No, in my opinion, we need to start working so that wars don't even make sense. A concept of the distant past. A future in which our descendants don't even know what wars are. In my vision there are no legitimate reasons for wars to exist at all. Of course this concept will sound alien and completely nuts for the majority, who are still in the fear based mindset; But then you can ask: So how do we protect ourselves from those that are attacking us ? The day we can answer this question without violence in the mindset is the day we evolve as humanity;
NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
61–70 of 214 posts
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite a scary one, drone swarms that outmatch humans by a huge degree might cause the losing side to surrender before a human life is lost, but they could also massacre the losing sides, satellites and communications of all sides are also likely go, then of course there's still nuclear armageddon
I'm not convinced that nuclear weapons will be fired en-mass in anger as it means total annihilation for everyone whether involved directly or not. Imagine China fired all her nukes at the US and the US retaliated while the Chinese ones were in the air... there would be nothing left of either country within a couple of hours (or however long it takes to reach across the globe). Anything left would be uninhabitable fo…
1: MAD doesn't really work anymore because of the advent of hypersonic cruise missiles and the likes of russia's Burevestnik/Skyfall. There's probably not going to be a 1980s scenario of two sides launching all out against each other and having a few minutes to contemplate the end.
2: Tactical (not strategic) nuclear weapons are very likely to be used on the battlefield in the next major conflict involving the superpowers. The most plausible pathway to a nuclear armageddon is if the number and yield of these tactical weapons keeps escalating until one side finally has enough and launches a strategic strike.
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why Trump gets slammed by the media for talking to Kim Yong and walking back on Iran, or even trying to set up meetings with Taliban this month. Just because he's negociating doesn't mean negociating in itself is wrong, so I find that peculiar.
Its very telling of our inability to attribute positives to someone who holds an alternative political ideology. We need to be able to compliment one another somehow if we are ever to bridge the ever increasing gap between political parties.
I think that's a reasonable goal. Of course the current president seems very content to rip up initiatives of the previous president simply because he was the previous president - see the Iran deal, for example.
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#64No, in my opinion, we need to start working so that wars don't even make sense. A concept of the distant past. A future in which our descendants don't even know what wars are. In my vision there are no legitimate reasons for wars to exist at all. Of course this concept will sound alien and completely nuts for the majority, who are still in the fear based mindset; But then you can ask: So how do we protect ourselves f…
Because that turned out so well when we tried it 100 years ago. Instead, we got WW2, the most destructive war in history in absolute terms.
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#65That states like China and Russia can recruit the best cybersecurity talent in their respective countries, and force them to work for the government, while the United States can't, is a problem. If I were the president, I would focus on talent recruitment and retention. Google is paying its top cyberstaff 700k? Offer them 1M. Also get rid of archaic hiring practices like drug tests, and streamline the process to obta…
Well, NSA used to have the best and brightest until Snowden. Now NSA can't get the best and brightest because they are conscientious objectors.
Any source for that claim? I'd expect salary and drug testing to be the two biggest factors dissuading top engineers from applying to the NSA.
Personally, I'd find working for the NSA to be much more interesting than what I'm doing currently, but I just can't justify taking a 50% salary hit to work there.
If I were the president, I'd think about opening a sixth military academy specifically focused on Cyber warfare. You could then require graduates to work for the military/NSA for five years after graduation, and you'd only need to throw insane money at fifty or so professors.
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you’re on top, everyone else is going to try to take you down. And make no mistake, we’re still very much on top.
Not to mention that, if we're not the world police, then someone else will be, so we may as well be, since we're the best suited for the job.
"World police" sounds nice, but the US military is what it is: the military force of a country, ensuring that countries interests, and little else.
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#67That states like China and Russia can recruit the best cybersecurity talent in their respective countries, and force them to work for the government, while the United States can't, is a problem. If I were the president, I would focus on talent recruitment and retention. Google is paying its top cyberstaff 700k? Offer them 1M. Also get rid of archaic hiring practices like drug tests, and streamline the process to obta…
Well, NSA used to have the best and brightest until Snowden. Now NSA can't get the best and brightest because they are conscientious objectors.
This isn't a technical issue, but I think that it's important: working for the government comes with less pay, but there was always the idea that you were putting in effort for the benefit of the country. In my opinion the NSA has squandered that and they have somehow ended up in the same category as Palantir and Facebook.
I'm not sure how they can fix this, but I do think it will need to be addressed if they want to hire and retain top talent. They have interesting problems but no one will work on them if they feel they are, in the end, hurting their fellow country-people.
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#68No, in my opinion, we need to start working so that wars don't even make sense. A concept of the distant past. A future in which our descendants don't even know what wars are. In my vision there are no legitimate reasons for wars to exist at all. Of course this concept will sound alien and completely nuts for the majority, who are still in the fear based mindset; But then you can ask: So how do we protect ourselves f…
Because that turned out so well when we tried it 100 years ago. Instead, we got WW2, the most destructive war in history in absolute terms.
The problem is that humanity in general is still in a mindset which facilitates conflict, destruction, killings etc;
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#69That states like China and Russia can recruit the best cybersecurity talent in their respective countries, and force them to work for the government, while the United States can't, is a problem. If I were the president, I would focus on talent recruitment and retention. Google is paying its top cyberstaff 700k? Offer them 1M. Also get rid of archaic hiring practices like drug tests, and streamline the process to obta…
>That states like China and Russia can recruit the best cybersecurity talent in their respective countries, and force them to work for the government, while the United States can't, is a problem.
Huh? Why the united states couldn't? It's government/military budget is much higher...
As for the "force them", China and Russia don't need to force anyone to work for their cybersecurity teams either (nor it would be wise to have someone do such crucial tasks against their will).
Paying goes a long way...
Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War
#70> There are four key implications of this revolution that policymakers in the national security sector will need to address: > The first is that the unprecedented scale and pace of technological change will outstrip our ability to effectively adapt to it. Second, we will be in a world of ceaseless and pervasive cyberinsecurity and cyberconflict against nation-states, businesses and individuals. Third, the flood of da…
Translates to - We don't know what we are doing or why but please keep funding us.
Henry Kissinger pls talk to Kim Kardashian, and the marketing departments of the world. They will have better ideas on how to fight the next war than anyone who has traditionally fought one. What ever you do don't talk to techies. As Chinese Intelligence is showcasing in Hong Kong, building giant machinery that vacuums up oceans of data does diddly squat.