New Maritime Strategy

[Hair Warrior]

Can anyone define "all domain access"?

Air, sea, land, space, cyberspace, and the entire electromagnetic frequency spectrum.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Air, sea, land, space, cyberspace, and the entire electromagnetic frequency spectrum.

Got it. Thanks I'm just curious why we needed a new term to describe an idea as old as warfare itself.

Here's a mindblower for you; I don't buy into the idea that "cyber" is its own domain. Calling it such is a budgetary play (and not a bad one). I think we're better served, and demonstrate a better understanding, if we don't think of "cyber" as it's own domain such as sea and air. Instead, we should think of it as the connective tissue that connects everything else. //end rant//

 

[Flash]

Got it. Thanks I'm just curious why we needed a new term to describe an idea as old as warfare itself.

Here's a mindblower for you; I don't buy into the idea that "cyber" is its own domain. Calling it such is a budgetary play (and not a bad one). I think we're better served, and demonstrate a better understanding, if we don't think of "cyber" as it's own domain such as sea and air. Instead, we should think of it as the connective tissue that connects everything else. //end rant//

It is also used in the argument that IDC/IW folks ought to be URL's....you know, because it is 'warfare'!

 

[Hair Warrior]

Cyber is most certainly its own unique domain. My company (a different division of it) sells mucho mucho dinero of business doing defensive and offensive cyber warfare on behalf of Fortune 500 clients.

I am not sure if the outcomes ever become kinetic (e.g. Urengoy-Surgut-Chelyabinsk)... but it's close.

All the division's staff sit in Tyson's Corner, Virginia while clients and targets are global. And we don't have any URL-type people or platforms doing "other" warfare so it is not just "connective tissue" - it's the whole muscle baby.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Cyber is most certainly its own unique domain. My company (a different division of it) sells mucho mucho dinero of business doing defensive and offensive cyber warfare

And...... Thank you for making my point so much clearer.

 

[Brett327]

Interesting. So as a matter of taxonomy, do we view private corporations that are engaged in "offensive" cyber operations in the same way as if the USG were doing it? Are they both forms of warfare (economic warfare?), or is the corporation merely engaged in aggressive trade/business practices? I think a line ought to be drawn somewhere betweeen these two things. Is a damaging cyber attack on a corporation - like Sony - the same as a similar attack on DoD? Do things change when it's a state actor vs. non-state actor? When does it become an act of war, or does that even matter these days?

This is why cyber makes my head hurt.

 

[Hair Warrior]

And...... Thank you for making my point so much clearer.

Hmm... I guess it's over my head?

My point is that you could take a separate platoon-ish of cyber warriors and send them off into the cyber world on their own to conduct cyber warfare independent of URL folks, and they would not need to be connected at all to any ship, any plane, any tank, or any boot-on-ground in order to achieve tangible warfare objectives that directly affect battlefield outcomes. Sure, the goal for USG and DoD and Navy is to connect everything - but cyber warriors can be effective alone, too.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I guess it's over my head. My point is that you could take a separate platoon of cyber warriors and send them off into the cyber world on their own to conduct cyber warfare independent of URL folks, and they would not need to be connected at all to a ship, a plane, a tank, a boot-on-ground in order to achieve tangible warfare objectives that directly affect battlefield outcomes.

You need to do some more research.

This is why cyber makes my head hurt.

Yes. It's also why cyber shouldn't be considered a "domain" in and of itself. It's too expansive. It touches everything, affects everything, and is much more difficult to defend or dominate than any of the traditional arenas. Thinking of the issue as its own domain misses this point. Operators in the air, sea, land, and space domains should each understand how "cyber" (by the way, I hate that term) relates to them - because it does.

Fan-boys hear this argument and immediately go on the defensive, because with the coveted title of "domain" comes a shit-ton of programatic funding. Also, how can you make a claim that you should be a URL officer if you don't have your own "domain?" Squirreling "cyber" dudes away into SCIFs and broom closets to roll twelve sided dice en masse is a misuse of the skill set. Every unit should have "cyber" specific IDC folks (not the generic intel or oceanographers that also fall under the umbrella) that work for the commander. I know that's what they're aiming for, but it's a long way off.

 

[Brett327]

Agreed, and I think the connective tissue metaphor works much better, as you pointed out. BTW, what's with the current trend of using anatomical/physiological metaphors these days? Connective tissue, scar tissue, antibodies. That shit is all over the E-ring.

 

[Recovering LSO]

BTW, what's with the current trend of using anatomical/physiological metaphors these days? Connective tissue, scar tissue, antibodies. That shit is all over the E-ring.

Dunno. Never been there. Not even for a tour.

 

[Brett327]

 

[Hair Warrior]

Not gonna argue. I just think cyber is it's own domain, however small that domain is today. Give a couple cyber warriors a few Bitcoin and some mission objectives, and they can cause a lot of outcomes in ways that are not necessarily just "connective." Criminal elements and quasi-state-backed actors are already waging this war today.

E-ring is nothing special to see, by the way. The purple water fountain on the other hand...

 

[Recovering LSO]

Not gonna argue. I just think cyber is it's own domain, however small that domain is today. "

That's the thing man, it's not small. It overlaps, underpins, spans, stretches, etc etc etc across all other formal arenas. I sense a level of defensiveness in your response that I predicted above. There's nothing in my response to deny the critical importance of "cyber" proficiency and effectiveness. Quite the contrary actually.

Give a couple cyber warriors a few Bitcoin and some mission objectives, and they can cause a lot of outcomes in ways that are not necessarily just "connective."

But to what larger end? What's the larger objective? Is it a stand alone operation with limited aims or is it connected to a series of larger plans? This is my point. The example you give, while it might be impressive and effective would still require VERY VERY high level authorization if carried out by uniformed personnel - with the implication being that they would be tied to larger objectives and aims.

You haven't been paying attention if you think I'll be there for anything more than an a visit, which, again, would be a first.

 

[Brett327]

I know that's your intent. Life is full of surprises.

 

[jmcquate]

Interesting. So as a matter of taxonomy, do we view private corporations that are engaged in "offensive" cyber operations in the same way as if the USG were doing it? Are they both forms of warfare (economic warfare?), or is the corporation merely engaged in aggressive trade/business practices? I think a line ought to be drawn somewhere betweeen these two things. Is a damaging cyber attack on a corporation - like Sony - the same as a similar attack on DoD? Do things change when it's a state actor vs. non-state actor? When does it become an act of war, or does that even matter these days?

This is why cyber makes my head hurt.

The FBI director was addressing this on the hill today. He compared the issue to mid-evil castles defending themselves without assistance from the crown.