Slashdot Mirror
Sun Tzu 2.0: The Future of Cyberwarfare
An anonymous reader writes: Cyberwar and its ramifications have been debated for some time and the issue has been wrought with controversy. Few would argue that cyber-attacks are not prevalent in cyberspace. However, does it amount to a type of warfare? Let's break this down by drawing parallels from a treatise by 6th century military general, Sun Tzu, who authored one of the most definitive handbooks on warfare, "The Art of War." His writings have been studied throughout the ages by professional militaries and can be used to not only answer the question of whether or not we are in a cyberwar, but how one can fight a cyber-battle.
and know your enemy's secrets and you will win a hundred battles. Or a hundred blackmails. You know what, forget about the 'thyself' bit, just know your enemy's dirty laundry.
Where do you get the idea that Sunzi was fixated on the idea of armies controlled by a single entity? He explicitly states, in one instance, that the generals on the field can disobey a prince. Sunzi's idea of war was about coordination of multiple entities each doing their own thing to win a war.
And I contest that contexts are dramatically different. The contexts for tactics may be different, but overall strategies are still the same. Identify weak spots while hide or disguise your own. Borrow your enemies resources to attack them. Usage of spies. etc etc. The main reason why Sunzi was opposed to protracted warfare was the cost to the citizens. If what you say is true, that costs in cyberwarfare are negligible, then that concern of Sunzi doesn't apply. However, given how much money has to be spent on something like the NSA and still be completely ineffective, then your critique is wrong and the concern of protracted warfare does apply and the strategies to suit.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.