The “Cyberwar” Dialog can be easily polluted …..

(Last Updated On: December 11, 2018)

Watching discussions about cyberwar is a humorous diversion in the day. Take this New York Times article, “Halted ’03 Iraq Plan Illustrates U.S. Fear of Cyberwar Risk.” It starts interesting, talking about a battle plan that was considered as a lead into the 2003 attack on Iraq. Good News! War planning is good. Evaluating collateral damage is good. Command decision is good (in this case, not following through because of collateral risk).

We then start going off to entertaining left field. Where any form of cyberwar attacks have all sorts of collateral risk – bring in Electronic Warfare attacks, ARRAM attacks, and a range of other examples to demonstrate the “collateral risk.” Sigh.

War has a risk. Cyber warfare will always be risky. Cyber warfare, just like any other weapons system, has collateral damage which command and control authorities need to take into account. It seems that whoever was behind the planning of the 2003 “cyberwar plan” followed these principles. Good.

Need Security Advice?

If you find your organization needs help and worry about the FUD from the industry, reach out and ask for help. You can reach me at Help organizations leverage the talent around them to get started with their security activities. Start with the Operator’s Security Toolkit. It is the no-nonsense security for all Operators. It provides details to help them build more security resilient networks. In the meantime, stay connected to the Senki Community to get updates on new empowerment and security insights. You can sign up to the mailing list for updates here: Stay Connected with Senki’s Updates.