Stupidity: A Real Cyberthreat.

Thu Jan 19 21:17:35 UTC 2006

On 1/19/06, Mark Smith
<random at 72616e646f6d20323030342d30342d31360a.nosense.org> wrote:
> The purpose of terrorism is to create widespread _terror_ (the
> hint is in the word).

And what is terror?   Warfare

What is War?
(from Von Clausewitz's Om Kriege)
War is fighting and operates in a peculiar element -- danger.  But war
is served by many activities quite different from it, all of which
concern the maintenance of the fighting forces.  These preparatory
activities are excluded from the narrower meaning of the art of war --
the actual conduct of war, because they are concerned only with the
creation, training, and maintenance of the fighting forces.  "The
theory of war proper, on the other hand, is concerned with the use of
these means, once they have been developed, for the purposes of the
war."

How do we defeat our enemy?
(again, Von Clausewitz)
- "The acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are . .
   --- Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant
   --- Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of
administration but also that of social, professional, and political
activity
   --- Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if
that ally is more powerful than he."

I'd say economic attacks fall under #2.  I'd further venture that if
9/11 happened in say, Tonopah, NV, there would not have been $XXX B
damage as a result of direct and indirect costs...  and further, there
would have been (far) less of an uproar and DHS-type activity
increase.

What is worse for destruction of the US?  Crippling the economy or
killing +/-3000 people?  Was WW2 Germany defeated economically or
head-to-head, mano-y-mano in Europe?  Was the Confederacy defeated by
systematically winning most land-enagements?

I submit that:
*  there is a significant reason that WTC was targeted twice
*  this is not the first or last time economics means have been
employed in terror campaigns
*  every war ever, since the beginning of time, is was and will be
rooted in economics, and all other reasons given for war are BS.
*  economic targets (supplies, infrastructure, shipping terminals,
communications, railroads) do far more to defeat an enemy than killing
some civilians... as a terrorist, great, an added bonus, you got so
infidels too!!!

I suspect that various entities will shortly start bitching about
operational content here, so...

Operations related, I think it *is* important to know, and conduct
war-games (you *.gov types) which include multi-vector attacks, in
which terrorists think and operate a coordinated manner that say, a
few Special Forces A-teams would, if they were given the same
mission... inflict as much economic and political damage as possible
with 40 people and a million dollar budget.   I think this definitely
includes having access to the positions of these communications lines.

I think that public access to the locations of these communications
lines would have the end result of a far more fault-resilient
infrastructure.