Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Making a Case For Cyberwar Against Syria

Posted by timothy on from the too-bad-so-few-picked-the-anti-war-candidate dept.

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.'"

12 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. No by lightknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:No by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:No by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    3. Re:No by Stan92057 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:No by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:No by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  2. Nope, this is an act of war! by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  3. Re:!Seems likely by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  4. The US should stay the hell out of Syria by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  5. Re:Nope, no by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons. by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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