The US cyber war effort

In a move to combat seemingly growing numbers of cyber attacks, the United States Air Force is to open the first cyber warfare command centre at Fort Meade, Maryland.

The US military operates a vast network of computers, and they say the only way to prevent cyber threats is to strike first.

As quoted, "the Pentagon has developed systems that monitor foreign communications to detect intrusions even before they reach American networks".

So this new facility is to be used not only for the defence of American networks, but also for offence.

Dr Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St Mary's University School of Law, is quoted as saying "The concept of pre-emption is a long-recognised right of the state to use force against another state if it believes an illegal attack is imminent."

That's right - it may soon come to pass that they'll (figuratively) shoot you if they even think you may be trying (or even planning) to shoot them.

It's a move which may be seen as necessary following the Google hacking attack and growing speculation that US infrastructure is a target for terrorism.

Lieutenant General William Shelton, the US Air Force's chief information officer, outlined this sentiment in 2009:

"The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and, just recently, the US national grid," he said.

"If that is determined to be an organised attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks."

But, as Shelton also noted, it raises some important questions.

"The only problem is that the internet - by its very nature - has no borders and if the US takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."

As cited on Wikipedia, a part of the department's mission statement is to "ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."

Is it possible that a dangerous power will be unleashed here? A Nato-backed giant armed with significant hacking and monitoring technology, thousands of staff and the mindset to strike first and ask questions later?

They call it the Department of Defence - but you know what they say: the best defence is a good offence.

The man in command, Lt. General Keith Alexander, has tried to downplay suggestions that the facility will be used for offensive purposes.

"This is not about the intent to militarise cyber-space," he said.

"My main focus is on building the capacity to secure the military's operational networks."

However, some have suggested that this new offensive ability is too far ahead of current US doctrine, and lacks definition.

Senator Carl Levin suggested that "The policy gap is concerning because cyberweapons are approaching weapons of mass destruction in their effect."

Another considerable danger may lie in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is adhered to by Nato member countries:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking ... action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So far, Article 5 has been invoked just once, following September 11, which has led to a nine-year war with thousands of casualties on both sides.

Could a cyber attack prompt a military strike with Article 5 as justification? The lines are blurry.

The problem with identifying cyber threats before they happen is that their existence can be difficult to prove - or disprove.

Nato member Estonia struggled with cyber security problems in 2007. It accused Russia of being behind the various attacks but had no concrete proof.

This was the first real test of whether a cyber attack constituted an opportunity to invoke the all-powerful Article 5 - and it didn't quite do it.

However, if those attacks had been a little more powerful, a little more successful and managed to take out some infrastructure like electricity, and perhaps led to a few deaths (in hospitals, life support etc), it might have been different.

The formation of this new cyber command centre may show America is preparing itself to respond in kind to cyber attacks, rather than with military might, but there is also a hazy line between cyber and conventional attacks.

The Albright Group, a global strategy firm, issued a report (PDF) and recommendations to Nato in May 2010 titled Nato 2010, which suggested:

"The next significant attack on the Alliance may well come down a fibre-optic cable."

They also recommended that NATO leaders be given the authority to respond "in an emergency situation such as a missile or cyber attack".

We still don't know whether that response would consist of a counter-attack in cyberspace or an all-out bombing of a suspected source, although international law says that counter-attacks should be proportional (of the same severity) to the attack and discriminate (accurately targeted).

None of these 21st-century issues were considered when the Nato code was created in the 1940s and it hasn't been tested.

Scary stuff, right?

» Join Connector on Facebook, Twitter @lukeappleby or Email Luke at connectornz@gmail.com

» If you like this blog, vote for it in the NetGuide People's Choice Web Awards! Go here to cast your vote for it as Best Blog. Voting closes on July 30.