Can anyone explain why 17C - Cyber Operations Specialist - is listed as 'combat arms?'

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:16:10 -0400

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Aug 8 at 2015 12:18 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:18:17 -0400

A really, really nasty bug?

Response by SSG Derek Scheller made Aug 8 at 2015 12:20 PM

SSG Derek Scheller — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:20:16 -0400

It is considered combat because it is still warfare. You may not be on the front lines physically but can you imagine the consequences if our electric goes down or our water. The effects would be disastrous.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 3:31 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:31:34 -0400

Where are you finding that it is combat arms. I don't think that is right? I think a cyber warrior may be just fluffing their feathers on this one.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Aug 8 at 2015 6:10 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 18:10:17 -0400

It shouldn't be. It is or appears to be an MI type branch and probably falls under Intelligence & Combat Support. That is where one of the feeder MOSs for this one is (that MOS is 35Q).

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 10:11 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:11:11 -0400

I can make something up... Combat take place in more than just the physical domain. If it was to be designated as a Combat Arms Branch (Old Term, Replace with MFE), it would be because it is designed to be used for it's offensive and defensive warfighting capabilities in the cyber domain. I mean, these aren't the guys you go to when your having issues connecting to the printer.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 9 at 2015 10:26 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:26:24 -0400

Technically there are no combat arms MOSes. They are broken down into maneuver, fires, and effects.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2015 10:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:51:54 -0400

As long as we get to work together and come back home in one piece when in harms way I'm ok with whatever term they want to go by as long as my Rally Point page is up and running without interruptions.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 10:15 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:15:33 -0400

What I understand is that as of right now, no one can order a cyber attack except the President. That is because we can consider it an act of war and it can have lasting effects. Imagine what happens to an ICU ward when the power is intentionally interrupted, or what happens to global markets when stock indexes go out of whack.
We have become so ingrained in technology that total disruption of the telecommunications infrastructure could cripple a nation for a long time. Just as effective as bombing the power facilities but with a lot less collateral damage.
Also, by considering it as such (maneuver, fires and effects, etc.) it gets more attention. In Signal, we tried to sell Signal as a Weapon System or Fight the Network but that never took off. We are just told to 'quit speaking geek and make it work' or 'we don't care about AR 25-1 or 2, I need my Facebook, Pandora, iPhone, etc. to kill bad guys'.

Response by SSG John Erny made Aug 10 at 2015 10:26 AM

SSG John Erny — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:26:32 -0400

Once again I will point out what the Hacktivist know as "The Jester" has been saying for years! Cyber Warfare is War! Please read the Jesters blog and follow him on twitter, you can learn a lot from one of the best hackers ever!
http://www.jesterscourt.cc/2012/09/25/digital-asymmetric-warfare-is-it-possible/

Digital Asymmetric Warfare: Is It Possible? « JESTERS COURT – OFFICIAL BLOG

Sophisticated and complex to implement, long-term cyber attacks are often considered the work of intelligence agencies and crime syndicates. However, the oversight and bureaucracy that comes from such management often hinders the ultimate lethality of the attack.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Aug 10 at 2015 11:10 AM

SSG Richard Reilly — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:10:10 -0400

Apparently you've never played Call of Duty...geez.

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 10 at 2015 1:38 PM

SPC David S. — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:38:36 -0400

I think modern warfare has reshaped "combat arms" - Think of drone pilots half way around the world taking out targets or working as over watch. Its the same thing as some 17C taking down some air defense server in county x with key strokes. Not traditional combat but yet it is combat.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 3:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:57:47 -0400

Sorry for the late turn around on getting back to this,
The basis for my question comes from the application packet cover letter, which reads:

e. The 17C Cyber Operations Specialist is a Combat Arms MOS. For NCO’s ensure you discuss your experience or understanding of the operational process.

My personal thoughts?
I agree with some of the views here that being part of combat, especially in today's hyper-digital world, doesn't necessarily mean I need to be in front of another person with a gun. Why waste my life when I can hack into a nuclear reactor and cause it to have a core meltdown? [exaggerated, of course, but you get my point.]

I'm on the cusp of submitting a packet for this MOS and wanted some clarification on what they were talking about - because - like many of you, this didn't make sense to me. But some of your awesome replies have helped me rethink what is being said in the packet.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Aug 18 at 2015 9:32 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0400

ok kids .. hop aboard the Way-Back Machine.
For those that think that working on computers might NOT be a combat arm.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Aug 18 at 2015 10:03 AM

SSG Richard Reilly — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:03:54 -0400

Need I remind you of a little documentary called "Live Free Die Hard"...nuff said.

Response by COL Randall C. made Sep 15 at 2015 4:44 PM

COL Randall C. — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:44:58 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member, MAJ Carl Ballinger is correct that "Combat Arms" doesn't exist anymore (technically). It was officially rescinded, but still exists in many documents (mainly because they haven't been updated yet). 17C is considered as "combat arms" (actually maneuver warfare) because it, like Infantry, Armor, etc., is the branch tasked with the employment of offensive capabilities within the domain. Cyberspace operations are performed through maneuver warfare in the cyberspace domain just as Infantry and Armor operations are performed through maneuver warfare in the land domain.

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member, regarding POTUS being the only one that can order a cyber attack, then answer is yes/no. Previously the United States said they viewed a cyber attack on our infrastructure on par as the use of a WMD due to our heavy reliance upon that infrastructure. This led to the belief that "all use of cyber needs to be authorized by POTUS". While this may be the case for the strategic employment of cyber capabilities (just like the strategic employment of any other capabilities), this isn't necessarily the case at the lower levels (operational and tactical). For example, at the tactical level, the employment of CEMA (Cyber Electromagnetic Activities) on the battlefield doesn't require POTUS authorization. Operational use of cyber gets to a gray area, but I like the comment from a Rand study a few years ago ... "If the president has to answer for it, then the president has to authorize it".

LTC Private RallyPoint Member / CPT Private RallyPoint Member, see the above comment about maneuver combat within a domain.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 8:32 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:32:14 -0400

It is defined as cyber warfare and seems to be one of the perks for being in that mos.