Cyber Combat: Act of War-Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military

[kpete]

Source: Wall Street Journal

Cyber Combat: Act of War
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html#ixzz1Nw7Ppfhb
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES
WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.
In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official.

The Pentagon is studying when cyber attacks justify military action. An Air Force security center in Colorado.

Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems—as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm—have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. A key moment occurred in 2008, when at least one U.S. military computer system was penetrated. This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.




Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html#ixzz1Nw78UW98

[PSPS]

1. The only way the US responds to anything anymore is with "military force"

[pscot]

8. If you hack my computer I'll kill you

and your whole damn family.

[truth2power]

2. This is insane!! ...

Who is the "you" in this sentence? ""If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official." Booga booga! :scared:

So, if some hacker somewhere in London hacks into a Pentagon computer, we'll drop a bomb on him? Probably take out the queen and all her family while we're at it. But, no problem. We're the best! U.S.A., U.S.A.!!

I think the only threats to life on this planet are the mentally deranged nincompoops in the Pentagon.

* * * *

Oh, and Stuxnet...I always kinda thought WE did that. I mean, who would most benefit from sabotaging Iran's nuclear program? There are a lot of strange things in that article.

[psychopomp]

7. Really? You can't think of one country that would benefit more from a crippled Iran?

Not even one? One that, say, is quite advanced technologically and sees Iran as an existential threat?

[truth2power]

13. Heh heh. Why yes. Yes I can, now that you mention it. Thanks for the head's up.

:P

[kooljerk666]

3. Well what happens next time a US teenager...........

hacks into a sovereign foreign nations national security networks.

If i was any country that had gas/oil I would embark on a massive nuke weapons program for deterrence against US!!

Whoever said this should lose their job.

[truth2power]

4. Well, that would be ok...

because, by definition, no American can commit an Act of War. God created us 'special' doncha know.

[bemildred]

5. Oh yeah, that will work.

:sarcasm:

[Scottybeamer70]

6. as if the pentagon needs an excuse for war

[Zhade]

9. What a remarkable new way to rationalize another war!

So if I understand this, if a random non-governmental, non-state-supported script kiddie hacks the FDA, we'll just attack the country where the hacker lives? Gee, there's NO WAY our government could use such a rationilization to whip up a little hack of its own to justify attacking whomever it wishes to attack.

[Macoy]

10. RTFA

For those did not bother to read the article:

“Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.”

Basically, we are warning China that if they keep launching cyber-attacks against us, we will use force in retaliation.


Macoy

[Kaleko]

35. Hm... I think you're onto something there.

Welcome to DU, Macoy.

[Macoy]

36. Thank You

Thank you, happy as a hobbit to be here.

macoy

[sudopod]

37. That is flatly not true, though defense contractors like budget writers to think so.

Ask HBGary.

[No Elephants]

40. What if you don't take what "Pentagon officials believe" (or say they believe) to the bank?

[truthisfreedom]

11. It seems more logical to disable the offending country's internet connection.

Pulling the plug on the source and isolating the danger is both more humane and more effective, imho.

[24601]

12. So wassup with Obama and all his war stuff? He's made Bush

look like a pacifist by comparison. Good thing he got the Peace Prize 'cause that makes it all ok.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. So, if the Chinese government

hacks into US computers and lays the trail to Taiwan's door, we'll happily pull the trigger on Taiwan?

Seems like a really neat way to get the U.S. to do your dirty work. I am sure Israel will take note.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Indeed, the possibilities are endless.

[Electric Monk]

16. Pentagon: Hack attacks can be act of war. Military response possible.

Source: The Register

For the first time, the Pentagon has formally concluded that computer sabotage carried out by another nation can constitute an act of war that warrants a response of traditional military force, according to published media reports.

The determination, included in the Pentagon's first ever “formal cyber strategy,” represents an attempt to address the growing reliance on computers and computer networks by military and civilians alike, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the circulation of the 30-page classified document. The policy is in part intended to act as a deterrent by showing other countries there could be serious consequences for attacks that target gas pipelines, military networks and other infrastructure considered critical to national security.

“If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” the WSJ quoted an unnamed military official as saying.

According to NBC News, not every attack would lead to military retaliation. To qualify, hacks would have to be carry the same kinds of threats to American lives, commerce, or infrastructure as traditional military attacks. And even then, because it's often impossible to detect the true origins of so-called cyber attacks, commanders would have to present indisputable evidence that a particular country was behind a specific incident.

Read more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/31/hacking_as_act_of_war/

---

Can we send SEAL team six after Brietbart yet?

[armodem08]

17. Warning to China? Check! n/t

[AlbertCat]

18. n act of war that warrants a response of traditional military force,

Because that's worked SO WELL for the last...oh...50 years? or so.

:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

19. these people are INSANE

[Doctor Hurt]

20. traditional military force frequently works well

if the goals are well defined.

[Nihil]

42. And, as AlbertCat pointed out, ...

>> Because that's worked SO WELL for the last...oh...50 years? or so.

... half of the time the goals *haven't* been well defined and the other
half of the time the true (well-defined) goals are not the ones used by
the administration as justification for their aggression for profit.

So, which nation is going to be next on the USA world tour?

[Doctor_J]

21. This makes Breitbart an enemy combatant

:thumbsup:

[Corruption Winz]

22. Honestly, I have no problem with this....

Warranted attacks work well, so long as the attack is carried out as simply letting this nation know that we can't allow them to potentially harm our nation.

Sometimes, it has to happen.

[gratuitous]

23. A new template

And how long will it be before this policy is fitted onto some scenario to justify a military response to someone getting closed off his Twitter account, or a similar act of "computer sabotage"?

Acolytes of the HCRV, please refrain from boring me and embarrassing yourself with protestations that such a thing will never, could never happen.

[me b zola]

24. So does this mean

that the Pentagon needs to get congressional approval before they hack Iran again?

[orangeapple]

28. I'm sure it wouldn't be kinetic

and would only last days, not weeks, so why even ask Congress for approval. Just do it.

[4dsc]

25. File this under WTF.

[KG]

26. what if some country merely farts in our general direction?

:eyes:

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

32. Would the opposite be acceptable?

If some country gets hacked by our government, should we expect that country to declare war on the US?

[One_Life_To_Give]

27. Does this mean Stuxnet may have been an act of war?

Wouldn't this give justification for Iran to take military action against the supposed originators of the Stuxnet Virus?

[Doctor Hurt]

30. Justification, perhaps. Ability? No.

.

[JackRiddler]

31. Well that's a nice lullabye, anyway.

[bluedigger]

29. I guess time will tell if this is an effective deterrent.

This could be a useful policy as a means of deterring rogue states from attempting cyber attacks. Where we have a clear military superiority, and the ability to project it, it could be an appropriate response. It doesn't necessarily mean loss of life, either. Every country has critical physical infrastructure that can be targeted with modern munitions. The difficulty will be in connecting the act to the actor, which leads me to believe that there could be a lengthy interval between the attack and the response, lessoning it's utility. Obviously of no use with China and the other major powers. We wouldn't have any interest in mixing it up with them over something like this.

[CHIMO]

33. Washington moves to classify cyber-attacks as acts of war

Source: guardian.co.uk

The US government is rewriting its military rule book to make cyber-attacks a possible act of war, giving commanders the option of launching retaliatory military strikes against hackers backed by hostile foreign powers.

The Pentagon has concluded that the laws of armed conflict can be widened to embrace cyberwarfare, in order to allow the US to respond with the use of force against aggressive assaults on its computer and IT infrastructure.

The move, to be unveiled in a US department of defence strategy document next month, is a significant step towards the militarisation of cyberspace, with huge implications for international law.

Pentagon officials disclosed the decision to the Wall Street Journal, saying it was designed to send a warning to any hacker threatening US security by attacking its nuclear reactors, pipelines or public networks such as mass transport systems. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," an official said.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/washington-moves-to-classify-cyber-attacks

---

MANUEL ZELAYA: We’re talking about the United States, so it’s an empire. The United States is an empire, and so Obama is the president of the United States, but he is not the chief of the empire. Even though Obama would be against the coup, the process toward the coup was already moving forward. The most that they tell a president like President Obama, that there’s a political crisis going on. But they do not talk about the details that they were involved in in terms of the conspiracy.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama early on called it a coup. But then the administration seemed to back off, both he and Hillary Clinton.

MANUEL ZELAYA: They gave themselves up before the coup itself. That is the proof, in fact, that the coup came from the north, from the U.S. So they are even able to bend the arm of the President of the United States, President Obama, and the State Department, and they impeded my restitution as president of the country.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/31/exclusive_interview_with_manuel_zelaya_on

[earcandle]

34. Only in America...

[Ash_F]

39. I guess that means they don't have to give hackers a trial either

Since "enemy combatants" don't get one.

[saras]

38. It also means they can nuke Pirate Bay

[No Elephants]

41. Meet the new boss. Sometimes, he goes further than the old boss.

[Judi Lynn]

43. Pentagon doesn't rule out military force against cyberattacks

Source: CNN

Pentagon doesn't rule out military force against cyberattacks
By Larry Shaughnessy, CNN Pentagon Producer
June 1, 2011 5:11 a.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- The Pentagon is formulating a new strategy on how to respond to cyberattacks that would include using military force, a spokesman confirmed late Tuesday.

Col. David Lapan said if the attack is serious enough, "a response to a cyberincident or attack on the U.S. would not necessarily be a cyber response, so as I said all appropriate options would be on the table."

The final public portion of the "Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace" is expected to be released in two or three weeks.

But much of it has already been discussed for months by numerous administration officials, including the White House and Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/31/military.cyberattack/index.html

[Demeter]

44. The Pentagon Is Out of Its Depth and Out of Its Collective Mind

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

45. Since many cyberattacks are rumored to come from China

I'd say a military response is probably a bad idea.

[Nihil]

46. Sounds like Nigeria is just one gullible budget planner away from being nuked ...! (n/t)

:hide:

[No Elephants]

47. Isn't that a matter for, first, Congress and then the CIC?

[chrisa]

48. I think common sense plays a lot into this one. Why was it worth mentioning?

For small scale information stealing and sabotage, obviously nothing would be done (especially with the military). That would be pretty dumb.

For things like trying to destroy our power grid, or trying to melt down nuclear plants, that's a whole different story. Those would obviously already be acts of war in the first place.

[snot]

49. This is very scary, for 2 reasons:

1) For decades if not centuries, it's been a basic rule of law -- until we abandoned it during the last decade -- that self-defense justifies only that degree of force which is reasonably necessary for such defense.

2) What constitutes a "cyberattack"? Who gets to decide? I'm willing to bet we're not going to like the answers to the latter question. What about an Anonymous online DDoS sit-in in support of Wikileaks, involving no actual hacking but just a lot of people "showing up" at a web page 'til it's temporarily overwhelmed? Illegal file-sharing?

3) Here's another question. Is the Bush doctrine going to apply -- will we be bombing people we suspect might be going to cyberattack us?