Pentagon Suggests Countering Devastating Cyberattacks With Nuclear Arms
18 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — A newly drafted United States nuclear strategy that has been sent to President Trump for approval would permit the use of nuclear weapons to respond to a wide range of devastating but non-nuclear attacks on American infrastructure, including what current and former government officials described as the most crippling kind of cyberattacks.
For decades, American presidents have threatened “first use” of nuclear weapons against enemies in only very narrow and limited circumstances, such as in response to the use of biological weapons against the United States. But the new document is the first to expand that to include attempts to destroy wide-reaching infrastructure, like a country’s power grid or communications, that would be most vulnerable to cyberweapons.
The draft document, called the Nuclear Posture Review, was written at the Pentagon and is being reviewed by the White House. [b]Its final release is expected in the coming weeks and represents a new look at the United States’ nuclear strategy.[/b] The draft was first published last week by HuffPost.
It called the strategic picture facing the United States quite bleak, citing not only Russian and Chinese nuclear advances but advances made by North Korea and, potentially, Iran.
“We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be,” [url=https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Npr-2018-A.pdf]the draft document said.[/url] The Trump administration’s new initiative, it continued, “realigns our nuclear policy with a realistic assessment of the threats we face today and the uncertainties regarding the future security environment.”
The Pentagon declined to comment on the draft assessment because Mr. Trump has not yet approved it. The White House also declined to comment.
But three current and former senior government officials said large cyberattacks against the United States and its interests would be included in the kinds of foreign aggression that could justify a nuclear response — though they stressed there would be other, more conventional options for retaliation. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the proposed policy.
Gary Samore, who was a top nuclear adviser to President Barack Obama, said much of the draft strategy “repeats the essential elements of Obama declaratory policy word for word” — including its declaration that the United States would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
But the biggest difference lies in new wording about what constitutes “extreme circumstances.”
In the Trump administration’s draft, those “[b]circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks.[/b]” It said that could include “[b]attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.[/b]”
The draft does not explicitly say that a crippling cyberattack against the United States would be among the extreme circumstances. But experts called a cyberattack one of the most efficient ways to paralyze systems like the power grid, cellphone networks and the backbone of the internet without using nuclear weapons.[/quote]
[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nuclear-review-cyberattack-trump.html]Source: The New York Times[/url] (emphasis mine)
[i]uhhhhhhhhhhhhh[/i]
[quote] and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.[/quote]
It's not that controversial a statement. Those systems are required for nuclear command and control, damage assessment for follow on attacks, etc. A cyber attack against them could very easily be perceived as an attempt to undermine those systems before a a nuclear attack so as to hinder retaliation.
[QUOTE=download;53058372]A cyber attack against them could very easily be perceived as an attempt to undermine those systems before a a nuclear attack so as to hinder retaliation.[/QUOTE]
And the important part is that if we dismiss an attack on those command facilities as 'just' a cyberattack when it's actually the prelude to a nuclear strike, we wouldn't know until it's too late.
As unlikely as nuclear war is, those kinds of threats have to be taken seriously. If a foreign actor is trying to compromise our defensive systems, it doesn't matter if they're doing it via cyber attack or conventional arms, the damage is the same.
A complex cyber assault on American military assets is nothing short of a declaration of war. The only response would be total retaliation. A large cyber attack could also focus on economic and social systems and cripple the United States for weeks, rendering the nation open to attack.
As mentioned above, it may as well be the start of a nuclear attack, just with extra warning
Putting aside that, this assessment also raises the possibility of countering limited nuclear strikes with our own limited nuclear strikes, use of nuclear against conventional strikes and argues for the development and use of 'low' yield nuclear weapons for more 'flexible use' as well as the development of sub launched cruise missiles of either nuclear or conventional warheads.
This is quite beyond your standard politics, this posture screams like it was written expressly for the guy who has repeatedly asked "why can't we use the nukes?"
Meanwhile the pentagon is not even sure they can put a price tag on the development of the next generation ICBM because they have simply no idea what it will cost in today's world
[QUOTE=Sableye;53058454]Putting aside that, this assessment also raises the possibility of countering limited nuclear strikes with our own limited nuclear strikes, use of nuclear against conventional strikes and argues for the development and use of 'low' yield nuclear weapons for more 'flexible use' as well as the development of sub launched cruise missiles of either nuclear or conventional.
This is quite beyond your standard politics, this posture screams like it was written expressly for the guy who has repeatedly asked "why can't we use the nukes?"[/QUOTE]
None of those things are new.
Using nuclear weapons against conventional attacks in some circumstances has been a US policy from the beginning, it's also the policy of the UK, France, Russia and probably (though not publicly admitted) the other nuclear armed nations.
Existing US nuclear weapons are already capable of going down very low (all the way down to 0.3 kt), it's just that the new Mod 12 variant of the 1960s B61 bomb has inertial and GPS guidance so it it can take advantage of that low yield against hardened targets. The US also retired it's nuclear sub-launched cruise missiles in 2011, so bringing back the capability only a few years later isn't all that provocative.
[QUOTE=Flicky;53058335]
uhhhhhhhhhhhhh[/QUOTE]
it's clickbait. it's not trump going "I want to nuke everybody!" like you want to believe. in fact it's a necessary precaution with how important cybersecurity has become.
a potent enough cyberattack to cripple our communications network could easily have the same social and economic consequences as destroying our interstate transportation networks, if not more dire.
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;53058943]Wait didn't people give Hillary massive shit for saying she'd consider cyber attacks to be an act of war?[/QUOTE]
I actually pulled the thread up last night, most of the people opposed to her comments have been perma'd.
Wouldn't a dedicated enough cyberterrorist group be able to fairly easily frame a country for a strategic cyber attack in order to start a war?
But who would benefit for US to go to war with another one of it's rival countries?
I'm not a war guy, but I view cybernetically attacking someone in the same length as punching them in the face(worse depending on severity). Attacking a major military/communications object by hacking is no better than blowing it up, and should be treated the same, with retaliation. Of coarse I don't think we should nuke someone for any willy nilly attack, but it does warrant retaliation.
I'm not about to come out and say that cyber attacks aren't acts of aggression - in the modern world, they definitely constitute an attack, and could be totally crippling
but the difference between a cyberattack and military actions is that if America was suddenly attacked by an army, it would probably be quite obvious who was doing it: is that the case with cyberattacks on public infrastructure?
if using nukes in the case of a normal attack is comparable to, say, shooting someone who stabbed you with a knife, then using nukes in the case of cyber warfare is akin to getting punched in a pitch black room, and deciding to burn down the entire building with the doors locked
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53059114]I'm not about to come out and say that cyber attacks aren't acts of aggression - in the modern world, they definitely constitute an attack, and could be totally crippling
but the difference between a cyberattack and military actions is that if America was suddenly attacked by an army, it would probably be quite obvious who was doing it: is that the case with cyberattacks on public infrastructure?
if using nukes in the case of a normal attack is comparable to, say, shooting someone who stabbed you with a knife, then using nukes in the case of cyber warfare is akin to getting punched in a pitch black room, and deciding to burn down the entire building with the doors locked[/QUOTE]
Theoretically, it would only be an option if a sovereign nation directly attacks our nuclear capabilities. Though I don't see how it would work fast enough as you'd have to figure out who was attacking you before attacking them, at which case they might've already launched a nuke at you.
I don't support it one bit, but I don't think I'd be in any healthy position to be in opposition to it.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53058454]Putting aside that, this assessment also raises the possibility of countering limited nuclear strikes with our own limited nuclear strikes, use of nuclear against conventional strikes and argues for the development and use of 'low' yield nuclear weapons for more 'flexible use' as well as the development of sub launched cruise missiles of either nuclear or conventional warheads.[/QUOTE]
That's been a thing since the cold war. Hell, all out miniature nuclear assault was a probable option in a European invasion scenario. Atomic Demolition Munitions were man-portable nuclear bombs, the Davy Crocket was a real-life mini-nuke launcher, and we even had fighter jets equipped with nuclear-armed rockets. Davy Crocket would be used to vaporize advancing Soviet forces, the Jets would fire nuclear rockets at Soviet strategic bomber groups to wipe them out, and the ADM could be used against advancing Soviet forces, create large radioactive no-man's lands, and by the top-secret Green Light Teams infiltrating the Soviet Union to demolish cities and military bases.
fuck yeah america! lets work towards disarming other nuclear nations, cripple their research and development of nuclear programs with heavy sanctions and then wave our nuclear dick around because it's okay when they do it.
i wonder why other countries would want to be nuclear capable in a world like this, especially when the worlds most powerful man commands a mighty arsenal of devastating weapons, but not only that, is fine with invading and occupying other countries for natural resources.
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;53061518]fuck yeah america! lets work towards disarming other nuclear nations, cripple their research and development of nuclear programs with heavy sanctions and then wave our nuclear dick around because it's okay when they do it.
i wonder why other countries would want to be nuclear capable in a world like this, especially when the worlds most powerful man commands a mighty arsenal of devastating weapons, but not only that, is fine with invading and occupying other countries for natural resources.[/QUOTE]
So you suggest allowing more shitty world leaders to acquire nuclear arms to be a decisive decision that aligns with the public world interest?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.