Those guys exist. But there are a whole host of reasons you'd want a force that could attack an enemy country's infrastructure remotely. As a chief example, it'

Those guys exist. But there are a whole host of reasons you'd want a force that could attack an enemy country's infrastructure remotely. As a chief example, it's far less inflammatory than boots on the ground. Can you imagine the difference in reaction if we sent door-kickers on the ground to Natanz and smashed the Iranian centrifuges, rather than using Stuxnet? The problem here is that there is a fundamental tension between hacking (or "advanced penetration testing" or "ethical hacking" or whatever) and the structure of the military. The military relies upon rules and procedures to accomplish repeatable tasks at massive scale. Hacking is an individual or small collective endeavor that involves non-linear thinking and creative leaps. Right now, they're trying to figure out how to work around that tension, and all we're seeing now are the early tests.