Air Force Openly Seeking Cyberweapons

Gunkerty Jeb writes "The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center posted a broad agency announcement (PDF) recently, calling on contractors to submit concept papers detailing technological demonstrations of 'cyberspace warfare operations' capabilities. Among many other things, the Air Force is seeking to obtain the abilities to 'destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage' and capabilities that would allow them to intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."

Comments

Just ask the US President?

[VortexCortex]

I mean... He's got the Internet Kill-switch, which seems like it would qualify as being able to: "destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage"

Ask the NSA if you want to: "intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."

If you ask me, the Air force should just focus on flying their air planes. Look, I realise that in the Age of Information traditional warfare is becoming obsolete, but does the air force really need cyber weapons? Are they planning on going to war with their own country?!

Re:Just ask the US President?

[jfengel]

The Internet Kill Switch died in committee. Even if it had passed, that's not really what they're talking about here. It would (potentially) have shut America off from the Internet, but that's only degrading the enemy's capability in the sense that shooting yourself denies them the chance to kill you.

The fact that this is being done in the Air Force is a little surprising, but there's a remarkable amount of redundancy between our branches. All of the branches do computer work of various kinds. That redundancy is expensive, no doubt, but it also creates diversity which makes it more robust.

Whether we actually need that robustness or if it's just more make-work for Congressional districts... I won't touch that. Let's just say that it's complicated.

Re:Good idea, after all

[SomePgmr]

Right? I figure I can get at least $20 billion up front, another $200 billion in overruns, and about 15 years to develop a VB6 goatse "weapon" that never really works right.

I love this idea.