Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1375-993562659-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16673 invoked by uid 510); 26 Jun 2001 12:39:21 -0000
Received: from f19.egroups.com (64.211.240.234) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2001 12:39:21 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1375-993562659-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2001 13:37:40 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 26 Jun 2001 13:37:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 23564 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2001 13:37:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jun 2001 13:37:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2001 13:37:32 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id GAA04954 for iwar@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:37:31 -0700
Message-Id: <200106261337.GAA04954@big.all.net>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20010626132529.13481.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com> from "c.b r" at Jun 26, 2001 06:25:29 AM
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Figuring out the "quantity" of import that IWAR implies?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Per the message sent by c.b r:
> I agree folks-there are terms that have been used of
> late-hysteria, etc. that are a bit strong for the
> place that we are, today, with IWAR. Insidious, sure
> and difficult to deal with and several others, but we
> have yet to reach the point where IWAR has the
> potential to kill people on the order of nukes,
Actually... in WW II millions of people were killed by information
warfare - all of those murdered in death camps for example. We can call
it propaganda if you like... Indeed every time people convince other
people to go out killing people an act of information warfare has
succeeded. More people have been killed over religious ideas than
by nuclear weapons.
> however the problem is on the rise. The real question
> is where will it end up, once fully developed on the
> scale of weapony? Or will it always be a low
> intensity, unconventional type of fight?c.b.r of DC
I think that your second characterization is pretty much right - at
least for now. Information warfare must be insidious to be successful.
It gets a bit intense at times - at least in my experience, but how do
we really measure intensity? Different measures will put information
warfare higher or lower than other weapons.
FC
--
Fred Cohen at Sandia National Laboratories at tel:925-294-2087 fax:925-294-1225
Fred Cohen & Associates: http://all.net - fc@all.net - tel/fax:925-454-0171
Fred Cohen - Practitioner in Residence - The University of New Haven
This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve.
PGP keys: https://all.net/pgpkeys.html - Have a great day!!!
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:18 PDT