Reports indicate that new legislation in the Senate proposes to authorize US military cyber warriors to go on the offensive against Russian attacks on the United States in cyberspace. It also mandates a cyber deterrence doctrine.
These same reports indicate that lawmakers were disappointed in the administration’s latest cyber policy. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s fiscal year 2019 defense policy bill designates clandestine military operations in cyberspace as “traditional military activities.” This affirms the secretary of defense’s ability to order cyber operations. A related section of the bill “authorizes the National Command Authority to direct US Cyber Command to take appropriate and proportional action through cyberspace to disrupt, defeat and deter systematic and ongoing attacks by Russia in cyberspace,” the report states:
(a) In General.—It shall be the policy of the United States, with respect to matters pertaining to cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber warfare, that the United States should employ all instruments of national power, including the use of offensive cyber capabilities, to deter if possible, and respond when necessary, to any and all cyber-attacks or other malicious cyber activities that target United States interests with the intent to—
(1) cause casualties among United States persons or persons of our allies;
(2) significantly disrupt the normal functioning of United States democratic society or government (including attacks against critical infrastructure that could damage systems used to provide key services to the public or government);
(3) threaten the command and control of the United States Armed Forces, the freedom of maneuver of the United States Armed Forces, or the industrial base or other infrastructure on which the United States Armed Forces rely to defend United States interests and commitments; or
(4) achieve an effect, whether individually or in aggregate, comparable to an armed attack or imperil a vital interest of the United States.”
There are several interesting aspects to this Congressional proposed strategic policy.
1. The concept of cyber deterrence as a doctrine.
2. That deterrence of cyber-attacks may also be achieved by the use of non-cyber responses.
The congress determining national security strategy is by itself unique. The formal authorization of a cyber deterrence doctrine opens the whole realm of what is deterrence?
My UCLA graduate school professor (Bernard Brodie who was one of the founders of deterrence doctrine thought of deterrence as” a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires. A credible nuclear deterrent, he wrote, must be always at the ready, yet never used.”
Subsequently the capacity to harm another state was to be a motivating factor for other states to avoid it and influence another state’s behavior. To be coercive or deter another state, violence must be anticipated and avoidable by accommodation.
Deterrence is considered to consist of the capability to inflict such harm and the willingness to do so. Capability is the more easily demonstrated aspect of deterrence. It is achieved through observable tests, news reports or use. Willingness is the hard part to quantify. It is usually thought to consist of demonstrated use or as during the cold war some form of automaticity to the response. With the consequences of a major nuclear exchange being so great during the cold war and automatic responses discussed openly no side was willing to test the willingness of the other.
This lack of willingness to test the other side’s willingness became the source of moderation during the cold war. Simple escalation of the DEFCON or making advanced alert status visible was used as a method of signaling willingness.
How one is to signal willingness in the cyber world is a fascinating question. It may require some cyber ‘skirmishes.” Possibly these have already occurred.
As we go forward in the evolution of strategic thought the concept of cyber deterrence will require significant additional study and the response to questions, such as:
- What is the potential damage?
- What is the nature of escalatory steps?
- What are the defensive measures? (These will most likely be constantly changing.)
This article should open a dialogue of cyber deterrence. Please make your comments and check back for the comments of others.
For the last 2 weeks the North Koreans and the US have been playing many “cards” in their efforts to have the upper hand in Singapore. Let’s review the high points.
- The North Koreans walk out of a meeting with the ‘south Koreans and issue a searing critique of National Security advisor Bolton. The critique was against him personally, but more importantly the North Koreans were rebelling at the Libyan example—Kaddafi denuclearized and then 15 years or so he was overthrown by rebels armed and provided air support by NATO and then subsequently murdered. Not a good image to send the North Koreans.
- The North Koreans also slowed discussions about the summit.
- President Trump talked less positively about the probability of the summit and mentions the military option.
- The president send us a letter to Kim Jun Un that was very conciliatory and positive but cancelled the summit.
- However the President continues with a scheduled meeting with President Moon of South Korea. The two president talked about trade but one can be sure that they were seeking to show solidarity and soften the rhetoric.
- Today President Moon and Kim Jun meet in for 2 hours in Panmunjom and talked about the relations between the two Koreas. Some pundits of course argue that they can have a summit and don’t need President Trump probably because they don’t understand the “process”
- Sarah Sanders announced that the US advance team departs for Singapore tomorrow to prepare for the summit.
- Positive remarks are heard around Washington to include from the President
- There may be several more back and forths but unless the North Koreans play a strong antagonistic card one can expect a reversal of the cancellation this coming week.
The search for an advantage will continue by both sides but it looks like there will be a summit.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Monday that the Trump administration will embark on an “unprecedented” pressure campaign against Iran meant to fundamentally change its foreign policy. Delivering his first major foreign policy address as top diplomat at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank, Pompeo listed 12 sweeping and uncompromising conditions for a new nuclear deal with Tehran after President Donald Trump withdrew from an existing one earlier this month.
Pompeo said that the JCPOA put the world at risk because of its fatal flaws. Therefore the list of US demands is long” because Iran’s activities are bold in scope, “We didn’t create the list – they did.” There were reported to be twelve demands, but a thorough reading of his speech makes it 15: (the number doesn’t matter the message does)
- We will apply unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime. The leaders in Tehran will have no doubt about our seriousness. The departments of Treasury and Commerce are already working on the sanctions.
- I will work closely with the Department of Defense and our regional allies to deter Iranian aggression.
- We will ensure freedom of navigation on the waters in the region. We will work to prevent and counteract any Iranian malign cyber activity. We will track down Iranian operatives and their Hezbollah proxies operating around the world and we will crush them. Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East.
- We will also advocate tirelessly for the Iranian people. The regime must improve how it treats its citizens. It must protect the human rights of every Iranian. It must cease wasting Iran’s wealth abroad. We ask that our international partners continue to add their voice to ours in condemning Iran’s treatment of its own citizens.
- Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity.
- Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.
- Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all nuclear sites throughout the entire country.
- Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.
- Iran must release all U.S. citizens, as well as citizens of our partners and allies, each of them detained on spurious charges.
- Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
- Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.
- Iran must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a peaceful political settlement in Yemen.
- Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of Syria.
- Iran must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harboring senior al-Qaida leaders.
These demands are broad in scope and in essence call for the end of Iran’s goal as to the creation of a caliphate across the Middle East from Egypt to Afghanistan. There are some wide ranging and probably on their face impossible to achieve. The center of gravity of his remarks appears to be a call for regime change. He said that we ask the Iranian people: Is this what you want your country to be known for, for being a co-conspirator with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaida? The United States believe you deserve better.
With a regime change all of the other goals become more possible.
With a regime change all of the other goals become more possible.When one sees this hard line approach to Iran (North Korea’s partner or client in weapons building) he must wonder how Kim Jun Un he sees the on again of again upcoming summit. Kim responded negatively to President Trump’s Libya analogy, with cause. Things went well for Libya for about 10 years before the revolution stared and was supported by NATO with arms and air support until the government was overthrown and Qaddafi killed.
In this complex world such examples provide the wrong message to both the Iranians and the North Koreans.
As things progress in the processes that have been started with North Korea and Iran we will watch them with interest and report on them when needed and appropriate.
Just as I think that I have the process and its linkages figured out the North Koreans throw a curve ball! The cancellation of yesterday’s talks as a protest against US – South Korean previously planned military exercises may tell us some things about the process continuation.
The North’s official news agency said Pyongyang had called off high-level talks with Seoul. Citing first vice minister of foreign affairs the news agency said the fate of the unprecedented U.S.-North Korea summit, as well as bilateral relations, “would be clear” if the United States spoke of a “Libya-style” denuclearization for the North.
“If the U.S. is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the DPRK-U.S. summit”.
There are several possible messages here:
- There may be a power struggle between the hardliners and those in favor of denuclearization within the hierarchy of North Korea
- We may be witnessing the traditional North Korean drive a hard bargain approach, which is not incompatible with the first observation
- This may be a test of President Trump—how tough will he hang? Will he be willing to walk away?
Interestingly the dialogue with Secretary Pompeo by phone has continued. This is most likely just another negotiating gambit. However, the power struggle argument must be given serious consideration. The North Korean military is first in the “chow line” when it comes to the government distributing what little bit of resources that it has. If the military believes that this favored position will be threatened by denuclearization and the end of the “almost hostilities with the South and the US” then it may be trying to force a more belligerent and stronger position. It wants its share of whatever good comes form the summit.
Only time will tell.
Yesterday we published an analysis of the process leading to the meeting of President Trump and Kim Jung Un in Singapore on 12 June. This is an update on that analysis.
The north and south are meeting today in Panmunjon to further refine the issues of economic cooperation between the two Koreas.
This is a further part of the process. The process has two levels:
1. The north south issues
2. The denuclearization issues which is the US focus
Obviously the two levels of processes are interconnected and it will be impossible to work one process to a successful outcome without the other. The economic vitalization of North Korea is dependent upon the relaxation of sanctions and economic embargoes which is in turn dependent a denuclearization agreement.
Given these dependencies one can imagine a direct linkage between steps in the two. In other words, as certain steps are taken in denuclearization certain sanctions and embargoes will be relaxed. These connected steps will be detailed and require significant negotiation. /this suggests that the best one can hope for coming out of Singapore in 28 days is a broad agreement that sets the negotiation of the detailed linkages noted above. The agreement will have both sides make good faith actions immediately to establish a maintainable momentum.
As the details emerge in the coming days this framework should become more evident. Stay tuned.
In one of his walking out of a ceremony remarks President Trump mentioned that the process. To date there has not been any press speculation about this process. There has been speculation that the Iran nuclear deal cancellation has made the upcoming denuclearization negotiations more difficult. This is contrary to the process. The process has included a series signals (public and private) and actions. Several of these are:
- Convincing the Chinese to tighten the screws on the North Koreans. (It should be noted that Kim Jung Un has made 2 visits to China in recent months.)
- The Winter Olympics north south cooperation and accompanying discussions
- The recent north south summit in Panmunjom that included:
- Movement towards a peace treaty
- Opening of family reunions
- The provision of a USB stick with an North Korean economic development plan on it
- The Pompeo back channel discussion in North Korea
- Discussions at the UN with Niki Haley
- The cancellation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement signaled that a cosmetic do nothing agreement will not be tolerated. This is necessary to define expectations and set the bar at a high level.
- The recent release of the three detainees as part of Secretary of State Pompeo’s latest visit to coordinate the negotiation
- The North Korean announcement that they will dismantle their nuclear testing facility and allow the media to visit it
- The suggestion that the North Koreans provide 3 warheads to the French to have them dismantled
- President Trump’s more positive remarks about Kim Jung Un, while stating hopes for success but simultaneously allowing the possibility for a lack of success with the blame for failure being pre-positioned as a North Korean failure
- Secretary Pompeo’s remarks yesterday that US funds would not be used to rebuild North Korea, HOWEVER with a lack of sanctions private capital would flow into North Korea. “He talked of the potential for U.S. investment in the North Asian nation from America’s “entrepreneurs, our risk takers, our capital providers” to help North Korea’s people “get the opportunity that they so richly deserve.” Of course allowing such capital flow would be dependent upon proof of denuclearization.
So the process is ongoing providing the standards, some initial agreements, the removal of issues (the hostages) and the terms for whatever is to occur in Singapore next month. This process started with the “Rocketman” rhetoric and the display of force. Another key part of this process was convincing the Chinese to tighten the embargo on the North Koreans.
Watching this process unfold may provide a textbook approach to reaching critical, peaceful negotiated agreement.
Immediately after the President’s announcement that the US will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal the liberal fake analyst pundits announced that the decision would undermine the negotiations with the North Koreans. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
In my recently published blog (the workup to the Korean Summit) I wrote: “The Trump Administration will most likely add into the Korean position its stand on Iran. The Iranian agreement does not provide the example that the Trump Administration wants the North Koreans to think is in the realm of the possible. It is sure to highlight the loopholes in the Iranian deal no matter how it decides to go forward.”
In other words the withdrawal will highlight to the North Koreans that they cannot get away with some fluffy document that has numerous loopholes and a lack of comprehensive verification of whatever is agreed to.
As the “we hate Trump pundits” look for something wrong with the withdrawal the North Koreans will have received several meaningful messages. The most important is that they must agree to a comprehensive denuclearization or they too can be isolated like Iran.
What are your thoughts?
Six months ago the common wisdom was that the United States and North Korea were on a collision course to armed intervention by the US and response by the North Koreans. Today as the Kim Jung Un and President Trump summit draws near there are some who are touting President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. How did we get here?
Some analysts believe that the North Korean change in direction is not the result of weakness, as many would have you believe. They argue that the North Koreans now perceive that they have demonstrated that they are valid members of the “nuclear club” and thus can come to a negotiating table in a position of strength. They have demonstrated nuclear weapons and ICBM technology. This capability can be redeployed in the future should an agreement fail. What is probably missing is reentry vehicle technology which is necessary to deliver a nuclear weapon. This with the construction of a new test facility can be mastered– the North Korean nuclear underground test site is collapsing.
On the negative side there is no doubt that the sanctions have hurt the North Koreans—especially since the Chinese have cooperated, somewhat in those embargoes. Given the nuclear standoff they have created there is no doubt that the North Koreans see an opportunity to greatly improve their economic situation. The question on the table is whether they will be willing to trade denuclearization for economic growth?
The North Koreans have played the fear of conflict in South Korea to improve their position vis-à-vis the US. The Olympic icebreaking followed by the recent Panmunjom north south summit with the announcement of the cessation of hostilities agreement was no doubt orchestrated to try and get the south to apply pressure, when/if needed to reach some form of agreement coming out of the upcoming meeting between Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump. The visit of President Moon of South Korea to the White House in coming weeks is no doubt focused on having a unified position going into summit.
There are also plans on the economic partial integration of the two Koreas that the South Koreans have created to increase the incentive for s for the North to agree to nuclearization. This is a two edged sword for the South Koreans. The South Koreans should talk to the Germans about the huge costs that they bore with the German unification.
Both sides have continued to move in jerks toward the historic meeting. The North has agreed to release 2 Americans being held in a labor camp so as to take that issue off of the table. The President has announced that 28,000 US forces stationed in Korea are not on the table. The North has complained of US rhetoric while promising to let experts and journalists visit the nuclear test site to verify its decommissioning.
Reaching an agreement on the denuclearization of North Korea will be a difficult negotiation. It will be difficult process to agree on the terms and their implementation. It is in this process that the Iranian nuclear deal sets a precedent. The Trump Administration will most likely add into the Korean position its stand on Iran. The Iranian agreement does not provide the example that the Trump Administration wants the North Koreans to think is in the realm of the possible. It is sure to highlight the loopholes in the Iranian deal no matter how it decides to go forward.
No one should expect a detailed agreement to come out of the upcoming summit. The best that could be hoped for is a broad agreement that:
- Codifies the denuclearization of North Korea
- Limits the development of ICBMs
- Provides for future technical negotiations with periodic reports of status to principals either individually or at subsequent summits for approval and further guidance.
- Links the relaxation of sanctions to progress on the limiting/eliminating of ICBMs and nuclear warheads.
Obviously verification protocols will be critical to the successful conclusion of this historic negotiation.
The upcoming summit is not an end in and of itself! It is a meeting to define and agree to a process that may take a year or more to conclude.
The Russians and Chinese have been giving us glimpses into their future weapon’s systems and their utilization. In considering these weapons utilization one can begin to see the ways that these two potential opponents envision fighting in future conflicts. One should also note that present conflicts are being used as testing grounds for these futuristic weapon systems.
The Russians have used Syria as a proving ground for their cyber and robotic capabilities. According to multiple Russian language blogs the Syrian Arab Army recently deployed ten Russian combat robots in a battle leading to about 70 rebel fighters and no Syrian casualties. Allegedly these robots were controlled from a Russian command post. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f5iWM5rLTY)
The Russians have demonstrated these robots and touted them in press videos as those noted above. Why? Most likely because the Russians are actually behind the American and Chinese in the development of robotic devices.
What is the motivation for robotic devices? There are many. In most cases robotic/remote controlled combat systems are cheaper to build and deploy since they are smaller and do not include the crew survival / protection measures and the associated weight and size that accompany crews. Such machines of war require fewer human warriors on the battlefield and thus reduce the entire human support costs.
Electronic warfare has been used on the battlefield since World War II. The commander of US forces in Syria recently reported that US AC130 gun ships were being jammed during support operations for the Syrian “rebels.” The electronic jamming signals affecting AC-130 gunships over Syria may have crews checking and cross-checking their data, including target information, before they lock on with their cannons, according to air commanders in Syria.
“Whether that’s being man-made, or maybe it’s a mistake inside the airplane, it’s hard to say sometimes, but the process is, as you see those things pop up, the safety for the people on the ground is the primary concern,” said Col. Tom Palenske, commander of the 1st Special Operations Wing…He continued: ““When you’re going to put lethal fires down on either enemy position or to protect friendlies, you’re concerned about the innocents around both our guys in uniform and civilians,” he said. “And when there’s some glitch being put out there by trons that threatens the accuracy of that, then the [AC-130 crews] have got to make sure they do no harm.”…Palenske did not say what kind of electronic warfare equipment adversaries are using, nor who the adversaries are, even though Islamic State fighters, Iranian-backed militia and Russian troops are in country.
Cyber warfare is coming and this is one of the first battlefield indications—the ability to take over a friendly fire control system. Hacking has become common place across military and civil society.
What is not being reported is the ability to work through or counter such spoofing and other types of cyber activities. There is also no public discussion of friendly use of similar capabilities.
Finally, The Chinese are reported to be using weapons grade lasers to engage US planes over Djibouti where there is a Chinese military installation. Currently the lasers are reported to be eye damaging. However the ability to target and engage a military aircraft with a laser portends a capability to do more than create eye damage with lasers. Future air defense weapons will most probably include radar directed lasers to destroy electronics and avionics in military aircraft. Presently, the lasers are likely denying US access to selected regions
The Chinese are also reported to have deployed air defense, electronic warfare and surface to surface missiles on three of their man made islands in the area claimed by the Philippines. These weapons threaten a significant amount of civilian naval traffic which could disrupt the economies of many of the nations in the area.
These new weapon deployments highlight the changing nature of warfare where new weapons can be used to achieve regional superiority for the accomplishment of a mission. This is the essence of the emerging US doctrine of cross domain operations.. (https://brucebgclarke.com/2017/07/12/multi-domain-warfare/)
Many of my progressive friends have been castigating me recently for my conservative views. As a strategist I recently reread Paul Harvey’s remarks from 1965. I am posting them so that my progressive friends can give careful thought as to where we might be headed in their vision.
In 1965, Paul Harvey broadcasted “If I Were the Devil.” It is really amazing to realize over 53 years ago how accurately he “prophesied” the future spiritual condition of the United States. Many of his statements were considered ridiculously outlandish at that time in history. Yet, we find ourselves today…
.Paul Harvey’s “If I Were the Devil” Transcript from 1965
by Paul Harvey
If I were the devil … If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’
“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’
“And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
“Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.
“If I were the devil I’d take from those who have, and give to those who want until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.
And what do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus, I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.
Paul Harvey, good day.”