2
2
0
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said that a new, independent branch is “one of the futures cyber might have.”
Article Author:
"An expectation of a strict physical fitness regimen bares little relevance to a soldier whose entire contribution will take place within an office in front of a computer screen. Standard, mandatory training requirements such as swimming tests and rifle qualifications similarly are distractions from a cyber warfare specialist’s mission."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/18/we-need-a-cyber-corps-as-a-5th-service/
Article Author:
"An expectation of a strict physical fitness regimen bares little relevance to a soldier whose entire contribution will take place within an office in front of a computer screen. Standard, mandatory training requirements such as swimming tests and rifle qualifications similarly are distractions from a cyber warfare specialist’s mission."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/18/we-need-a-cyber-corps-as-a-5th-service/
Posted in these groups: 
Cyber
Cyber
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
The Army Air Corps fought in a new domain then spun off into the Air Force. The Cyber Corps could do the same.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Another option would be to make cybercom like SOCOM. SOCOM has 167 authorities that allow them be like service while utilitzing capabilities resident in existing services. Here's an example, if you are familiar with an AC-130 Gunship. The C-130 base model is paid for by the Air Force but the extra parts added to it is paid by SOCOM. This is the same for pilots. The standard pilot training is paid for by the Air Force and all specialized training is provided by SOCOM. With this model, services could provide the basic, common core training and CYBERCOM can provide the rest. From a PT standard perspective, the services own the PT standards but personally that is not a bad thing. We need cyber operators/cyber support guys that bring the perspective of the operational physical domain's needs. Unlike Air and Space, cyber does not exist for cyber's sake. Cyber has utility because it supports the flow of information.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Does this mean new uniforms?
I'm still against the idea of having as many separate forces as we do. Finding more consolidation of forces and increasing the overall unity of effort could greatly increase our ability to fight while still reducing the expenses we accrue.
I'm still against the idea of having as many separate forces as we do. Finding more consolidation of forces and increasing the overall unity of effort could greatly increase our ability to fight while still reducing the expenses we accrue.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
No separated cyber service.
Part of what makes a service member effective is having the experience of the service and the skills necessary to work in cyber. The integration of the service and cyber skills will help identify additional areas that need to strengthened and developed. The cyber command can be a Joint Command of mixed services.
Part of what makes a service member effective is having the experience of the service and the skills necessary to work in cyber. The integration of the service and cyber skills will help identify additional areas that need to strengthened and developed. The cyber command can be a Joint Command of mixed services.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Pedro Morales, this question has been asked in different forms for the last few years at various levels of DoD for many years with strong views on either side of the argument.
Arguments in favor of it standing up as it's own Service center around the commonality of cyberspace operations between the Services, the fact that the other warfighting domains have a Service that has the lead, and that it would provide a greater unity of effort.
Some of the main arguments against it are that each Service has Service specific requirements that need to be addressed, often have differing institutional/cultural approaches towards problem solving (for instance, the Army has a much more regionally focused model that has many more tactical requirements than the Air Force does), and that the infrastructure between the Services is different (although the further down the road we get with JIE implementation, the less these will be).
Much of the debate centers around the view on cyberspace operations - are these primarily supporting or supported operations, are they inherently Joint operations, and are there many resources that are being wasted because of the duplication of capabilities?
Personally, I feel that many of the arguments for it standing up as its own Service are being addressed by the establishment of US Cyber Command as that organization is addressing many of the "we need a separate Service" points (not all, but many). I do see that we might get to that point (maybe in 10 or 20 years), but not before many other aspects of cyberspace operations are addressed or the possible solutions are proven to work or not work.
As to many of the other comments in the article, take them with a grain of salt. While the 300 pound guy with a ponytail may be God's gift to hacking, I don't see a time when the military will wave the basic physical standards. Hire them as a DoD civilian or a contractor, but not as someone wearing a uniform.
Arguments in favor of it standing up as it's own Service center around the commonality of cyberspace operations between the Services, the fact that the other warfighting domains have a Service that has the lead, and that it would provide a greater unity of effort.
Some of the main arguments against it are that each Service has Service specific requirements that need to be addressed, often have differing institutional/cultural approaches towards problem solving (for instance, the Army has a much more regionally focused model that has many more tactical requirements than the Air Force does), and that the infrastructure between the Services is different (although the further down the road we get with JIE implementation, the less these will be).
Much of the debate centers around the view on cyberspace operations - are these primarily supporting or supported operations, are they inherently Joint operations, and are there many resources that are being wasted because of the duplication of capabilities?
Personally, I feel that many of the arguments for it standing up as its own Service are being addressed by the establishment of US Cyber Command as that organization is addressing many of the "we need a separate Service" points (not all, but many). I do see that we might get to that point (maybe in 10 or 20 years), but not before many other aspects of cyberspace operations are addressed or the possible solutions are proven to work or not work.
As to many of the other comments in the article, take them with a grain of salt. While the 300 pound guy with a ponytail may be God's gift to hacking, I don't see a time when the military will wave the basic physical standards. Hire them as a DoD civilian or a contractor, but not as someone wearing a uniform.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google