Potential network-centric warfare on civilians would likely consist of an attack on what is defined as critical national infrastructure: energy, communications, finance, or any number of other United States domestic interests. Specific targets include banking systems, control systems, air traffic control, and pipeline control. An effective attack on America’s banking and finance system could destroy not only the domestic economy, but the economy of the entire world due to globalization. As an example, Estonia recently underwent a series of cyber attacks that “… there were no roads or bridges to rebuild, no homes or offices destroyed. But the cyberattacks that, beginning on April 27, knocked out the websites of government departments, political parties, media groups and banks were a punishing blow to one of the world’s most wired countries…” (Smith). So many international interests rely on the functionality of US based systems that an attack could, in seconds, bring the global economy to its knees. In a recent experiment, the Department of Homeland Security conducted a test on a power plant in which they hacked into its control system, using commonly available tools and expertise, to take control of a power generator. Within minutes, the power generator vaporized in a cloud of smoke; there was no bomb, just a poorly defended piece of critical infrastructure that would have taken out an entire city’s power within minutes of being attacked (Mouse). The day Estonia removed a memorial of Soviet-era significance, Estonia “claim to have traced many of the attacks to computers in Russia. Whoever the perpetrators were, the sophistication of the bombardment was unprecedented, and it marked the first time the power centers of an entire nation were targeted simultaneously” (Smith). Other cases of network-centric warfare – not experiments – have cost corporations millions, if not billions of dollars over the past ten years. Civilian infrastructure is fair game for current adversaries, both nation-states and terrorists alike, and could devastate the economy without bombs, with fewer resources and more obscurity.
Military definitions of network-centric warfare vary slightly from the similar concept of information warfare in civilian terms. The nature of the conflict shifts from being on the defensive to being on the offensive in military terms. Military units use information to supplement strategic, operational and tactical levels of warfare, for example “Marines conducting military operations at the tactical and operational levels of war gain a significant advantage over adversaries because of shared situational awareness” (Office). In the military, there are nine governing principles of information warfare that are advantages to how a traditional battle is fought. Fighting first for information superiority, allowing access to information and shared awareness across levels of command, speed of command, self-synchronization, dispersed forces, demassification, deep sensor reach, the ability to alter initial conditions at higher rates of change, and compressed operations allow military forces to compete more effectively on a battlefield, especially with non-traditional forces such as terrorists. Information is used to transfer command to the lowest levels possible, making decisions quicker, more accurate, and allows command to focus on broader issues relating to the conflict (Office). Network-centric warfare is the art of knowing as much as possible about every situation and being able to act off of that information instantly. Networked forces also carry significant advantages over a traditional force because they are not massed in large groups of fighting forces, but can cause the same, if not more damage individually or in pairs. A focused attack by American forces on the enemy using purely the information domain can have wide-ranging consequences which cannot be achieved by bombs.
In order to understand network-centric warfare, one must be able to distinguish between different perpetrators and their objectives. In a domestic atmosphere, attackers range from teenagers experimenting and testing limits to organized criminals trying to achieve fraud to other countries and terrorists actively concerned with disrupting the American way of life. On the military side, it is rare to see attacks by teenagers, but primarily attacks from other countries and terrorists. Once the nature of the perpetrator is detected, it is then possible to identify a classification which that perpetrator fits into. There are three classifications of attacks: limited and/or routine attacks, potentially catastrophic attacks, and catastrophic attacks. Limited attacks are the ones typically done by teenagers and by individuals involved in white collar crime. Potentially catastrophic attacks are the ones that are limited in scope, but can produce unpredictable results that have the potential for isolated damage. Catastrophic attacks are attacks that are not as limited in scope and do great harm to key interests that could not be adequately repaired in a timely fashion (“Information”). After the perpetrator and classification of an attack is defined, it is more likely that defenses can be set up to properly protect a network against such attacks.
The PCMech.com weekly newsletter has been running strong for over 8 years. Sign up to get tech news, updates and exclusive content - right in your inbox. Also get (several) free gifts.
