Amazon Price: N/A (as of April 30, 2017 02:07 –
In 2005, the Department of Defense recognized cyberspace as the fifth operational domain. In 2009, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command directed the creation of U.S. Cyber Command on the heels of recently reported cyber attacks against Estonia and Georgia. These cyber attacks negatively affected the state's ability to provide effective governance. Sovereign nations across the world took notice. Cyber terrorism, at best cyber hacktivism, had crossed the threshold to embody what most consider acts of war. This strategic research paper utilizes the Estonia and Georgia cyber attacks to observe how cyber forces draw on the joint functions like a Brigade Combat Team or Air Expeditionary Wing uses the functions in their respective domains. The paper briefly describes cyber criminal activity, cyber hacktivism, and cyber terrorism to differentiate those activities from offensive cyber operations. The paper succinctly discusses U.S. Cyber Command's three mission areas, further defining the discipline of military offensive cyber operations. The paper then explores how Joint Force Commanders may utilize the joint warfighting functions depicted in Joint and Army doctrine to integrate and synchronize offensive cyber operations.
The cyber attacks on Estonia and Georgia negatively affected their ability to provide effective governance. Nations across the world took notice. Cyber terrorism, or at best cyber hacktivism, had crossed the threshold to embody what most sovereign nations consider acts of war. The Estonia and Georgia cyber attacks were not happenstance events, rather planned, integrated, and synchronized operations to achieve intended effects. The joint functions / warfighting functions provide an operational framework for Joint Force Commanders (JFC) to coordinate, integrate, and synchronize cyber operations. The ensuing analysis illustrates that cyber operations share many of the same qualities as the more traditional operations in the land, sea, air, and space domains. But, before any analysis can begin, we must review a few key actions the military has taken over the last ten years, define what constitutes cyberspace, and understand how cyber operations differs from cyber crimes, cyber hacktivism, and cyber terrorism.
Amazon Price: N/A (as of April 30, 2017 15:06 –
On November 23, 2013, China's Ministry of National Defense spokesman announced that a new air defense intercept zone (ADIZ) will be established by the government to include the Diaoyu, or Senkaku Islands. Sovereignty over these islands is disputed by Japan, China, and Taiwan. The new ADIZ also included a submerged rock that falls inside overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) claimed by China, Japan, and South Korea. Pundits and policy analysts quickly engaged in a broad debate about whether China's expanded ADIZ is designed to create tension in Asia, or is part of a broader plan to impose a new definition of China's territorial space in the Asia-Pacific region. Meanwhile, to deal with cyber penetrations attributed to the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), the U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State are devising new means to protect intellectual property and secrets from the PLA's computer network operations.
Dr. Larry M. Wortzel's monograph puts these events into perspective. The ADIZ announcement by China, at one level, is an example of the PLA General Political Department engagement in what it calls "legal warfare," part of the PLA's "three warfares." In expanding its ADIZ, China is stretching International Civil Aviation Organization regulations to reinforce its territorial claims over the Senkaku Islands, administered by Japan. China calls these the Diaoyu Islands and, along with Taiwan, claims them for its own. On another level, the Chinese government will use the ADIZ as a way to increase the airspace it can monitor and control off its coast; it already is suing the navy and maritime law enforcement ships to enforce these claims at sea. Additionally, the PLA and the Chinese government have sent a major signal to Taiwan, demonstrating another aspect of the "three warfares." When the Chinese Ministry of National Defense put its expanded ADIZ into effect, the new zone carefully avoided any infringement into Taiwan's ADIZ, signaling that in addition to the improved economic ties with Taiwan, there is room for political improvement across the Taiwan Strait.
Amazon Price: $24.58 $24.58 (as of unknown date –
Original publisher: Gaithersburg, MD : U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology,  OCLC Number: (OCoLC)457264652 Subject: Computer security — Industrial applications — United States. Excerpt: … UIDE TO NDUSTRIAL ONTROL YSTEMS ECURITY G I C S ( ICS ) S ( SECOND PUBLIC DRAFT ) 2. Overview of Industrial Control Systems Industrial control system ( ICS ) is a general term that encompasses several types of control systems, including supervisory control and data acquisition ( SCADA ) systems, distributed control systems ( DCS ), and other control system configurations such as skid-mounted Programmable Logic Controllers ( PLC ) often found in the industrial sectors and critical infrastructures. ICS are typically used in industries such as electrical, water, oil and gas, chemical, transportation, pharmaceutical, pulp and paper, food and beverage, and discrete manufacturing ( e.g., automotive, aerospace, and durable goods. ) These control systems are critical to the operation of the U.S. critical infrastructures that are often highly interconnected and mutually dependent systems. It is important to note that approximately 90 percent of the nation's critical infrastructures are privately owned and operated. Federal agencies also operate many of the industrial processes mentioned above; other examples include air traffic control and materials handling ( e.g., Postal Service mail handling. ) This section provides an overview of SCADA, DCS, and PLC systems, including typical architectures and components. Several diagrams are presented to depict the network connections and components typically found on each system to facilitate the understanding of these systems. Please note that the diagrams in this section do not represent a secure ICS. Architecture security and security controls are discussed in Section 5 and Section 6 of this document respectively. 2.1 Overview of SCADA, DCS, and PLCs SCADA systems are highly distributed systems use…
Amazon Price: N/A (as of April 29, 2017 20:13 –
This excellent report has been professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction. This paper is about the Russian military's use of operational art to achieve its strategic objectives during the Russo-Georgian War of August 2008. In this brief war, the Russian military in a quick and decisive campaign overwhelmed Georgian forces to gain control of two breakaway republics, destroyed much of Georgia's armed forces on land and sea, and caused NATO to reconsider its offer of membership to Georgia. This study focuses on the Russian military's present conception of operational art, the relationship between operational art and strategy, and the ability of the Russian armed forces to apply it in a war, a matter of strategic importance to Russia. To accomplish this, this study examines the roots of Soviet thought and practice on operational art and points out the significant changes over time which have affected current thought and practice. The paper analyzes significant aspects of the campaign in Georgia that reflect not only Russia's rich tradition of operational art, but also reflect Western thinking and new Russian thinking. The study examines the future of Russian operational art based on recently announced military reforms and the implications of those reforms on Russian strategy.
For over a century, Russian and Soviet military thinkers have developed the operational art and have produced quality works on the subject. They have prepared for and practiced operational art in a series of wars under widely varying conditions over the last 80 years. These wars are rich in lessons of success and failure in operational art.1 The campaigns and major operations within these wars reveal both the Russian military's conception of operational art as well as their capacity to craft it to achieve strategic objectives at that time. The Russo-Georgian War of August 2008 is no exception. It reflects the current state of operational art within the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the reforms announced immediately following the war by the president and other senior leaders reflect the nation's and military's intentions to improve their capacity to effectively wage campaigns in the near future and present additional insights into some of Russia's strategic objectives.
Amazon Price: N/A (as of April 30, 2017 08:43 –
Professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction, this unique book discusses the realities of deterrence and retaliatory options to attacks in space and cyberspace.
Since the last years of the 20th Century, threats in space and cyberspace have become prominent, to the point where an attack can threaten state sovereignty and have regional, if not global consequences. These threats are emerging at the same time that the United States' reliance on its own space and cyber capabilities increases to maintain international diplomatic leadership and conventional military superiority. US national policy speaks to deterring and defending against such attacks, but a lack of international precedent and the legal limitations of war, specifically attribution, proportionality and discrimination, limit United States response options to an unprovoked attack in these domains. In order to establish an effective deterrence, the United States must move away from the Cold War model and fashion a global environment that fosters effective deterrent strategies. Building this new order requires the United States lead the international debate to define attacks in space and cyberspace and appropriate "self-defense" responses under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The United States must demonstrate the political will to take action unilaterally, if necessary, to set precedent, and erase the failures of past transgressions, including NATO's failure to respond to the Estonia cyber attacks in 2007. As deterrence is predicated on the ability to attribute in order to hold an adversary at risk, the United States must improve its ability to detect and attribute attacks in space and cyberspace. Finally, the United States must reduce its space and cyberspace vulnerabilities and prove to any potential adversary that its military can successfully fight through any degradation and win. Unless the United States takes prominent actions on these fronts and establishes an international recognized lexicon on space and cyberspace, any deterrent posture will likely fail and it will remain at risk to asymmetric attacks by adversaries emboldened by a veil of anonymity, who see the benefits of attacking the United States outweighing the risk of an unprovoked first strike.