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

161–170 of 214 posts

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

#161

Post by cmurf »

motohagiography wrote: post #129

We could call this historical period a great dis-integration where the consensus that formed the equilibrium of the last 60 years has been disrupted by tech, and we're looking at a period of volatility before reaching a new equilibrium. I've argued before that U.S. critical infrastructure vulnerability will prevent it from intervening in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Its lack of a strong homeland defensive posture on infrast…

But you've also made an argument against professional standing armies, and civilian decadence. Turning cities into war zones is not a new strategy. When the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor, the country instantly became motivated to enter the war. What percent of people now would give up their shopping, TV, jobs, family, to defend their country? The U.S. political and military class will avoid exposing how the entire civilian class is grossly unprepared, and unwilling to become prepared.

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

#162

Post by cmurf »

body12 wrote: post #156
bdamm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be more specific? What governance processes counteract or prevent that failure?

Reduce wealth inequality through industrial and fiscal policy, don't stuff cities full of millions of culturally distant immigrants (distant from both each other and the existing population), encourage integration and patriotism instead of ethnic sectarianism via education and cultural pressure.

The 1860's are calling and the Irish would like a word. Are you arguing the Irish shouldn't have been allowed in the U.S.? Or that Americans should have been somehow coerced into accepting them? You think the Irish didn't want to be assimilated or you think Americans didn't want to assimilate them?

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

#163

Post by cmurf »

gbasin wrote: post #142
motohagiography wrote: post #129

We could call this historical period a great dis-integration where the consensus that formed the equilibrium of the last 60 years has been disrupted by tech, and we're looking at a period of volatility before reaching a new equilibrium. I've argued before that U.S. critical infrastructure vulnerability will prevent it from intervening in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Its lack of a strong homeland defensive posture on infrast…

I agree, and this may arguably be a good thing. A relatively painless way of rolling back the empire of Team America: World Police. We may be trending back towards a time of strong regional powers rather than global hegemony.

More likely an end to the nation-state, and a return to the more stable city-state. Once a society is on the path to regression, you don't exactly get to choose where the ball stops rolling. It's going to end up at the most stable location, and nation-states have a short history compared to city-states but also more volatile.

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

#164

Post by ak217 »

decoyworker wrote: post #73

This is huge and is a subject I feel strongly about- especially for defense software. Parts of the US Government are already sounding the alarm over this. see- https://innovation.defense.gov/software/ Basically, we are too slow. The contract acquisition process and waterfall development moves at a glacial pace. I have some serious doubts we will ever adapt since it would require a restructuring of the way our defense…

Part of the NSA's mission (which they have failed at, and an acknowledgment of that failure is conspicuously absent from this article by the NSA's general counsel) is to help secure domestic information infrastructure against attack. They are supposed to lead the way in developing security standards, scanning for vulnerabilities, advising businesses and local governments on how to protect themselves.

In a perfect world, Project Zero would have been based at the NSA.

Instead they have let the wiretapping crew take over everything.

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

#165

Post by anonymous_ch »

body12 wrote: post #145
motohagiography wrote: post #129

We could call this historical period a great dis-integration where the consensus that formed the equilibrium of the last 60 years has been disrupted by tech, and we're looking at a period of volatility before reaching a new equilibrium. I've argued before that U.S. critical infrastructure vulnerability will prevent it from intervening in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Its lack of a strong homeland defensive posture on infrast…

If your cities immediately turn into "tribal warzones" when they lose utilities, you've definitely made some governance failures well before the cyberattack.

Even governance in the absence of utility can't stop human nature.

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

#166

Post by logfromblammo »

coldtea wrote: post #69
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…

> 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…

I could be "forced" to do a whole lot of stuff for $200k/year, plus a zero-deductible health plan and fully-matched 401(k), that also doesn't require living in California, NYC, or DC.

I won't compromise my personal ethics, though. Not at that price. I'd need another $300k/year, a real defined-benefit pension, family gym membership, company-leased car, tuition benefits, and a bullshit story that I can tell myself in order to sleep at night.

And in order to set aside my personal vendettas, such as by actually propping up AT&T or Bank of America in some way, I'll need 8 figures and a 30-hour work week. And unrestricted common stock--not so much that the CEOs have to kiss my ass, but enough that I don't get automatically ignored.

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

#167

Post by smolder »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #148
bilbo0s wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Governments will become less and less powerful. And why would governments accept this?

They won't. They'll build costly surveillance into everything and attack individual liberties for the sake of social control. They'll sap potential for positive disruption, out of paranoia, and ironically ensure the unsteerable inertia of existing institutions takes us all off a cliff.

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

#168

Post by SiempreViernes »

asdfman123 wrote: post #128
decoyworker wrote: post #73

This is huge and is a subject I feel strongly about- especially for defense software. Parts of the US Government are already sounding the alarm over this. see- https://innovation.defense.gov/software/ Basically, we are too slow. The contract acquisition process and waterfall development moves at a glacial pace. I have some serious doubts we will ever adapt since it would require a restructuring of the way our defense…

Wouldn't it be possible to build the next generation of technology to be much less hackable? Right now we're all pretty dumb about cybersecurity, but if plays a major hand in shaping human events even stodgy Pentagon types might start taking things like air gaps and not writing your passwords out on a sticky note more seriously.

The tragedy of the mundane reality is that more cyber systems will be put out of commission by things like botched patch tuesdays and techs pulling the wrong cable because they were mislabelled than any hack.

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

#169

Post by sangnoir »

rolltiide wrote: post #18
booleandilemma wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

I like the US' market's liquidity, that seems unparalleled I like the US' diversified portfolio of industries and stewardship of resources Its military seems wasteful and unnecessary, perpetuated by cultural paranoia and its domestic infrastructure for actually living seems to exist in a parallel world where it is compared to the worst countries in existence whenever challenged, operating with seeming unawareness of…

> people that must ... be a soldier to obtain subsidized schooling, trades, healthcare and housing from the government.

Sounds like joining the army is one way of getting these special citizenship benefits. Would you like to know more?

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

#170

Post by body12 »

cmurf wrote: post #162
body12 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reduce wealth inequality through industrial and fiscal policy, don't stuff cities full of millions of culturally distant immigrants (distant from both each other and the existing population), encourage integration and patriotism instead of ethnic sectarianism via education and cultural pressure.

The 1860's are calling and the Irish would like a word. Are you arguing the Irish shouldn't have been allowed in the U.S.? Or that Americans should have been somehow coerced into accepting them? You think the Irish didn't want to be assimilated or you think Americans didn't want to assimilate them?

The 1860s when the Irish in NYC refused to fight for their new country, killing over 100 people and ethnically cleansing most of Manhattan? Or a few years later when two different subgroups of Irish killed another 100 of each other in the same city? These questions re-litigating history are immaterial to the fact that there is always some point at which putting groups next to each other will cause conflict, modulated by things like population density, culture, religion, tribalism vs. individualism, prosperity, etc.
Post reply on HN