Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Essentially the defense against this sort of exploit is "be less trigger-happy".
It's no the weapons which you don't trust. It's the humans with them.
With nuclear weapons, no stepping back of any way (that I know), and after the first strike, the war is over, or forever.
Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? So long as everyone knows that the missiles can't be recalled, that fact becomes part of the deterrence.
Makes everyone very, very careful.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
No matter how careful you are, Murphy's Law is always around...
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.
Where MAD falls apart is when the leaders don't give a rat's ass about the civilian population.
I would say that recent events in Iran make it pretty clear that the civilian population doesn't matter all that much to the leaders. North Korea is at that level or perhaps worse. If the military leadership in either country could be confident of survival I don't see MAD being a deterrent at all.
So what if 80% of the civilian population is wiped out?
If you must have nuclear armed subs, arm each one with one low-yield nuke. Any more and you are just begging for an accident.
I think you're missing the concept of "assured destruction" in Mutually Assured Destruction.
An american missile sub can have 20 missiles, with 8x50kt warheads per missile. That's 160 nuclear warheads that can be targeted independently and can each cause substantial casualties if aimed at civilian targets. But that's what it's meant to be - a guaranteed "revenge" weapon, that is fully capable of demolishing or severely crippling a whole nation, even if ALL of the ground nukes are disabled by a first strike. The terror such a weapon commands, is precisely the reason why safety is assured.
This is why small nuclear powers are so much less stable. India and Pakistan are at a much higher risk of using nuclear weapons in the field against each other than US and Russia, simply because neither of them have the capability of destroying the other.
That being said, as has been mentioned previously, MAD relies on rational players to work.
The reasons why there aren't any wars after WWII isn't necessarily nukes, but the general enlightenment that comes with technology. Other than the Soviet Union, during the Cold War no one really wanted to fight on a global scale, and the only reason that Soviet Russia did was that the people were brainwashed. Before WWI and WWII young men -wanted- war, they wanted the "glory" of victory, they wanted if they died to be remembered as a patriot with every girl they ever knew wishing that they were still alive and crying at the funeral. Than WWI hit and so did the media, and suddenly war didn't seem to be all that great to the masses except for in the propaganda and brainwashed cultures of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The rest of them fought for pure necessity and to save their own skin. After that, very few people really -wanted- another war, sure, they did have a few small wars, but they couldn't convince the people that war was really necessary anymore. No longer in most cultures did you have the father or grandfather speak proudly about his accomplishments in war, making it sound no more dangerous than hunting with some friends. But after the world wars you had most of them quiet, traumatized, mix that in with the fact that most people no longer saw a need for war (hippie movement) and improvements in journalism made it possible for everyone to see the horrors of war lead to many cultures who refused to go to war. The reason why we haven't had WWIII isn't totally because we have nukes but because there would be very few willing fighters.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Where MAD falls apart is when the leaders don't give a rat's ass about the civilian population.
I would say that recent events in Iran make it pretty clear that the civilian population doesn't matter all that much to the leaders. North Korea is at that level or perhaps worse. If the military leadership in either country could be confident of survival I don't see MAD being a deterrent at all.
So what if 80% of the civilian population is wiped out?
You realize that both of those countries are (or will be) able to field no more than a handful (at most) of nuclear weapons, right? And, that neither has the capability to disrupt our own volley of nukes.
Neither of them is able to "win" a nuclear war. Even if the leadership survives, and 80% of the population is killed, they won't really have a country left to lead, let alone maintain a military to defend against anything. It still doesn't make any sense for them to use nukes.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
"Cyberspace is real, and so is the risk that comes with it,"
Did someone stopped to think this is the kind of alarming news that can elevate simple computer hackers to dangerous international terrorists.
Let's look at Pakistan vs India. If we assume a radical Islamic faction gets control in Pakistan, and elects to use part or all their arsenal against particularly Hindu dominated portions of India, the direct casualties on the Indian side would be in the 1's to 10's of millions range. That's because the Pakistanis would be using relatively low yield Plutonium based devices, but their missiles are inaccurate enough and take long enough to prep that cities are about their only effective targets. An Indian retaliatory strike would involve some actual H-Bombs (which they don't admit having still in their arsenal, but they built and tested several designs), and probably more focus on pure military targets, but India has multiple Islamic neighbors, and they have made it clear in the past that they are not real concerned about fallout on those nations in a Pakistan/India exchange. A safe lowball estimate on total casualties is upwards of 200 Million. That's assuming India doesn't decide to kill the Indonesian navy and some other resources under Islamic regime control as a just in case. Could that happen? If it did, would that push total casualties over a billion? The best answer I ever heard on both those was 'not highly probable, but just maybe'. No one really wants to commit to a lower number, even if a billion seems a little high.
Then there's the claim that Israel has a secret doctrine that in the event of a nuclear attack from an Islamic power on their major cities, they will coldly and deliberately kill Mecca and as many great centers of the Muslim faith as they can hit. The idea there is that the Koran supposedly says that all believers who fail to prevent the loss of the ability to make the journey to Mecca will burn in hell forever regardless of what else they do in their faith (or some Muslim factions have interpreted various verses in a way that justifies Jehad as physical violence, but also implies this, so if they insist it's true, the idea is give them the negative side of the claim.).
It's hard to see people clinging to their religion if they are doctrinally a whole generation all condemned to hell down to the youngest born child and beyond no matter what they do. But it's also quite possible this would lead to a tremendous number of fanatics willing to die for the cause if their Mullahs assure them there's an escape clause in their somewhere, and a war that would have to be fought to the last fanatic on either side. I'd say that exchange could easily build into a Gigadeath or more.
The biggest doubt I have about this scenario is the claim for secret Israeli plans seems to come from some of the very Muslim fanatics that you'd think it would be a big de-motivator for them to seek nukes of their own if they really believed it. That seems exceptionally illogical unless they are very confident it's just a claim they made up.
Who is John Cabal?