Making a Case For Cyberwar Against Syria

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Jason Healey writes at Defense One that if the Obama administration conducts military strikes against Syria, as now seems likely, it should use military cyber weapons at the earliest possible moment to show 'that cyber operations are not evil witchcraft but can be humanitarian.' Cyber capabilities could first disrupt Syrian air defenses directly or confuse military command and control, allowing air strikes to proceed unchallenged. A cyber strike might also disable dual-use Syrian critical infrastructure (such as electrical power) that aids the regime's military but with no long-term destruction as would be caused by traditional bombs. Last, it is possible the U.S. military has cyber capabilities to directly disrupt the operations of Syria's chemical troops. Healy writes that one cyberweapon that should not be used is covert cyber operations against Bashar Assad's finances. 'Both of his immediate predecessors declined such attacks and the world economy and financial sector are already in a perilous state.' Before the American-led strikes against Libya in 2011, the Obama administration debated whether to conduct a cyberoffensive to disrupt the Qaddafi government's air-defense system, but balked, fearing that it might set a precedent for other nations, in particular Russia or China, to carry out such offensives of their own. This time should be different in Healey's view. 'By sparing the lives of Syrian troops and nearby civilians, an opening cyber operation against Syria could demonstrate exactly how such capabilities can be compliant with international humanitarian law,' writes Healey. 'America should take this chance to demystify these weapons to show the world they, and the U.S. military in general, can be used on the battlefield in line with humanitarian principles.'"

Comments

No

[lightknight]

Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones...

Re:No

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones...

Especially not at people who live in much less glassy houses and still have plenty of stones... Seriously, unless the world of SCADA systems, consumer operating systems, and assorted web infrastructure, and such is far less of a clusterfuck than is routinely reported at security conferences, do we really want to encourage any more hackery than already goes on?

(Attempting to use the 'humanitarian' bullshit is doubly foolish: 'humanitarian' is always an object of politicized cynisism, and wouldn't it arguably be 'humanitarian' to discourage US military activities by turning out the lights in DC for a few days every time somebody gets cruise-missiled?)

Re:No

[Sarten-X]

Forget about the houses... America has a glass neighborhood.

Let's assume for just a moment that the government has magically secured its own systems against any particular attack. The next target of convenience for any retaliation is everybody else. Remember the headaches when Anonymous lashed out at Mastercard? Now add in a military's knowledge and resources, and it won't just be credit cards that won't work. Everybody from health care to restaurants becomes a target, and the usual rules of engagement don't really apply.

The government will survive. It might take a few hits, but I suspect the American military's networks are disparate enough that no single attack will completely cripple their ability to function. The civilians, though, are far less protected and far less resilient. One bad week can mean the end for many small businesses, leading to widespread fear, and another economic crisis.

A war over the Internet is the current nuclear option. We don't want it, and we can't survive it, but it is one heck of a powerful weapon.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

^ This..

You don't win wars by levelling the playing field, you win by using advantage. When it comes to cyber-terrorism and the like, the US has no advantage, if anything, it's potentially disadvantaged over less developed nations.

Re:No

[niftymitch]

^ This..

You don't win wars by levelling the playing field, you win by using advantage. When it comes to cyber-terrorism and the like, the US has no advantage, if anything, it's potentially disadvantaged over less developed nations.

Too true. One of the most gifted ASIC engineers grew up where he and others in his mountain town had to walk miles to get to
a bus that could get to "civilization".

One smart and clever man is all that might be needed to crack the cyber lock on
a nation or more.

Note well that war is not civilized yet may prove necessary when a bad guy or rogue nation go sideways.
There is nothing civilized in a developed nation waging war on an ill developed nation.

The troubling red line to not cross is when a developed nation also becomes
a bad guy, rogue nation.

Now to go and compost all the horse stuff I have accumulated.

Re:No

[UnknownSoldier]

No kidding! This "justification" for "war" is sounding like a broken record.

Wasting money to kill others (who disagree with you) is spiritually retarded.

When are people going to demand that violence is NOT the solution -- it is precisely part of the problem in the first place!

I'm reminded of MLK Jr's speech who said it a little more eloquently:

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

* Full transcript & audio of the brilliant speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

Re:No

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It doesn't much help that people are proposing violence as a solution to a war where there aren't even any factions we actually want winning...

Re:No

[justthinkit]

Nothing to do with "kill others who disagree with you". Everything to do with world conquest, then total control. Trillionaires want to stay trillionaires.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one, it's just nobody really knows how big or powerful it is

Re:No

[Stan92057]

What would you do to stop this tyrant who kills his own men ,women, children, by chemical weapons? Say please stop? Speechs are feel good things that dont do shit. What is your solution.Speechs are not solutions.

Re:No

[cavreader]

Since the beginning of time the only real changes have been won by violence of one kind or another. I don't give a shit whether the government US bombs the hell out of Syria or do anything else for that matter. Let Syria and the surrounding region deal with it anyway they wish. The only way this type of violence happens is because of the inability of the members of the UN security council to put petty politics ahead of security. Every country on the security council has condemned the gas attacks so why can't Russia accept even a UN non-binding resolution condemning the Syrian government. The resolution is just a piece of paper that doesn't authorize any military action and does not specifically blame anyone for the gas attack. It's basically a formal acknowledgement of the conflict in general. How does Russia and China justify their stance on this purely symbolic action?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

and you got a 2. how sad. let me educated you, troll: one word: evidence. There isnt any connecting the Syrian gov to what US claims. Putin has already publicly asked for evidence. USA hasint given him any. Sure there was gassing but by whome? Simple question: who benefits throws the whole case out. But you already knew all that I suspect. You are just shilling. You are shit basically.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

yet another shill.

Re:No

[Ol Olsoc]

and assorted web infrastructure, and such is far less of a clusterfuck than is routinely reported at security conferences, do we really want to encourage any more hackery than already goes on?

Would this be known as Asshackery?

Re:No

[anubi]

Since the IRS is becoming increasingly reliant on the internet, I see the time coming IRS themselves will be targeted with arrays of bogus returns, making it very difficult to prove who filed what. A computer can issue a million bogus returns before I even begin to read the instructions on what the Government wants me to do this year.

All the information on millions of people are now accessible on the net, making a cyberwar effort to spoof millions of returns containing enough correct data to make them credible exist. Our Congress has already made the storage and sharing of this information legal and the capability exists to transfer terabytes of info in a few seconds.

The object would be to keep taxpayers from feeding Vaal by stuffing its mouth with detritus.. ( reference to Star Trek: TOS ).

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, bear in mind that the majority of the rebels are made up of Al-Qaida operatives\stooges... people who have been our declared enemy since 9-11. That means aiding them is an act of treason....yet no one is paying any attention to that "little" facet of the equation.

Re:No

[FishOuttaWater]

You seem to be starting from the assumption that we have to be the ones to stop him. Do you think you can stop every bad person from doing every bad thing? If you just want to save lives, you'd have a lot more impact per dollar going after mosquitoes. If it's not about the lives, then what is it about?

Re:No

[FishOuttaWater]

...and do we really want to show our cards as to what our capabilities are over a minor regional conflict? Save the surprise for when it's needed.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. We have been complaining about cyber attacks from China the last couple of years calling them evil. And then then US decides to cyber attack someone and all of a sudden it's "OK" when we do it? That is unconscionable arrogance on the part of the Obama regime.

Re:No

[cusco]

Baloney. All the real advances since the beginning of civilization have been brought about by advances in science, education and exploration. Military action (which I what I have to assume you mean by 'violence') has been nothing but a destructive force throughout history, frequently arm in arm with its sibling in ignorance, religion.

And why would Russia want to condemn the Syrian government for an action which it doesn't believe they committed? Would you have condemned the North Vietnamese government for the My Lai Massacre?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't see wherefrom this low life thinks he or my country derives this right to kill people of other countires either with bombs or cripling infrastructure but Syrian government can't use whatever they can to fight terrorists. IMHO, using pepper spray on students in the US is eqaul to using Sarin in Syria. Lets start hauling our own past and present war criminals' assess to Gitmo before we keep repeating like a broken record "Thou shal not this, Thou shal not that".

Re:No

[cusco]

Only if the luxury electronic toilets are the targets of attack.

Re:No

[slick7]

Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones...

Shouldn't dance naked. On another note, is a warmongering Nobel peace prize recipient an oxymoron?

Re:No

[0111 1110]

We were kind of hoping that you, Stan, would solve this problem for us. Why is this our problem? We have nothing to do with Syria. Why not let a local country deal with the problem? There are nearly 200 sovereign countries in the world at least half of which could probably kick the Syrian government's ass. Why do we always have to be the world's sole policeman? Sorry, but that is just bullshit. You want to go to war with Syria for fucking humanitarian reasons (haha!) then you go do that. I don't want my own country getting involved at this point and the last time I checked the majority of Americans agreed with me.

I'll tell you what, when the Syrians overthrow our government for us and release us from our own chains then we can return the favor. We don't owe the world or any particular country in it a damn thing. And the vast majority of them don't want our help anyway. Let's get a poll of the Syrians who want us to bomb them in order to save them. You really think the majority will be in favor of it?

Even if we succeed with our plan for regime change and manage to install a puppet leader and puppet government how long before that government gets overthrown by the people? And it's not like our govenment is really all that much better anymore even from the POV of someone who wants more freedom, which most Syrians probably don't anyway.

Maybe the best thing to do is something along the lines of what Sweden is doing. Let the few Syrians who are pro-liberty and would support a US puppet government just come here instead. And let the rest fend for themselves. They don't want to be rescued. They don't want our "help".

Re:No

[cavreader]

" science, education and exploration"

War speeds up advances in both science and technology. For example had WW2 not happened the advances in electromagnetic field theory (radar),aviation technology, and nuclear technology would not have happened as quickly as it did. The technology advances to create ICBMs provided the technology needed to go to the moon. War or the threat of war has accelerated the advancements in satellite technology to provide things like GPS services. Even the early internet started out as a DARPA project focused on distributed network capabilities for military command and control applications. It's amazing how fast you can advance technology when someone is trying to kill you. And war is definitely a destructive force but that is the whole point. The winners get to determine what type of government will be used. The recent violence in Egypt was about determining what type of government the rule the state. You might get a government to change a little policy now and then by standing in the street and holding up signs but if you really want a whole sale change it will involve violence.

Re:No

[cusco]

Speeds up? Sure, I'll grant you that, but is it necessary for advances to happen? Not at all. The Reformation and the Renaissance happened in spite of the internecine warfare of the time, not because of it. Would it have taken longer if military research hadn't funded some of the scientists? Sure, but it almost certainly would have happened. Goddard, Von Braun and Korolev would still have plugged away year after year on rockets without the bottomless pit of military funding, and their successors would have gone to the moon instead.

BTW, in spite of the Pentagon's propaganda internetworking was already under way well before DARPANet. A former boss was an intern when her boss and a few others got their DEC to talk to the (IIRC) the HP mainframe at U of Colorado and the IBM at U of California, letting him get rid of two of the four dumb terminals on his desk. Salescritters saw what they had done and sold the idea to DARPA (at which point they had to start all over from scratch).

Re:No

[Stan92057]

I'll tell you what, when the "Nazis" overthrow our government for us and release us from our own chains then we can return the favor. We don't owe the world or any particular country in it a damn thing. And the vast majority of them don't want our help anyway. Let's get a poll of the "Nazis" who want us to bomb them in order to save them. You really think the majority will be in favor of it? Even if we succeed with our plan for regime change and manage to install a puppet leader and puppet government how long before that government gets overthrown by the people? And it's not like our govenment is really all that much better anymore even from the POV of someone who wants more freedom, which most Nazas probably don't anyway. Maybe the best thing to do is something along the lines of what Sweden is doing. Let the few "Nazis" who are pro-liberty and would support a US puppet government just come here instead. And let the rest fend for themselves. They don't want to be rescued. They don't want our "help".

Hmmmm

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

Not commenting on Syria specifically, but MLK isnt "automatically right" because hes MLK, and I think in this case he is dead wrong. There are times war is necessary for any person of conscience. I might mention, for example, the holocaust-- even though we got into the war for a number of reasons (very few of them morally based), it was a war that I think can easily be justified.

I never studies MLK in depth, but from what I know of him he was rather an idealist and may have had trouble grasping that people will always be hateful, and it will from time to time be necessary to take up arms to put down a greater evil. The history of humanity does not lend itself to visions of utopia.

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

There is a moral element here that does not exist with the mosquitoes, and one cannot easily teach mosquitoes a lesson.

The point behind intervening is that the world set boundaries around chemical weapons to try to limit the evil of war. For those boundaries to continue to exist, there have to be repercussions when they are violated. Its an either-or scenario: either collectively people decide that those boundaries are worth preserving--in which case someone must intervene -- or people decide that such a restriction is not feasible to maintain.

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

I'll tell you what, when the Syrians overthrow our government for us and release us from our own chains then we can return the favor. We don't owe the world or any particular country in it a damn thing.

You were doing well towards here.

You clearly dont have any idea whats going on in Syria, or you wouldnt compare their situation to ours. When you fear to send your child to work because of government snipers who target children, then we can talk.

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

Electronically filed returns require a PIN, and I believe it has to be done through an IRS supported portal.. I dont recall the specifics of how secure it is, but its not quite as easy as "file a billion bogus returns".

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

War speeds up advances in both science and technology.

Almost certainly untrue. There is a large opportunity cost to spending so much money and talent on militarism rather than directly on science and technology per se, leaving aside all the engineers and scientists that get, you know, killed.

Rather than pointing tautologically at how war has made the technology around things that blow stuff up advance faster, let's compare the general technology advances of, say wartime Germany and Japan with postwar Germany and Japan. Vastly more in the sciences and technology, in breadth and scope, has been accomplished without Hitler and Hirohito's management.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

but we don't know if assad used chemical weapons, or if the rebels used them to get international support (it's not insane to think they would consider it; a couple of extra rebels die now, and then america waltz in and wins your war for you (these are the kind of people that think suicide bombing is a valid tactic).

Re:No

[flyingsquid]

A war over the Internet is the current nuclear option. We don't want it, and we can't survive it, but it is one heck of a powerful weapon.

One problem with cyberwarfare is that the US is heavily dependent on the internet, whereas the dictatorships we're facing off against aren't. North Korea is a good example of this. The North Korean regime is supposed to have invested heavily in offensive cyberwarfare as a deterrent weapon. If hostilities were to break out with the U.S., North Korea could try to disrupt our civilian infrastructure and economy, but they'd be almost invulnerable to counterattack, since the country doesn't depend on the internet. They are about the worst opponent you could face- Russia and China would have more formidable offensive capabilities, but they would also have their own vulnerabilities so you could at least hit back.

Syria is a different issue. Assad's regime did invest heavily in technology to monitor the internet but doesn't seem to have any serious offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. The "Syrian Electronic Army" is just a bunch of pro-Assad hackers hacking websites. So far they've managed to hack the Twitter feed of BBC Weather, the Onion, the Marines web page... the most serious thing they managed to do was hack the AP and post a story about the White House had been bombed, which caused the stock market to take a dive (before just as quickly rebounding). This is advanced mischief, not serious cyberwarfare of the type that can cause major economic damage. It's possible that the Syrian regime has some sort of weapon hidden up their sleeve, but I doubt it. As Dr. Strangelove says, the whole point of a deterrent weapon is lost if you keep it a secret. The bigger issue is how effective cyberwarfare will be against the Syrians.

Israel was able to use cyberwarfare against them effectively when they bombed the Syrian nuclear plant- they hacked into the air defense system. The Syrian air defense radars actually detected the inbound Israeli F-15s, but the screens showed clear skies. The first clue the Syrians had they were under attack was when their nuclear bomb program blew sky high. But currently the fight is brutal and low-tech. It's being fought by soldiers with guns, with artillery, and with paramilitary groups. The communications of the regime might be more vulnerable to attack but overall any cyberattack would probably have a psychological and propaganda effect rather than really altering the military equation.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you hear that on a news show in a country that is about to bomb the hell out of the country in question?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN reackons after the snipers kill the children they eat their hearts before they stop beating.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think the US has some divine responsibility and a right to go with it to do anything at all? Why is US supported terrorists killing Syrians by rockets is any less reprehensible? And what do you propose to do this Tyrant who kills other people by drones and missiles and bombs? And what of his predecessor who killed hundreds of thousands of people in other countries?

Re:No

[dunkelfalke]

Actually you are wrong. USSR has started nuclear research way before the war, but stopped doing it due to war efforts when the scientists had to be redelegated to different fields, different jobs or became soldiers. The rocket theory was developed even before the first world war, only the material science was behind. And so on.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless someone finds a flaw in their input validation code. They're not talking about simply DDOSing a site but actually hacking it through various points (online, social engineering, USB sticks, etc...)

Re:No

[jimshatt]

You're completely right. Obviously we should beat up the bickering children so that, at least, they'll have a common enemy. Having something in common is always nice.

Re:No

[jimshatt]

America didn't overthrow the German government. They just helped kicking them out of the countries they invaded. Entirely different. And they were actively dragged into WW2 (Pearl Harbor). So please quit childishly replacing words. It doesn't make you look smarter.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Tyrants that kill their own people. Americans get them to run for president and then vote one of them into office

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

And when we let these dogs of war lose on the internet, there is no way to chain them all. The internet becomes a series of walled fortresses and the military industrial complex gets stronger and richer.

Ah now I see the logic

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

And to be fair it was Russia stopping them in Stalingrad (with countless men and womens lives, which America didn't mind a bit) that stopped the nazis, the rest was just mopping up, bombing Dresden into dust, building/breaking a wall, and starving/working to death the nazi pow.

Re:No

[tinkerton]

When the leader of a country who has claimed that Assad has to be toppled, sets up a bombing action that can take from 60 to 90 days (longer will need extra approvals) , do you think this has anything to do with punishing? It's not even likely that Assad did the bombing. It would require him to become overconfident and not minding to put his russian allies in a difficult position in order to win a minor advantage. Assad was winning. That was an unacceptable outcome for some, and that ment more dramatic measures had to be taken.

Re:No

[tinkerton]

The bulk of the firepower is in the hands of extremists, but they aren't the majority.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this our problem? We have nothing to do with Syria.

It's our problem because the 1% (the US's real government) smells money to be made. So they are pressuring Obama to invade (which he will do no matter what Congress says). This has nothing to do with gas, countries have used gas before and we didn't invade. There is something in Syria that some rich asshole wants.

Re:No

[Stan92057]

Bickering children are just a wee bit different then murdering each other? Again whats your solution?

Re:No

[cavreader]

The US was also doing nuclear research just like Russia, Japan, and Germany. The US was just the first to actually create and deploy a viable weapon. Unlike today back then people were willing to take risks to achieve their goals. The fact that the US was in the middle of a war allowed the US to justify raising the risk level that would have been unacceptable in peace time. Some of the scientist at Los Alamos didn't rule out the possibility of the nuclear reaction igniting the atmosphere. It is also widely documented knowledge that Russia stole the US nuclear research performed at Lo Alamos which enabled them to speed up their advancements. At Potsdam Truman told Stalin about the nuclear bomb development but Stalin already knew. That was back when foreign intelligence services had the gall to actually spy on their enemies and allies. Technology advancements in the USSR were brought to a virtual stop before the war started. Stalin had killed or imprisoned anyone that might challenge his authority. When Germany invaded Stalin had to send search parties to the various gulags to retrieve all the military officers, scientists, and engineers he had condemned for various reasons. The designer of their main battle tank was one such person.

Re:No

[dfenstrate]

No kidding! This "justification" for "war" is sounding like a broken record. Wasting money to kill others (who disagree with you) is spiritually retarded. When are people going to demand that violence is NOT the solution -- it is precisely part of the problem in the first place!

The trouble with that sort of thinking is that it fails to account for the fact that peace requires participation by everyone, whereas war can be started unilaterally. Hitler, for example, actively wanted war, and was frustrated by repeated capitulation to his outrageous and growing demands. We all know how that turned out in the end, of course, but it was a long painful trip for everyone involved.

The other related question- In the face of a belligerent, are you willing to give up everything to maintain a pretense of peace? Is there nothing you wouldn't surrender in order to avoid raising a fist in defense of property, of principal, or of a person?

And even if you would bare your neck to preserve the peace, and gladly be felled for your sense of 'spiritual intellegence', would you sacrifice your family, friends and neighbors for the same? If somebody wanted to rape your sister/wife/daughter, and it was in your power, but not hers, to stop him, would you let the offense proceed and pat yourself on the back for your restraint? War between nation-states is often merely an expansion of these scenarios.

The only counter argument I can see to my line of thinking is the notion that you can cure the evil in human hearts with enough love. I know of no basis in the history of human events for this naivety.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Regime change is a joke.. and ethically repugnant and unacceptable to the population of the US to install a dictator. Especially after Iraq. There's no basis for a democracy in Syria, its as traumatized and broken as Iraq. The violence which will erupt following the exit of Assad will be horrendous. Whatever goverment comes into existence should be their own. Nothing we can do will ease the process other than to try and keep external powers from interfering, which is by and large impossible in this case. We have lost our ability as diplomats in the middle east. Any actions we've taken have made more of a mess, caused a greater number of deaths. Largely this is a proxy war between the US and Russia for influence in the Middle East. Syria has been and will most likely continue to be an ally of Russia. Russia has already moved warships into the region as well. Its idiotic to bomb syria, the costs in lives , and influence and regional stability will be horrible

Re:No

[farble1670]

Wasting money to kill others (who disagree with you) is spiritually retarded.

war is about spending money to kill others you are preventing you from making more money. it's never anything more or less than that. violence is most certainly the solution to keeping the 0.1% on top.

even if syria isn't strategically important, it will serve nicely as a justification for military spending and a training exercise.

Re:No

[sydneyfong]

So instead of fearing snipers, it is better to fear the rockets from fighter jets miles up in the sky?

Or, is it better to fear various curable diseases from killing your child instead of the snipers? I don't see the US spending trillions of dollars on these causes. Given the track record in Afghan and Iraq, it's pretty obvious that spending a few trillion on curing diseases like malaria, HIV, etc, even if unsuccessful, is probably better than spending trillions to make bad political situations worse.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? The evidence is clear. 1/2 the G20 agrees the case is strong that Assad's people did the gassing. I'd like to send the UN and Interpol in first to arrest the regime. I like the idea of a combined freezing of assets and the threat of a cyberattack to force cooperation. I don't mind using drones to target chemical assets either. As long as al-Qaeda extremists get targeted as well.

Re:No

[someSnarkyBastard]

They don't need to be. By your own words, the extremists have the lion's share of rebel military hardware. Guns make for a very persuasive political amplifier (e.g. "do what we say or your village burns")

Re:No

[tinkerton]

I agree. They are the main players on the ground. I just wanted to make the distinction.

Re:No

[someSnarkyBastard]

And that surprises you in what way?

Re: No

[slash.jit]

" 1/2 the G20 agrees the case is strong that Assad's people did the gassing." IS NOT EVIDENCE, That's an opinion.

Re:No

[slash.jit]

"War speeds up advances in both science and technology." WHY?

Because the governments give more priority to use science and technology for war rather than peaceful and useful purpose. They just have to change their priority then you will not need War to speed up scientific advances.

Re:No

[cavreader]

Endless amounts of funding trumps Priority every time. During a war nobody worries about how much anything costs because trying to prosecute an all or nothing war on a budget just doesn't work. The US government nuclear weapons development program was estimated to have cost over 3 billion dollars in the 1940's. Can you imagine anyone arguing not to pursue the project because it's not in the budget?

Re:No

[dunkelfalke]

Risk taking my fat arse. The US was the first for the sole reason of being mostly untouched by the war. Anyway, the point is, war does not speed up scientific and technical advance. Without the war, the first commercial nuclear power plant (which incidentally was built in the USSR) could have been built in early forties instead of 1954.

Re:No

[cavreader]

"The US was the first for the sole reason of being mostly untouched by the war."

Yes, The US did greatly benefit and is still benefiting from being basically untouched after the war. No question of it.

"Anyway, the point is, war does not speed up scientific and technical advance"

No the point is you are wrong. You are arguing "might" and "could have" and I am arguing "did" and "was". WW2 is just one example where technology advancements were fast tracked and cost was not a limiting factor. However you can go back to the Roman Empire and follow the rapid advancements in technology they made as it expanded. Military and civilian technology went hand in hand in that time period. Unfortunately when Rome finally fell it ushered in the Dark Ages and a lot of their advancements and knowledge across all disciplines was lost. Today if you just look at the F-22 program you will see radical advancements in processor design, high speed data interfaces that dwarf anything available found outside of the military, advances in metallurgy and material sciences, and advancements in HMI design which will eventually be introduced into civilian uses. To make advances in these areas run up some serious R&D costs that inhibit and slow down private companies, privately sponsored research centers, and research university efforts.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe your statement about the internet with respect to military command and control is simply false. I will let you do some research. First find out who invented the idea of the Internet, and eventually almost all its conceptual foundations. Search hint: the initial paper was titled something like "Building the universal intergalactic network". Some polymath was just trying to do a little psych research and got sad about the multiple computers he needed to use could not hardy say hello to each other. That was a bit before my time but the first big computer I used was a CDC 3300. It had a 12 bit word. Hmm. And was it big endian or little endian? Now think about moving a big data set from it to my note 2 because there is this android program I want to use on the data set and no one had gotten around to porting linux to the CDC. I suppose I coukd get it done but i am working with six different systems everyday. And 95% of my work time Iis going into just fighting with these incompatibilities.

Now why do you have this common meme that is simply false? I am not sure. But I believe the cause relates to all these wars we are so fond of supporting, at least up to this week.

Re:No

[dunkelfalke]

I have written about "did" and "was" two posts ago. Soviet scientists were redirected to different fields and or became soldiers.

If you want names, I can provide you with some prominent ones: Kurchatov for example. Before the war he was a leading nuclear scientist and was one of the creators of Europe's first cyclotron. During the war he was redirected to a project for demagnetizing ship hulls. Flyorov - one of the discoverers of nuclear fission - was drafted as an airplane technician in 1941 and was only able to go back to science in 1943. More examples? This is exactly the kind of waste that occurs due to wars.

Roman empire's technology was advancing in the civilian sector, not in the military one. These advances stagnated due to war efforts and the constant strain to keep the empire together and stopped long before Roman empire fell.

And about F22 I think you have read too many advertisement leaflets. Aviation processor design - even of advanced war planes - is not ahead but somewhat behind civilian use for various safety reasons. If you take the long development times for such projects into account, all the hardware is usually obsolete by the time of release. In this case, the development times were even longer and the airplane is already 20 years old. Nothing useful will spin off from there.

Oh, I also remember the computers crashing at the IDL, problems with the oxygen system, no Link16 capability.

Re:No

[cavreader]

Why are you fixated on Soviet scientists? The soviet scientists were conscripted if they had anything that could help the war effort. All the other world powers did the exact same thing. After the war there was also a big race by the victors to find and collect every German scientist the could. Oppenheimer and his team were just one example of how non-military scientists can used to help the war effort. Do you think the advances in nuclear science at the time would have advanced as fast it did if we were not fighting a global war? They were working with a unlimited budget and resources and were able to move their ideas from the blackboard to the real world. As a side note remember that besides advancing nuclear science and weaponization at Los Alamos the punched-card machines were introduced thanks to IBM.

The borders of every country in the world has at one time or another been drawn in blood. Sometimes the same border disputes happen more the once. There are several examples of this going on right now all over the world. Israel, Turkey, Iraq, China, Japan, England, Argentina, and Spain all have border disputes or sovereignty conflicts. Every one of these disputes could lead to war under certain conditions. The human race has been fighting wars non-stop ever since there were enough people to pick sides and bash each other over the head with clubs fighting for control of the biggest cave and best looking women. War or the threat of war is not going to disappear any time soon.

As far the F-22 program goes I do have some direct knowledge of the program in general and specific knowledge in some areas. How did I possibly get this knowledge? Well it turns out that I have been a Software Engineer and HMI designer for over 25 years. You should be able to see the connection. The F-22 was basically in concept and design mode for 20 years before the started building the plane. When they started they had no where near the computing power needed to implement certain capabilities that were on the drawing board. They did not have the materials to implement the stealth capabilities. This one program was able to feed tons of money and raised the priority of the research into the advancements they needed. The various vendors did make advancements in sensors and control system technologies that they incorporated into some of their non-military projects way before the plane was built.

Nope, this is an act of war!

[s.petry]

How many times do we have to tell the Government that they must obey the law? Only Congress can declare war! If the CIA is found to be engaging in acts of war with foreign nations, they need to be held accountable. If politicians, such as Obama, defy the constitution they need to be held accountable. If corporations are found to be engaging in acts of war, they need to be held accountable. This is obviously a request for you, the people, to demand that the law be enforced.

If you start with the agents and put them on trial for treason, evidence will grow for higher ups. There is no immunity in this simply because someone was following orders. We, the people, need to stop accepting law breakers sitting in public offices.

We have let things slide for over 40 years, and if you keep ignoring the severity of the situation we won't have a USA or a world worth living in.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have let things slide for over 40 years, and if you keep ignoring the severity of the situation we won't have a USA or a world worth living in.

From the movie Se7en:

William Somerset: Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Yup.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[lgw]

The president can order an attack without congressional approval (a cold war concession made long ago - if the Reds nuke us, we can nuke em back right away), but requires approval within 90 days IIRC. So the executive could initiate a cyber-attack, just as the president could order an airstrike.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but it is more complicated than this. The President can order an attack without Congressional approval per the War Powers Resolution: "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to ... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

But. There is always a 'but'. But, no President has considered the War Powers Resolution binding. They have interpreted the Commander-in-Chief clause in the Constitution as giving the President the power to make war, but not declare it. This is a pity because the War Powers Resolution was designed to prevent allowing the US being pulled into a war and as a correction to Nixon continuing to wage war in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed (which in itself gave the President unlimited time and resources in which to wage war). Not surprisingly, the War Powers Resolution required Congress to override Nixon's veto which he continued to ignore.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Congress allowed to declare war. The senate signed a treaty with the UN, that makes declaring wars ILLEGAL. See 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[Uberbah]

The president can order an attack without congressional approval (a cold war concession made long ago - if the Reds nuke us, we can nuke em back right away), but requires approval within 90 days IIRC.

Only if the U.S. is attacked first. Did Kennedy have the authority to "resolve" the Cuban Missile Crisis by ordering a massive nuclear strike on both Cuba and the Soviet fleet without a declaration of war? How about if Obama decides to weaken Assad's support by first bombing Iran, bombing any arms shipments from China, and sinking all the Russian ships in the Mediterranean, all without consulting Congress?

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[LordLimecat]

Acts of war are not necessary for the President to direct the troops to engage in combat. A declaration of war DOES, as I recall, grant several new powers to the President, which is why Congress tends not to issue them. Even for Iraq / Afghanistan, Congress simply granted AUMFs. Of course, Congress controls the budget, so without them on board things can get a little difficult.

Obama is seeking an AUMF for Syria, so its sort of moot anyways. I dont think anyone is concerned with whether Obama can legally initiate something in Syria; the question is whether he should, and whether Congress should support him.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[LordLimecat]

. This is a pity because the War Powers Resolution was designed to....

IF "the Presidents" are right that it is their constitutional right to make war, it is irrelevant why the War Powers resolution was designed. No act of congress save an amendment can overrule a provision of the constitution.

James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[LordLimecat]

Treaties do not have the power to overrule acts of Congress, much less provisions of the Constitution. AFAIK, if you sign a treaty that requires a change, Congress would have to pass legislation to comply with that treaty-- the treaty doesnt change US law on its own.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[s.petry]

I never stated that the President could not order military action, I stated that he can not declare war. As others have pointed out already, the spirit of the War Powers Act is to ensure that we can respond to a first strike. There is a massive difference between the President ordering protection of the homeland and starting a foreign war. It is an impeachable offense in fact, which is why both Bush's went to Congress. There was no eminent threat to US territory in either Gulf 1 or Gulf 2.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[s.petry]

Actually there is a legal question since Obama claimed he did not need the approval of Congress to attack Syria. It is that statement that now has 14 members of congress demanding that he follow the law or face impeachment in addition to several members of the Senate expressing similar statements and voicing concerns.

The War Powers Act of 1973 limits the President's ability declarations to responding to an attack against the USA (sovereign territory, attack on the military, and a few other cases). It can not be done offensively, and was specifically enacted due to abuse of Police action.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[OhANameWhatName]

we won't have a USA or a world worth living in

It's hardly worth living in now. I couldn't be bothered paying attention to these idiots and what they do with their military industrial complex, borrowed money and world terror campaign. The USA is done, gone, finished .. no longer the place in which you were born.

I hear Ecuador is a fine democracy, move there.

If you want a world worth living in, stop supporting the people destroying it. Get out of the USA .. quit making their computer systems, quit paying for the destruction being done in your name.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[Anonymous Coward]

... put them on trial ...

In which town do 'we the people' own and operate a courtroom? Since the judicial branch belongs to the government, the mechanisms of justice will, most of the time, fulfill the desires of the government. This is seen when:

Many US district attorneys dishonestly demand that enforcing law = following legislation.
The courts do not prosecute the 'ruling class' for their crimes.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[s.petry]

Try reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States of America. As a US citizen, you are a member of a Republic which is not subject to any other Government. The US participates in the UN, but is not a subject of the UN. Laws provisioned by the UN can not be followed if the laws conflict with our own law. Notice that the Constitution is referred to as "The Law of the Land".

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[lgw]

I doubt it's an impeachable offense - the commander in chief can order the military around at his whimsy, and who's the last president who didn't order an airstrike against someone who pissed him off - Carter? But these days the only impeachable offense is to be a president of the opposite party of both the House and Senate.

People get upset when you put their children's life at risk, so putting troops on the ground is a heavily political action, and so I'd be amazed if any president didn't seek political cover of some sort before doing so, whether the War Powers Act or some congressional bill. But as we move into an age of "cyber war" and drones and other methods that don't kill voters kids, I think presidents will be willing to engage in ever more combat on their own initiative.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[s.petry]

I am finding that people are getting smarter than you imply. Bombing costs money, and we have a Government that has ensured that the next 22 generations of Americans are paying back current debt. In other words, this is not just a matter of your kid going and getting shot. It's about your children not being able to afford to eat.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[lgw]

I wish I shared your optimism about people getting smarter. But still it's a good point: eventually, people may gey annoyed if we launch 100 $10 million cruise missiles at someone on a whim, or lose 100 expensive drones.

Re:Nope, this is an act of war!

[s.petry]

Most of my optimism comes from teaching people and seeing results. I also see groups gaining membership, such as the "Young Libertarians". In the last month, I have had the pleasure of convincing 3 people to start reading Plato's "The Republic" and start to have dialogue with me. In that same month, I have convinced 9 to start reading Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and again begin dialogue. Other people I previously worked on have begun to open doors of their own.

At times, it's frustrating to get people to even look at a piece of literature. It's rewarding to see success.

My success would not be possible if people felt things were going well. Nobody in their right mind thinks we are on the right track in the USA today. The right piece of information nudges them toward the door of the cave. If you are awake, you need to keep showing people various pieces of light and drafts air. Eventually, they will open the door and look outside.

Nope, no

[dyingtolive]

Are we at war with Syria?

Well then, I guess no war, "cyber" or otherwise.

Re:Nope, no

[gmuslera]

US is actually in war with everyone, specially in the cyber realm. They have (or think their have) the upper hand and then is happily going against all the world, not just spying, but infiltrating, planting backdoors, sabotaging, and other activities that in their own opinion deserves decades in jail if is done by civilians. They aren't doing this for preserving the peace, protecting their citizens or attack terrorists, they are doing it because they want war, they profit from it, and they think they can win it, no matter the cost in lives.

They are trying to legalize the war in Syria (that probably they or their associates are instingating) , so they can define hacking as something similar to weapon of mass destruction, and justify intervention in even more countries.

Re:Nope, no

[Anonymous Coward]

True, they will take it to the point where a lone "hacker" will be considered to have declared war on the USA, and will obliterate the lone "hackers" country's infrastructure, unless (of course) the country is able to defend itself against the USA. They only pick on weaker countries, but they'll hype them up so the sheeple perceive them as a threat.

This will never stop until the war billionaires (the evil bloated vampires at the top, as I call them) are hurt in the pocket.

Re:Nope, no

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the US, it's the New World Order (A bunch of filthy rich bankers, politicians, and corporate leaders).

But knowledge is power, and in Cyberspace, they can pay a programmer lots of money to code whatever the NWO wants, but there is nothing to stop the programmer putting in his own code as well.

Syria's seen it before

[ubrgeek]

Also with their air defense systems.

Lets not tip our hand with this shithole

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well save the good stuff for the counter-attack against Russia or China. Maybe send Iran back to the dark ages to match their mindset.

Re:Lets not tip our hand with this shithole

[jsepeta]

hilarious. iran already IS living in the dark ages, following fake prophets for a fake god. i bet there's a thousand hog farmers in america willing to donate pigs for us to drop atop iranian mosques.

Re:Lets not tip our hand with this shithole

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, how come they can't see our god is the real god? we have been telling them for centuries.

No, they shouldn't

[Anonymous Coward]

I would only do this if there is a direct threat to the United States. This is currently not the case.

A properly secured system could not be infiltrated, so these attacks would exploit and thereby expose weaknesses that could subsequently be addressed, making it harder to penetrate their systems next time. Some of these weaknesses may be shared by other future enemies of the United States, and therefore may be fixed before an attack, weakening the States' position in such an upcoming conflict.

!Seems likely

[MSTCrow5429]

Something fishy when the uber-parent claims that war "seems likely," when the House will almost vote war down, and the Senate is about to experience a filibuster.

Re:!Seems likely

[SnarfQuest]

the funny thing about this "war", is that the "facts" come from the same people that the Democrats discredited during the Iraq war. Now that Obama wants a war to distract everyone from his other disastrous wars (like Egypt, Benghazi, ...), the press is willing to forget their claims against these sources. Anything for Obama, and the Democrats.

Re:!Seems likely

[cervesaebraciator]

The sad thing is that the President has already declared it his right to initiate the war unilaterally and he has plenty of cheerleaders, including in the supposed opposition party, who will support action even without Congressional approval.

Re:!Seems likely

[hallkbrdz]

Not that we would actually go to "WAR".

That last happened on Dec 8, 1941, and so we actually then had a Commander in Chief, unlike now.

But facts and laws being pesky things are all but ignored by the ruling class, they are just for us peasants.

Re:!Seems likely

[Uberbah]

the press is willing to forget their claims against these sources. Anything for Obama, and the Democrats.

Hardly. The media is as pro war in 2013 as they were in 2003, or 1963. Or did we all forget that the "liberal" MSNBC canned their highest rated show when the host, Phil Donahue, questioned the invasion of Iraq?

The only difference now is the chunk of the Democratic party that would be having a hissy fit if it were Romney providing the same crap intelligence and claiming he could go to war without approval from Congress.

Re:!Seems likely

[flyingsquid]

the funny thing about this "war", is that the "facts" come from the same people that the Democrats discredited during the Iraq war. Now that Obama wants a war to distract everyone from his other disastrous wars (like Egypt, Benghazi, ...), the press is willing to forget their claims against these sources. Anything for Obama, and the Democrats.

It's night and day. You can go on Youtube and see the victims of the chemical weapons yourself- children suffering seizures, row after row of men, women and children laid out on concrete floors without any signs of physical injury. Medecins sans Frontiers came out and said that the doctors treating the wounded described symptoms consistent with nerve gas. Some of the people treating the victims got enough exposure that they fell ill and some of them died. Tissue samples taken by doctors have tested positive for Sarin gas. The British recently came out and said that it's chemical weapons. So we have US intelligence, British intelligence, and a French NGO all saying it's chemical weapons. And the Syrian Army is the only group in the area that has the weapons and capability to launch 3 different attacks and kill 1400 people. The accounts indicate that the attack was launched using rockets; the rebels don't have heavy weapons.

Re:!Seems likely

[rts008]

That was a very nice summary of the situation.

Thanks.

Re:!Seems likely

[tinkerton]

It probably was a sarin attack. But it was also very likely a rebel attack. Your claim that the rebels don't have rockets is based on hearsay. What's more it ignores how easy it is to make basic rockets in Gaza. There was another attack 19 march : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack . The russians filed a very detailed report on that in july but it was ignored. So they returned to the issue a few days back since nobody else wants to do it. So this is not the first attempt. There have been several reports of other incidents, including precursor chemicals being found.

The thing is, Assad was winning and there was a lot of motivation on the other side to get the Americans involved military. Now that the Americans decided to get involved they intend to weaken Assad a lot. The discussion that remains is whether they should overthrow him or just break up the country and keep him in place. The US is slightly worried Al Nusra is going to fill the void. Saudi Arabia on the other hand doesn't mind, and they're the big movers.

So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Apparently we should use 'cyber' weapons; but not against the finances of the guy we accuse of killing ~100k people; because the poor, poor, banks might get weepy or something. What kind of bullshit is this? Sure, target the Syrian electrical grid (it's "dual use"!) but don't touch the financial markets, they have feelings too(and apparently financial markets aren't "dual use" much to the confusion of money launderers, mercenaries, and plundering kleptocrats worldwide?)

Re:So...

[Dr Max]

Ummmm how about we don't give the US the right to screw with peoples bank accounts just because the US has accused them of something. Considering the US track record of getting accusations right and all.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

The more bank accounts that get screwed with, the more people will seek out alternatives for wealth storage, like bitcoin.

Re:So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not saying that doing that is a good idea; rather mocking the (honestly rather repulsive) worldview of somebody who casually suggests that attacking Syrian infrastructure would be a demonstration of how 'humane' "cyber" war can be; but warns against the terribly dangerous path of going after financial assets. You have to be kind of a ragingly bad person to suggest that zapping every SCADA system that looks vulnerable in an entire country is a good opportunity to prove that cyberwarfare is a fine, upstanding, sort of activity, while simultaneously warning that zeroing a few bank accounts is just to terrifying to contemplate. Though, this guy does seem to be a ragingly bad person, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Re:So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The more bank accounts that get screwed with, the more people will seek out alternatives for wealth storage, like bitcoin.

I'm not sure that electronic attacks will have people flocking to a notably-dogged-by-electronic-theft cryptographic currency... Yeah, after every attack, it is carefully explained that the person attacked was a noob who had it coming because they skipped some implementation detail; but that's rarely very helpful.

Re:So...

[AHuxley]

I think the US is hoping that Syria kept its US/UK/French/German hardware network connected like in Serbia, Libya, Argentina (vs UK), Iran, Iraq...
The other view is to call the top staff in Syria and offer them a way out.
Have problems at a critical time and a new life 'anywhere' is offered when the freedom fighters surround your city.
Spin up the Russian tech and the fog of war gets very messy - no deal, no papers, no new life, no banking.
Just swarms of foreign 'freedom fighters' and their drone linked helpers.

Re:So...

[Dr Max]

oh yeah, fair enough.

Re:So...

[flyingsquid]

Apparently we should use 'cyber' weapons; but not against the finances of the guy we accuse of killing ~100k people; because the poor, poor, banks might get weepy or something. What kind of bullshit is this? Sure, target the Syrian electrical grid (it's "dual use"!) but don't touch the financial markets, they have feelings too(and apparently financial markets aren't "dual use" much to the confusion of money launderers, mercenaries, and plundering kleptocrats worldwide?)

As tempting as it would be to attack the finances of the Assad regime, it would be a really, really bad idea. Let's say we hack into his bank accounts and where it says "$37 billion" we change a few decimal places and all of a sudden, it's 37 cents, or maybe we write a $37 billion dollar check to that charity that buys cows for people in Africa. Then the regime collapses because he can't pay for supplies or buy the loyalty of his cronies. This might be effective, but it creates a nasty precedent. During the next conflict, maybe someone decides to attack finances in the U.S. If bank accounts are vulnerable, everyone is going to start panicking and withdrawing their funds trying to put it somewhere safe, and people will be reluctant to loan money, and you'll have a financial panic on your hands like in 1939 or 2008. And of course, everyone's connected to everyone else. U.S. firms borrow money from Germany and China... if those firms suddenly go belly-up that's going to cause a global panic.

Can we at least formally declare WAR first?

[CQDX]

If we commit acts of war, regardless whether or not the acts are justified, lets at least declare war. If Congress and the President can't bring themselves to do so, then there is no reason to get involved whatsoever.

Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[simishag]

Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD aka Wild Weasel) is a combat tactic intended to reduce friendly losses and improve the effectiveness of air strikes. That is, to kill more of them and less of us. How in hell does someone consider that "humanitarian"?

This is one of the most Orwellian pieces of doublespeak I've read all year.

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[cervesaebraciator]

True. But this is not surprising really. Hawks (presenting themselves as humanitarians) have been talking about establishing a no-fly zone as a less aggressive alternative to direct war with the Syrian army for more than a year. People talk about a establishing a no-fly zone as though it only involves ordering the Syrian military to cease flying planes and occasionally flying our own jets over the area to make sure they do as we say. In fact, establishing a no-fly zone means beginning with a bombing campaign (SEAD, as you say) to destroy radar and AA and partnered by strikes against air assets (it simply won't do if they can fight back). All the while, anytime the enemy should attempt to engage with ground forces, the use of force will be immediately justified, allowing engagement with those.

Anytime I hear promises of easy, limited engagement, I'm brought back to the promises made in 2003. This war would be short; the Iraqis would all just lay down arms; it would really be a budget war. Since then, we've spent equivalent to nearly a third of our current national debt on that war and (last I checked) 4486 American lives.

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

When the army is bombing their own cities, which is a fact, destroying the air bases/artillery is humanitarian. Is that so hard to understand ?

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how no-one ever mentions the 100,000+ civilians dead as a result of that "intervention"

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Fewer than Saddam would have killed on average. Funny how no-one ever mentions that.

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[cervesaebraciator]

This is sometimes true, but not always. It happens I care (and many more do who protest the war just this sort of reason). Not only do some care about those who've died in the war, but even those who die as a result of sanctions. But you know what? Sometimes it's healthy to target an argument. The fact is, most people can't be convinced to care about foreigners who speak the same language as those whom their neighbors have been called on to fight. But they might be persuaded to care about their neighbors who're called to fight, and perhaps to die.

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not the only country in the world capable of dropping bombs. Is that so hard to understand?

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[simishag]

Minor quibble with this. SEAD is a combat tactic which assumes you're already at war and suppressing defenses to advance a specific mission. A no-fly zone is a strategic patrol. It tells the enemy that you have overwhelming air superiority within the theater, and it assumes the enemy isn't willing to risk testing the no-fly zone. In the past no-fly zones have been more or less declared and imposed, and actually SEAD missions were unnecessary.

To be sure, actually enforcing a no-fly zone could require SEAD missions, in which case, it's not so no-fly. But yeah, it's still a dumb idea here, and it could provoke a wider war.

Re:Suppression of Air Defenses is NOT humanitarian

[cervesaebraciator]

Sure.

To be sure, actually enforcing a no-fly zone could require SEAD missions [...]

But this is what I had in mind when I wrote. In practical terms, it generally comes to this (case in point, Iraq for much of the 90's). When we hear of no-fly zones presented in media, it is treated as a low-cost alternative to getting into a fight. Of course it's presented this way cynically. Those hawks who call for no-fly zones cannot be ignorant of the fact that most countries don't like foreigners telling them they cannot use their own airspace.

Chemical Weapons Convention

[wrackspurt]

Here's the wikipedia link on the Chemical Weapons Convention. From the news reports I've picked up on it's the reason behind a military strike on Syria.

Re:Chemical Weapons Convention

[rubycodez]

Completely irrelevant, Syria has not signed that treaty so are not bound by it. Irael, a US ally, has not ratified it either.

We are not at war with Syria, and have no reason whatsoever to engage them in war. History shows intervention by the USA in a civil war is a guarentee to quadruple the body count, we don't help we kill and destroy for defense contractor oppotunity.

Syrians will continue to kill each other regardless of what the USA does, and it doesn't matter what weapons they use. dead is dead.

Re:Chemical Weapons Convention

[Arker]

You might note that Syria has not signed nor ratified it, so they have no obligations to follow it. Nor have they ever pretended to follow it. It's no secret they have the weapons.

Gases are ugly but as 'weapons of mass destruction' they are fairly overblown. Nothing like the wimpy little A-bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is why the major powers will agree to chemical weapons treaties for moral high ground while at the same time loudly proclaiming that they hold the option 'on the table' to launch nuclear attacks without even being attacked first.

And it just does not seem likely at all the Syrans used them here. With the inspectors right there, no military or strategic value being served, they just decided to randomly open up some cans of gas and hit civilians with them? It might make some sense if the war was lost and he was huddled in his bunker going out with a bang, but the regime is set to win this one.

It makes much more sense that one of the jihadis who are facing the grim possibility of defeat, sacrificed some innocents in order to trigger Mr Obamas 'red line' and the promised intervention to save Al Qaida^W^Nusra from the harsh fate Assad has in mind for them.

At the very least, it would make sense to let the inspectors gather evidence before you start killing even more innocents no?

And as long as we are talking about international law, the UN charter, which everyone concerned has assented to, requires Security Council authorization before a strike. And the only obstacle to an SC resolution appears to be the desire of some members to wait for the inspectors and the evidence.

It's not an easy day to be proud to be an American.

Re:Chemical Weapons Convention

[BranMan]

We have never been at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Syria.

Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[MrL0G1C]

There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis,

1) Video evidence of Chemical weapons being launched.
2) Photographic evidence of the weapons being Saudi.
3) Testimony from Syrian rebels from the faction that had the weapons and admitted they didn't know what they were doing with them.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/dont-show-obama-report-about-who-really-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack-chemical-weapons-supplied-by-saudi-arabia-not-syria-forwarded-by-erasmus-of-america-august-31-2013-905-am-2751942.html

And anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east?

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how those stories are particulary hard to find through my american search engines.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously taking WND seriously? Lol, they make up 10 times more "facts" than Fox News and CNN put together.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[seyyah]

And anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east?

Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are not on the same side.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, they are more serious than our current president and his hand puppet secretary of state.

Are you taking those guys seriously? The anti-war team that suddenly wants some military creds before the 2014 mid-term elections?

Check your head.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[cold fjord]

There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis,

There appears to be a lot of false evidence and fabrications, that's for sure. The allegation is that the chemical agent used is the nerve gas called Sarin.

Sarin gas was used in Syrian chemical weapons attack, says David Cameron

Sarin is not a dual purpose industrial gas that can be used as a chemical weapon, it is a pure chemical weapon. Saudi Arabia isn't known to have Sarin, and they have signed the treaties against it. Sarin is extremely deadly and not really a substance for haphazard manufacture or haphazard loading into munitions. If the allegation is that the Saudi's are supplying Sarin, the question is: "Where did they get it?" From Saddam? He used to have it, but I think we can agree that one is right out. Iran? No, Iran is fighting on the other side. So where did it come from?

I think that any claim that the Saudis supplied the Syrian rebels with Sarin gas weapons is a fabrication.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[tftp]

Sarin is extremely deadly and not really a substance for haphazard manufacture or haphazard loading into munitions.

You are saying that the entire filthy rich state of Saudi Arabia cannot do what some small, underground sect in Japan was able to do a couple decades ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot, Hezbollah are fighting for Assad.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this guy credible or a nut?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[cold fjord]

Before directly answering your question I will point out that the allegations of Saudi involvement for Sarin based on the presented "evidence" is nonsense. As to your question....

Yes, pretty much - the Saudis couldn't "do" what Aum Shinrikyo did. They are two different types of events. The attack in Tokyo was a terrorist attack with hand-carried home-brew sarin (made by a group with over $1,000,000,000 in assets) used to attack people in a highly enclosed space (about the best possible environment for the success of their attack) and it only managed to kill 13 people*. That isn't very effective. The attack in Syria killed over 1,400 people in the open, and was delivered by artillery rockets, not by plastic bag. Killing people in those circumstances is much more difficult. The success of the Syrian attack points to much more sarin used in the attack, higher purity in the sarin used, which means much more sophisticated chemical agent processing, deliberate development of chemical agent rocket artillery warheads, and proper planning and weapons handling needed to build a lethal dose of the nerve gas chemical agent on the target under the specific weather conditions. All of those activities would potentially be detectable to intelligence operations, but there don't seem to be any indications of that regarding the Saudis and rebels. A shipment of chemical weapons is almost certainly going to be handled differently than ordinary high explosives, and will probably be detectable by intelligence operations, something which I haven't heard any indication of regarding the Saudis and rebels.

There do seem to be indications of the Assad regime handling such weapons though.

Here Is the Evidence the U.S. Has on a Syrian Chemical-Weapons Attack
Troops led by Assad’s brother likely to blame for chemical weapons, Syrian activists say

Highly effective chemical agent rocket warheads aren't something that are just tossed off the assembly line for plastic water bottles on alternate weeks. They are a highly specialized weapon with many highly specialized components. The Saudis have signed the treated banning them, and I thought it was common wisdom by many on Slashdot that every country on earth followed treaties without cheating except for the US. How could the Saudi's cheat?

* Al Qaida had planned attacks on the New York subway system but called them off because they weren't certain that they would kill enough people to maintain their reputation.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, seems to be their favourite hobby.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[cold fjord]

Depends. They both hate the US and Israel.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

It dosn't make any sense to use them. Assad was already winining, and pissing of the international community will not help.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[flyingsquid]

There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis

Your "source" is a bunch of TV broadcasts by Syrian TV, which is controlled by the Syrian government. That's not actually a news outlet, it's just the propaganda wing of the Assad regime. They're going to say whatever they need to say to keep Assad in power.

The thing to keep in mind here is the scale of these attacks. You could see the rebels launching an attack on a small scale, maybe. But the attacks were actually launched against three different areas near Damascus, and used rockets and chemical weapons, and killed something like 1400 people and injured more. This kind of large, coordinated attack takes a large, well-trained, well-organized military with heavy weapons in the form of rockets and large chemical weapon stockpiles. The rebels are a bunch of disorganized factions with assault rifles; they just don't have the weapons or organizational ability to do that.

As for why would Assad use chemical weapons? Well, why wouldn't he? He'd previously sent in tanks and soldiers to put down demonstrations. He'd sent paramilitary groups in to murder civilians in their beds. He'd used artillery against civilians. He'd previously used chemical weapons on a small scale. He'd killed 100,000 people. All the while, the U.S. had done nothing, and Putin stood up for him and was going to veto any UN resolution. Assad had already gotten away with so many atrocities, he drew the conclusion that he'd get away with this one as well. And so far, no one's proven him wrong...

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Hypotensive]

There's a lot of conjecture about who was behind the attack, and none of it can be confirmed.

It does seem unlikely that it was actually Assad or his government directly ordering the attack, since his conventional war is proceeding extremely favorably for him and the introduction of chemical weapons could only make life more difficult. On the other hand the idea that it was his brother have been floated, which makes more sense since he wouldn't have to suffer any of the consequences.

It seems equally plausible that the whole thing was set up from inside one of the factions by agitators of foreign intelligence agencies. Although the USA, Britain and France all have a reason to do this (misdirecting media gaze away from internal totalitarian surveillance scandals, for instance, and profiting from the arms sales that inevitably result from a war), Russia is a much more likely candidate as it could sit back and see the USA and its lackeys weaken their positions by bashing their heads against a brick wall in the Middle East, as well as continuing to profit from arms sales to the region. Russian news agencies have also been floating the idea that it was a false flag attack from the start (casting the USA as the most likely agitator since they're usually the ones responsible for false flags), and as the saying goes, there's no smoke without fire.

One thing you can be absolutely sure about, and that's that there will be no way to prove this one way or the other.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[LQ]

And anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east?

Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are not on the same side.

And this is exactly the reason the USA should stay out. The whole thing is a mess and there are no good guys. If Obama wants to topple Assad, does he have a clear idea of who he wants to win?

The Syrian Shia population is fighting an existential battle against Sunni jihadists. If they lose, they will be ethnically cleansed and the refugee crisis will double. If anything, the US should be supporting the Syrian government against these foreign-backed Islamist rebels.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[MrL0G1C]

"and killed something like 1400 people"

Pot Kettle black eh, who are you quoting - the guy who is trying to make more money for his countries war machine industry.

"He'd killed 100,000 people."

Really showing your bias here, that figure is the number of people thought to be dead from the conflict, killed by both rebels and gov't troops.

Both sides are bad, joining with one side would not be helping the civilians, quite the opposite - 10,000s more civilians would die.

You choose to believe your gov't versions of events, I don't choose to believe any propaganda. The point is when there is nothing but lies to base your decision about joining a war. And the only outcome if America wins is that some nasty people gain power and Syria becomes a total hell hole like Iraq.

The rebels seem to be remarkably well armed, and are killing a lot of civilians - where did they get there weapons? And why do you think that they aren't capable of launching gas attacks, looking at the video it looks to me like a case of load a different type of shell and fire it. Not hundreds, not dozens but 3 to 5 attacks - not really that huge is it?

Is it possible that the evidence is fabricated, yes, it's always possible, the US for example has fabricated evidence many times to go to war. Simple fact is there is evidence that the rebels launched the chemical weapons, there is not evidence that Syrian military launched the chemical weapons otherwise US news would have plastered that all over the place.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[MrL0G1C]

Lol at the links source, did you look at the article - an Indian student. And the other article is also pure conjecture. If there was any real evidence that Syrian military launched the chemical weapons, it would have been all over the news, the only thing the news is saying with certainty is that someone launched chemical weapons.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[MrL0G1C]

..Looks like you posted the wrong link.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[MrL0G1C]

oops, you are of course right, Hezbolla being on the Syrian govts side.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is evidence vs speculation. Why don't you put your counter 'evidence' on the table and we can genuinely discuss it because atm the world is looking at the USA declaring its evidence that it suspiciously refuses to produce. Just like the last time in Iraq.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Yeah, Your "sources" take all their facts from either the Russians or the Syrian regime. I'm a bit inclined to not believe them.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[MrL0G1C]

And what do the US govt have? Just an insistance that chemical weapons were used, but no evidence of who used them. And given the USAs recent actions I think Russia is on an equal footing with regards to trustworthiness.

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Hillgiant]

Damnit. How dare you pollute this debate with FACTS?!?

Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying "my guy is a liar, but your guy is just as much a liar" is a lousy defence. It is okay to admit that all evidence that tries to identify who was responsible is crap and that there is no way for you to know.

Humanitarian Battlefield

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally love it how the article uses the words Battlefield and Humanitarian in the same sentence.

Killing people is just so meh in the US these days.

Re:Humanitarian Battlefield

[jsepeta]

by some standards, HIROSHIMA was a merciful act, preventing WWII from going on as long as it might have.

Re:Humanitarian Battlefield

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese were willing to surrender as long as the emperor could stay in charge. Then after America nuked them, they let him stay in charge anyway.

all america does is create enemies

[Anonymous Coward]

how long til someone in the middle east avenges the death of a loved one by turning a major american city into a parking lot?

Re:all america does is create enemies

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it interesting that you don't seem to worry about America's avenging that action?

Re:all america does is create enemies

[rubycodez]

because thus far we haven't avenged anything including 9/11 attacks. We just scattered Al Qaeda to the four corners of the islamic world, and made Iraq, where they weren't, into an Al Qaeda recruiting center. right now we're negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan, because we suck so very very badly at avenging. Let's imagine a superhero who looks like Uncle Sam, called "The Failed Avenger". He'll be so quick on the draw he shoots his foot off, and when he swings his Mace of Justice at an enemy he'll miss and whack his nutsack.

Re:all america does is create enemies

[gatkinso]

That happens and moderately peaceful Americans like me become former peace loving Americans... and middle east ceases to exist, along with anyone's nation who makes the mistake of uttering a single peep of opposition.

So, you've now had you little moment of fantasy, tempered with a dose of reality.

It must suck to be a warmonger such as yourself, but live in a nation that doesn't have a powerful military to satisfy your sadistic desires.

Re:all america does is create enemies

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep your genocidally disproportionate revenge fantasies to yourself.

DURRRRTARD

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cyber capabilities could first disrupt Syrian air defenses directly or confuse military command and control, allowing air strikes to proceed unchallenged."......
That's not the role of "cyber warfare"(whatever that is), but is instead falls in the well established domain of Electronic Warfare.

The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[msobkow]

The US should stay the hell out of Syria's civil war. Both sides are vicious, dictatorship-prone fanatics. There is no "good" side to support. It's either the existing brutal dictatorship or an Al-Queda inspired bunch of Sharia nutbars.

I feel sorry for the people of Syria caught in the middle of it, but bombing the shit out of the country isn't going to make a decent democracy emerge.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if there WERE a "good" side to support, that would NOT warrant us going in there!

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. To be fair there are moderates in the Free Syrian Army. However there are many, many extremists, both in and outside of the FSA.

My concern is that if the Syrian opposition wins and topples the Assad regime, what follows will be a purge of the moderates. This is very similar to what happened in France after the French revolution. That led to the time appropriately known as the Terror. This also happened in Russia after the revolution there.

Following any revolution there is a dangerous time. If the moderates are strong and firmly take control the revolution moderates. In effect they purge any extremists. However if the extremists are strong, it rewards their willingness to do anything, take any measure. Then the moderates get purged.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[gallondr00nk]

bombing the shit out of the country isn't going to make a decent democracy emerge.

Quite, and certainly not in Syria.

What is most perplexing is why the US is so bent on arming the Syrian rebels. In the past the US has been absolutely terrified of political Islam.

It now seems willing to embrace and fund it, even if one or more of the parties of rebels are linked to terrorist groups. Deposed dictators like Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and so on have been used in the past to stop the forming of an Islamic government.

Perhaps it's because they'll get a better deal out of the new rulers than the old. Perhaps it's to weaken a Russian ally. Is there much oil in Syria? Perhaps they want oil again.

In Iraq where one of the first laws passed after the invasion was the implementation of US style copyright laws. Perhaps this has been set up by the RIAA? After all, the US helped overthrow a government for United Fruit once.

I imagine whenever the US decides to go to war, the president just spins a little wheel in the White House marked "justification" and runs with whatever it lands on.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[AHuxley]

Its seems to be that some regions are fine if they just export oil and buy US tanks/jets/buildings/bases - be good with the petrodollar use and ongoing US banking.
Once the real universities start, woman get educated, trade deals are looked at and internal nation building understands the reality of the petrodollar - classic freedom fighter/new colour time.
The same brand/database of "freedom fighters" seems to pop up at the perfect time, with new weapons, papers and funding. Some years as 'good' some years as 'evil'.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if they do nothing, there will be a very long war, with either Assad winning, signaling dictators of the world that they should use every weapon they have to quell a revolution. Or the extremists win, an al qaeda country is not good for the US (or anyone that values freedom).
There are moderates, but they need help to overcome both Assad and the extremists. Though that help should have come at least a year ago.
Moderate islamic government are much better than a ruthless dictator, or than extremists. And they are natural for a mostly conservative islamic society, the society needs time to evolve like the west did.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[0111 1110]

No, but it would definitely help the case for war if a positive outcome, at least a temporary one, were possible.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[Anonymous Coward]

so if the US kills Assad, how do we stop the extremists (partly made from al quaeda) that take over afterwards. It'll just look like the US is fucking everything up again.

Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria

[rts008]

It struck me as rather odd that we seem to be quite willing to get mixed up in Syria Circus.

It's starting to sound like some crazy plot in a second or third rate book/movie.

"The shady gov't. in country X has developed a plan to recover it's ailing economy by way of contractors/mercenaries and the lucrative arms industry by ass-raping their citizens with taxes and regulatory fees, in order to plunge into yet another war. Can they keep running down the cliff-face and still survive the bottom? Thrills! Chills! Excitement! Watch/read and find out..."

Or there is just too much long term gain in keeping the Middle East stirred up.

I haven't figured out what the game is, but I smell something fishy, and am starting to sense a pattern.

We have been (and others) mucking about over there for decades.

We have been at two wars for over a decade at a combined cost of over one trillion US dollars, and now we are even thinking about a third war? WTF?

Afghanistan....rich in rare earth metals, and a few goats

Iraq....oil, and even more goats

Syria...not much oil, and declining goat population
So, what exactly are we after here?

If it's goats we want, Mexico is much closer, and I'm sure they would even give us a good enough deal that we would not have to go to war with them. ;-)

The War Powers Act Checks Presidential Power

[cervesaebraciator]

What you're referring to is the War Powers Act. This does allow the president the ability to engage in conflict on short notice and without a declaration of war, but the act was designed to check the president's warmaking powers, restricting it to specific conditions. According to the act, the president can only act by statutory authorization or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Presidents (R and D alike) have tended to focus on the details like the 60 to 90 days they have discretion, while ignoring the conditions under which such discretion is allowed. Unless we are in a national emergency (i.e. a nuking or a Pearl Harbor like event), Presidents act against the letter of the War Powers Act if they exercise such powers.

I point all this out because its so often misrepresented in the media, which rarely questions a President's authority to go to war (again, R or D president).

Re:The War Powers Act Checks Presidential Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Why when the President goes to war contrary to the War Powers Act is it never challenged in court? The president must be following the letter of the law or the Supreme Court would override the President.

Re:The War Powers Act Checks Presidential Power

[10101001 10101001]

I point all this out because its so often misrepresented in the media, which rarely questions a President's authority to go to war (again, R or D president).

And why would they? War is good for business. If it bleeds, it leads. Really, it's outright disgusting just how complicit the media is not only in just accepting war is inevitable--which is, btw, one reason I don't doubt the anti-Iraq war coverage was so limited/skewed--, but plenty of journalists are more than happy to be armchair generals and push for the attack over their own pet ideas.

The absurdity of calling cyber attacks "can be compliant with international humanitarian law" is so utterly revolting, I hardly know where to begin. Inherently to any successful war is to attack the populace at some level, for if the government is the only target a tyrannical regime (basically any country, including the US, behaves as such at war which is inherently apparent as the Constitution's respect of most rights is largely forgone when war is occurring) will use civilian resources to continue the fight which indirectly is crippling to the civilian populace regardless.

Of course the author's true allegiance shows through when he makes it clear not to attack Syria's leader financially. He worries about retaliation. He worries about the all-mighty dollar. Won't someone think of the humanitarianism of that?

Re:The War Powers Act Checks Presidential Power

[LordLimecat]

Inherently to any successful war is to attack the populace at some level

Such a statement could only be made by one unfamiliar with history. As I recall the greek city-states had a habit of NOT attacking the populace during their conflicts, among other examples.

Re:The War Powers Act Checks Presidential Power

[10101001 10101001]

Such a statement could only be made by one unfamiliar with history. As I recall the greek city-states had a habit of NOT attacking the populace during their conflicts, among other examples.

"Peloponnesian War, (431–404 bc), war fought between the two leading city-states in ancient Greece, Athens and Sparta. .... The years of fighting that followed can be divided into two periods, separated by a truce of six years. The first period lasted 10 years and began with the Spartans, under Archidamus, leading an army into Attica, the region around Athens. Pericles declined to engage the superior allied forces and instead urged the Athenians to keep to their city and make full use of their naval superiority by harassing their enemies’ coasts and shipping. Within a few months, however, Pericles fell victim to a terrible plague that raged through the crowded city, killing a large part of its army as well as many civilians." -- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449362/Peloponnesian-War

In short, what you say may be true but it's misleading. My point still stands, although I'd probably want to amend it with the point that even trying not to fight a war or otherwise prevent attacking civilians outright still turns into a war of attrition (that'd be my major point about the use of civilian resources to fight) which leaves the civilians crowded and vulnerable to pestilence and plaque. Or their basic system of sanitation is destroyed or contaminated and under threat of war, regardless of how benevolent they believe their opponent is, civilians won't engage in the general grand public works to resolve such issues precisely because those things are "dual use" and liable as a target and civilians to be collateral damage. The same holds true today, as electricity powers lights for everyone, gasoline is used by everyone, etc. It's magic thinking to believe there aren't consequences upon the general population when you start dropping bombs, physical or cyber, upon the government.

BHDDOD=Acronym for...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bone-Headed Dumb Dumb On Dumb (or whatever else you may prefer the "DOD" stand for)." Because, it is bone-headed stupid to assume that because the people in the Middle-East, except for "Tthe Really Smart Jews", are "Just A Bunch Of Arabs", they are cyber-illiterates who imagine the internet to operate by "witchcraft".

Where it comes to computers and the internet the peoples of so-called third-world nations are the literatti: They know more than 90% of America's "computer experts", because they learn the findamentals to qualify for jobs offered by American computer companies, either where they live or in the United States where program-writers who understand the fundamentals and the underlying code are needed. The majority of American IT "experts" are script-monkeys, because they could not be bothered to learn the fundamentals. They are the ones who "do magic", conjuring programs using scripting languages that do what they want, though they don't know how (apologies if I step on toes).

In the 18th and 19th centuries American Indians lost to the white-man again and again because they adopted guns, but did not learn how to make gun-powder. They were dependent on the white-man for powder and shot. American cyber-warriors, if they start in with cyber-weapons they only know how to set off with scripts will be in the same position the American Indians were, while third-worlders, because they know the 'chemistry' will be in the white-man position.

MODERATORS!!! EMERGENCY! READ THIS IMMEDIATELY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT =-=UP=-=

Amen.

civilians are dual-use

[Anonymous Coward]

Attacking dual use infrastructure what both sides are doing when they attack civilians allied to the other side. How is a US attack going to help anything when the Syrians don't hold to the US definition of "humanitarian"?

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

They should make a Syrian language version of Final Fantasy Online and release it for free in the country. Productivity will drop to zero, the GDP will go down the toilet, and their entire economy will collapse. That would work better than a more obvious cyber attack.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how much FFXI and FFXIV have been hacked? All that stuff, you name it, has already gone on.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly sure this would be a violation of the Hague Convention, as MMOs create disproportionate suffering.

Bullshit

[Dr Max]

"Last, it is possible the U.S. military has cyber capabilities to directly disrupt the operations of Syria's chemical troops." How are they going to stop assads chemical troops with cyber warfare? Even if he had any (which to be honest dosn't make any sence; he was winning why would he piss off the internation community) i really doubt they would have them hooked up to the internet.

Re:Bullshit

[gl4ss]

assads troops might very well use the chems just to fuck with the rebels.

remember, if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail and the chem troops have just chems. also, assad hasn't been winning that well... and they didn't know what kind of effect the chems would even have.

it never really was a secret that assad has the chems. that much is agreed by everyone, by every neighbor - why he was allowed to keep making them and stockpiling them nobody seems to know. from that point of view it's ridiculous usa hasn't gone in, since having chems like that is supposedly why they went into iraq.. which at that point had none of them!

Re:Bullshit

[Dr Max]

I don't know, maybe he does, it's hard to tell the propaganda from the news these days. Still if i was an evil dictator with chemical weapons they wouldn't be hooked up to the interwebz, i don't care how good amazons cloud computing is.

What a tool

[Arker]

"'By sparing the lives of Syrian troops and nearby civilians, an opening cyber operation against Syria could demonstrate exactly how such capabilities can be compliant with international humanitarian law,' writes Healey."

Yes, indeed. Let us demonstrate our moral rightness by launching an illegal war, to enforce international law. Oh, wait, they know that is nonsense so they are saying 'international norm' instead.

Even if it were an actual violation of international law, responding with an assault that itself violates international law would still be hypocritical. But for this, neither anglo-saxon nor latin provides me with a word sufficient to describe it. I can only resort to yiddish and call it chutzpah, and even that seems weak.

there is no case

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called mind your own fucking business.

Syria is a technically advanced country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep dreaming your electric dreams of world conquest. A bayonette and hollow. Total fucking troll.

The air that we breathe is a dual use commodity

[WaffleMonster]

From what I have heard you can't destroy chemical weapons with cruise missile strikes or LOL "cyber attacks". To even try would be dangerous and counterproductive.

As for this insane talk about weakening capacity what kind of degredation is needed to prevent someone from walking over to a chemical weapons supply room and walking out with chemicals? I am unable to comphrend the bredth of stupidity and insanity embedded in TFAs or the US administrations line of thought.

Re:MODERATORS!!! EMERGENCY! READ THIS IMMEDIATELY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who says the word "cyber" should be droned.

are you f-in kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1lt3g1/feds_beg_ny_times_pro_publica_not_to_reveal_that/

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1lsvip/us_and_uk_spy_agencies_defeat_privacy_and/

after the above bullshit comes to light round the world
you will not find one hacker on earth to even come to your aid in fact the opposite .....

your gonna see the usa get pounded to rubble on the net in the next few days unless htey really really come clean....and stop this bullcrap
Chronoss
Chairperson
United hackers association

Re:are you f-in kidding me

[Dr Max]

That's why they need to start another war. Look at my assistant with the big tits, while i slip the Rolex right of your wrist.

Cute Idea But...

[twmcneil]

How does this square with the ACM's Code of Ethics, Section 1.2 - "Avoid Harm to Others"?

OH NO - where do these people come from?

[johnwerneken]

johnwerneken
  a few seconds ago

DISAGREE.

Perhaps Pearl Harbor was NOT an act of war. It was after all only a single airborne strike, doing limited damage (no aircraft carriers were even hit - as they were not there at the time), with no boots on the ground.

Acts of War are not casual and typically have consequences unanticipated and undesired by those who commit them.

They wouldn't want to tip off China

[Anonymous Coward]

as to their cyber capabilities.

Making a case for...

[Anonymous Coward]

not having a command-n-chimp for president would be a better approach...
so far, we have had two - bush and obama...
just say no...

Re:Making a case for...

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously man, bush was fucking horrible but obama is fucking horrible too, i dont' even care what party wins just for once can we not have a sleazy retard, the country can't take much more of this bullshit

It seems backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that when Bush the Younger was making the case for wars of self-interest, where America either was retaliating for action or pre-emptively striking a country we worried might collude with terrorists to attack us, the Democrats said we had to get UN approval and a coalition.

But when we're supposedly upholding international norms, they tell us it is ok to got it alone and unilaterally attack?

If this is really an international norm, then why isn't there an international response? It seems we can list about 200+ countries that do not consider the use of poison gas against civilians to be a problem. This includes not just known human rights violators like Russia, China, and Japan, but even includes more civilized places like Germany, Denmark, Japan, and Canada. To my knowledge none of these countries are publicly willing to put force behind an punitive attack.

If no one believes the norm should be enforced, then it isn't really an enforceable norm. Given the lack of anyone else willing to enforce, America should not attack Syria but instead should stockpiling poison gas of its own and make it very clear that it is prepared to use it. If anyone doesn't like it, too bad for them; they should have been willing to help out.

Healy should shut his hole

[Marrow]

And never open it again.

Re:MODERATORS!!! EMERGENCY! READ THIS IMMEDIATELY!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey babe asl / wanna cyber?

what a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

america should stay the hell out of syria and everyone elses business. I've had it up to HERE with american military adventures. what utter jerks run that place, replete with self-indulgent rationales for doing this. oh yes, humanitarianism.

Nup

[Dr Max]

Money did all that. It just so happens that governments spend lots more money during war. If you took the trillions of dollars America spends a year on weapons, and put it into science R&D and projects, we would all kinds of magical technology (easily enough for a mars base and robotic asteroid mining).

Re

[Hutt1235]

anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east? Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are not on the same side. US is actually in war with everyone, specially in the cyber realm. They have (or think their have) the upper hand and then is happily going against all the world, JUST SPRING! Hamlet Petviashvili New Yourk 22 Ave Stick War Stick War

Humanitarian air strikes

[Anonymous Coward]

...can be humanitarian...

...allowing air strikes to proceed unchallenged.

What the FUCK is humanitarian about an air strike?

How about this case: no war, at all.

[gatkinso]

Christ I am one American who has had it with war.

Post 9/11 Afghanistan was one thing. Took 10 years but we got the fucker. Time to go home. Why haven't we?
Iraq... I won't comment about that goatfuck except to say thank god it is over (for us at least... the place seems to be in shambles).

Why are we the world police? Nobody else on Earth wants us in that role. So let's acknowledge that and take a break from that. I am an advocate for a strong *defense.* The offense part... well to hell with that.