Re: [iwar] Figuring out the "quantity" of import that IWAR implies?

From: c.b r (
Date: 2001-06-26 14:55:55

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9521 invoked by uid 510); 26 Jun 2001 20:57:34 -0000
Received: from ( by with SMTP; 26 Jun 2001 20:57:34 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Received: from [] by; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:55:55 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "c.b r" <>
Subject: Re: [iwar] Figuring out the "quantity" of import that IWAR implies?
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Fred: your example is a hauntingly effective example
of a combination of two thing and their linkage is
what was so devistating.  Hitler/Germanys use of
disinformation claiming that Jews were ruining all
that was good about being German and hence must be
exterminated-I hate even using these words.  Hitlers
war cabinet did a powerful job of linking that to way
too much nationalism.  Too much nationalism, alone, is
an effective disinformation tool in itself.  In
Germanies case, it caused near worship of all things
German and they linked to it the fact that jews
threatened Germany.  If you think about it, this was a
powerful combination and made the Holocost seem like a
reasonable matter to extremists in Germany.  It did
not take long for that sense of extremeism to spread
to the average Hans on the street.  Once it makes
sense to the average person, then your society
develops a frantic sense that the threat to
Germany-Jews-must be killed off, lest they kill us.

This was a sickening chapter in world history, be it
is a good demonstration of how if the right factors
are added together, then even the common man can come
to outlandish conclusions. This has nasty IWAR
implications.  Think about it! 

Perhaps my comment this am should have been -how do we
figure out the weight IWAR will carry.

--- Fred Cohen <> wrote:
> 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: -
> - 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: - Have a
> great day!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:19 PDT