Slashdot Log In
The New Air Force Mission?
Posted by
Cliff
on Fri Dec 09, 2005 09:29 AM
from the flying-too-high? dept.
from the flying-too-high? dept.
mvnicosia asks: "The US Air Force has released its new mission statement, which reads 'The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.' With the recent rows over US Internet governance, what do you think is the impact of a US government overtly practicing cyberspace warfare? And what are the US's legal limitations?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Don't Worry (Score:5, Funny)
Read It Differenty (Score:5, Insightful)
You could be worried about it but if you read it more narrowly and in context, it's not that scary. The USAF will fight in space, air, and cyberspace as it relates to warfare. Given how dependent the US miliary and other militaries are on information, it's reasonable to expect them to practice techniques for attacking and defend networks. Put it another way, while the air force practices gaining air superiority, we rarely ever see them go around downing civilian aircraft in times of peace (though there have been mistakes). Just because they're developing the ability it doesn't mean they're going to recklessly use it on everyone. The military needs to be prepared for things that might happen.
Legal Limitations?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legal Limitations?? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, no wonder people think /. readers smell...
Parent
Legal limitations (Score:4, Insightful)
Bluntly speaking, the US's legal limitations are whatever it decides they are.
AFAICT there are no international treaties about cybercrime and information warfare---except those involving copyrights. The U.S. seems happy to prosecute or cause to be prosecuted anybody who is electonically inconvenient to U.S. companies.
Project for the New American Century on Target (Score:5, Informative)
Next headline: US airforce surrenders to Fatal1ty (Score:5, Funny)
The US airforce today acknowledged defeat in cyberspace after being challenged by 1 individual, Johnathan Wendel, aka Fatal1ty.
The chief of staff confirmed that after hurling 20 marines at Fatal1ty, they discovered that they were not able to defeat him. Extrapolating this knowledge to the rest of the airforce, they surrendered the complete airforce to him.
There has not been any news yet from other defenses until now. The expectation of this news agency is however, that by the end of the month, the US will have a new president for live.
Note: This news agency is in no way forced to support either party because of continuing cyber attacks. We are not under attack, serious, we mean it.
Backroom noise: Aaahhh, he fragged me for the 10th time this hour. PUBLISH THE ITEM, PUBLISH THE ITEM!
Noticeably absent (Score:5, Funny)
Optimists surrender.
TAF (Score:5, Funny)
An Army Airborne recruit stands in the rain after jumping from an airplane and marching 18 miles with a 45-pound pack on his back and says with a smile, "God, this is the shit."
An Army Airborne Ranger lies in the mud after jumping from a plane into a swamp and marching 25 miles at night past the enemy with a 55-pound pack on his back and says with a grin, "God, I love this shit!"
A Green Beret kneels in the stinking mud of a swamp with a 65-pound pack on his back after jumping from an airplane into the ocean, swimming ten miles to the swamp and crawling 30 miles through the brush to assault the enemy camp and says with a passionate snarl, "God, give me some more of this shit!"
An Air Force recruit sits in an easy chair in his air-conditioned, carpeted quarters and says, "The internet connection's out? What kind of shit is this?"
Re:TAF (Score:5, Funny)
There is no doubt at all that, of all the Services, the Air Force has the most intelligent enlisted people. This is not just opinion, it's provable fact:
Take the Army, for instance. When the stuff hits the fan, the young Army private wakes up from a bellow from the First Sergeant. He grabs a set of BDUs out of his foot locker, gets dressed, runs down to the chow-hall for a breakfast on the run, then jumps in his tank. Pretty soon, the Platoon Commander arrives, gives him a big salute, and says, "Give 'em Hell, men."
Now take the Marines. When the stuff hits the fan, the young Marine recruit is kicked out of bed by his First Sergeant, puts on a muddy set of BDUs because he just got back in from the field three hours before. He gets no breakfast, but is told to feel free to chew on his boots. He runs out and forms up with his rifle. Pretty soon, his platoon commander comes out, Gives his Marines a Sharp Salute, and says, "Give 'em Hell, Marines!"
Now take the Navy. When the stuff hits the fan, the young Sailor is eating breakfast in the mess room. He walks 20 feet to his battle station, stuffing extra pastries in his pocket as he goes. There he sits, in the middle of a steel target, with nowhere to run, when the Captain comes on the 1MC and says, "Give 'em Hell, Sailors! I salute you!"
Now the Air Force. When the stuff hits the fan, the Airman receives a phone call in his off-base quarters. He gets up, showers, shaves, and puts on a fresh uniform he had just picked up from the BX cleaners the day before. He jumps in his car, and stops at McDonald's for a McMuffin on his way into work. Once he arrives at work, he signs in on the duty roster and proceeds to his F-16. He spends 30 minutes pre-flighting it, signs off the forms. Pretty soon the Pilot, a young captain, gets out and straps into the Plane. He starts the engines. Our Young Airman stands at attention, gives the Captain a sharp salute, and says, "Give 'em Hell, Sir!"
Parent
We need a new branch of the military. (Score:4, Interesting)
Each branch is going to end up having it's own "Cyberspace" division duplicating the efforts of other branches and wasting taxpayer dollars.
I just hope we don't have a cyber-civil war with the branches trying to out hack each other.
While we are at it, why not redefine the mission of the US Coast Guard to "Border Guard". Give them the resources they need to defend all our Borders.
...And what are the US's legal limitations? (Score:4, Informative)
People need to realize, there is no such thing as international "law." There certainly are things that are called international law, but it is not actually law. They are parts of treaties and agreements built between nations, and they are broken by all nations when it is in their best interest. The U.S. does it; Canada does it; Mexico does it; Japan does it; China does it; They ALL do it. There are no legal implications, unless the U.S. decides that they will allow some other nation to bring legal charges. I really don't see that happening.
Of course, that does not mean there are no other implications... like retaliation.
Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
-/What do you mean there's Internet from satellites now?! Damn!
Information Warfare (Score:4, Interesting)
The Department of Defense realizes that information warfare is a serious business. During Gulf War II we had computers constantly dialing damn near every phone number in Baghdad which overloaded their phone system and forced them to constantly bring it down and back up. The system was practically unusable. The internet has become the communications medium of choice for most everything these days and the Air Force knows this. Thus they realize that they're gonna need a strong ability to conduct warfare in cyberspace if they wish to have every possible advantage when the bullets and bombs start flying. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't understand why someone would have a problem with that. What? You're not patriotic?
Re:War? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Fight in Cyberspace? (Score:5, Funny)
In all likelyhood, yes... it is from the early 90's. You see the US government is not quick in doing anything, and especially not something as serious as coming up with a new "mission statement." You see, a committee was initiated to accomplish a new USAF mission statement in October, 1989 (beginning of the 1990 fiscal year). After a two year fact-finding period, a new mission statement was proposed without the words "sovereign" and "global interest." Strangely, there were references to the contries economy ("in defense of the nation's economy" - i'm paraphrasing).
After six years of berrating from the Department of the Treasury, this last line was taken out. At this time, the democratic party held the commander in chief position and the Air Force Secratary was forced to add a more global impact to the mission statement. Quite frankly, the only reason it wasn't released in FY99 was that it was sitting on a civil servant's desk awaiting a rubber stamp. A month ago, the Air Force had a clean-up "down day" which allowed this employee to clean their desk and find the mission statement paperwork.
Parent
Re:Fight in Cyberspace? (Score:4, Informative)
Are you sick? WW2 was for capitalism? Now you will tell me they didn't round up jews and anyone else they didn't like and kill them.
Actually, not capitalism, but resources, which ties back into economics.
Take the Pacific Front. The Japanese invaded China seeking it's manpower and natural resources. They went to war with the United States over oil and scrap metal. They invaded the Dutch East Indies seeking oil and rubber. Every acre of land they invaded can be tied directly to resources or the need to form a defensive line to protect those resources.
The European Front wasn't directly about resources -- yet it still was in a way. Hitler wasn't content to become an economic power (as Germany arguably could have). He wanted living space for his "master race". That living space was to be Russia. All the actions in the West were ironically meant to avoid a two front war (how'd that work out??) with the Western Democracies while he was seizing Russia. His mistake was to think that the Brits would fold and quit -- and to declare war on the United States (what the hell was he thinking?).
That said, there are still examples of military objectives in the West based directly around the need for resources. The drive towards Stalingrad was meant to seize the oil fields of the Caucasus. The Ukrainian campaign had living space and farmland as it's objective. Army Group Center was meant to knock out the industrial heartland of the Soviet Union. The action in Egypt was meant to close the Suez canal and eventually seize the oil of the Persian Gulf.
Parent
Re:Fight in Cyberspace? (Score:4, Informative)
The best defense is a good offense.
Also, there already was a Sino-American cyberwar. Here is just one link that you may find interesting: http://infosecuritymag.techtarget.com/2002/nov/ne
Cyberwarfare is happening in the current conflict in Iraq and Afganistan. Radical Islam groups uses internet technology to coordinate - but then again so does my mother's sewing club so thats not too surprising. Open Source Intelligence Gathering is useful against such efforts as is direct manipulation of the same technologies.
The war in Kosovo also involved a limited amount of cyberwarfare. That is easy enough to google up.
So, yeah, the US may have claimed to be interested in this in the 1990's and I know for a fact that Tiger Teams were in place at least as far back as 1989 but its definiately gotten much more sophisticated and important in 2005.
Parent
Re:The Answer.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I think it's ridiculously outside of their mission. Cyberwarfare ought to be the domain of one of the intelligence agencies, since they're basically the ones with the signals interception, encryption, and intelligence analysis capabilities already. Neither the technical capabilities nor institutional culture of the Air Force really lend themselves to this mission.
Parent
Re:The Answer.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The Answer.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither the technical capabilities nor institutional culture of the Air Force really lend themselves to this mission. Given the mega-tonnage of stratigic nuclear weapons in the Air Force invetory, the entire world hopes you are wrong about that.
Parent
Re:The Answer.... (Score:4, Informative)
Today, aircraft like the AWACS [wikipedia.org] and JSTARS [wikipedia.org] are integral to controlling theater level communication and are often used for intel gathering.
Other dedicated surveillance aircraft like the Rivet Joint [wikipedia.org] are packed full of sensory equipment to intercept, block, and manipulate wireless communication transmittions(cellular, 802.11, 900MHz).
After Vietnam, the Prowler [wikipedia.org] was repurposed for radar jamming and surveillance in support of combat operations.
In the last few American wars, the EC-130E [wikipedia.org] was used quite a bit to broadcast radio and TV content for PsycOps.
These days, it could be argued, the Air Force is used for electronic warfare more than it is as an "ordinance taxi service". Either way, this role certainly disserves mentioning in its mission statement.
Parent
Huh? What's Love Got To Do With It?! (Score:5, Insightful)
What?!? Are you just, like, making up history as you go along?
We became the world's only superpower by (1) building a giant friggin' arsenal, (2) training a ridiculously immense armed forces, and (3) developing a staggeringly robust economy to sustain both. The previous century's other superpower had (1) and (2), then fell short on (3). (I leave the debate re the efficacy of the respective economic systems to a different thread.)
Now, China teeters on superpower-dom, if it can't be classified as one already. Is that because the Chinese have labored so hard at presenting a benevolent face to the world and building up other nations' trust? Obviously not.
If you got to be a superpower by being nice, Iceland would rule the solar system. Or, at least their women would...
Parent
Re:Two questions (Score:5, Informative)
Is this to say that the Air Force will be in charge of any "cyberspace"-related activity?
No. Loads of people are reading this wrong, though it's not entirely their fault since they don't understand how the Air Force works. The best way to visualize the AF is as a gigantic (even international) company dedicated to US defense through air power. By and large, the AF does its own thing and hardly ever mingles with the other branches except to provide air support in joint-service operations.
The cyberspace that the AF will be in charge of is it's own cyberspace. On the surface it seems redundant that they'd include cyberspace in its mission statement. Of course they're going to protect their own information systems. But I think they were primarily driven to include cyberspace in the statement due to the ever-increasing numbers of attacks on Air Force information assets. Particularly those connected to the Internet.
The AF has one of the largest information systems in the world. So it's a huge target. Also, the AF is extremely reliant these days on their information technology. Every single member has an email account that they're expected to monitor and almost everyone needs a computer to access applications that they need in order to do their job.
Finally, those running this huge information network are incompetent. More often than not, they're civilian contractors with paper MCSEs who just sort of bumble along and solve problems based on trial and error rather than having actual knowledge of how things work. (Trust me, I've met a few of them and most revealed themselves as MS fanboys during casual conversation.) The enlisted members in the info admin shops are undertrained, underbugeted, and understaffed. To top it all off, the entire Air Force information system is based on high-powered expensive Microsoft solutions that are extremely fragile and just rarely work.
(As an example, our netadmins are *always* sending out notices to everyone telling them not to open emails with a particular subject line or attachment. But of course they wouldn't have to burden us, the end users, with this crap if they just filtered viruses out properly at the mail server.)
These result of all of these factors is that the Air Force is frequently on the receiving end of script kiddies, hackers, and viruses. This new missions statement indicates to me that the AF leadership have reached the unfortunate conclusion that they merely need to fight harder to protect our information assets rather than wake up and realize that they really just need to bring in some I.T. people and vendors with a clue.
Parent
ChairForce - Legal Limitations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional Geneva Conventions apply to air. There are few practical constraints here.
There are separate treaties outlawing militarization of space. How prohibitive the treaties will be in practice is yet to be seen. Regardless the US will always act to defend itself, particularly in regards to its satellite system which is today's "high ground" that facilities military dominance. Certainly the US will deploy defensive systems to protect satellites. Whether it will deploy systems designed to disable enemy satellites is uncertain, but likely.
There are no legal treaties explicitly controlling cyber wars. There may be some older international law that could be applied to this new arena. Such would be similar to the desire of some to apply the international laws allowing nations the right to attack and capture pirates to the current war on terrorism -treating terrorists as pirates. If legal scholars can see parallels here, they'll surely see them in cyber warfare.
Today many would consider carpet bombing an entire city filled with civilians in an attempt to destroy a radar tower as a practical violation of the Geneva Conventions' rule against targeting civilians because the same tower could be destroyed with other means that would not endanger a whole city of noncombatants.
Would targeting an entire ISP to take out one terrorist website be similar? If that ISP refused to take down the website, how careful does the US have to be if it chooses to electronically attack it? Can it wipe out the data on all the ISP's servers, thus affecting "noncombatant websites?" Or must it be more careful and try to affect only the enemy's website? Probably not because the collateral damage is not that serious... loss of a website, eh... he'll live.
But what if the US is at war with an entire country, how careful must it be in attacking entire networks in that country? In that case, there may be some serious considerations. Taking out a major ISP may disrupt not only government and military networks of the enemy but also hospital networks or networks that control municipal water systems, etc, etc, which would knowingly endanger civilian lives and possibly affect third party nations. In war a country must differ to saving its citizen's lives over those of the enemy when it has no other options. So, I suppose the legal limitations are such that the US has to decided, what options it has that will likely defeat/incapacitate the enemy and then choose the ones that least endanger civilians (lives and property). Maybe it will be that cruise missiles are safer to civilians than a cyber war.
Parent