Prev: Re: [fh] nac vexilliology was Re: Awards and Anthems(andnowsomebackground) [OT] [HIST] Next: [DSII] [Tech] Battlefield Awareness (Was: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers)

Re: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:48:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers

>>Destroying a nation's economy is like declaring a nuke war - you gotta
>>really sure you are going to win, 'cause it's total war from then on.
>You have a point, although killing people and destroying an economy are
>different morale levels. You can maintain a morale high ground if all
you do
>is destroy and economy (this is done regularly with sanctions). I think
>economy destruction can be scaled easier. You can hurt a nation in nice
>billion dollar chunks until they give in. You can also maintain
>deniability. "I'm sorry that illegal hackers in our country are causing
>such problems. Believe me, once we find them they are SOOOO in

The problem with trying to maintain a select damage approach to hurting
someone else's economy is that with a "modern" industrial economy, there
so much interconnectedness that it is difficult/impossible to forsee
one small action's overall effects will be - (the butterfly flaps it's
wings in China, and you get a tornado in Kansas...).  Look what happened
recently in the US and Canada when ONE General Motors plant went on
 A couple of thousand striking workers, but the plant made a part used
just about all GM vehicles.  It ended up practically bringing all of GM
a halt - that's several hundred thousand workers.  There were thousands
layoffs here in Canada, etc etc.  That strike had a noticible effect on
productiveness of the US economy for the year - ONE small strike. 
to take a limited poke at the other guy's economy would be REALLY
- at least to control exactly.	Sanctions are usually very specific, and
imposed on economies that are not as complex as say, Germany or Japan or
the US.  If the 22nd Century powers started this kind of "warfare", it
might have MUCH bigger effects than anyone would realize - that's why I
looking at it as a "general war" type scenario.  A "limited" economic
attack would be like "limited" nuclear conflict - only using tactical
on the battlefield...  They aren't THAT destructive, but the
effects or their use would be enormous.  Can you imagine what the US
have done if the Iraqis had driven one of those missing Soviet tac-nukes
(they've lost hundreds - we have a friend who plays SG2 with us at
conventions who is part of the US Special Forces;  he's a NBC
and is one of the people who goes after things like anthrax bombs mailed
the President and missing Russian nukes - interesting stories!) into
and set it off...  Bagdad would be a smoking glassy hole in the desert.

Attacking an economy like that is an extremely personal way of making
war -
if you collapse a bank by mistake, all the thousands of customers will
become ardent supporters of bombing you into the stoneage if somebody
out how it was done.  The economy affects individual people personally -
not like blowing up a ship or base or tank.  Sure, individuals will be
affected (the crews if wounded or dead, obviously, and their families,
friends, etc) but for most "average" people it is still one of those
that happens somewhere else, to somebody else...

Just a thought.


Prev: Re: [fh] nac vexilliology was Re: Awards and Anthems(andnowsomebackground) [OT] [HIST] Next: [DSII] [Tech] Battlefield Awareness (Was: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers)