Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arms race cold war
Short essay on arms race
All about arms race essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arms race cold war
The branches of the military, for a couple generations, have always been the Army, Navy, Air force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard; however, in an ever evolving digital world, the notion that outer space would be the next military front is being rapidly replaced by the idea that cyber space will be the next arms race. The United States has been defending attacks on their infrastructure day after day, night after night, when one hacker on one side of the world sleeps, another takes their place to attempt to compromise the US government. The motives may range from a political ‘hacktivist’ trying to prove a point, to an economic spy, trying to gain a competitive edge on its more upstart rivals, to an attempt to control the United States ‘smart’ power grid, giving a nation an advantage in case of an external armed conflict. With all of those types of conflicts going on at the same time, relentlessly, and growing more complex every day, the United States has to step up its game in order to survive, and the government is planning its cyber strategy accordingly. In November 16, 2011, according to an unclassified cyber-security bulletin, the United States government for the first time ever will allow offensive cyber retaliation, something that china has been doing for years; the retaliation order from the United States, however must include an approval by the president (Parnell). The United States government said they are now working on the cyber rules of engagement for this new battle “Domain” as they called it. Governments around the world are gearing up for it, but the definition of cyber warfare is a little bit hazy. Richard A. Clarke defines it in 2011 in his book Cyber War as "actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation...
... middle of paper ...
...-war saviors. Retrieved from www.theregister.co.uk: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/29/bruce_schneier_cyber_war_hype/
Staff, C. W. (n.d.). 19-year-old arrested over Sony hack, London police say. Retrieved from CNN: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-21/world/uk.sony.hack.arrest_1_sony-pictures-denial-of-service-attacks-website?_s=PM:WORLD
Strohm, C. (n.d.). Companies Urged to Share Cyberthreats With U.S. Under Bill. Retrieved from Bloomberg: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-01/companies-urged-to-share-cyberthreats-with-u-s-under-bill.html
William J. Broad, J. M. (n.d.). Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?pagewanted=all
www.alexa.com/telegraph.co.uk#. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.alexa.com: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/telegraph.co.uk#
Hellman, Martin. "Nuclear Attack a Ticking Time Bomb, Experts Warn." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. .
According to a recent article by Scott Shane, “The U.S. is pushing to make sure that cyber programs comply with international law and international standards.” This quote shows that the government wants to make sure that cyber programs protect the citizens to the same degree as other international laws. The government wants cyber programs to have the same standards as international law and international standards to give citizens the sense of security that they are being protected. According to a recent article by David Francis “...Congress retroactively immunized the nation’s telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein’s claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court.” This quote means that telecom giants such as Verizon and AT&T participated in Domestic Surveillance in order to help protect citizens. Telecom giants play a role in giving US citizens a sense of security by helping the National Security Agency. Others may believe that the tracking of our phone calls does not give US citizens a sense of security; however, according to a recent article by Marshall Honorof, “Counterterrorism is not the only function of the NSA's widespread surveillance. Although it cannot report exact numbers, Lewis theorizes that the data-mining has allowed the NSA to put a stop to a number of international espionage plots.”
At this juncture, it may be somewhat difficult to accept the proposition that a threat to the telecommunications grid, both wired and wireless, in the United States could potentially be subject to a catastrophic cyber attack. After careful research on the subject, it appears the potentiality of an event of such magnitude, which either disrupts one or the other grids for a long period or destroys either, is both theoretically and realistically impossible. It may be that proponents—those who advance such theories—equate such “doomsday” scenarios as if a cyber attack would or could be of the same magnitude as a conventional or nuclear military strike. Terms such as “cyber Pearl Harbor,” “cyber 9/11” and “cyber Vietnam” have been used to describes potential catastrophic cyber attacks and yet, “Though many have posited notions on what a ‘real’ cyber war would be like, we lack the understanding of how such conflicts will be conducted and evolve.” (Rattray & Healey, 2010, p. 77). Yet, the U.S. government continues to focus on such events, as if the plausibility of small-scale cyber attacks were not as pressing.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
The Joint Force of tomorrow must be capable of defending against rapidly developing and highly lethal security trends of unprecedented scale. Chief among these trends are cyber integration, diffusion of power, and proliferation of lethal technology, which collectively will challenge our force development significantly. Unfortunately, these threats come at a time of unprecedented fiscal austerity requiring extreme measures to restore economic wellbeing. Joint Force 2025 must effectively embrace technology and capitalize on global integration to defeat emerging threats while contracting to abide within mandated budget reductions.
President Obama has realized the seriousness of the upcoming threats and turned the government focus more toward defending the information and communications infrastructure and In May 2009, he issued a request from top to bottom review of the current situation. The report titled the Cyberspace Policy Review includes strategy, policy, and standards regarding the security of and operations in cyberspace. According the white house’s cybersecurity foreign policy, the Cyberspace Policy Review highlighted two objectives and ten near-term actions to support the cybersecurity strategy.
The United States presently is facing many situations that can be paralleled to the days of the Cold War, when U.S military leaders were met with new and frightening challenges from the Soviet Union. The U.S step up its effort to meet this national strategy issue. Due to the fall of the Soviet Union, America had enter into a peaceful stage were their power was unmatched and threats to its national security had not come into reality. Unfortunately in the 21st century the U.S has been met with a more dangerous era, as the United States now is confronted by various tough challenges that have the potential to grow even more threatening with years to come. The start of the 21st century the U.S was attack on 9/11, and that followed
As a patriot of this great nation, what has been presented is of extreme if not grave concern. The challenges of cyberculture to our nation’s security have been revealed . To what extent our security has been breached is a matter of speculation but be informed that these breaches must be met with complete counter active success - failure to do so is not an option.
This Branch is basically the “new kids on the block”. The Commanders intent is to have about five thousand to six thousand soldiers in the Cyber branch. The writer has not found any current accurate number of soldiers in the Cyber Branch, however, it has been observed in all the articles, that Cyber Branch need more soldiers. One major reason is the lack of people in the United State with this skill-set. This problem is not just affecting the Army. Private sectors also having a harder time finding people in the United State to do these jobs. The U.S. government needs to met this growing cyber threat head on. One way the Cyber Branch may do this is by developing programs to enhance our soldier’s skills for cyber
Cybersecurity is a government institution implemented by Homeland Security. According to the website for Homeland Security, cybersecurity is operated by a team of skilled professionals who will recognize cyber vulnerability and respond as quickly as possible. The security was mainly built for United States defense reasons, but lately has also dealt with issues within the country. Of course its main purpose is to protect the United States and it will continue to do that. It just recently has taken steps to advance to national security as well as personal security. In 2010 the cybersecurity act that was passed was intended to integrate the private and public sector of cybersecurity for optimal use. Hacking int...
Gorman, Siobhan. "China Singled Out for Cyberspying." The Wall Street Journal 4 Nov. 2011. Print. (Source E)
Society has become ever-increasingly dependent upon technology, more specifically, computers to conduct personal and business transactions and communications. Consequently, criminals have targeted these systems to conduct information and cyber warfare, which can include politically motivated attacks and to profit through ill-gotten means. In an article written by Koblentz and Mazanec (2013), cyber warfare is the act of disabling an enemy’s ability to use or obtain information, degrading its ability to make decisions, and to command its military forces. Additionally, information warfare is composed of cyber warfare and related to the protection, disruption, destruction, denial, or manipulation of information in order to gain a benefit through the technologies (Taddeo, 2012). Accordingly, as technology becomes readily available to various entities, the ability to conduct or perform warfare through technological means is multiplying.
In recent years, many possible plans to enact government regulation to improve cybersecurity have been suggested. Most recently, in 2017, then U.S. president Barack Obama implemented the Cybersecurity National Action Plan (CNAP). The plan would have invested $19 billion in cybersecurity by gathering experts to make recommendations in regards to cyber security, help secure the government IT group, and encourage more advanced security measures (Daniel 1). However, while CNAP does present a way to solve the problem, it just adds another program that attempts to enhance cybersecurity: “It is the multiplicity of programs and division of responsibility that diminishes their effectiveness. At least eleven federal agencies bear significant responsibility for cybersecurity” (Cohen 1). Every so often, another cybersecurity program will be established, but former plans are seldom removed. This leads to a large amount of departments to share responsibility, which creates general confusion and limits each department’s power. Furthermore, widespread government regulation may weaken cybersecurity. Many fear that any regulation would not be flexible enough and would instead allow easier hacking (Ridge 3). If every system in the entire nation had the same security measures, it would be much easier to break into as by breaking into one system, a hacker a could break into everything.
The nation has become dependent on technology, furthermore, cyberspace. It’s encompassed in everything we deliver in our daily lives, our phones, internet, communication, purchases, entertainment, flying airplane, launching missiles, operating nuclear plants, and implicitly, our protection. The more ever-growing technology empower Americans, the more they become prey to cyber threats. The United States Executive Office of the President stated, “The President identified cybersecurity as one of the top priorities of his administration in doing so, directed a 60-day review to assess polices.” (United States Executive Office of the President, 2009, p.2). Furthermore, critical infrastructure, our network, and internet alike are identified as national assets upon which the administration will orchestrate integrated cybersecurity policies without infringing upon and protecting privacy. While protecting our infrastructure, personal privacy, and civil liberties, we have to keep in mind the private sector owns and operates the majority of our critical and digital infrastructure.
Many countries have already embraced the power of cyber space. “In Japan, a new strategy has been put forward that includes the use of cyber space in defense policy and military doctrine” (Olender 1). The strange thing about cyber warfare is that the larger and more advanced countries are the countries that are most at risk. Those countries, such as the United States, have become so dependent on technology that if they were attacked, they would have the most to lose. Works Cited Crowther, G. Alexander, and Shaheen Ghori.