In the San Francisco Chronicle, November 8, 1999
COMPUTER WARFARE
By Bradley Graham of the Washington Post
WASHINGTON - During last spring's conflict with Yugoslavia, the Pentagon
considered hacking into Serbian computer networks to disrupt military
operations and basic civilian services.
But it refrained from doing so, according to senior defense officials,
because of uncertainties and limitations surrounding the emerging field
of cyber warfare.
"We went through the drill of figuring out how we would do some of these
cyber things if we were to do them," said a senior military officer.
"But we never went ahead with any.
As computers revolutionize many aspects of life, military officials have
stepped up development of cyber weapons and spoken ominously of their
potential to change the nature of war. Instead of risking planes to bomb
power grids, telephone exchanges or rail lines, for example, Pentagon
planners envision soldiers at computer terminals silently invading
foreign networks to shut down electrical facilities, interrupt phone
service, crash trains and disrupt financial systems.
But such attacks, officials say, pose nettlesome legal, ethical and
practical problems.
Midway through the war with Yugoslavia, the Defense Department's top
legal office issued guidelines warning that misuse of computer network
attacks could subject U.S. authorities to war crimes charges. It advised
commanders to apply the same "law of war" principles to computer attack
that they do to the use of bombs and missiles. These call for hitting
targets that are of military necessity only, minimizing collateral
damage and avoiding indiscriminate attacks.
Military officials said concern about legalities was only one of the
reasons U.S. authorities resisted the temptation to, say, raid the bank
accounts of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Other reasons
included the untested or embryonic state of the U.S. cyber arsenal and
the rudimentary or decentralized
nature of some Yugoslav systems, which officials said did not lend
themselves to computer assault.
U.S. forces did attack some computers that controlled the Yugoslav air
defense system, the officials said. But the attacks were launched from
electronic jamming aircraft rather than over computer networks.
No plan for an electronic attack on Yugoslav computer networks ever
reached the stage of a formal legal assessment, according to several
defense officials familiar with the planning. And the 50 pages of
guidelines, prepared by the Pentagon general counsel's office, were not
drafted with the Yugoslav operation specifically in mind.
But officials said the document, which has received little publicity,
reflected the collective thinking of Defense Department lawyers about
cyber warfare and marked the U.S. government's first formal attempt to
set legal boundaries for the military's involvement in computer attack
operations.
It told commanders to remain wary of targeting institutions that are
essentially civilian, such as banking systems, stock exchanges and
universities, even though cyber weapons might provide the ability to do
so.
In wartime, the document advised, computer attacks and other forms of
what the military calls "information operations" should be conducted
only by members of the armed forces, not civilian agents. It also stated
that before launching any assaults, commanders must carefully gauge
potential damage beyond the intended target, much as the Pentagon now
estimates the number of likely casualties from bombings.
While computer attacks may appear to be a cleaner means of destroying
targets - with less prospect for physical destruction or loss of life
than bombs - Pentagon officials say such views are deceiving. By
penetrating computer systems that control communications,
transportation, energy and other basic services in a foreign country,
cyber weapons can have serious cascading effects, disrupting not only
military operations but civilian life, officials say.
The full extent of the U.S. computer arsenal is among the most tightly
held national security secrets. But reports point to a broad range of
weapons under development, including use of computer viruses, or "logic
bombs," to disrupt enemy networks; the feeding of false information to
sow confusion and the morphing of video images onto foreign television
stations to deceive. Last month, the Pentagon announced it was
consolidating plans for offensive as well as defensive computerized
operations under a four-star general who heads the U.S. Space Command in
Colorado Springs, Colo.
In their guidelines document, titled "An Assessment of International
Legal Issues in Information Operations," the Pentagon's lawyers warned
of such unintended effects of computer attacks as opening the floodgates
of a dam, causing an oil refinery in a populated area to explode or
triggering the release of radioactivity. They mentioned the possibility
of computer attacks spilling over into neutral or friendly nations and
noted the legal limits on deceptive actions.
"It may seem attractive for a combatant vessel or aircraft to avoid
being attacked by broadcasting the agreed identification signals for a
medical vessel or aircraft, but such actions would be a war crime," said
the document, which was first reported last week by the Washington
Post's online service.
COMMENTS
This article opens up the floodgates of a new method of warfare. The
warfare it exposes is one that is more deadly than any type of warfare
ever used. Left out of the article is an important consideration: The
knowledge of this new warfare is not the sole property of the U.S.
This matter deserves serious attention. How should it be addressed?
Should it be resolved by democratic procedure, by an open, honest, free
election? How qualified are voters on matters of this nature? Can the
most honest voter by a dunce when it comes to evaluating the scientific
substance of matters of this nature?
In our world � and more specifically here on this continent � our lives
revolve around science and technology. As a matter of fact it�s an
entirely new age. We don�t live in the past primitive, agrarian age but
instead we live in a scientific-technological age. In this age the
revered, ancient Athenian method of a popularity, opinionated contest
for decision making is a sure-fire road to disaster.
Technocracy contends that modern times, our scientific-technological
age, is extremely too complicated for us to continue with the present
socioeconomic structure, our �Price System.� A new social design must
replace it, and in this new structure, scientific-technological matters
are left in the hands of qualified people.
Does this new design provide for a risk free society? NO. One must
evaluate the degrees of risk as nothing is every risk free. Riding in a
car, going from point A to point B, poses risks. Using a bicycle does
likewise; it is not risk free; there are degrees of risk involved. About
6,000 pedestrians are either injuried or killed yearly on our streets.
It also has degrees of risk.
Indeed, continuing with our Price System is a sure-fire road to
disaster. It puts our survival in jeopardy. Therefore, Technocracy
concludes that we have the opportunity to usher in a social structure
that is laid out to be compatible with modern times even though it is
not risk free. Technocracy defines this as an opportunity; not as a
choice
Your comments are welcome. Only when the lines of communication are kept
open is progress possible.
