Cyber Security DoD

Pentagon Bans External Flash Drives, (Washington Times)…Unattributed, Nov 22, 2008

The Pentagon has banned, at least temporarily, the use of external computer flash drives because of a virus threat detected on Defense Department networks.

Although defense officials would not publicly confirm the ban, messages were sent to department employees informing them of the new restrictions. As part of the ban, the Pentagon was collecting any of the small flash drives that were purchased or provided by the department to workers, according to a message distributed to employees.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would provide no details on the virus Friday, but he described it as a “global virus” that has been the subject of public alerts.

The Pentagon has acknowledged that its vast computer network is scanned or probed by outsiders millions of times each day. Military leaders have consistently warned of potential threats from a variety of sources including countries such as China, terrorists and self-styled cybervigilantes.

Afghanistan: Adaptibility

One Surge Does Not Fit All, (New York Times)…Donald H. Rumsfeld

THE surge in Iraq has been one of the most impressive military accomplishments in recent years. It has been so successful that the emerging consensus is that what may now be needed in Afghanistan is a similar surge of American forces.

In a few weeks, the new commander in chief, Barack Obama, will assume the responsibility of leading a nation at a time of war. Time and flexibility are the two constants of military success. In a struggle with an adaptable, thinking enemy, there is no single template for success. More is not always better. One size does not fit all.

The singular trait of the American way of war is the remarkable ability of our military to advance, absorb setbacks, adapt and ultimately triumph based upon the unique circumstances of a given campaign. Thus it has been throughout our history. And thus it will be in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we have the patience and wisdom to learn from our successes, and if our leaders have the wherewithal to persevere even when it is not popular to do so.

Donald H. Rumsfeld was the secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006.

Anti Sniper Technology

Soldiers In Iraq And Afghanistan To Get Life Saving Anti-Sniper Device, (London Daily Telegraph)…Richard Alleyne, Nov 22, 2008.

British and American forces fighting the guerilla insurgence in Iraq and Afghanistan could soon be protected by an anti-sniper device that can pinpoint the position of the shooter within a fraction of a second.

The palm-sized device designed by Qinetiq, the British defence firm that was once the government research laboratories, is pinned to the uniform and uses acoustic technology to calculate the exact position of the rifle fire.

Global Trends 2025 – Report

POST: Disappointing NIC report, Thomas P.M. Barnett on November 22, 2008

ARTICLE: US global dominance ‘set to wane’, BBC, 21 November 2008

REPORT: GLOBAL TRENDS 2025: THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL’S 2025 PROJECT, NIC, November 2008

Disappointing to see the NIC default to resource wars as a generalized bit of futures fear-mongering. It’s just so unimaginative and reflects the NIC talking to a lot of stale academics who trot out their analogies to 19th-century colonialism and balance-of-power politics while completely discounting the profound economic–and especially financial–interdependence (the latter currently on display big time).

Not very helpful in terms of preparing people for the real dynamics ahead.

Natl Security Policy – Realists

Scowcroft Proteges On Obama’s Radar, (Wall Street Journal)…Yochi J. Dreazen and Siobhan Gorman, Nov 24, 2008.

Many of the Republicans emerging as potential members of the Obama administration have professional and ideological ties to Brent Scowcroft, a former national-security adviser turned public critic of the Bush White House.

Mr. Scowcroft’s re-emergence caps a tumultuous few years for the 83-year-old former Air Force general. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Mr. Scowcroft wrote an opinion column in The Wall Street Journal arguing against an invasion and warning that it would “seriously jeopardize, if not destroy” the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. In speeches and interviews, he regularly criticized both the decision to invade Iraq and the Bush team’s handling of the war effort.

The White House responded by removing Mr. Scowcroft from his position as chairman of a foreign intelligence advisory board. Defenders of the Bush policy say the president has planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East and preserved strong ties with Israel, which had a tense relationship with the elder President Bush when Mr. Scowcroft was national-security adviser.

EMP Threat

What A Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do, (Wall Street Journal)…Brian T. Kennedy, November 24, 2008
Pg. 19

Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

The EMP Threat , Wall Street Journal, August 9, 2008 , Pg. 10

Imagine you’re a terrorist with a single nuclear weapon. You could wipe out the U.S. city of your choice, or you could decide to destroy the infrastructure of the entire U.S. economy and leave millions of Americans to die of starvation or want of medical care.

The latter scenario is the one envisioned by a long-running commission to assess the threat from electromagnetic pulse, or EMP. The subject of its latest, and little discussed, report to Congress is the effect an EMP attack could have on civilian infrastructure. If you’re prone to nightmares, don’t read it before bedtime.

An EMP attack occurs when a nuclear bomb explodes high in the Earth’s atmosphere. The electromagnetic pulse generated by the blast destroys all the electronics in its line of sight. For a bomb detonated over the Midwest, that includes most of the continental U.S. Few, if any, people die in the blast. It’s what comes next that has the potential to be catastrophic. Since an EMP surge wipes out electronics, virtually every aspect of modern American life would come to a standstill.

The commission’s list of horribles is 181 pages long. The chapter on food, for instance, catalogs the disruptions up and down the production chain as food spoils or has no way to get to market. Many families have food supplies of several days or more. But after that, and without refrigeration, what? The U.S. also has 75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 drinking water-treatment facilities, and 19,000 wastewater treatment centers — all with pumps, valves and filters run by electricity.

Getting everything up and running again is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, and the commission estimates that many systems could be out of service for months or a year or more — far longer than emergency stockpiles or batteries could cover. The large transformers used in electrical transmission are no longer built in the U.S. and delivery time is typically three years. “Lack of high voltage equipment manufacturing capacity represents a glaring weakness in our survival and recovery,” the commission notes.

Many industries rely on automated control systems maintained by small work forces. In emergencies — say, during a blackout — companies often have arrangements in place to borrow workers from outside the affected area to augment the locals and help with manual repairs. After an EMP attack, those workers would be busy in their home regions — or foraging for food and water for their families.

The commission offers extensive recommendations for how industry and government can protect against the effects of an EMP attack and ensure a quicker recovery. They include “hardening” more equipment to withstand an electromagnetic pulse; making sure replacement equipment is on hand; training recovery personnel; increasing federal food stockpiles; and many others.

If not, our vulnerability “can both invite and reward attack,” the commission’s chairman, William Graham, told Congress last month. Iran’s military writings “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States,” he said. James Shinn, an assistant secretary of defense, has said that China is developing EMP weapons. The commission calls an EMP attack “one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences.” The threat is real. It’s past time to address it.