The future of warfare?

[Boohugh]

Having just read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8363175.stm, I couldn't help but think if we are witnessing the start of the end of conventional warfare as we know it.

For many countries, having a conventional military that can actually act against other nations, or even just act as a deterrent against aggression, is obviously very expensive and, in reality, is probably only possessed by a handful of countries. However, what if nations could launch crippling cyber attacks against another for a fraction of the cost? This particularly applies to smaller nations who can't afford a conventional military but could, currently at least, afford a cyber attack capability.

I suppose the questions I'm trying to get at are:

1) Do you think cyber warfare will play a more prominent role in future conflicts between nations, perhaps displacing conventional warfare due to cost?

2) Do you think cyber warfare could be developed to the extent where it could cause so much damage (economically and to infrastructure) that it acts as a deterrent against an attack by conventional forces, i.e. act as a new form of nuclear deterrent, but affordable to all?

[Andres]

Unfortunately, we're still waiting for an article about the start of the end of warfare alltogether :balloon2:

[drone]

1) Do you think cyber warfare will play a more prominent role in future conflicts between nations, perhaps displacing conventional warfare due to cost?A larger role, but it won't displace standard warfare.


2) Do you think cyber warfare could be developed to the extent where it could cause so much damage (economically and to infrastructure) that it acts as a deterrent against an attack by conventional forces, i.e. act as a new form of nuclear deterrent, but affordable to all?Only if the target nation is stupid enough to put key infrastructure physically on the global net. Then they deserve what they get. But in this case, it will probably be criminals instead of unfriendly nations getting there first.

[al Roumi]

"Compiled by security firm McAfee, it bases its conclusion on analysis of recent net-based attacks."

Even though this all sounds plausible, that it has been compiled by McAfee just looks like they are angling for business.

I'd be intersted to know what sorts of things can/could actually be done by "cyber warfare". I'm not really aware of anything that drastic beyond communications jamming or attacking economic targets?

[Beskar]

Mass Bank Fraud, destroying billion pound industries, halting economy/communication on a national level, etc. Defacing websites. Etc.

Imagine they they put on Gordon Brown's blob that David Cameron is obviously going to win the election and people should vote for him. It would politically cripple him even more.

[rory_20_uk]

How could it be any worse than leaving troops and equipment to be shot at in a foreign coutnry at the cost of billions?

To ignore the development would be similar to ignore aeroplanes when they first came out. It might not be the be alll and end all of warfare, but bang per buck it is likely to be very effective - the more high tech the adversary the better.

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

"Compiled by security firm McAfee, it bases its conclusion on analysis of recent net-based attacks."

Even though this all sounds plausible, that it has been compiled by McAfee just looks like they are angling for business.

I wouldn't trust McAfee to look after my dog, let alone my computer.

[Centurion1]

its going to play a larger role but you cant totally get rid of conventional warfare because a guy with a guy can easily neutralize a room full of hackers..... when you find them.

that aside unless we start using only robots for our fighting i dont see this as being a likely alternate to real warfare.

[Subotan]

that aside unless we start using only robots for our fighting i dont see this as being a likely alternate to real warfare.

Robots should never be, and never will be used as an alternative to human beings in war.

[Husar]

because a guy with a guy can easily neutralize a room full of hackers.....

Oh, that's dirty... :no:

[rory_20_uk]

Robots should never be, and never will be used as an alternative to human beings in war.

Of course they will be!

South Korea already has automatic drones on the border - simple I know but they're there.

Any country that can use something that no one cares if it's destroyed, has no fees to pay if damaged, requires no sleep, oxygen and is far more resistant to all forms of damage is going to. Ethical problems of a machine BSOD and chaingunning a village isn't really that different to using a drone to drop a hellfire which appears to be "oh, oops" on the morality scale.

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

ahem i meant a guy with a gun


and i believe he meant that robots SHOULDN'T be used, not that they aren't rory.

[drone]

and i believe he meant that autonomous robots SHOULDN'T be used, not that they aren't rory.

fixed.

And you don't even need a gun. A battle fought in the virtual world can be stopped by disconnecting either the attack source or target from the physical. And vital equipment should never be connected to the main series of tubes.

DoS and website defacements are trivial in the grand scheme of things.

[Ice]

1) Do you think cyber warfare will play a more prominent role in future conflicts between nations, perhaps displacing conventional warfare due to cost?

Displacing conventional warfare? No. Contributing? Sure.


2) Do you think cyber warfare could be developed to the extent where it could cause so much damage (economically and to infrastructure) that it acts as a deterrent against an attack by conventional forces, i.e. act as a new form of nuclear deterrent, but affordable to all?


In the near future, no, but depending on the advances/avenues of technology, that feasibly could be possible many many many (my grandchildrens' lifetime) years out.

[rory_20_uk]

DoS and website defacements are trivial in the grand scheme of things.

As long as utilities and banks are also not connected either. The former could cause significant damage quickly, the latter can cause indirect damage.

I agree that acts such as wiping a country's health records are not going to stop an invasion, but in many cases the potential gains of invading a state might be less than the inconvenience of rebuilding the data.

~:smoking:

[A Very Super Market]

Who knows? For all we know, the US is currently developing their own crazy tactics. They just don't tell us. Naturally.