Could Cyber-Terrorists Provoke Nuclear Attacks? 183
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that according to a study commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese Governments, terrorists could use information warfare techniques to make a nuclear attack more likely — triggering a catastrophic chain of events that may be an easier alternative 'than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves.' While the possibility of a radical group gaining access to actual launch systems is remote, the study suggests that terrorists could focus on feeding in false information further down the chain — or spreading fake information to officials in a carefully orchestrated strike. According to the study 'Hacking Nuclear Command and Control' [PDF], cyber-terrorists could 'provoke a nuclear launch by spoofing early warning and identification systems or by degrading communications networks.' Since command and control systems are placed at a higher degree of exploitation due to the need for rapid decisions under high pressure with limited intelligence, cyber-terrorists 'would not need deception that could stand up over time; they would only need to be believable in the first 15 minutes or so.'"
Hard To Say (Score:3, Interesting)
Without knowing how precisely nuclear arsenals, launch codes and the like are stored, I think it's really hard to say how likely or unlikely it is. I'd like to think that the systems and people involved are heavily secured, but if we look at some of the stuff that's gone walking out of a secured US facilities, sometimes you gotta wonder.
Re:You mentioned (Score:1, Interesting)
Problems with polygamy...
1: twice the cost of dating.
2: she always has backup in a fight.
3: they can keep each other satisfied if they decide to avoid the penis.
4: PMS all the time, or twice the PMS at once.
Re:Discussed This Report Four Days Ago (Score:3, Interesting)
and am more so worried about the weakest link in the chain: the human factor
that's why I'll never trust nuclear weapons.
With conventional weapons, we can always step back at time (or little after time), attackers are not isolated from main command when sent, and a spoofed war declaration can be reverted, even after one accidental bombing (this creating some serious diplomatic issues though...)
With nuclear weapons, no stepping back of any way (that I know), and after the first strike, the war is over, or forever.
Since I don't know much more than what movies told me I may be wrong and will be looking for expert's contribution, but I'm afraid I'm not that wrong...
Re:Discussed This Report Four Days Ago (Score:2, Interesting)
Just look at how easily antiviruses erase innocent files.
biologicals (Score:3, Interesting)
I am more concerned over biological attacks. There's a possibility now, what with the fast advances in this tech, that some group/state even a deranged individual could unleash something quite bad. And if they can construct such a virus or bacteria in advance, perhaps they could also construct any vaccine or treatment needed so they wouldn't worry about getting infected themselves. Or even worse, some nutjob who just hated everyone just might not care, a suicide attack.
An attack could pass as "natural" for maybe a long time, giving the attacker immunity from detection and a modicum of plausible deniability even if suspected. We can tell where a missile is launched from, and I am guessing but I would think normal telemetry that would be garnered would give an indication of what make/model missile, giving a clue as to origin, even with a suddeen underwater sea launch. But how to tell where a biological really came from if all of a sudden it just "appears" someplace and starts to spread, or who was responsible for any retaliation strikes, or even if it is a "natural mutation" or man made?
Anyone working with recombination techniques care to respond? Is this a possible scenario, or still mostly just scary science fiction?
And *specifically*, you need to read (Score:5, Interesting)
the part of Sum of All Fears where we almost *do it to ourselves*: a major plot point hinges on one Good Guy mis-hearing "fifteen kt" as "one fifty kt" from another Good Guy -- the first being a potential terrorist nuke, while the second "would have to be" the Russians.
There's followup as to how hard it is to push the *clean* data down the pipe afterwards as well.
If that's not a sufficiently cautionary tale as to just how loose and messy things would actually be in a first-strike-response situation for you... then you're not imaginative enough, and probably much happier.
It's amazing how hard it is to think when you think someone's about to nuke your country.
It's somewhat analogous to the traditional election supervisor's prayer: "Please, dear Ghod, let it be a landslide".
Only, um, in reverse.
only an idiot would resort to this sort of attack. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't need a nuclear weapon to fight against cyber-terrorism. All I need is my pocket knife.
Knife cuts fiber-optic cable. I win.
Seriously, the simple answer is to disable their ability to connect to our computers. That doesn't take bombs, though bombs work just fine.
Only a warmongering technophobe would resort to nuclear weapons.