While much of the early reporting on the Pentagon’s new Nuclear Posture Review has focused on acquiring smaller nukes and using them much more often, the details continue to slowly emerge, and show a scramble to establish more pretexts for nuclear first strikes.
This includes cyberattacks. In hyping up the threat of major cyberattacks that might conceivably put lives at risk, the Pentagon’s document proposes the use of nuclear first strikes against cyber foes, presenting that as the only “realistic” option to such threats.
The “massive cyber attack” narrative is built around the assumption that a particularly severe hack could conceivably knock out a good portion of the US electricity grid, a major cellphone network, or even some of the Internet’s backbone.
Obviously no such hacks have ever happened, but officials have been eager to play them up as a possibility, both as a way to justify more spending on cyberwarfare, and to hype threats posed by whatever enemy they choose to hype.
Which is another problem. US assignments of blame in cyberattacks are rarely grounded in evidence or reality, but rather they blame whoever is politically expedient at the time, whether it’s Russia, China, or North Korea. Such reckless blame is relatively consequence-free when the US just responds with angry threats, but nuclear strikes could quickly start massive, civilization ending nuclear warfare.
Making nuclear war more likely is the general theme of the Nuclear Posture Review anyhow though, and while it’s drawing a lot of criticism for that from former officials and private analysts, it’s not at all clear that within the current administration, this bellicose and irresponsible posture isn’t the whole point.
The Trump Administration has spent its entire time in power easing restrictions on the military, and giving commanders more and more leeway on their operations. It might not be such a surprise for that to spill over into nuclear weapon policy.
We are led ny lunatics. Small or large, this or thst pretext — the earth will be irreparably polluted for hundreds of thousand years. And instead of using the standing we have in this world — or what is left of it — for true global leadership to advance meangfully global security. Instead we are led by a panicky, grotesque bunch of morans. Unable to provide leadership, they use threats. Amd when powerful nations threaten others, everybody will be insecure, and do what they can to protect themselves and undermine us. And that is music to the ears of war profiteers — prople without a country, but only banks. And liberal and progressive crowds mutter about glibal warming and climate change —- while unable to connect the dots and deal with the massive pollution that is poisoning the plannet. The air, the soil, water and oceans. Fukushima is still pouring polluted water into Pacific. The most powerful country on earth cannot deal with global problems because its leaders and elites are self cenered and lazy, ficused on private gain, or made impotent by the system to even ask right wuestions. Collective West is flailing. Lets hope some leadership will come from somewhere.
Now doesn’t seen like a good time to “hope’ for propitious leadership to come from ” somewhere” More likely ships of fools, traveling about the world, looking for fires to spray gasoline onto. I guess Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem has taken me back a good bit. Trump the President seems eager to dispell Trump the candidate. I hope the gliberal elites can learn to think more globrally…
I am also wondering what Bianca has to say about MbS and his zigzag leadership these days. I have seen news lately the commandeered hotel of imprisoned billionaires will accepting paying guests @$650.00 a day again quite soon.. What say you…?????
Just say no.
I have to go find the paper this article was based on. It seems to be a preposterous idea to offer. The men and women at the pentagon aren’t Trump’s personal army and I doubt the posture discussed was originated because of his wishes.
Is there a link to the paper discussed in this article?
Edit. Duh. The NYT article. Off to read.
A “massive cyber attack” will happen only through the agency of our own security agencies. Does that mean we should nuke Langley?
Well, I’m not big on the idea of nuking anything, but I suppose I could be persuaded if THAT was the target.
“The “massive cyber attack” narrative is built around the assumption that a particularly severe hack could conceivably knock out a good portion of the US electricity grid, a major cellphone network, or even some of the Internet’s backbone.”
Sounds like a job for an electro-magnetic pulse weapon to me.
And, the U.S. is the one leading the charge to develop such weapons. It’s like Superman leading the search for reliable sources of Kryptonite.
We will be our own undoing.
A major cyber attack upon infrastructure other than internet is entirely preventable and hence the fault of the victim.
There is no reason at all to connect electric utility equipment, traffic control, railroad signaling etc, to internet, except to save a little management cost and conform with the fashions of web interfaces to everything. Electric generators and other equipment do not need web interfaces for anything at all, even monitoring and field service: it is just a fashionable convenience and economy move versus private communications.
As a software designer for control systems, many times I have told product planners for equipment design to avoid or get rid of web interfaces that do nothing for the product. No, they want the latest fashionable conveniences for field service, status monitoring, etc. to pitch the product to customers. Besides, they have “confidence” that ordinary hackers cannot violate encryption and other security measures.
So face it: they value fashion and convenience over security, and fully deserve the consequences. The entire controversy is fearmongering.
As a software engineer, like you in my part of the It field, I have told banks not to promote the use of cell-phone banking as it has become so easy for anyone with a sniffer to pick up the transmissions.
Do they listen???
I notice in the NYT hyperlink of Jason’s article that Gen. Mattis states that Russia “invaded” Crimea. As the entire American deep state is hell-bent on war with Russia and her allies, I can’t help but wonder why Americans will support their own annihilation. Would it not be better simply to dismantle all arms and ask for peace ? Is Putin so evil that he would slaughter us if we did so ? No, he is not, and that proposition is superior to starting a war that will certainly kill us all. The United States is not worth dying for. It is not my God.
The US gets more insane by the second.
Like a child with a new toyl
Sooner or Donald is going to give in to his urge to push his big button.
Jeez, what could go wrong?
With the track record of the anti-Russian hysterics in wash dc, I’m not at all sure they could determine the guilty party: NK, Russia, China, zimbabwe, chad….
Most if not all of the crowdstrikers are still convinced that Russia hacked the dnc-it was not a hack, it was not a hack, it was a leak-whatever, pls do not confuse the cardins of congress with facts or contrary evidence.
I’m very concerned that with the neo cons running out of control, the “plans” keep getting more stupid by the day!
Cyber warfare is the pride and joy of the USA and Israel, and has already done huge harm to Iran (that we know about). The arrogance and lack of responsibility of the US leaders and military monsters needs to be stopped somehow before nobody is left .