5 ms·
Unless we start spending less than 1% of our GDP or so on Pentagon Inc, I don't mind this. What's the point of having a $12 Billion aircraft carrier if a Chines
by throwaway10001 13y ago
Unless we start spending less than 1% of our GDP or so on Pentagon Inc, I don't mind this. What's the point of having a $12 Billion aircraft carrier if a Chinese hacker can hack it? Or having a $700 Billion a year military if a kid with telnet can hack your power grid? I mean to say that war has been shifted to computer networks and we need to be ready.
I just think it can be done without tracing all the phone calls my aunt makes.
- ryusage 13y agoI think that's part of Schneier's point though. This spending seems to be primarily on cyber "weapons", not cyber "shields". We DO need to spend money on making our networks more secure and redundant. But instead of that, we seem to just be taking more of a MAD-style first strike approach to things. Glass cannons, essentially.
- epochwolf 13y agoCold War 2.0
- tankbot 13y agoMy thoughts exactly while reading the article. I also wondered if allegations against Huawei were falsified (assuming they were) not because they posed a security threat from the Chinese government, but because they would make it more difficult for U.S. surveillance programs.
- anigbrowl 13y agoDistinctly preferable to Hot War 3.0 if you ask me.
- nitrogen 13y agoIf you're forced to choose between a bullet in the head and one in the foot, you'll choose the foot almost every time. But why are those the only two choices?
- mpyne 13y agoBecause we don't get to unilaterally choose, is why.
- nitrogen 13y agoWho is "we" in this case? HN? The US? The UN? Humanity? If we don't get to choose for ourselves (for any definition of "ourselves"), who's making the choice for us, and why are hot war and cyber war the only choices?
- lostlogin 13y agoThe US fascination with war is kind of mind blowing when you first visit. The number of servicemen/women, the number of military related things (ships, planes etc), the papers, the news. Its much less militaristic down here on our tiny island - New Zealand.
- mpyne 13y ago"We" is humanity. The fact that you don't get to make the choice about what others do to you is one of the very big reasons we have the 2nd Amendment at all, as I recall.
- nitrogen 13y agoBut countries can choose what they do to others, and sometimes those choices have blowback. I remain unconvinced that those who decide such things for us are acting in our interests, or that the problems they claim exist can only be solved the way they claim to solve them.
- mpyne 13y agoThe fact that countries can choose what to do to others also means the other countries can choose what to do to us. By all means come up with better solutions and better leaders, but don't act like other countries don't get to make their own choice in what they do.
- zokier 13y ago> we seem to just be taking more of a MAD-style first strike approach to things But that actually worked during the cold war. I mean MAD prevented it turning hot. Sure, it wasn't the most pleasant or elegant solution but it worked.
- nostrademons 13y agoBig difference is detection. When somebody launches an ICBM at you, you know it, and can react appropriately (which makes them tend not to launch ICBMs at you). When somebody hacks your computer, if they're good at it, there are often no fingerprints, and so the parties involved can continue conducting offensive warfare with no threat of retaliation.
- doctorstupid 13y agoAs Schneier says in the article, MAD was applied in the Cold War with only two players of comparable strength. The potential conflict we are now discussing has far more players of widely varying capabilities, so the principles of MAD don't necessarily apply.