Drones, Computer Viruses and Blowback 257
Hugh Pickens writes "Michael Crowley writes that using drones rather than soldiers to kill bad guys is appealing for many reasons, including cost, relative precision and reduction of risk to American troops. But there's plenty of evidence that drones antagonize local populations and create more enemies over the long term than we kill in the short term. The failed 2010 Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, has said that about the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan, and the Washington Post has described how drone strikes may be breeding sympathy for al-Qaeda in Yemen. 'It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically and it is unpopular only in other countries,' says Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence until May of 2010. 'Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.' Now there's another component to the new warfare that threatens blowback: cyberwar. Like drones, cyberweapons are relatively cheap and do their work without putting American troops in harm's way. The blowback comes when those viruses get loose and inflict unintended damage or provide templates to terrorists or enemy nations that some experts think could lead to disaster and argue that cyberweapons are like bioweapons, demanding international treaties to govern their use. 'We may indeed be at a critical moment in history, when the planet's prospects could be markedly improved by an international treaty on cyberweapons, and the cultivation of an attendant norm against cyberwar,' writes Richard Wright. 'The ideal nation to lead the world toward this goal would be the most powerful nation on earth, especially if that nation had a pretty clean record on the cyberweapons front. A few years ago, America seemed to fit that description. But it doesn't now.'"
Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
Well known, and has been for quite a long time. The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict. I am surprised that people are still surprised at this.
As to malware created by states: Just make them responsible for the full damage caused if they miss their target. With the incompetence displayed recently, that is bound to happen quite often.
Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (Score:5, Informative)
There's barely any collateral damage now that Obama has defined "militant" as being "military age male".
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ [salon.com]
A few infants here and there don't really bother democrats.
Any treaty on cyberweapons is doomed to fail (Score:5, Informative)
Any treaty on cyberweapons is doomed to fail.
This is information warfare, and in essence requires knowing more hidden features about your enemies computer systems than they do, and thanks to globalization we all pretty much use the same computer systems.
The best defense against cyber weapons is bug free code, finding all the security flaws within the software systems that are used and then fixing them. The best form of attack with cyber weapons is finding all the security flaws, before the other side does, not fixing them, and then attaching a payload to software that can exploit this. Ignorance is hell. So a treaty cannot ban computer security research, as its the only defense against cyberweapons, and this sort of research is not limited to state actors.
Creating a virus and then releasing it is almost undetectable. With both Flame and Stuxnet, we have narrowed the list of suspects to probably USA or Israel but this is based mostly on question "who gains"? Was it explicitly state sanctioned? Was it a rogue department with the CIA or Mossad? Was it Anonymous? Was it an Iranian traitor/defector with inside information? Was it a black flag operation? Its very easy for each of the state actors to deny responsibility for this, and almost impossible to prove.
The rules of course are firstly don't get caught, most attacks only work once, so use them wisely, and thirdly don't piss anybody off so badly that they will actually want to physically invade your country.
This is a perfect example of asymmetric gorilla warfare in the digital age. Having a large standing army and being dependent upon huge computer systems just makes you more vulnerable rather than less. Even
This is asymmetric warfare, so even MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is not going to help you here. Treatys are based on consequences, so what good is your treaty going to do here? The Hans Blix of the cyberweapons world will be looking for a bunch of smart people in a room full of computers, good luck with that!
Re:Elephant in the room (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, but US have the right to invade any country, they are freeing people or at least resources from surely evil regimes there, no?
Not sure if you are joking... The problem with the way the US and its allies liberate countries is that it tends to be very bloody and result in a fractured state with a joke of a democracy. Plus you can't just make a country a democracy, it has to be fought for by the population if it is going to be appreciated. Parts of Afghanistan actually prefer Taliban rule to the "democratic" government, not least because there was no ideal or popular movement to create that administration. They are just another bunch of crooks imposed by a foreign power with some highly dubious elections to try and legitimise it. Funny how the guy that the US picked to run thing was re-elected president, despite widespread unpopularity, no?
Re:Elephant in the room (Score:5, Informative)
In actuality, the Constitution doesn't apply to "citizens," nor does it even apply to "people." It applies to the government. It tells the government what it can and can't do (the body tells the government what it can do, and the Bill of Rights tells it what it can't do).
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_US_Constitution_apply_only_to_citizens#ixzz1xL619QwH [answers.com]
Re:Self Awareness (Score:4, Informative)
Like when we ignored the anti-ballistic missile shield treaty when Bush was president, or ignoring the U.N. treaties on torture under both Bush and Obama, or threatening to attack another country (Iran) under both Bush and Obama, to ignoring Geneva Conventions, to ignoring silly treaties on how wars may only be fought for defense or humanitarian reasons....
You are confused. The US didn't ignore the ABM treaty, it withdrew from it as was allowed under the treaty. Bush and Obama aren't ignoring the Geneva conventions - Al Qaeda is not entitled to their protections due to fighting in an unlawful manner - but captured Al Qaeda members are still being treated in a humane fashion at Guantanamo Bay prison camp. A broad coalition of nations is dealing with Iran and its unacceptable behavior, but if it makes you happier - Iran has been threatening to attack the US, Europe, Israel, and various Arab nations for some time, not to mention making veiled threats of genocide, and engaging in an active campaign of terrorism and assassination around the world. Iraq committed an act of war against the US (firing on US aircraft) pretty much every day for years prior to the invasion. Torture has a specific meaning under US law, which the US didn't violate when it water boarded a total of three (3) people, the most recent of which was nine (9) years ago.