Lawmakers Asking Whether Cyberattack Is Act of War

HAL_404

HAL_404

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,240
Last edited:
Verge said:
I mean, it should be.
Click to expand...

It's a tough question.

On the surface of it yes. The attacks are a form of warfare. (Not to tread into politically dangerous waters here, but especially so when they are attacks on the credibility of the electoral system)

The question is, how do you respond? Currently we are retaliating in kind. It wasn't that long ago U.S. hacks compromised the Russian power grid (though it got surprisingly little press stateside)

If you take it beyond that, what do you do? Airstrikes on targets in Russia?

While today's Russia is not as powerful as the Soviet Union at its height, it is also not the decaying mess it was immediately post cold war. They have modern weaponry and would inflict serious casualties if it came to an armed conflict. (They also still have nukes) With enough resolve the U.S. would likely pummel Russia in an armed conflict, but it would come with enough casualties and cost that it would be politically infeasible.

I mean, if intelligence could figure out where the cyber-warfare people are located and take out a facility with a cruise missile, that may send a message, but it would also have VERY unpredictable long term consequences.

Putin is a strongman whose immense popularity at home is highly dependent on him taking a strong stance against the west. He may feel backed into a corner in a situation like that and need to lash out. It could trigger things we really don't want to happen.
 
Who is responsible for the attack is not known. Attributing any sophisticated hack, such as one done by a state, is strictly a guessing game. It's also a social engineering and propaganda opportunity, and so attacks are blamed on whoever it seems most opportunistic to point the finger at.

A hack can be made to appear as though it was done by anyone, and from anywhere. Hackers not only deliberately leave traces and signs to make their hacks appear as though it was done by whoever they want to take the blame, but they also collect each-others' hacking tools and use them to leave the digital fingerprints of whoever they want to be blamed for the hack. Hacks can also be executed from a computer which itself is controlled remotely from another country, and can be done by foreign agents who are in the target country or are temporarily in another country for the duration of the hack. And, in 2018, CIA documents were leaked which showed that when the CIA does a hack, they disguise it to appear as though it was done by Russia or China. Therefore, if a hack appears to have been done by Russia based on appearances, then the US state should be suspect.

So, if this hack appears to have been done by Russia, then it wasn't done by Russia. And the person reporting the story knows this. But they report it this way anyway to feed confirmation-bias and fuel prejudice and hysteria against Russia - because attributing a hack, both for US intel agencies and US media outlets, is regarded as a propaganda opportunity.


The US is also constantly carrying-out cyber-attacks on other countries. So, if it's an act of war, then the US is due for retaliation.

How “omnipotent” hackers tied to NSA hid for 14 years—and were found at last

U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

The world's best cyber army doesn’t belong to Russia
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
With enough resolve the U.S. would likely pummel Russia in an armed conflict, but it would come with enough casualties and cost that it would be politically infeasible.
Click to expand...
Not so. Russia, China, and the US are about on-par with each-other in terms of raw military power. But the US is behind both of them in missile and anti-missile technology, and that's a massive and all-impacting deficiency to have. It is currently rendering the US' entire surface-navy fleet of no consequence against Russia or China - because the US has no defences against hypersonic missiles, and none of the US navy's surface vessels can approach close enough to be of any use without entering the range of Russia's and China's missiles. And the US' war-capability is overwhelmingly dependent upon its surface-navy fleet.

If actual war broke-out between China and the US, the US would evacuate its surface ships from the South China Sea pronto, because its vessels there are nothing but sitting ducks right now.


Here's a November 2018 US Congress report's conclusion:

Despite Record Spending, the U.S. Military Would Be at 'Grave Risk' in a War With Russia or China

A new analysis suggests the Pentagon would almost certainly endure a "decisive military defeat" if faced with war against Russia or China.
…
In nearly every critical capability, from anti-air denial systems to cyber, Russia and China are matching and even outpacing the U.S., and those nations' advances complicate the Pentagon's ability to wield what the authors call "the hard-power backbone" of military hegemony—namely, the ability to deploy overwhelming military force, as it has in the past through amphibious operations (World War II) and air superiority (the Global War on Terror).

If a conventional invasion of North Korea would prove a bloodbath for U.S. troops, which experts are indeed predicting, a conflict with Russia and China would be disastrous.
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
Who is responsible for the attack is not known. Attributing any sophisticated hack, such as one done by a state, is strictly a guessing game. It's also a social engineering and propaganda opportunity, and so attacks are blamed on whoever it seems more opportunistic to point the finger at.

A hack can be made to appear as though it was done by anyone, and from anywhere. Hackers not only deliberately leave traces and signs to make their hacks appear as though it was done by whoever they want to take the blame, but they also collect each-others hacking tools and use them to leave the digital fingerprints of whoever they want to be blamed for the hack. And in 2018, CIA documents were leaked which showed that when the CIA does a hack, they disguise it to appear as though it was done by Russia or China. Therefore, if a hack appears to have been done by Russia based on appearances, then the US state should be suspect.

So, if this hack appears to have been done by Russia, then it wasn't done by Russia. And the person reporting the story knows this. But they report it this way anyway to feed confirmation-bias and fuel prejudice and hysteria against Russia - because attributing a hack, both for US intel agencies and US media outlets, is a propaganda opportunity.


The US is also constantly carrying-out cyber-attacks on other countries. So, if it's an act of war, then the US is due for retaliation.

How “omnipotent” hackers tied to NSA hid for 14 years—and were found at last

U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid
Click to expand...

I'm with you on most of that, except the "if this hack appears to have been done by Russia, then it wasn't done by Russia". it's a very long jump from "generally hacks try to conceal their origin" to completely exhortation Russia or China here.

Yes, state sponsored and other hackers usually try to conceal their origin. That doesn't mean that forensic experts can't trace them back to their real source. It's just a bit more difficult.

Russia or China are almost certainly behind these hacks, but to your point , we have an active cyber-attack program as well. I'm sure the powers that be would love for us to believe that we only use it in tit for tat retaliation against th elikes of Russia and others who have attacked us first, but I wouldn't be so sure...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Epos7
like this
Delicieuxz said:
Not so. Russia, China, and the US are about on-par with each-other in terms of raw military power. But the US is behind both of them in missile and anti-missile technology, and that's a massive and all-impacting deficiency to have. It is currently rendering the US' entire surface-navy fleet of no consequence against Russia or China - because the US has no defences against hypersonic missiles, and none of the US navy's surface vessels can approach within the range of Russia and China's missiles. And the US' war-capability is overwhelmingly dependent upon its surface-navy fleet.

Here's a November 2018 US Congress report's conclusion:

Despite Record Spending, the U.S. Military Would Be at 'Grave Risk' in a War With Russia or China

A new analysis suggests the Pentagon would almost certainly endure a "decisive military defeat" if faced with war against Russia or China.
…
In nearly every critical capability, from anti-air denial systems to cyber, Russia and China are matching and even outpacing the U.S., and those nations' advances complicate the Pentagon's ability to wield what the authors call "the hard-power backbone" of military hegemony—namely, the ability to deploy overwhelming military force, as it has in the past through amphibious operations (World War II) and air superiority (the Global War on Terror).

If a conventional invasion of North Korea would prove a bloodbath for U.S. troops, which experts are indeed predicting, a conflict with Russia and China would be disastrous.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to consider the source too. Military reporting like this almost always has one angle or another (war hawk vs pacifist).

Conventional wisdom is that China will eventually catch up and surpass our military abilities, but that this is at least 10-15 years away.

Russia? No.

As the article points out, we may have a temporary readiness issue, due to having our forces deployed abroad for decades now, but this is not a structural long term deficit.

But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, as "all out war" like in WWII, where both sides are in it to win no matter the cost is unlikely to happen. Modern wars are smaller engagements and when the public gets tired or pissed, politicians have to back out of the conflict.

Russia and China both field capable enough military forces to make a war politically impossible.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's a tough question.

On the surface of it yes. The attacks are a form of warfare. (Not to tread into politically dangerous waters here, but especially so when they are attacks on the credibility of the electoral system)

The question is, how do you respond? Currently we are retaliating in kind. It wasn't that long ago U.S. hacks compromised the Russian power grid (though it got surprisingly little press stateside)

If you take it beyond that, what do you do? Airstrikes on targets in Russia?

While today's Russia is not as powerful as the Soviet Union at its height, it is also not the decaying mess it was immediately post cold war. They have modern weaponry and would inflict serious casualties if it came to an armed conflict. (They also still have nukes) With enough resolve the U.S. would likely pummel Russia in an armed conflict, but it would come with enough casualties and cost that it would be politically infeasible.

I mean, if intelligence could figure out where the cyber-warfare people are located and take out a facility with a cruise missile, that may send a message, but it would also have VERY unpredictable long term consequences.

Putin is a strongman whose immense popularity at home is highly dependent on him taking a strong stance against the west. He may feel backed into a corner in a situation like that and need to lash out. It could trigger things we really don't want to happen.
Click to expand...
Sanction the ever living shit out of them. Once that is done, tariff the shit out of all our "allies" in Europe that constantly give them money.
 
Verge said:
Sanction the ever living shit out of them. Once that is done, tariff the shit out of all our "allies" in Europe that constantly give them money.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Problem there is that our European allies are dependent on Russian gas pipelined in for heating during the winter season.

If we are going to go that route, we better be ready to mass-ship natural gas at subsidized rates to Europe, or our allies will be forced out of the good fight.

It's very difficult to convince a voting populace that a policy is appropriate when the russians turn off the gas, and they are freezing in the middle of the winter.

Honestly, what we should be doing is working with our European allies to build up Natural Gas infrastructure (ports, for unloading shipped gas into piplines, new ships, etc.) in preparation for when (not if) this becomes necessary.
 
Delicieuxz said:
It is currently rendering the US' entire surface-navy fleet of no consequence against Russia or China - because the US has no defences against hypersonic missiles
Click to expand...
I think you're over simplifying things quite a bit. China's weapon is currently not operational, Russia has one they claim works, but there have been doubts. Also it's never been tested against a moving boat in the middle of the ocean. It's very hard to transmit an accurate targeting solution of a moving object to an ICBM, launch it, and then give it real-time updates. Also you have to control the damn thing in the air. They are kinetic based as well no? So glancing hits would likely do minimal damage to a boat anyway.
 
The problem is proving it was authorized by the Russian government or was it just a bunch of very skilled hackers, there is a lot of plausible deniability in these sorts of things. Solar winds got caught with their pants down and a lot of very big people are going to have to spend a lot of money, invest a lot of time, and wear a lot of egg on their faces for the next while. If anything comes from this I would think it is going to be far more strict rules on data storage and privacy because it is being shown time and time again that these corporations can not be trusted with our data.
 
Verge said:
I think you're over simplifying things quite a bit. China's weapon is currently not operational, Russia has one they claim works, but there have been doubts. Also it's never been tested against a moving boat in the middle of the ocean. It's very hard to transmit an accurate targeting solution of a moving object to an ICBM, launch it, and then give it real-time updates. Also you have to control the damn thing in the air. They are kinetic based as well no? So glancing hits would likely do minimal damage to a boat anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's also very difficult to take claims from Russia at face value. Until I've seen that hypersonic missile actually taking out adversaries in real combat, I'm considering it vaporware until proven otherwise.

Russia has a long history of bragging about vaporware and other false information. You can't take any of that RT and Sputnik nonsense at face value. It's propaganda, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Who instigated the attacks is the question, if it's government sanctioned then yeah it's bad, but act of war bad? Eh... that's pushing things. But could always fire back with some sort of economic or trade war as a response. If it's just some independent hackers, then no not even close, no different than someone coming over here and murders someone, it's a crime, not an act of war.
 
I think the real issue at play here is that the "blissful ignorance" days of the internet are over, and in-fact have been over now for 10+ years, but people insist on latching onto that mentality.

We can't have critical infrastructure exposed to the internet where all someone in a foreign country has to do is hack the Office 365 (or similar) accounts of random workers in the US in order to gain access to a critical facility.

I know it's painful to realize, but the idea of a global unrestricted internet is a complete failure. China, Russia, etc already understand this with their measures to wall-off and exert more control over the internet in their country. I think it's long past-due to take the next step, and essentially break the internet apart on a per-country basis. Not all countries would have to "leave" the "global" internet, but countries such as Russia and China should absolutely be cut-off from us, and the countries that remain connected should be part of a very strict treaty that allows for punishment (up to and including the disconnection of the internet in their country from other countries) in the case of cyber attacks.

I mean, can you imagine how the Cold War with the Soviet Union might have been different if the Soviet Union literally had direct access to every home and business in America via something like the internet? It would have been unthinkable to allow a hostile country that kind of access - yet that is EXACTLY where we are today with China and to a lesser extent Russia, Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, etc; and when I say "lesser extent" I mean only because those countries themselves are less relevant (Russia has a smaller GDP than Canada now, and Canada has a smaller GDP than California).

We are literally at the point where almost every person in America is under direct attack from foreign actors almost every single day. Robocalls, fishing e-mails, hacking of home computers / devices. If these things can't realistically be stopped, then the method via which they are allowed to happen should be eliminated. "oh well, no big deal" doesn't cut it. It's time to start taking the "internet" seriously.
 
Last edited:
Conventional warfare has long established rules re: civilian populations.
So I’d be a fan of updating rules of civilized behavior.
 
Act of war, no
Act of Terror, depends on what they do while they are in there
Public Nuisance, most definitely
Destruction of Private property, not a terrible stretch.
 
If we use the wikipedia definition:
An Act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

It seem clearly no (at least still no), that the kind of hostile action you make to be able to take hostile action thinking it will not likely start an actual war.

Under that definition:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/act-of-war
an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

Than some are yes (attacking power grid or starting nuclear missile launch sequence)
 
WorldExclusive said:
But what kind of attack?

Stealing IP and secrets. No.
Bring down the US electric grid. Yes.

99.9% of attacks will fall under the former. You know an act of war when you see it.
Click to expand...

But that's part of the problem. You set a threshold on what is considered "war", then you effectively green-light anything less than that.

We need to break away from the idea that only conventional warfare constitutes war. Other countries fully understand the lack of will on our part to adequately respond to "small" or indirect attacks, and thus it's game on. In many 3rd world countries, hacking and extorting Americans over the internet is one of the biggest industries now. If we know where those facilities exist, they should be bombed, plain and simple. Right now we allow their activities to take place essentially unrestricted. We can't allow it. You see it in other ways also. For example, Iran would never attack us directly, so instead they fund 3rd party terrorist organizations who attack us on their behalf, knowing that we simply do not have the political will to retaliate against Iran due to an "indirect" attack. Just the same, we don't have the will to attack other countries in response to a cyber attack, and thus they currently have nothing to fear as they rake in the cash and stolen information.
 
What's this, news that at least two million CCP have infiltrated every institution in the west? Reps on key intel committees have been compromised?

Quick! Drum up another proxy war with Russia in the desert! There's just been too much peace the last few years. Our Senators are tired of peace, and the incoming administration will know how to solve that problem.

(edit: yeah I know this is political. Stop making political threads in Tech News.)
 
NukeDukem said:
What's this, news that at least two million CCP have infiltrated every institution in the west? Reps on key intel committees have been compromised?

Quick! Drum up another proxy war with Russia in the desert! There's just been too much peace the last few years. Our Senators are tired of peace, and the incoming administration will know how to solve that problem.
Click to expand...

Right, we've been committing/receiving acts of sabotage / espionage since the dawn of time; there's no way we should go into a hot war over it.

If you can actually confirm unambiguously who the perpetrator was AND HOW, then you can consider yourself a positive (because you can adjust your security procedures for that country/ actually enforce sanctions)

When you can't figure out who the perpetrator was, who do you go to war with? ManBearPig?

How do you justify going into a hot war when you were encouraging them to counterattack your own first-strike? It's a lot easier to paint your country as "the-oppressed" when your leaders can't tell you what started this "for security

They're just stirring that shit pot to make Bullshit Pie, and ultimately do nothing about it.
 
Last edited:
Verge said:
I think you're over simplifying things quite a bit. China's weapon is currently not operational, Russia has one they claim works, but there have been doubts. Also it's never been tested against a moving boat in the middle of the ocean. It's very hard to transmit an accurate targeting solution of a moving object to an ICBM, launch it, and then give it real-time updates. Also you have to control the damn thing in the air. They are kinetic based as well no? So glancing hits would likely do minimal damage to a boat anyway.
Click to expand...
I was more referring to in-atmosphere missiles, including guided missiles like Russia's Zircon hypersonic cruise missile, rather than ICBMs.

Russia's in-atmosphere Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missile has been in service since 2017. Russia's Avangard ICBM-launched hypersonic glider entered service December 2019. Both of those carry nuclear or other payloads. Russia's Zircon sea/land-based anti-ship hypersonic cruise-missile has been undergoing testing this year and could enter service soon.


The US state regards China as having missile supremacy over the US: Special Report: U.S. rearms to nullify China's missile supremacy
The U.S. moves are aimed at countering China’s overwhelming advantage in land-based cruise and ballistic missiles. The Pentagon also intends to dial back China’s lead in what strategists refer to as the “range war.” The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s military, has built up a huge force of missiles that mostly outrange those of the U.S. and its regional allies, according to senior U.S. commanders and strategic advisers to the Pentagon, who have been warning that China holds a clear advantage in these weapons.
Click to expand...

China also now has a larger navy than the US:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...etting-better-pentagon-warns/?sh=24c0789a7933
China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific
Type 56 Frigates. China is pumping them out like candy. via Chinese Military Review.
China has an advantage over the US Navy that could mean a 'decisive' defeat for US warships in a fight at sea
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
China also now has a larger navy than the US
Click to expand...

The fact that they have large numbers of small Littoral combat ships doesn't mean that they have a "larger navy". Or does the speed-boat swarms that Iran uses also constitute a "large navy"?
 
GotNoRice said:
The fact that they have large numbers of small Littoral combat ships doesn't mean that they have a "larger navy". Or does the speed-boat swarms that Iran uses also constitute a "large navy"?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on how it's measured. But China's navy is continuing to grow at a rapid pace - and the frigates they're pumping-out appear to be larger than the US' Littorals.

But it's the greater range of China's arsenal that gives them the advantage. Having larger vessels with more firepower on them doesn't count for much when they can't get within range to be used without being sunk.
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
But that's part of the problem. You set a threshold on what is considered "war", then you effectively green-light anything less than that.

We need to break away from the idea that only conventional warfare constitutes war. Other countries fully understand the lack of will on our part to adequately respond to "small" or indirect attacks, and thus it's game on. In many 3rd world countries, hacking and extorting Americans over the internet is one of the biggest industries now. If we know where those facilities exist, they should be bombed, plain and simple. Right now we allow their activities to take place essentially unrestricted. We can't allow it. You see it in other ways also. For example, Iran would never attack us directly, so instead they fund 3rd party terrorist organizations who attack us on their behalf, knowing that we simply do not have the political will to retaliate against Iran due to an "indirect" attack. Just the same, we don't have the will to attack other countries in response to a cyber attack, and thus they currently have nothing to fear as they rake in the cash and stolen information.
Click to expand...
The problem is the world is too connected and open. You can't go to war without hurting your own country. There are no winners.
This is why there haven't been any major superpower conflicts because every country has interests in each other.

Technology and globalism has brought an end to strike/war without consequences.
The majority of people want peace and don't desire to prove a point.
 
WorldExclusive said:
The problem is the world is too connected and open. You can't go to war without hurting your own country. There are no winners.
This is why there haven't been any major superpower conflicts because every country has interests in each other.

Technology and globalism has brought an end to strike/war without consequences.
The majority of people want peace and don't desire to prove a point.
Click to expand...
Unless you are fighting proxy wars. See Azerbaijan/Armenia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
WorldExclusive said:
Technology and globalism has brought an end to strike/war without consequences.
The majority of people want peace and don't desire to prove a point.
Click to expand...

There is a limit to this. One it hasn't brought an end to war, it has changed the current face of war from violently taking over things you want, to economically taking over things you want. That can only go so far though, and eventually we will fall back on violence to get things.

War as we used to see it, for land and resources, isn't currently economical, but that equation can change easily. These Cyber attacks require some kind of response, and if bad enough require a physical response. Anyone banding about the 'what about what we did' is just ignorant of humanity and human nature.

Putin once said the next war will be fought over AI, and I absolutely believe that, not sure it will be the next war, but guarantee nations will resort to violence to control AI (the reward for achieving a true AI is just to powerful to not).
 
Aireoth said:
There is a limit to this. One it hasn't brought an end to war, it has changed the current face of war from violently taking over things you want, to economically taking over things you want. That can only go so far though, and eventually we will fall back on violence to get things.

War as we used to see it, for land and resources, isn't currently economical, but that equation can change easily. These Cyber attacks require some kind of response, and if bad enough require a physical response. Anyone banding about the 'what about what we did' is just ignorant of humanity and human nature.

Putin once said the next war will be fought over AI, and I absolutely believe that, not sure it will be the next war, but guarantee nations will resort to violence to control AI (the reward for achieving a true AI is just to powerful to not).
Click to expand...
Einstein said he doesn't know what weapons WW3 would be faught with, but WW4 would be faught with sticks and stones.
Sticks = 1's , Stones = 0's.
 
Dark12 said:
Einstein said he doesn't know what weapons WW3 would be faught with, but WW4 would be faught with sticks and stones.
Sticks = 1's , Stones = 0's.
Click to expand...

could be, we could also easily send ourselves back to the stone age. Couple more generations and we will lose touch with hand built to the point that it would be simple to lose everything.
 
Aireoth said:
There is a limit to this. One it hasn't brought an end to war, it has changed the current face of war from violently taking over things you want, to economically taking over things you want. That can only go so far though, and eventually we will fall back on violence to get things.

War as we used to see it, for land and resources, isn't currently economical, but that equation can change easily. These Cyber attacks require some kind of response, and if bad enough require a physical response. Anyone banding about the 'what about what we did' is just ignorant of humanity and human nature.

Putin once said the next war will be fought over AI, and I absolutely believe that, not sure it will be the next war, but guarantee nations will resort to violence to control AI (the reward for achieving a true AI is just to powerful to not).
Click to expand...
You're right...but I said the end to war without consequences. American isn't prepared for the consequences.
If we were, we would have done something already. Because the world is so connected and filled with spies, every superpower knows our abilities.

So long as it's understood we have to dig two graves when seeking revenge.
 
WorldExclusive said:
You're right...but I said the end to war without consequences. American isn't prepared for the consequences.
If we were, we would have done something already. Because the world is so connected and filled with spies, every superpower knows our abilities.

So long as it's understood we have to dig two graves when seeking revenge.
Click to expand...

You act like this is new, war always had consequences, only in hollywood land did they not.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Not so. Russia, China, and the US are about on-par with each-other in terms of raw military power. But the US is behind both of them in missile and anti-missile technology, and that's a massive and all-impacting deficiency to have. It is currently rendering the US' entire surface-navy fleet of no consequence against Russia or China - because the US has no defences against hypersonic missiles, and none of the US navy's surface vessels can approach close enough to be of any use without entering the range of Russia's and China's missiles. And the US' war-capability is overwhelmingly dependent upon its surface-navy fleet.

If actual war broke-out between China and the US, the US would evacuate its surface ships from the South China Sea pronto, because its vessels there are nothing but sitting ducks right now.


Here's a November 2018 US Congress report's conclusion:

Despite Record Spending, the U.S. Military Would Be at 'Grave Risk' in a War With Russia or China

A new analysis suggests the Pentagon would almost certainly endure a "decisive military defeat" if faced with war against Russia or China.
…
In nearly every critical capability, from anti-air denial systems to cyber, Russia and China are matching and even outpacing the U.S., and those nations' advances complicate the Pentagon's ability to wield what the authors call "the hard-power backbone" of military hegemony—namely, the ability to deploy overwhelming military force, as it has in the past through amphibious operations (World War II) and air superiority (the Global War on Terror).

If a conventional invasion of North Korea would prove a bloodbath for U.S. troops, which experts are indeed predicting, a conflict with Russia and China would be disastrous.
Click to expand...

We are also vastly inferior in Cyber and EW. Our Signal capabilities are coming along but that too is not up to snuff. The war on terror has hurt us badly in near peer capabilities. That’s the whole justification for moving to Multi Domain Operations as opposed to COIN or Air Land Battle.

Our bigger problem is that we have laws and a Constitution which makes it hard to tell a few thousand 5 year olds they will be computer hackers or whatever or be killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top