THE MILITARY HAS GOT TO SPEAK LOUDER ABOUT BUILD-UP,RAISES,HEALTHCARE, ETC. THE CIVILIANS NEED TO SACRA FICE MORE FOR OUR FREEDOMS, PUT UP OR SHUT UP ANYHOW MERRY CHRISTMAS TROOPS ARMY BROTHER

Posted by: Rick Mills at December 15, 2006 09:05 PM

To me Cyberterrorism has always been the bigger threat. Lets face it, physical terrorism only works cause people become afraid, even though it's obvious that you are at a much greater risk taking a shower and getting to work in the morning that you are from Terrorism. Obviously this would change if we didn't try and defend ourself but we do and even the half ass job we do makes us safer than we are on i95 just driving.

Now cyberterrorism gives the individual or small group of Terrorists the ability to really inflict harm on the US. Forget about loss of life that would be hard to come but with just computers, lets talk about long term financial impact. Imagine 200 million people without power, 2/3rds of the country without internet or telecommunications. Even if this was just for a few days we are looking at a lot of money and we could easily be talking weeks and months to get systems back.

We need to worry about cyberterrorism and I am happy someone up there can see it.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at November 10, 2006 09:51 AM

Well, at least he recognizes that the weak links are in State Dept. territory -- diplomacy and politics. Maybe building a fire under them will allow the military to focus more resources on security and training versus institution and government building.

Of course, as SecDef, any such "suggestion" from him may cause more interagency problems than it solves.

Posted by: jordan at November 9, 2006 08:00 PM

"Meanwhile, our pals at 27B are nervous because of AP story, which characterizes Gates as saying that "cyberterrorism could be the most devastating weapon of mass destruction yet." Please, let that be a lazy reporter talking, and not our next SecDef."

Here's a brief list of entities that can be completely disabled by an effective "cyberterrorism" attack. This is only the first few that came immediately to mind and of those, only those that would be expected to generate significant fatalities, injuries or economic damage.

Air Traffic Control systems for southern California and/or the D.C./New York/Boston/Philadelphia area.

Security and Materiel control systems at the ports of Vancouver BC, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Longview, Vancouver WA and Portland OR. (Picture half a dozen container ships losing transit control as they try to cross the Columbia River bar.)

FedEx/UPS/Diehl/whoever else invoicing, shipping and transport systems. (Put their airplanes on the ground, disconnect their computerized tracking and shipping systems, put their products on the ground for a week and try to explain to the hospital staffs exactly why their supplies of medicines have stopped.)

Traffic signals in any major city. (Picture Seattle on a Friday night when there's a major concert in the city and a major game at one of the stadiums. Now picture it on a Monday when everyone's trying to get to work. In either case, everyone trying to get to a hospital isn't going to make it. The Fire Department doesn't go anywhere through the traffic and the Police Department is restricted to foot, motorcycles and bicycles. Now picture it happening simultaneously in Seattle, Philadelphia, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Detroit.)

So, yes. In terms of loss of life, a major nuclear attack on a major metropolitan area would generate more immediate fatalities and injuries. An electronic attack that effectively shuts down the communication cable and satellite systems could cause a trillion dollars in damage in a week and be the indirect cause of death for upwards of 150,000 people in the US.

Posted by: T. K. Lee at November 9, 2006 06:01 PM

Well, mass disruption and annoyance...

But if, say, 1/2 the oil refineries went offline with a "boom" in the space of 5 minutes, this really would Fubar the US pretty darn well.

And since this doesn't have the materials problem of nuclear weapons, it is a big concern. Not THE BIGGEST concern, but definatly not something to take lightly.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 9, 2006 03:10 PM

It appears Gates is not a so called Neo-Con, and that is a good thing. On the other hand, it appears he may be the Cold War Realist types.

Those guys are good at making peace in the interim, but not actually solving any of the long term problems. Not my kind.

The most important issue to me is whether Gates believes China is our enemy, an therefore we have to waste money on useless Air Force and Navy projects, or is the future GWOT/COTW, and ground troops take priority.

I don't expect much because the FY2007-2008 budgets are pretty much locked in. Also the Dems prefer to spend money for "Fortress America" instead of offensive international campaigns.

Posted by: BT at November 9, 2006 03:04 PM