Could Cyber-Terrorists Provoke Nuclear Attacks?

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that according to a study commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese Governments, terrorists could use information warfare techniques to make a nuclear attack more likely — triggering a catastrophic chain of events that may be an easier alternative 'than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves.' While the possibility of a radical group gaining access to actual launch systems is remote, the study suggests that terrorists could focus on feeding in false information further down the chain — or spreading fake information to officials in a carefully orchestrated strike. According to the study 'Hacking Nuclear Command and Control' [PDF], cyber-terrorists could 'provoke a nuclear launch by spoofing early warning and identification systems or by degrading communications networks.' Since command and control systems are placed at a higher degree of exploitation due to the need for rapid decisions under high pressure with limited intelligence, cyber-terrorists 'would not need deception that could stand up over time; they would only need to be believable in the first 15 minutes or so.'"

Comments

Re:Words of Wisdom

[db32]

What the Bush administration advocated was for tactical nuclear weapons that could serve in battlefield conditions. They requested these for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had diddly to do with PRNK. They wanted these things to go after those "cave dwellers" and their vast underground network they were believed to have. The notion was that it wouldn't kick up much fallout so it could be used "safely". The Bush administration believed that America needed to fight, and decisively win, two simultaneous wars to assert American military dominance. You are talking about an Administration that launched a preemptive strike invasion using forged evidence. The whole point of that mess was to show American dominance in a way that would ensure no one would dare question us if we used tactical nuclear weapons.

This was all part of their "Who has the biggest dick" approach to foreign policy. It served us quite well...while we were out swinging dicks in the sand Iran and PRNK became (or nearly became) the proud new owners of nuclear weapons. Rather than showing these "axis" powers who they are messing with...we have demonstrated quite effectively how they can lock us into an unending mess and have enabled others to operate in the knowledge we cannot afford to go after them too. We have also become the poster child for terrorist recruitment efforts.

Nuclear weapons were necessary to end a war and ultimately prevent another from starting, but now they are just dangerous artifacts left behind. The notion you can develop "tactical" nuclear weapons to win a war is stupid and dangerous beyond measure. The only thing nuclear weapons are for is proving that you can never lose a war unless you choose to.