Cyber Warfare: Cyber Attacks and Strategic Issues
Published in Zaobao
(Singapore) on 26 May 2010
by Yilin Wang (link to original)
On May 22, the United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) was activated. Gates says that cyber warfare is contingent on how you play the game in order to be victorious, and not for the goal of holding ground. For this reason, we should, therefore, strive to master every means of lawful struggle, so that we can take greater initiative in dealing with new situations that press upon us. I think there are three major issues: The first involves containing the proliferation of cyber security threats. This is primary and essential. The second involves tactics and strategies in cyber warfare. Third is the issue of defense. For what reasons?
Let’s take the first point of containing the proliferation of cyber security threats. (Struggling for lasting world peace is a basic, primary condition.) Because the U.S. always wants to manufacture tense situations, we feel we cannot go on with our lives with such tension. For example, the past U.S.-Soviet Cold War really caused everyone many sleepless nights. It has a bad effect on the children of the world, so we say the situation still has to be alleviated. It’s not good to have such tensions. Tension makes for bad days. And so we propose to consider whether a comprehensive ban is possible, along with the complete destruction of nuclear weapons. What about bringing cyber warfare into a single international framework? I think this is entirely possible. But the execution of it still remains. We could mobilize the world’s public opinion, advance efforts in diplomacy, apply the power of all peace-loving people and nations of the world in a widespread and profound movement, sign treaties for international cyber security, and uphold them. International public opinion could make it difficult for the U.S, but this is a struggle for peaceful progress, right?
That is also true, regarding the second point: the issue of tactics and strategies of cyber warfare. The central mission and highest form of cyber warfare is to withstand a successful military attack that uses war as a solution to problems. A rule of war is universally met, whether in direct military strikes or in cyber warfare; however, as for the expression of these rules under special conditions, rules should be followed, based on the different and expressed conditions. Without understanding the characteristics and nature of the special rules, each of the various issues faced in war cannot be resolved.
As long as there is war, there are both global and local aspects. Any war researcher or adviser must take care to relate the two. For example, the local nature of cyber warfare rests on a derivation of military tactics (information extraction, jamming, confusion, destroying, etc.) It, thus, is restricted by such variables as highland jungles and other terrains and surroundings that serve as natural barriers against cyber communication; with the use of wired communication devices on the front line (wireless should not be used); with the independent nature of two-way satellite and cyber band frequencies; and so forth.
As for the global aspect, it depends, first of all, on strategic deterrence; however, global attacks still restrict the use of this type of strategic warfare. Because the U.S. likes to talk about war, it is said to be seeking asymmetric war. (They, themselves, say they are expert in this.) To put it bluntly, that is taking unfair advantage of the weak. As for the comprehensive cyber wars that could be launched, the use of this strategic weapon would be restricting for them. In the past, didn’t they invent a local war and brinkmanship in the Korean War and in our Taiwan question?
If we do not take care of global and local relationships, it will be hard to avoid being intimidated by the U.S. and, thus, hard to avoid a disastrous end. Consequently, we must come to understand the influences of the global vs. the local, as well as attending to application of the local vs. the global. We are already capable of promoting changes to our benefit internationally and in the forces opposing us, thus causing the international and domestic forces that support us to play a role. Furthermore, we are also capable of relying on ourselves, instead of on others. Self-reliance and striving to improve ourselves: That is how we can achieve peace in a reliable way. Isn’t that a just reason?
We have two very good approaches here. One is that we need to despise the enemy strategically, and we must value the enemy tactically, so that all the initiative is in our hands. The other is that we need to give serious attention to public opinion on all that helps Americans threaten the Chinese (only fanfare in arms discussions), and some non-vital electronic information should not be forwarded. Forwarding that kind of information to the armed forces and the nation is not beneficial.
As for the third point concerning the issue of defense, we need to recognize the developing tendency toward historic materialism. That is, if war comes about, in the early stages and manifestation of cyber warfare development, the U.S. may be fearful, being a true tiger. But along with intolerance of all nations toward American control of the Internet — like the revelation of the Google vehicle, collecting street scenes of the British military base; some infringement on the privacy of national citizens; and so forth — as well as the construction of cyber satellite systems by all nations and the replacement of the U.S. cyber satellite system, these nations must also stand up and free themselves from American control, because these nations have their own power. Surely, the more nations that do this, the more American cyber space capabilities will be weakened.
The U.S. will ultimately be isolated. The U.S. will then be transformed from a real tiger into a paper tiger and will quite actively crucify itself. Isn’t that the idea? So the basic policy we are adopting is: the development of successive hubs for cyber warfare capability and for strategic deterrence. We need to control a stronger cyber military force. Being forced to act, China is grasping the responsibility for cyber weaponry, entirely for defense purposes and for safeguarding the people of China against the threat of U.S. cyber attacks.
Let’s take the first point of containing the proliferation of cyber security threats. (Struggling for lasting world peace is a basic, primary condition.) Because the U.S. always wants to manufacture tense situations, we feel we cannot go on with our lives with such tension. For example, the past U.S.-Soviet Cold War really caused everyone many sleepless nights. It has a bad effect on the children of the world, so we say the situation still has to be alleviated. It’s not good to have such tensions. Tension makes for bad days. And so we propose to consider whether a comprehensive ban is possible, along with the complete destruction of nuclear weapons. What about bringing cyber warfare into a single international framework? I think this is entirely possible. But the execution of it still remains. We could mobilize the world’s public opinion, advance efforts in diplomacy, apply the power of all peace-loving people and nations of the world in a widespread and profound movement, sign treaties for international cyber security, and uphold them. International public opinion could make it difficult for the U.S, but this is a struggle for peaceful progress, right?
That is also true, regarding the second point: the issue of tactics and strategies of cyber warfare. The central mission and highest form of cyber warfare is to withstand a successful military attack that uses war as a solution to problems. A rule of war is universally met, whether in direct military strikes or in cyber warfare; however, as for the expression of these rules under special conditions, rules should be followed, based on the different and expressed conditions. Without understanding the characteristics and nature of the special rules, each of the various issues faced in war cannot be resolved.
As long as there is war, there are both global and local aspects. Any war researcher or adviser must take care to relate the two. For example, the local nature of cyber warfare rests on a derivation of military tactics (information extraction, jamming, confusion, destroying, etc.) It, thus, is restricted by such variables as highland jungles and other terrains and surroundings that serve as natural barriers against cyber communication; with the use of wired communication devices on the front line (wireless should not be used); with the independent nature of two-way satellite and cyber band frequencies; and so forth.
As for the global aspect, it depends, first of all, on strategic deterrence; however, global attacks still restrict the use of this type of strategic warfare. Because the U.S. likes to talk about war, it is said to be seeking asymmetric war. (They, themselves, say they are expert in this.) To put it bluntly, that is taking unfair advantage of the weak. As for the comprehensive cyber wars that could be launched, the use of this strategic weapon would be restricting for them. In the past, didn’t they invent a local war and brinkmanship in the Korean War and in our Taiwan question?
If we do not take care of global and local relationships, it will be hard to avoid being intimidated by the U.S. and, thus, hard to avoid a disastrous end. Consequently, we must come to understand the influences of the global vs. the local, as well as attending to application of the local vs. the global. We are already capable of promoting changes to our benefit internationally and in the forces opposing us, thus causing the international and domestic forces that support us to play a role. Furthermore, we are also capable of relying on ourselves, instead of on others. Self-reliance and striving to improve ourselves: That is how we can achieve peace in a reliable way. Isn’t that a just reason?
We have two very good approaches here. One is that we need to despise the enemy strategically, and we must value the enemy tactically, so that all the initiative is in our hands. The other is that we need to give serious attention to public opinion on all that helps Americans threaten the Chinese (only fanfare in arms discussions), and some non-vital electronic information should not be forwarded. Forwarding that kind of information to the armed forces and the nation is not beneficial.
As for the third point concerning the issue of defense, we need to recognize the developing tendency toward historic materialism. That is, if war comes about, in the early stages and manifestation of cyber warfare development, the U.S. may be fearful, being a true tiger. But along with intolerance of all nations toward American control of the Internet — like the revelation of the Google vehicle, collecting street scenes of the British military base; some infringement on the privacy of national citizens; and so forth — as well as the construction of cyber satellite systems by all nations and the replacement of the U.S. cyber satellite system, these nations must also stand up and free themselves from American control, because these nations have their own power. Surely, the more nations that do this, the more American cyber space capabilities will be weakened.
The U.S. will ultimately be isolated. The U.S. will then be transformed from a real tiger into a paper tiger and will quite actively crucify itself. Isn’t that the idea? So the basic policy we are adopting is: the development of successive hubs for cyber warfare capability and for strategic deterrence. We need to control a stronger cyber military force. Being forced to act, China is grasping the responsibility for cyber weaponry, entirely for defense purposes and for safeguarding the people of China against the threat of U.S. cyber attacks.
Next article![]( "Bill Clinton Stirs the Fear of Terror")
