Are we still preparing for 20th Century Wars in the 21st Century?

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:14:10 -0400

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/us-vulnerable-to-china-russia-iran-n-korea-cyberwarfare/

We've spent billions on the latest and greatest airframes, tanks and land weapons to destroy equipment and people. How far behind our "enemies" have we slipped because we have failed to recognize that the next "war" will be fought in Cyberspace and not on the ground. At this point, ground forces are more of a distraction or harassment action rather than the main effort.

US Vulnerable To China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea Cyber Warfare

In a world where people are beginning to take cyberwarfare for granted, United States remains wary of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Sep 14 at 2015 11:04 PM

PVT Robert Gresham — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:04:24 -0400

Unfortunately, it seems that the US is often more reactive than proactive in its preparation for future conflict. We were not truly ready for a desert conflict when operation Desert Shield commenced. Much of the military was still training for a conflict in Europe.

Fortunately, the US is nothing if not adaptive. It will cost us many more victories than would be otherwise possible, but it seems that we are at least starting to realize that the entire future of our country may depend on how quickly we are able to engage in the "Cyber Wars".

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 12:10 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:10:01 -0400

Profound disagreement with the next war philosophy. You always fight the war you are not prepared for. We fought a short but difficult conventional fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, since we were well prepared for that fight it was over quickly. Not because we had accomplished the mission but because the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents switched tactics. If we spend all our efforts on cyber defense Russian, China, ISIS will prepare with tanks. We don't choose the next war, we have never chosen how the next war will be fought. Future wars are always fought in a manner where our enemy thinks they can win. Tanks are not outdated nor will they ever be in our lifetime. And no cyberspace action has ever defeated a column of tanks. Our military needs to be prepared for the full spectrum of war (or whatever full spectrum ops is called this hour)

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 15 at 2015 2:41 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:41:28 -0400

The NSA is the principal agency for organizing cyber warfare. Snowden's revelations have given nations of threat our TTPs in that field.

Response by COL Randall C. made Sep 15 at 2015 3:51 PM

COL Randall C. — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:51:40 -0400

Keeping the following to publicly disclosed information.

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, most of your comments above are seriously out of date. The Air Force is NOT DoD's main proponent of cyberspace, that role belongs to USCYBERCOM (the Air Force made a bid to be DoD's proponent, but that was officially nixed when USCYBERCOM was stood up). Each of the Services DO have cyber warfare within their mission and have been preparing for it for years (research various public release statements about DoD Cyber Mission Forces(CMF), National Mission Teams (NMT), Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs), and Cyber National Mission Forces (CNMF)). In this same vein, MAJ Ken Landgren, USCYBERCOM is the principle agency for organizing cyber warfare.

I chuckle every time I see an article in the press about "China is in our networks" or such. Really? This is news? DoD networks are under constant pressure/attempted intrusions/attacks. This has been going on for many, many years and will continue until we perfect brain to brain transfer over large distances (in which case, it will only move to that neural network).

In the late 80s/early 90s, the military had evolved to being a "net-centric" military. Many of the combat multipliers we had were due to the increase in combat power that information sharing brought to the table. We have continued to evolve and have become a "net-dependent" military in many cases. Our multipliers due to information sharing are so tied to integrated networks that if you deny the use of those networks then you have severely reduced (or even crippled) those capabilities. Frequently, those severe reductions in capability will actually take us to a point that we are less effective than a like unit of 20 years ago because along with increased combat multipliers from information, force reductions were implemented because "we can do more with less"

DoD is building many cyber capabilities for the force. Some are Service specific while other are focused at the national level. From an awareness point of view (maybe good, maybe bad), much of that information does not filter down to those outside the cyber community except at the higher levels (I guarantee you that your senior leadership is at least aware of the capabilities if they aren't very familiar with them).

Cyberspace operations are seen as a the great equalizer by those that have no hope of competing with us otherwise on the battlefield. Developing traditional combat power takes an exceedingly long time where only near-peers have a hope of matching our capabilities on the battlefield, and even then only with some other multiplier on their side (no, ISIS does not have the capability for armored warfare development. They can capture tanks on the battlefield and develop their own rudimentary tactics for their employment, but that's going to be the limit of their options).

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 15 at 2015 4:20 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:20:55 -0400

One of the reasons the Germans were so successful in WWII was conducting a military and government wide AAR on WWI. What did they intend to do, what happened, and shrinking the delta of WWI. We are so stuck on the conventional approach that it makes us myopic.