at least then there will be some cool heads behind the action. For two reasons, the "worst" pacifists seem to be in Army - suits me well and leave the action to professionals.
Umm, III.2 is there to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Had you hit "Find Again" once more you would have found this:
Article. VI.
[snip]
It doesn't actually work out that way, of course, but that's what the law says.If the Air Force's position is that the Internet is a major battlefield, it needs to be culled of all colonels and generals who got promotion during the Clinton presidency. That's just plain stupid.
And the saltpetre he's referring to, used in WWI, came from Chile.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Are they going to update their "Up in the Air, Junior Birdman" song as well, to reflect the new mission?
The US Air Force has released its new mission statement, which reads 'The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.'
Don't forget running the Stargate!
Visit my website! Click the ads! Yay!
It still came from manure (in this case sea bird guano).
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.