Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 214 posts

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#91

Post by ssully »

nradov wrote: post #55
HenryKissinger wrote: post #21

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. 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…

The security clearance investigation process can already be expedited for urgent cases. However we absolutely should never lower clearance standards. Penetration by foreign agents could be far more damaging than a lack of top cyber security personnel.

Yeah it would be a real shame if we lowered the clearance standards. Imagine if our president lowered the standards for say, his son in law, who failed to pass the process for years due to foreign contact conflicts.

Luckily we have rules and standards that no one is above.

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#93

Post by coldtea »

_Understated_ wrote: post #9

I've often thought about what the next "Great War" would look like. Not researched it or anything but mulled it over. I honestly think the enemy will take out our power stations via malicious code that may already be sitting there waiting to go off right now. A few days after that, when people are still in total darkness and the supermarket shelves are empty then we will turn on ourselves and our "leaders" because we…

>I honestly think the enemy will take out our power stations via malicious code that may already be sitting there waiting to go off right now.

Not so sure. There have been all kind of wars in the past 10-15 years, and they were pretty much conventional. Bombs, armies, attacks, and so on.

No high tech wizardry needed...

Not to mention, why even have things like power stations and other infrastructure reachable over the internet in the first place?

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#94

Post by agumonkey »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #11

> 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…

dreadful and at the same time I'm almost inspired to imagine what would be a digital superpower structured planet..

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#95

Post by coldtea »

nexuist wrote: post #31
mapcars wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>then we will turn on ourselves and our "leaders" I don't think in such case normal people would be able to reach "leaders" in their bunkers or whatever they prepare.

There are various tiers of leaders, each of which gets their own subset of authority. Perhaps the President and Congress gets their own bunkers, but I sincerely doubt mayor X in Y town in Ohio is getting flown out to a mountainside retreat. Coincidentally with the increase in military equipment being sold to local police departments these days, said mayors will have some firepower to work with if they ever do decide…

>There are various tiers of leaders, each of which gets their own subset of authority. Perhaps the President and Congress gets their own bunkers, but I sincerely doubt mayor X in Y town in Ohio is getting flown out to a mountainside retreat.

So people will do what, attach the mayor?

Not really responsible for the mess, and not really such a big shot to be worth it...

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#96

Post by bilbo0s »

antpls wrote: post #53
HenryKissinger wrote: post #11

> 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…

(I live in EU) For the 3rd and 4th points, we could rather envision a massive decentralization of power, which would be effectively a change in the model, but not necessarily in a bad way. Telecom, batteries and local energy production will allow much more flexible forms of local auto-organisations and decision-making. Parts of centralized institutions will be obsolete or further decentralized to better fit local spe…

>Parts of centralized institutions will be obsolete or further decentralized to better fit local specificities.

I predict something a bit different. ie - Most "centralization" will move to the private sector, and they will become more and more powerful.

Governments will become less and less powerful. Less and less able to check corporate hegemony. More and more decentralized as they weaken and fracture.

Corporations, meanwhile, will consolidate powers. Become more and more independent of weaker decentralized governments that are, naturally, not going to be terribly unified in facing the corporates down.

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#97

Post by wonderwonder »

_ooqq wrote: post #35
pluma wrote: post #3

Maybe the US would do well to obsess a little less about wars? After spending 90%+ of its time existing on being at war, it sure would seem like a good time to take a break and stop attacking other countries maybe.

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 not that he is negotiating that is the issue, its the fact that he is doing it badly. NK wanted to meet with the president of the US in order to gain international recognition for their leader. They got what they wanted in return the US got nothing, and in the mean time NK has produced more nuclear weapons and continued their missile tests. We have also alienated SK our traditional ally.

Regarding Iran, Iran had verifiably held nuclear enrichment to a set level. This was a deal that was working and Trump just pre-emptively left it and re-applied sanctions, and now everyone is mad / surprised that Iran is once again raising its enrichment level. There are essentially no or very limited ongoing negotiations with Iran. The point of the original deal was to prevent a nuclear Iran and it was working. Once Iran gets Nukes the international stage is very different. From an outsider perspective it very much appears that we have stepped back from the deal in order to find a reason to go to war.

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#99

Post by jcranmer »

imglorp wrote: post #82
jcranmer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, we tried isolationism before WW2, different from GP is asking for.

The "we" here is not the US government but the wider anti-war movements that helped push for such acts as the League of Nations and the Washington and London Treaties.

Re: NSA Official: We Need to Prepare for the Future of War

#100

Post by isoskeles »

imglorp wrote: post #82
jcranmer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, we tried isolationism before WW2, different from GP is asking for.

Britain didn’t try isolationism.
Post reply on HN