So, how would the US respond to a (gak) cyber attack? My concern would be, are they retaliating against the correct opponent. Its not like we’ve never relayed through a third party to attack…um, read about, yeah, that’s it, read about such a tactic.
But, in all seriousness I have heard a certain character in the US military recently imply that a nuclear option would be on the table. This caused me to choke on my coffee and wonder what colour the sky might be in his world. The media has been having a field day vilifying the Chinese and Russians and scaring folks in government. This will not help build level heads.
From the Associated Press:
“In the face of our almost universal reliance on untrusted systems, the United States currently is facing a grave national security challenge in the form of exploitation of our government and private-sector networks and information,” said Steven Chabinsky, assistant deputy director of cyber issues for the Obama administration’s director of national intelligence. “This exploitation is occurring on an unprecedented scale by a growing array of state and nonstate actors.”
OK, no argument there. Then he added this,
Chabinsky said the U.S. needs to figure out what it is prepared to do in the face of a cyber assault, such as an action that takes down the electrical grid. And, since the grid is privately run, officials must also decide how any counterattack should be coordinated with the corporate world.
Having been a part of the electricity vertical I can safely say that you can’t just hit the big red button that says, “shut down” and the grid goes dark. It’s no where near as simplistic as the media have lead folks to believe.
Damn you “Die Hard 4“.
So, as they examine their options I hope that cooler heads prevail and spend less time worrying about counter attacks and more on shoring up defenses.
(Image: risingpowers.foreignpolicyblogs.com)
The reality of the matter is that the US doesn’t ever (usually) publicly take *any* option off of the table when it comes to responding to an attack. The US (at least under the current administration) will take a reserved view of applying kinetic attacks to cyber (more gak) attacks. This is kabuki theater…but then I suspect you knew that already.
@armorguy
Your suspicions are wise.
🙂
Die Hard 4 is a movie that is very true to both national security as well as information security.
If Bruce Willis isn’t elected our (the U.S.) next president, I nominate you Dave Lewis.
@Brooks
HAHAHA! Well, not being a citizen might be a wrinkle.
But, thanks. 😉
Hi Dave
It depends on the action. Taking out the power grid en-mass–even if it were possible–probably is not a valid reason to melt the world. However, we shouldn’t rule out a nuclear response for some attacks, consider it an industrial-sized security control. =)
What people are trying to do is to establish the degree of response based on the type of attack, similiar to the same thing we have fo physical attacks–launch a cruise missile at us and we’ll blow up the launch platform and threaten to go to war.
Except for spammers, we should use any and all means to kill those jerks.
@rybolov
I realize that they’re trying to establish the degree of response approach. I only cringe at some of the hawks who lean on the big guns straight away. The rhetoric is not without its impact. If someone attacks the power grid to the point of it going all “melty” that would be a declaration of war in no uncertain terms. I don’t see the Chinese entertaining that idea when they own most of the US debt load. Not good for business.
Addressing weaknesses in the power grid and avoiding brinkmanship would help to address current fears to a certain extent. A military response is the last stage of diplomacy. It shouldn’t be brandished about like a whirling dervish in a sword dance. Someone is liable to get cut.
But for spammers…hellz yes.