Former Head of DHS Calls for Cyber War Rules

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]sounds more like an oxymoron to me.[/citation]
That's because you didn't bother to think on the subject. Just read my prior comments. To simplify it even more for you: rules determine just how HARD the US would come down on that hacker.

Coincidentally, we've had no nuclear war for quite some time, and it's not for lack of nukes. Guess rules do something after all!

[citation][nom]mrmotion[/nom]78% of all statics are made up on the spot. Who cares if its only 10%? That 10% will be the most populated and important spots in the world. Not only that but that same 10% will create enough fall out to take out another 50%(yeah i pulled this number out of my ass too) of land mass.[/citation]
Actually, if you pay attention to what I write around here, you'd know I do NOT make up any statistics; I never have the need to when I'm fully capable of acquiring real, truthful, correct, and factual ones. If I made a statement of a statistic, it's because I did the research and math beforehand, so I resent your utterly baseless acusation. Let's just take the following, real statistics:

- The average yield of the world's nuclear bombs at any point was generally UNDER 1 megaton, since most nukes are/were "tactical" ones, as small as the 20-ton Davy Crockett Nuclear Rifle.
- A 1 megaton bomb has a blast radius of approximately 5 miles/8 kilometers. This gives is a blast area of 201 km². (3.141592 x 8²)
- At their peak, the USA had 31,700 warheads in 1966, the USSR 40,723 in 1986, for 72,423 total. Note that these were far different years; the highest worldwide (INCLUDING Britain, France, and China) peaked at only 65,056 in 1986.
- Using the larger figure anyway, we get a total potential blast area of 14,557,023 km² (201 x 72,423) for all bombs combined. Earth has 148,940,000 km² of land, 510,072,000 km² of total surface. So that's 9.8% of the land area, or 2.9% of the total surface. (4% was a typo; I meant to round it to 3%)

Note that the above figure merely totals the amount of land that'd be touched by ONE bomb, and said radius is gonna contain a lot of survivors, since the edge is where the 50/50 death rate will occur. Even at a linear slope, that'd suggest only a 75% kill rate. In reality, it'd be a steep drop-off, and would likely kill far fewer; estimates place the Little Boy's kill rate on Hiroshima at 25-50%.

And obviously, the effects of fallout are vastly overstated; with a conventional air-burst weapon, the amount of surface destruction is maximized, but there isn't much long-lived radiation. The typical fallout will cut down by 90% after 7 hours, and then divide by 10 every 7-fold increase in time after that; a total of two weeks after the bombing the radiation levels would reach 1/1000th, a tiny fraction of the original. This lack of widespread fallout deaths is evidenced by the distinct lack of large numbers of nuclear casualties in the areas OUTSIDE of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the fact that both cities are well and thriving today.

And even in the USA alone, there are some 19,429 cities, towns, and other municipalities. With very few exceptions, you're going to need at least one bomb per. And of course, larger cities will need more than one; Jacksonville, FL, for instance, will need at least 10.

So even assuming 20,000 bombs or so wipe out all cities in the USA (or even all of the USA!) you've... Used up 27.6% of all those bombs to affect 62% of the USA's population. With the USA having 310.5/6,872.2 million of the world's people, or 4.52%, that means you've merely AFFECTED ~2.8% of the world's people. Again, working back and assuming you could always target cities like this, this means the entire stockpile would be able to affect 10.1% of the world's people. And of course, once you factor in that there will be survivors, that means only 2.5-7.5% of the world's population. So that's indeed a lot; comparable to the death rate of WW2, where ~55 million out of 2,300 million died, or 2.4% of the world's population. That's severe, but hardly a "wipe out the civilization" scenario.

Now let it be known I certainly don't make up statistics on the spot.

 

[chickenhoagie]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]That's because you didn't bother to think on the subject. Just read my prior comments. To simplify it even more for you: rules determine just how HARD the US would come down on that hacker.Coincidentally, we've had no nuclear war for quite some time, and it's not for lack of nukes. Guess rules do something after all![/citation]

uhmm sir..do you really think that if a country wanted to take over the world, and they had all manpower to do it even if it meant breaking the rules, that they would care about rules at all? Do you understand what the phrase "total war" means? do some research on it. When it comes to war, there are no rules, because you and the enemy both know that someone is going to die no matter what, and will do absolutely anything in their desperate will to stay alive.

and besides, if you knew anything about the Cold War, you would understand that nuclear war was prevented because both sides knew that the ending result would kill not only both of themselves, but most of the world.

 

[eddieroolz]

It would be nice if people followed rules, but being the pessimist I am, I am highly doubtful that rogue hackers and nations would follow rules.

 

[tommysch]

Find who is behind the attack and retaliate with kinetic weapons.

 

[Mikez]

Hey! That picture is from War Games!!

 

[kingssman]

there's a secret war going on, its all around us daily, battles, skirmishes, victors and victims.. Its a cyber war....... waged on the internets through series of tubes.

 

[dustcrusher]

[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]uhmm sir..do you really think that if a country wanted to take over the world, and they had all manpower to do it even if it meant breaking the rules, that they would care about rules at all? Do you understand what the phrase "total war" means? do some research on it. When it comes to war, there are no rules, because you and the enemy both know that someone is going to die no matter what, and will do absolutely anything in their desperate will to stay alive.[/citation]

I like Warhammer 40,000 too, but this is real life.

Reread what ryan156, nottheking, and mediv42's posts- they've spelled it out nicely.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]uhmm sir..do you really think that if a country wanted to take over the world, and they had all manpower to do it even if it meant breaking the rules, that they would care about rules at all? Do you understand what the phrase "total war" means? do some research on it.[/citation]
Yes, I understand what "total war" means. $100 says I've done far more research on the concepts of total warfare than you'll ever do.

The problem is that no nation has ever had a monopoly on all military material. Even those that became a dominant superpower discovered that they could get too easily bogged down and be weakened and destroyed. Napoleon was defeated after he tried to invade Russia; the USSR collapsed not long after a disastrous invasion of Afghanistan.

Overwhelming power simply cannot happen; sure, the USA accounts for almost 50% of the world's armed forces expenditures, but that's mostly because so many smaller countries don't have to spend as much money as things are cheaper there.

In spite of a technological and disciplinary advantage, the USA still has only about 20% of the world's active combat aircraft, perhaps 30-40% of the world's active warfleet tonnage, with only ~18% of the world's tanks, and less than 7% of the world's ACTIVE troops. (include reserves and national guards, and the number dips to a mere 2.8%) We've already seen how draining it can be to simply operate two occupational wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) simultaneously. Needless to say, even for a country with the military prowess of the USA, simultaneously fighting all the other countries in the world is not a well-advised plan.

So, in spite of how much you might think that "no one will stop the invincible army," the truth is, there is no such thing; countless powerful commanders and emperors and dictators learned this lesson the hard way. Hence, rules are made.

[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]and besides, if you knew anything about the Cold War, you would understand that nuclear war was prevented because both sides knew that the ending result would kill not only both of themselves, but most of the world.[/citation]
Of course I know something about the Cold War. Another $100 says I've studied the Cold War far more than you ever will. Could you even name the seven leaders the USSR had? Or even the US Presidents during that period, without consulting Wikipedia?

A "nuclear holocaust" was avoided in part to a bunch of factors. Among them were rules... Rules don't gaurantee that no one won't break them; on the contrary, they gaurantee SOMEONE will break them. However, they will lay out what to expect. In this case, Mutual Assured Destruction WAS an example of a 'rule'. The USA promised to retaliate with any nuclear attack on it or its allies with an overwhelming counterattack. Meanwhile, the USSR promised to pre-empt any nuclear strike with a strong first-strike.

Because these were rules that were set out, both parties could rest with less unease, aware that a rain of nukes would only come if they did the wrong thing.

Also, as I outlined above, a nuclear exchange, even a theoretical ones involving more strategic nukes than ever existed at any one point, would hardly wipe out the world; it'd be more comparable to the devastation wrought by World War 2, and that's only assuming all the bombs hit cities right on... (Soviet rockets had a nasty habit of blowing up on the launchpad, though...)