Cyber is the New Artillery

The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears—finally (and with deep simplification)—to be reverting to Russian doctrine: soften up and flatten the enemy’s position with massive artillery barrages, and only then committing ground forces—combined armor and infantry—to the battle.

I suggest that cyber should become the new artillery. It’s cheaper. And can be more effective. Below is a very high level look.

There are a couple of ways in which I’d exploit cyber to soften up and flatten the enemy’s position before committing physical forces of any sort. The beauty of my strategy and tactic is that it would work at sea, in the air, and in space with equal cheapness and facility.

One method can be used promptly; however, the other method will take some years to prepare.

The prompt way is the currently classical method of electronic jamming of radio signals to disrupt both real time (especially critical in the air and in space) communications and electronic-centered sensor systems. This prompt way should be combined with hacking the enemy’s computers so as to disrupt his signals and sensor processing, to inject bad data into his systems databases—including those fed by his sensors—to disrupt and damage other systems databases, to deny access to critical computers (DOS attacks) at critical times, resulting denial of commanders at a number of levels contact with the combat units they command.

Those are all short-term disruptions and can be relatively quickly overcome, so they’d need to be applied only at critical times of a campaign’s onset or of a battle.

The longer-term method, and this is the especially critical part, involves the computer chips we make (and which should be the sole source of chips going into our military and civilian computers) and sell to our enemies in this global economic environment, within which we trade with our enemies even in high tech goods.

These chips—particularly those that are destined for enemy weapons systems or that are dual military-civilian use—should be delivered with small (they only need to be small) bits of code embedded in the chips’ installed software. These bits of code should be remotely triggerable to damage the host chip (primarily by erasing or merely corrupting other software installed on the chip) and/or to spread to adjacent chips in the system and then damage them. The damaged chips then would then effectively shut down the weapons system hosting the infected chip: air defense systems, sensor systems, armor and artillery systems, communications systems, government control systems, financial systems, energy distribution systems; the list is extensive. (Of course, the chips we sell that the customer specifies be devoid of any software would be harder to treat. Note, though, that “harder” is not “impossible.”)

None of this obviates the utility of artillery in leading the physical phase of the battle. First in the artillery barrage, though, should be EMP rounds, none of which, contrary to too much popular opinion, need be nuclear in order to generate the desired pulse.

Thus, the new artillery barrage begins with that chip preparation, then when the battle is forced upon us, continues with the first method outlined above, proceeds to execution of the second method, and finishes with the beginning of the physical assault—the EMP barrage.

Trust in the FBI

It’s rapidly eroding in the aftermath of the FBI’s pre-dawn raid on Mar-a-Lago, a raid that those same agents explicitly barred Trump lawyers from observing.

In response to that eroding trust, FBI Director Christopher Wray had this:

Unfounded attacks on the integrity of the FBI erode respect for the rule of law and are a grave disservice to the men and women who sacrifice so much to protect others….

Unfounded attacks on the FBI’s integrity are, assuredly, wrong.

However, what Wray is carefully ignoring is that this is the same FBI whose agents lied to FISA courts—repeatedly—in order to get search and surveillance warrants.

This is the same FBI whose agents have repeatedly fabricated “evidence” in order to get warrants from Article III judges.

This is the same FBI whose agents routinely lie in other venues.

This is the same FBI that deliberately avoided going to an Article III judge for their Mar-a-Lago raid warrant, choosing, instead to go to a magistrate judge.

The current attacks on FBI integrity are sadly, dangerously, entirely founded.

This FBI needs to be completely disbanded, its line agents reallocated to the US Marshals Service and to the Secret Service, its forensics capability converted to a small independent agency responsible to State and local police departments (and relocated to our nation’s heartland—say Wichita, KS), and everyone else in the FBI reallocated to the private sector.

Late Update: Corrected an erroneous reference to the CDC to be a reference to the FBI.

Again, I Ask

A canonical example of the journalism guild’s view of what constitutes honest reporting is this from CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell and CBS News‘ response to the outcry over her…error. She emitted a tweet regarding the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, claiming

NEW: According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump’s passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.

This was shown later to be obviously wrong; the FBI returned three of Trump’s passports, which of course they could not have done had they not “been in position” of them in the first place.

Notice: O’Donnell claimed to be citing a DOJ official (emphasis mine).

Regarding that,

CBS News protocol is to confirm news with at least two people before reporting it as fact.

Two people.

It used to be the case that journalists were required to cite two on-the-record sources to corroborate an anonymous source’s claim. The journalism guild has long since walked away from that requirement.

And so I ask again.

Why have journalists chosen to walk away from that standard of integrity?

What concrete, measurable standard of integrity do journalists use today in lieu of that one?

She’s Right

But for the wrong reasons.

US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm says billions of dollars in upgrades are needed to the power grid in the US to prepare for widespread electric vehicle adoption.

If that’s the spur needed to get the upgrades started and seriously underway, then cool. However, our power grid badly needs upgrade and strengthening in its own right. It’s old, near capacity under normal draw, and highly fragile—as the California portion of the grid demonstrates continually, and as the Texas grid demonstrated a couple of winters ago.

Indeed, nothing has been done since the Northeast blackout of 2003—which itself was a geographic repeat of the blackout of 1965. The proximate causes of these actually were quite trivial, but the fragility of the grid was demonstrated by how fast and far the effects spread: throughout the American northeast (and deep into Canada, which illustrates, also, international implications for strengthening, or continuing to ignore, the decrepit state of our grid).

It’s a national security matter, too, beyond the economic aspects of security.

We also need to drop some dimes (though not as many as might seem) on hardening all of our power grids (plural: not only electricity, but grids distributing natural gas and oil from the well through refiners to end users) against EMP attacks—which needn’t be nuclear weapon-originated, or even large, but merely carefully targeted—and against being software-hacked, as the Russians did when they shut down Colonial Pipeline.

Bitter is…

…as bitter does.  There’s much to be made of former President Donald Trump’s (R) keeping on about whether the 2020 Presidential election was stolen. (He thinks so, and there was a potful of sloppiness, error, fraud, and illegal changes to the mechanics of voting, but in this not so humble blogger’s view, not enough to aggregate to a “stolen” election.)

Let’s look, though, at soon-to-be former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and her behavior following her decisive loss in the just concluded Wyoming primary (so desperate was she in the runup to actual voting that she was…asking…members of the Progressive-Democratic Party to cross over and vote for her in the primary).

The Wall Street Journal claims

Ms Cheney is a conservative by any measure and she has the courage of her convictions.

The first part of this is plainly not true. Were she truly conservative, she would have adhered to her implied commitment to the citizens of Wyoming to represent them, a commitment made by the fact of her campaigning for and election to Congress in prior cycles.

The second part of that is either plainly not true, as well, or she has badly misplaced convictions. Had she the courage of her convictions, she would have represented her bosses, those Wyoming citizens. In the alternative, her convictions centered on putting her personal positions ahead of—in place of—those of her bosses. If those two sets of convictions truly were that incompatible, a person of truly conservative principles would have resigned her Congressional seat and pursued her convictions as a private person, where it would be legitimate to represent herself instead of her fellow Wyomingians.

Instead, she abused her position, participating in a by design one-sided House J6 Committee until the very last day, and only then pursuing her convictions as a private person.

And what is that personal conviction? It’s nothing that benefits people generally, or Wyomingians in particular. Her conviction—her single goal in life—is to be in the way of a politician whom she hates so viscerally.

Ms Cheney’s concession speech suggests her mission in politics now is to prevent Mr Trump from becoming President again.

In fact, no suggestion at all:

Immediately following her loss to Harriet Hageman in Wyoming’s Republican primary, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., unveiled her next move, launching a new organization with the primary goal of keeping former President Donald Trump from regaining the presidency.

In fine, Cheney has spent years letting her bitterness vis-à-vis Trump govern her Congressional behavior and her behavior while campaigning.