It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon: Cyber Attacks Can Count as Acts of War

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
www.foxnews.com...
and
online.wsj.com...


The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.


Looks like we're going to war with China real soon.

edit on 31-5-2011 by Advantage because: added another link




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Great. I agree with you, China it is, then by the world?

Jamie.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Sounds more to me like an excuse to crackdown at home, out of "fear" that some 16 year old punk could start a war.

Maybe China afterwards, but I say it's gonna hit home first.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pandapowerjamie
reply to post by Advantage
 


Great. I agree with you, China it is, then by the world?

Jamie.

WOW.. oughtto read the second article..
online.wsj.com...


I dont like all this new fangled technological mechanized cyber war hoo-haw.


Id read that Lockheed was recently hacked too.. its obvious this is a problem, but maybe hardening our systems would make more sense than just saying we reserve the right to declare war if there is any govt sponsored hacking/cyberattacking?
Then again. I really dont know all of the ins and outs of hardening, security, etc concerning the power grids and gov/mil/etc computer systems. Id imagine this would effect everything from the Generals streaming porn channel to our missile systems and satellites. Sort of why I put this up.. to hear what others knew or thought.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


The attack on Lockheed was a joke, it didn't accomplish anything.

But that doesn't mean it wont be used as an example to try and tighten up the reins of internet use.
edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by Advantage
 


The attack on Lockheed was a joke, it didn't accomplish anything.

But that doesn't mean it wont be used as an example to try and tighten up the reins of internet use.
edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)


Of course no data was compromised.. thats not the point. It points out vulnerabilities that shouldnt be there in the first place.

From the above article... it isnt talking about a kid hacking in for lulz..


The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military. One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.

edit on 31-5-2011 by Advantage because: added text



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


That's where we find ourselves in an area that's less black and white. We would first have to assume that these vulnerabilities were unknown. The systems that were "hacked" weren't important enough to have any real protection.

As a former Lockheed employee, I can tell you this is not the first time Lockheed has been "hacked." That's why i said in another thread that anything of any real importance has been safe from the threat of computers for a long time. However, this is the first time that the media has covered the subject with such vigor. That's what is *odd* to me about the situation, and made "odder" by the pentagons recent finding that you posted.

That's just my opinion.
edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by Advantage
 


That's where we find ourselves in an area that's less black and white. We would first have to assume that these vulnerabilities were unknown. The systems that were "hacked" weren't important enough to have any real protection.

As a former Lockheed employee, I can tell you this is not the first time Lockheed has been "hacked." That's why i said in another thread that anything of any real importance has been safe from the threat of computers for a long time. However, this is the first time that the media has covered the subject with such vigor. That's what is *odd* to me about the situation, and made "odder" by the pentagons recent finding that you posted.

That's just my opinion.
edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)


LOL! Not everyone is on the outside, most here know my husband and I have been attached for 20+ yrs to the DoD and other than his active duty, he has worked for everyone from Booz to others. Its been well known, as you should know, that even the pentagon itself was attacked. There are a BUNCH of DoD and contractors here on ATS and its discussed often..
The media has been covering this pretty darned vigorously since 2008 when that drive was used to hack and uploaded junk to central command in the Middle East. Just look up Operation Buckshot Yankee... and why it was done. This last one was vigorous on Lockheed. The difference was obviously that it was being thwarted real time rather than discovered later. Even on sipr and nipr.. junk networks IMO and contrary to popular ATS belief .. they cant patch the crap fast enough it has so many holes and vulnerabilities. The only thing Im waiting for is to hear a peep about HAP being infiltrated.. and thats when this new idea form the pent will be rolled out on a red carpet Id think.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


True, I just think the most likely result will be more legislation on our "rights" regarding internet usage before its used to start a real war. But it does seem like there will be a green light now. I imagine we'll be rather selective though



The only thing Im waiting for is to hear a peep about HAP being infiltrated.. and thats when this new idea form the pent will be rolled out on a red carpet Id think.



By the way, I wasn't trying to "talk down" to you or anything, it's just weird to me how much Lockheed's name is being reported as if its the most "important" contractor.Just because were one of the biggest, doesn't were themost important or have the most "sensitive" info, Know what I mean

edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Mmmmm... does that include US cyber attacks against others - Stuxnet?

Wonder if the next "Cyber-attack" against US systems will be traced all the way back to Tehran?


So, they think they'll be able to trace the source of an attack, yet seem completely incapable of ever tracing, let alone prosecuting, the propogators of Malware / Viruses!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The economic and technological war has been raging for quite a while now but the problem is not one man in a million is able to see what is going on.. so I think it quite dire that they are now shifting this into a public arena as that kind of move seems to me they are keen to get a public buy..

If they want public buy in then the response would seem to me to be one that impacts the public otherwise we would continue to be kept in the dark.

So in my humble opinion this indicates to me we appear to be moving closer and closer to direct conflict..



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
www.foxnews.com...
and
online.wsj.com...


The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.


Looks like we're going to war with China real soon.

edit on 31-5-2011 by Advantage because: added another link


Note the quote reads traditional military force. Luckily that seems like a more appropriate response than from Michelle Bachman's assertion from a year ago:

Bachmann advocates nuclear response to Cyber-Attack


“So if in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all the rules ahead of time…if they fire against the United States, a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or maybe a cyber attack, then we aren’t going to be firing back with nuclear weapons…doesn’t that make us all feel safe?”


newsgroups.derkeiler.com...

OMG Facebook is down, let's nuke somebody. GOD helps us all.

/MD



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I wonder if this has anything to do with Anonymous. Damn you Anonymous and your weapons of mass disruption. What if the person is an American? By declaring it an act of war they can just designate you a terrorist and you will probably never be heard from again. No one will know what is happening or has happened to you. You may never even get your day in court to prove your innocence. It gets even worse when you consider pending(?) legislation requiring everyone to have a unique and identifiable screen name or an inserted chip. Both could be used to track everyone's internet activities.

Who are we going to bomb Beijing? Moscow? Not likely. More likely is it will just give an excuse for America to attack other smaller sovereign nations... Is the US not doing the exact same thing?! Was it not the US and Israeli military who developed the virus that is now causing havoc with Iran's nuclear system's network? Does the same apply to our country if we are caught engaging in cyber warfare?

Do as I say! Not as I do!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Connecting the Dots

Phase 1: Use/Test Stuxnet on Iranian Nuclear Reactor without doing any Damage (only a little setback)
Phase 2: Test Stuxnet on other Reactors (Fukushima was perfect for that) to see if it Works on other Types
Phase 3: Leak Stuxnet-Data on the Internet
Phase 4: Create a Cyber-Attack Bill
Phase 5: Attack your own Reactors with Stuxnet
Phase 6: Blame Iran using Stuxnet to attack Nuclear Reactors out of Revenge
Phase 7: Thanks to this Bill,you are justificated in attacking Iran





top topics



 
7

log in

join