The problem with offensive cyberwarfare is that, given the imbalance between 
attackers and defenders and the expanding use of computer controls in all sorts 
of systems, a cyber war between two advanced countries will not decide anything 
militarily, but will leave both combattants much poorer than they were 
previously, cause some death and a lot of hardship and bitterness, and leave 
the actual hot war to be fought. 

Imagine a conflict that starts with both countries wrecking a lot of each 
others' infrastructure--causing refineries to burn, factories to wreck 
expensive equipment, nuclear plants to melt down, etc.  A week later, that 
phase of the war is over.  Both countries are, at that point, probalby 10-20% 
poorer than they were a week earlier.  Both countries have lots of really 
bitter people out for blood, because someone they care about was killed or 
their job's gone and their house burned down or whatever.  But probably there's 
been little actual degradation of their standard war-fighting ability.  Their 
civilian aviation system may be shut down, some planes may even have been 
crashed, but their bombers and fighters and missiles are mostly still working.  
Fuel and spare parts may be hard to come by, but the military will certainly 
get first pick.  My guess is that what comes next is that the two countries 
have a standard hot war, but with the pleasant addition of a great depression 
 sized economic collapse for both right in the middle of it.    

The cryptography mailing list

Reply via email to