Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1408-994780569-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, 10 Jul 2001 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2574 invoked by uid 510); 10 Jul 2001 14:58:33 -0000 Received: from b05.egroups.com (208.50.144.96) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2001 14:58:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1408-994780569-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.52] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2001 15:56:10 -0000 X-Sender: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 10 Jul 2001 15:56:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 50045 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2001 15:55:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2001 15:55:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2001 15:55:29 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu Received: from [10.1.10.120] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2001 15:55:27 -0000 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <9if8hc+se55@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <200107091335.GAA21681@big.all.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.29.4.2 From: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu 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, 10 Jul 2001 15:55:24 -0000 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] Re: Duration of Cyber Conflicts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --- In iwar@y..., Fred Cohen <fc@a...> wrote: > Per the message sent by Dan Ellis: > > ... > > think of cyber warfare, I immediately picture a conflict of high > > intensity that lasts hours to days. > > The 6-day war only lasted 6 days - and it was called a war. > Thank you for the supporting evidence. > > Some may argue that this is not cyber > > warfare, but rather a cyber conflict. I don't visualize trench warfare > > as having any analogy in information conflicts. I visualize cyber > > warfare as being more analogous to dropping an atom bomb. > > I don't see this myself. In order to convince someone to really give up > in a war - or to sue for peace - you have to have enough of a hold on > them to force the issue. Unless we become far more dependant on IT > systems that we are today it will take longer than a few days. > I disagree. You may need to fight until it hurts, unless the outcome is a forgone conclusion. Many in the animal kingdom take time to measure relative competencies before sparring: it saves both a lot of pain if there is an obvious advantage. Another way in which a short offensive may be helpful is to avert an engagement. Imagine Iraq engages Kuwait (back up to the original scenario, while maintaining current dependence on a virtual infrastructure). The US waves a fist saying "get out or else". Iraq ignores the threat. The US starts the slow process of building forces in the region. Iraq makes a threat to the effect that it will stab the heart of the western devil (an intentionally ambiguous threat). Later that day the president calls their bluff and issues orders for more forces to move into the area. The next day, the western power grid is shut off. Several airports are "tainted" such that bad things happen. Several companies file reports of financial losses and the stock markets plummet. The US population is nearly split in opinion on action in the area. Nobody takes claim for the incidents, but everyone guesses it was Iraq. How many days would it take to complete deter popular opinion? This tactic might even be more effective than putting reporters' cameras in Vietnam. I think more Americans would be more offended by not being able to watch TV or have lights than by watching the attrocities of war. > > It takes two short > > instances to persuade the adversary to surrender. > > Indeed, but this is not the whole story of that war. It took years of > war before it got to that. > If the outcome had been a forgone conclusion, Japan would've given up before the unnecessary fighting in the islands. > > Is there an (inverse) relationship between the capacity of weapons to > > do harm (intensity of conflict) and the duration of conflict? > > Certainly more harm induces peace more quickly - but perhaps not lasting > peace. The Brits rapidly defeated the Irish in their war hundreds of > years ago. I don't see a lasting peace yet. > > > (I am not > > a military guy--just a theory guy. :) If so, how long before cyber > > weapons become sophisticated enough to shorten the length of conflict to > > hours/days? > > If we do things right, infinity. We need to make certain in our designs > that this never becomes a possibility. That's one of the many reasons > we undertake information protection as a profession. I never thought I would hear somebody who understood the problem say that. What do you mean "do things right?" If people had "done guns right", do you think that we would have no violence or no crime? ------------------ 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 : 2001-09-29 21:08:37 PDT