4 ms·

Over a decade ago I wrote an article that included the prediction that the vulnerability of western infrastructure to cyber operations would prevent the US from

Over a decade ago I wrote an article that included the prediction that the vulnerability of western infrastructure to cyber operations would prevent the US from intervening to support lesser allies. The rationale was the domestic costs of chaos caused by infrastructure attacks would cause hesitation to intervene in foreign wars, and this hesitation and vulnerability would embolden foreign antagonists like Russia and China to invade smaller countries. So far, it has been wrong. Even though there have been several infrastructure incidents in recent memory that looked like Russian deterrent operations that said, "back off or this is just what we're willing to reveal," but the US still seems fully invested in the conflict in Ukraine, and it appears to be providing cover for Israel against Iran- each with no real concern about both adversaries being able to launch a US power grid shutdown. China has been bold about Taiwan, but even they have been content to just manage it instead of full political annexation, and appear to take US support for Taiwan seriously, all while China could plausibly shut off anything in the US with a semiconductor in it. Maybe the new world order is that nation states don't need to expand sovereign territory so long as they can effectively manage the ones they need. With the exception of missile placements, why invade the cow when you can secure the milk without the headache of governing it- and this puts cyber into a more fluid dynamic than the assumptions of pre-space and network technology geopolitics.

grob-gambit 2y ago
I think what is missing from this analysis is the offensive capability of American cyber. The way it is completely downplayed I suspect is proportional to its strength. If there was all this chatter how we need to invest more in offensive cyber I would be worried. The way we pretend like it doesn't even exist is all you need to know.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  Exactly. It's capable and has been for decades, many many years ahead of some of our counterparts. While it doesn't mean we're fine, I would argue the depth and breadth of coverage has been strategically calculated and held to the point where there are still many contingencies foreign and domestic. I would also argue that the act of "cyber warfare" against us infrastructure would almost guarantee chaos for the attackers given the worlds reliance on us technology and assets, potentially self crippling their own capabilities. In some ways there's a Mutually Assured Destruction perspective with cyber operations. There are levels of acceptability and most Nation States wouldn't dare cross the line. Where the real risk lies is with rogue small groups. Groups that don't require a lot of money and or time, just a few well placed exploits. Having been in that world, at the higher echelons, I can attest that MONEY is being spent. Much more than many would know, to secure our foothold and capabilities. I would thus agree, if we had excess chatter about needing more money for offensive cyber capabilities, I would be much more concerned. Good thing about it is Cyber is less expensive than kinetic, and money can go much further.
- barryrandall 2y ago
  Where's the deterrent effect?

grob-gambit 2y ago

I think what is missing from this analysis is the offensive capability of American cyber. The way it is completely downplayed I suspect is proportional to its strength. If there was all this chatter how we need to invest more in offensive cyber I would be worried. The way we pretend like it doesn't even exist is all you need to know.

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
Exactly. It's capable and has been for decades, many many years ahead of some of our counterparts. While it doesn't mean we're fine, I would argue the depth and breadth of coverage has been strategically calculated and held to the point where there are still many contingencies foreign and domestic. I would also argue that the act of "cyber warfare" against us infrastructure would almost guarantee chaos for the attackers given the worlds reliance on us technology and assets, potentially self crippling their own capabilities. In some ways there's a Mutually Assured Destruction perspective with cyber operations. There are levels of acceptability and most Nation States wouldn't dare cross the line. Where the real risk lies is with rogue small groups. Groups that don't require a lot of money and or time, just a few well placed exploits. Having been in that world, at the higher echelons, I can attest that MONEY is being spent. Much more than many would know, to secure our foothold and capabilities. I would thus agree, if we had excess chatter about needing more money for offensive cyber capabilities, I would be much more concerned. Good thing about it is Cyber is less expensive than kinetic, and money can go much further.
barryrandall 2y ago
Where's the deterrent effect?