Government, Military and Private Sector Fighting Over Next-Gen Cyber-Warriors

An anonymous reader writes Both the U.S. Army and Britain's intelligence agency GCHQ launched new initiatives to address their severe shortfalls in cyber-security specialists. The United States Army Reserve launched the "cyber private public partnership" (Cyber P3) on Capitol Hill, which will give reservists the opportunity to train as cyber-warriors in six U.S. universities, in partnership with 11 employers. In the UK GCHQ announced an "Insiders Summer School", where first and second-year computer science undergraduates will be paid to attend a ten week intensive cyber-training course, culminating in a live display of their online and hacking acumen. The Government Accountability Office estimates a shortfall of 40,000 cyber security operatives, and with multiple branches of government in several western countries fighting each other (and the private sector, and the criminal arena) for the patronage of computer science students, cyber-security is looking to be the safest career path an undergraduate could pursue.

Comments

What does the military think it is doing?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Are the armed services types swarming over this just because if it has 'warrior' in the name they have to get a piece of the action, or do they actually have something resembling a coherent plan for being able to make a convincing pitch to the people they are hoping to attract?

Buying their services as consultants, or as civilian employees of DoD agencies, sure; cut them a check and they'll show right up; but some of these plans actually seem to involve enlisted geeks wearing hilariously incongruous camo in front of banks of monitors and 'cyber warrior'-ing. How is selling that going to work?

Re:What does the military think it is doing?

[ShanghaiBill]

This is about money. Military budgets are being cut. The public has lost their appetite for foreign wars. Manned systems are being replaced with drones and robots. Even the few ongoing spend-a-thons, such as the F-35, are continuing out of political inertia, rather than any sincere belief that they make sense.

So what is a general, looking for a nice cushy command, while padding his pension, supposed to do? The obvious answer is "cyber-warfare". It is a hot topic. Money is being thrown at it. The only question is which branch will get the lion's share. So the Army, Navy, Air Force, and even the Marines, and falling over each other to make proposals.

A junior officer once referred to the Soviet Union as America's enemy. General Curtis LeMay quickly corrected him: "The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy."

hard to sell a career path these days

[nimbius]

cyber-security is looking to be the safest career path an undergraduate could pursue.

Ok put away the grease gun, we get it. our cybers need more warriors, because our government (at least here in the united states) can only solve problems by declaring a misguided overfuned underperforming war on them. but next-gen cyber warriors only makes sense in a country that hasnt ranked 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 17th in reading on a global stage. next generation technology "warriors" in a country that thinks global warming isnt real and evolution has "alternate" theories is an uphill climb but lets say for the sake of argument we can get past it. Youre now proposing undergraduate education, something consistently underfunded in every state, every year, is the way forward? This type of education represents one of the statistically largest amounts of debt in the US, and its in all likelyhood forecasted as the next bubble to burst. Its a type of education that by all indications has the same rate of employment after completion as having never attended college at all due to 'lack of experience.'

so lets assume we make this a government priority and not a privatized military like halliburton. what then? The glaring problem in the armed forces isnt funding or training, its plummeting recruitment rates. You see, you can only have a few wars that fail before the limbless vets and combat shocked alcoholics start piling up in society, first outside the VA, and next outside freeway onramps and alleys. Eventually it doesnt matter why youre fighting, they wont join. For the few left who really want to fight a war, Most potential Army reservists are addicted to prescription drugs, are overweight, have mental health problems, or too many tattoos that prohibit them from joining the military. http://www.newsmax.com/Health-...

Re:Why the United States Always Loses Its Wars

[AK Marc]

Despite defeats in both Iraq and Afghanistan still being dragged out as America's longest running wars in its history,

Hard to take them seriously when we had troops on the ground in Vietnam since Eisenhower sent them in, until Nixon ordered them all out. First US troops on the ground in 1954 (non combat), and first US soldier death in 1959. The last troops out in 1975. 16 years from first US death to last. 21 from first US military personnel officially in country to oppose the North, to the last leaving. Depending on your definitions, that's quite a range, but still longer than the time from 2001 to now, so I have no idea how Iraq and Afghanistan are the longest. Perhaps it's the revisionist history that Kennedy started the Vietnam war, and Nixon ended it, so there was 8 years of the Vietnam war between Kennedy being voted in and Nixon being voted in, even though Nixon only ended it because he knew it wouldn't be what he's most remembered for.