Comments on: Cyber Command Strategic Vision Released

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:17:22 +0000

By: ccna

ccna — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:02:49 +0000

I’m waiting for your other article!

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:55:53 +0000

Why leave FBI and CIA out of this? Don’t they deserve a piece of the pie?

By: saul

saul — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:03:27 +0000

Well,someones using mine right now and then!Even
futuristically,through clock setters etc…Articles,imperatives are giving you away!

By: Martin Hirsch

Martin Hirsch — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:18:59 +0000

In thinking about it for a moment I think the best approach would be to form a new separate organization, one that specializes in these matters.
The compound of man’s intelligence continues to expand, and with the aid of computers, the speed and complexity of intelligence has surpassed the capability of any group of humans to manage by themselves.
Today, we can define the structure and the design of such needed systems, and then let our machines handle the volume and the complexities. But as machine intelligence continues to evolve, eventually, the structure and the design will be handed over to the machines as well.
In the end all we’ll need to do is just state the objective and our machines will simply do it. Either that or the machines will tell us exactly what we need to do to make it so — if the objective is in fact possible, that is.
It’ll be an interesting journey, and I get the feeling that if our computers could really speak their mind to us today, they’d be complaining constantly about how stupid and unreliable we humans are. And yea, I’m serious.

By: Chi Chu

Chi Chu — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:59 +0000

All the services should have their own cyber units.But the command should be headed by the NSA
and the only NSA Agencies.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:25:01 +0000

Given that many of the assets to be protected are civilian — commercial secrets, server farms under denial of service attack, power plants etc — presumably a big factor in cyberwar will be actively encouraging net security in general.
So how much effort is cybercommand putting into encouraging this self defence effort from potential targets? It is after all a question of encouraging behavior that is sensible commercial practice anyway.
As to whether the airforce is the obvious organisation to run this, well that’s a question of logic, empire building, and how important this type of combat becomes. Not many people thought aircraft would be important enough to rate a seperate arm originally either. Time will tell.

By: Prakash Narayan Soni

Prakash Narayan Soni — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:25:35 +0000

Serv to Country.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:54:46 +0000

Monkey wants my burger.Monkey wants my burger!!!!!

By: Smitten Eagle

Smitten Eagle — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:47:11 +0000

I’m not convinced any of the services are a good choice for leading this cyber command. It seems to me that we need to develop a mindset of a warrior-hacker–someone who can take a commander’s intent and with the trust of his peers and superiors (all of whom are networked, yet independently working towards the same objectives), manage to hack, disrupt, destory, and exploit enemy electronic networks.
Which service has the dynamics required for such a force? I don’t think any of them does. Perhaps the best model would be the Special Operations Executive of the UK (WWII), or the OSS.
The important things here are mindset and freedom from bureaucracy. Technology is important, but hell, even the Air Force flies stealth bombers with 20-year-old technology. The technology for such a cyber force would probalby be commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) anyways, in order to keep abreast of the latest technological developments in the private sector.
My advice would be to either stand up a seperate service, or, at a minimum, establish a Unified Command with some Title X powers to train-and-equip (like SOCOM).