DOCSLIB.ORG

Differentiating Kinetic and Cyber Weapons to Improve Integrated

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Differentiating Kinetic and Cyber Weapons to Improve Integrated Aviation electronics technician 3rd class conducts maintenance on aircraft targeting systems in aircraft intermediate maintenance department maintenance shop on USS Ronald Reagan, Philippine Sea, July 25, 2020 (U.S. Navy/Jason Tarleton) principles for shows of force, deter- Differentiating rence, proportionality, and rules for warfare that rely on predictable and repeatable characteristics of the physical weapons employed. The advent of cyber Kinetic and Cyber warfare in the modern era, however, has illustrated that the assumptions used for the employment of kinetic weapons Weapons to Improve do not necessarily apply to the employ- ment of cyber capabilities. For example, unlike a physical missile or bomb, it is Integrated Combat difficult to predict the precise effects, measure the resulting proportionality, or estimate the collateral effects atten- By Josiah Dykstra, Chris Inglis, and Thomas S. Walcott dant to the use of a computer virus. As we discuss, the differences between kinetic weapons and cyber weapons arfare, with a history as old are discernible, manageable, and have as humanity itself, has been far-reaching implications for strate- Dr. Josiah Dykstra is a Technical Fellow in the predominantly conducted gic military doctrine, planning, and Cybersecurity Collaboration Center at the National W Security Agency. Chris Inglis is the Robert and through the application of physical operational employment in both power Mary M. Looker Professor in Cyber Security Studies force to disrupt, degrade, or destroy projection and defense. at the U.S. Naval Academy. Thomas S. Walcott is the Technical Director in the Cyber National physical assets. That long history has In order to wage and win modern Mission Force at U.S. Cyber Command. led to well-developed doctrine and conflict, the attributes of kinetic and 116 Features / Differentiating Kinetic and Cyber Weapons JFQ 99, 4th Quarter 2020 cyber weapons must be fully understood • Is it possible to limit the weapon’s that are grouped as differences in weap- singly and in combination. To date, dis- effects to those desired with accept- ons characteristics, targeting, and policy cussion and debate about the attributes able impact to innocent parties and and practice between cyber weapons and of cyber weapons have focused on a few assets? their kinetic counterparts. The table sum- basic characteristics, such as perishabil- • Will the use of the weapon contrib- marizes these differences. ity—that is, making it difficult to achieve ute to, or risk undermining, stability, the same precision, let alone confidence, the ability of the employing organi- Differences in Weapons that typically results from the use of ki- zation to manage escalation, and/ Characteristics netic weapons. For military leaders, and or other desired characteristics of Many discussions about cyber weapons the policymakers who determine the pur- adversary engagement? have focused on the basic attributes of poses and applications of military power, the cyber domain, such as the global The answers to these questions depend, the differences between kinetic and cyber interconnected network; the highly fluid in part, not only on situational factors weapons prompt a reevaluation of how interplay of its constituent components but also on a firm understanding of these individuals employ weapons and of hardware, software, and configura- weapon nuances. We draw out those measure their effectiveness, which foun- tion; and the resulting fragility of access details in the following sections. dationally relies on a clear articulation of paths needed by cyber operators to To frame the discussion, we must differences and similarities between the reach their intended targets. Contem- consider the weapons’ definitions. kinetic and cyber environments. We pro- porary discussions of cyber weapons Unfortunately, the Department of pose and describe a strategic framework, have also explored their high degree of Defense (DOD) does not explicitly define though not exhaustive, that could be perishability and rapid obsolescence.5 weapon in doctrine, though DOD does applied to any instrument of power em- These traits are becoming commonly use the word within other definitions. We ployed by a nation-state; we then describe understood today but are alone insuffi- start, therefore, with a dictionary defini- distinctions between kinetic and cyber cient to allow for a comparison of cyber tion for weapon as “an instrument of any weapons to draw out both differences and kinetic weapons. The additional kind used in warfare or in combat to at- and strategic implications. differences below can aid tactical and tack and overcome an enemy.”2 Notably, This article compares instruments of strategic thinking. weapons are traditionally employed to offensive kinetic and cyber power across Kinetic weapons typically gener- create both lethal and nonlethal effects. three key areas: weapons characteristics, ate access and effect (by force) nearly Joint Publication (JP) 3-12, Cyberspace targeting, and policy/practice.1 These instantaneously, while cyber weapons Operations, defines cyberspace capability as thematic categories emerged as we identi- necessarily separate access and effect into “a device or computer program, including fied 18 individual differences between two distinct actions, often divided by any combination of software, firmware, or kinetic and cyber weapons. The weapons a significant expanse of time (in some hardware, designed to create an effect in characteristics category includes differ- cases, cyber access is developed weeks or through cyberspace.”3 For the purposes ences in the inherent properties of the or months in advance of the intended of this discussion, we consider a cyberspace weapons as well as in the effects they can effect). In the Joint Operational Access capability distinct from (yet predicated deliver. The targeting category highlights Concept, the phrase operational access is on) some mechanism that enables access divergences in how the weapon influences defined as “the ability to project military to the system within which the intended target selection and pursuit. The policy force into an operational area with suf- effect will be achieved. JP 3-0, Joint and practice category covers differences ficient freedom of action to accomplish Operations, acknowledges that cyberspace in the current environment and maturity the mission.”6 Kinetic weapons can pro- attack is one capability that could create of the weapons. duce such access for force projection and nonlethal effects; other examples include As we unpack these areas, military provide antiaccess and area denial against electronic attack, military information sup- leaders should keep in mind three fram- opposing forces. Cyber weapons typically port operations, and nonlethal weapons. ing questions that can help guide the separate access from effect, and they often The military action known as fires, states selection and application of any weapon require a significant effort to construct JP 3-0, is to “use available weapons and and that apply equally well to kinetic and access tailored to the given target and other systems to create a specific effect on cyber: its environment. For example, denial- a target.”4 Cyberspace attack actions are a of-service attacks leverage the access Is the weapon able to achieve the form of fires and “create noticeable denial • provided by a path from the aggressor desired effect within the constraints effects (that is, degradation, disruption, or to functioning networks. Data destruc- of time available for planning and destruction) in cyberspace or manipulation tion attacks control access provided by execution, the professional skills of that leads to denial effects in the physical another means, such as remote exploita- the human operators, and materiel domains.” tion or social engineering, but the key to resources? In the following sections we intro- their success remains an access path from duce and differentiate 18 characteristics the attacker to the intended target. The JFQ 99, 4th Quarter 2020 Dykstra, Inglis, and Walcott 117 Gunner and cannon crewmember, assigned to Chaos Battery, 4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade, dials in target of M777 Howitzer during live-fire exercise as part of Saber Junction 19, at 7th Army Training Command’s Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, September 11, 2019 (U.S. Army/Thomas Mort) implication is that cyber weapons require correct decryption key. Indeed, ransom- be observed and copied using playback significant tailoring, prepositioning, and/ ware relies on reversibility in order to be capabilities of digital systems designed or bundling with a target-specific, access- effective; demonstration of the capability to monitor the flow and storage of data creating capability. to deny access and the subject’s belief and software, even if it requires the cyber Kinetic weapons almost always pro- that it can be undone are the predicate attack to highlight the significance of duce irreversible physical effects, whereas to the victim’s willingness to pay ransom. a recorded session. The result is a high cyber weapons can produce completely Importantly, reversibility can be an asset likelihood that the cyber weapon will be reversible effects. Although a small frac- or limitation of cyber weapons, depend- copied intact and studied by an adversary, tion of weapons (for example, rubber ing on the objective of their use.7 even if the capture itself is after the attack. bullets) can deliver
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report Criminal Law in the Face of Cyberattacks
    APRIL 2021 REPORT CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FACE OF CYBERATTACKS Working group chaired by Bernard Spitz, President of the International and Europe Division of MEDEF, former President of the French Insurance Federation (FFA) General secretary: Valérie Lafarge-Sarkozy, Lawyer, Partner with the law firm Altana ON I SS I AD HOC COMM CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FACE OF CYBERATTACKS CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FACE OF CYBERATTACKS CLUB DES JURISTES REPORT Ad hoc commission APRIL 2021 4, rue de la Planche 75007 Paris Phone : 01 53 63 40 04 www.leclubdesjuristes.com FIND US ON 2 PREFACE n the shadow of the global health crisis that has held the world in its grip since 2020, episodes of cyberattacks have multiplied. We should be careful not to see this as mere coincidence, an unexpected combination of calamities that unleash themselves in Ia relentless series bearing no relation to one another. On the contrary, the major disruptions or transitions caused in our societies by the Covid-19 pandemic have been conducive to the growth of offences which, though to varying degrees rooted in digital, are also symptoms of contemporary vulnerabilities. The vulnerability of some will have been the psychological breeding ground for digital offences committed during the health crisis. In August 2020, the Secretary-General of Interpol warned of the increase in cyberattacks that had occurred a few months before, attacks “exploiting the fear and uncertainty caused by the unstable economic and social situation brought about by Covid-19”. People anxious about the disease, undermined by loneliness, made vulnerable by their distress – victims of a particular vulnerability, those recurrent figures in contemporary criminal law – are the chosen victims of those who excel at taking advantage of the credulity of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating a Total Army Cyber Force: How to Integrate the Reserve Component Into the Cyber Fight
    No. 103W SEPTEMBER 2014 Creating a Total Army Cyber Force: How to Integrate the Reserve Component into the Cyber Fight Christopher R. Quick Creating a Total Army Cyber Force: How to Integrate the Reserve Component into the Cyber Fight by Christopher R. Quick The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 103W, September 2014 Creating a Total Army Cyber Force: How to Integrate the Reserve Component into the Cyber Fight by Christopher R. Quick Lieutenant Colonel Christopher R. Quick is currently the J39 Information Operations Branch Chief for Special Operations Command Forward–West Africa in Kelly Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany. He previously served as the Information Operations Branch Chief and Director of Communication Synchronization for U.S. Army Cyber Command/Second Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Mission Analysis
    UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Cyber Mission Analysis Mission Analysis for Cyber Operations of Department of Defense Submitted in compliance with the reporting requirement contained in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act section 933(d), Public Law 113-66 Preparation of this study/report cost the Department of Defense approximately $587,000 for the 2014 Fiscal Year. This includes $15,000 in expenses and $572,000 in DoD labor Generated on 2014 August 21 RefID: E-0CD45F6 1 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 4 II. Current State .......................................................................................................................... 6 Threat Landscape ............................................................................................................. 6 Policies, Oversight, and Relationships ............................................................................. 6 Cyber Missions ................................................................................................................ 8 Operational Command & Control (C2) ......................................................................... 10 Resilience, Mission Assurance, and Continuity of Operations...................................... 10 Recruitment, Retention, Management, Equipping, and Training the Force .................. 10 III. Current
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives on Building a Cyber Force Structure
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or parts of 163 this work for internal use within NATO and for personal or Conference on Cyber Conflict educational use not done for profit or commercial purpose Proceedings 2010 is granted providing that copies bear this notice and a full C. Czosseck and K. Podins (Eds.) citation on the first page. Any other reproduction or trans- CCD COE Publications, 2010, Tallinn, Estonia. mission requires prior written permission. PERSPECTIVES ON BUILDING A CYBER FORCE STRUCTURE Stuart STARRa,1, Daniel KUEHLb,2, Terry PUDASc,3 aCenter for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP), Washington, DC, USA biCollege of the NDU. Washington, DC, USA cCTNSP, NDU, Washington, DC, USA Abstract: This paper explores the US’s cyber force structure with special em- phasis on the cyber workforce. To achieve that goal, this paper addresses several issues: it characterizes the nature of the cyber security problem; it draws on insights from senior decision-makers to identify cyber force struc- ture needs; it characterizes current capabilities by summarizing the key ini- tiatives that are being pursued by the US Services and key joint activities; and it identifies a spectrum of actions to mitigate shortfalls in the existing cyber forces structure (i.e. education; higher education and recruitment; cer- tification, retention, professional development, and workforce management; exercises; and security clearance requirements). The paper concludes by iden- tifying actions that NATO might pursue to improve its cyber force structure (e.g. conduct realistic, stressful exercises) and by identifying residual issues to address (e.g. career progression; value of employing “patriotic hackers”).
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis on Impact: Responding to Cyber Attacks on Critical Information Infrastructures, 30 J
    The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law Volume 30 Issue 1 2013 Article 3 2013 Crisis on Impact: Responding to Cyber Attacks on Critical Information Infrastructures, 30 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 31 (2013) Eugenia Georgiades William Caelli Sharon Christensen W.D. Duncan Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl Part of the Computer Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Eugenia Georgiades, William Caelli, Sharon Christensen & W.D. Duncan, Crisis on Impact: Responding to Cyber Attacks on Critical Information Infrastructures, 30 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 31 (2013) https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol30/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRISIS ON IMPACT: RESPONDING TO CYBER ATTACKS ON CRITICAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURES EUGENIA GEORGIADES, WILLIAM J. CAELLI, SHARON CHRISTENSEN, & W.D. DUNCAN* ABSTRACT In the developing digital economy, the notion of traditional attack on enterprises of national significance or interest has transcended into different modes of electronic attack, surpassing accepted traditional forms of physical attack upon a target. The terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 demonstrated the physical devastation that could occur if any nation were the target of a large-scale terrorist attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Refocusing Cyber Warfare Thought Maj Sean C
    Cyber Focus Feature Refocusing Cyber Warfare Thought Maj Sean C. Butler, USAF n September 2007, more than 65 subject matter experts from around the Air Force gathered at the US Air Force Academy to dis- cuss the way ahead for institutionalizing cyber training and force I 1 development. This occasion followed the establishment of a provi- sional Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER) (a major command) in November 2006, which itself followed the Air Force’s incorporation of cyberspace into its mission statement less than a year prior. Cyber power advocates of the decade leading up to this point were finally building momentum for establishing cyberspace as a fully recognized war-fighting domain. Unfortunately, these victories came at a cost—a fact that started to become evident at the 2007 conference.2 Conference organizers showed participants the definition of cyber- space adopted by the Department of Defense (DOD) in its National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, published in 2006: “A domain January–February 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 44 Cyber Focus Feature Butler Refocusing Cyber Warfare Thought characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spec- trum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures.”3 They also described the outline of the Air Force’s plan for structuring the cyber career field, with two primary cyber “shredouts” for computer network operators and combat systems (electronic warfare [EW]) officers.4 Almost immediately, this revelation led to some uncomfortable questions and awkward implica- tions. Why had the service placed two vastly different career fields into a single training pipeline? Does radar jamming belong to the same class of warfare as computer network “hacking”? Does this mean we should consider the airborne laser part of cyber warfare since it uti- lizes the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS)? The participants, experi- enced Airmen who hailed from both sides of the divide, asked these and other questions, leaving them largely unanswered.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Build How the Component Commands Support the U.S
    U.S. Navy’s fourth Mobile User Objective System communications satellite will bring advanced, new global communications capabilities to mobile military forces (Courtesy United Launch Alliance/U.S. Navy) Beyond the Build How the Component Commands Support the U.S. Cyber Command Vision Compiled by the U.S. Cyber Command Combined Action Group etworked technology is trans- went largely unrecognized. Today, works as a subordinate, unified com- forming society. That transfor- cyberspace ranks as its own warfighting mand under U.S. Strategic Command N mation has come with signifi- domain—one that intersects the four (USSTRATCOM) to conduct the cant change to war and the military natural domains. full scope of cyberspace operations. art. Until recently, cyber considerations Cyberspace operations demand un- These have three distinct mission areas: rarely extended beyond the comput- precedented degrees of collaboration, to secure, operate, and defend the ers and cables that supported kinetic which the U.S. Government must ap- Department of Defense Information warfighting functions. The natural proach holistically—leveraging resources Network (DODIN); to provide combat- domains—land, sea, air, and space— and expertise from industry, academia, ant command support; and to defend dominated the planning and conduct of and state/local governments, as well the nation against strategic cyber attack. operations, while the risks entailed in as allied and coalition partners. U.S. USCYBERCOM is building the cyber- using cyberspace for military purposes Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) space operations force of tomorrow, and 86 Commentary / Beyond the Build JFQ 80, 1st Quarter 2016 looking beyond that build to how the Motivated by Mission operate Navy spacecraft, oversee infor- command will operate with mission part- Each of the Service components con- mation operations, coordinate Navy ners in this dynamic and contested space.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Principles of Cyber Warfare Using Corbett to Understand War in the Early Twenty–First Century
    Corbett Paper No 19 Some Principles of Cyber Warfare Using Corbett to Understand War in the Early Twenty–First Century Richard M. Crowell The Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies January 2017 Some Principles of Cyber Warfare Using Corbett to Understand War in the Early Twenty–First Century Richard M. Crowell Key Points: Corbett’s theory of maritime warfare is used to illustrate how forces that move through cyberspace, content and code, have similar characteristics to forces moving through the maritime domain: fluidity of movement, omni–directional avenues of approach and the necessity to make shore (reach a human or machine destination) to be useable. • The relationship between the information environment (IE) and cyberspace as a key part of information-age war is described with a particular focus on how decision- making and control of machines takes place at the nexus of the dimensions of the IE. • The use, and rapid adaptation of, cyber force to influence human decision-making and compel machines to work independent of their owner’s intent is explored. • Cyberspace and cyber warfare are defined in ways that provide commanders, subordinates, and political leaders with a common framework. • Principles of cyber warfare are presented with examples from recent conflicts to illustrate the concepts of cyber control, cyber denial, and disputed cyber control. Dick Crowell is an associate professor in the Joint Military Operations Department at the US Naval War College. He specializes in information operations and cyberspace operations. A retired US Navy pilot, he served at sea and ashore for thirty years. He is a senior associate of the Center on Irregular Warfare and Armed Groups (CIWAG) and founding member of the Center for Cyber Conflict Studies (C3S).
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber in War: Assessing the Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Utility of Military Cyber Operations
    2020 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict Permission to make digital or hard copies of this publication for internal use within NATO and for personal or educational use when for non-profit or 20/20 Vision: The Next Decade non-commercial purposes is granted providing that copies bear this notice T. Jančárková, L. Lindström, and a full citation on the first page. Any other reproduction or transmission M. Signoretti, I. Tolga, G. Visky (Eds.) requires prior written permission by NATO CCDCOE. 2020 © NATO CCDCOE Publications, Tallinn Cyber in War: Assessing the Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Utility of Military Cyber Operations Matthias Schulze Associate International Security Division German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) Berlin, Germany Abstract: The study analyzes the use of cyber capabilities in war and conflict situations. The research question is: What good is cyber in war? What is the utility of military cyber operations in conflict situations and what obstacles exist? The paper analyzes a small set of cases where cyber capabilities have been used for military purposes. Using the ‘three levels of warfare’ heuristic, the study outlines the potentials and operational restrictions of military cyber operations. The analysis proposes a set of variables and hypotheses, such as the timing of use of cyber capabilities and the operational complexity of a cyber operation, for further theory building. Keywords: cyber in war, military cyber operations, levels of war, strategic cyber attacks, tactical cyber, small-n case study 1. INTRODUCTION North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, allegedly heralded cyber capabilities as an “all- purpose sword” that guarantees “ruthless striking capability” (Young Kong, Gon Kim, and Lim 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Airpower Lessons for an Air Force Cyber Power Targeting Theory
    THE 23 DREW PER PA S Airpower Lessons for an Air Force Cyber-Power Targeting eory Steven J. Anderson Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Air University Steven L. Kwast, Lieutenant General, Commander and President School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Thomas D. McCarthy, Colonel, Commandant and Dean AIR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES Airpower Lessons for an Air Force Cyber-Power Targeting Theory Steven J. Anderson Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Drew Paper No. 23 Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Belinda L. Bazinet Names: Anderson, Steven J., 1970- author. Copy Editor Title: Airpower lessons for an Air Force : cyber-power targeting Carolyn J. Burns theory / Steven J. Anderson. Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations Description: Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama : Air University Daniel Armstrong Press, Air Force Research Institute, [2016] | Series: Drew Composition and Prepress Production paper, ISSN 1941-3785 ; Nedra O. Looney no. 23 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016003567 | ISBN 9781585662388 Print Preparation and Distribution Subjects: LCSH: Cyberspace operations (Military science)— Diane Clark United States. | United States. Air Force. | Military doctrine—United States. | Airpower—United States—Case studies. Classification: LCC U163 .A62 2016 | DDC 358.4/14—dc23 LC AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016003567 AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Published by Air University Press in September 2016 Dale L. Hayden, PhD Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press Disclaimer 600 Chennault Circle, Bldg.
    [Show full text]
  • Army Is Preparing for Cyber and Electronic Warfare Threats, but Needs to Fully Assess the Staffing, Equipping, and Training of New Organizations
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees August 2019 FUTURE WARFARE Army Is Preparing for Cyber and Electronic Warfare Threats, but Needs to Fully Assess the Staffing, Equipping, and Training of New Organizations GAO-19-570 August 2019 FUTURE WARFARE Army Is Preparing for Cyber and Electronic Warfare Threats, but Needs to Fully Assess the Staffing, Equipping, and Training of New Organizations Highlights of GAO-19-570, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The rise of great-power competitors, The Army is changing aspects of its doctrine, organizations, and training to such as China and Russia, prompted develop a force that can effectively engage great-power competitors—Russia the Army to transform the way it plans to and China—through multi-domain operations by 2028. Multi-domain operations fight. The Army is developing a new present adversaries with multiple challenges across multiple domains (land, air, warfighting concept to guide how its sea, cyber, and space) in contested environments. To this end, the Army is forces will engage jointly with other revising its doctrine to guide how the force and specific units will function. The services in multiple domains, especially Army is also reorganizing its force by creating new units to conduct missions in in cyber and space. multiple domains and by updating the responsibilities of key Army formations, The House Armed Services Committee such as Army divisions. Also, the Army is training its combat forces for multi- included a provision in House Report domain operations in part by increasing the focus on cyber operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of General Paul M. Nakasone Commander
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL PAUL M. NAKASONE COMMANDER UNITED STATES CYBER COMMAND BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS, AND CAPABILITIES 13 MARCH 2019 Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member Stefanik, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to represent the men and women of US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM). I am honored to lead them, and grateful for the opportunity to highlight their accomplishments. Our Command has seen a year of change and progress, featuring the elevation of USCYBERCOM to a unified combatant command with an expanded mission and additional authorities and responsibilities, and the completion of the build of 133 teams in our Cyber Mission Force (CMF). We have transitioned from building the force to ensuring its mission readiness, and in 2018 we enhanced that by opening our new, state-of-the-art Integrated Cyber Center. Enabled by changes in law and policy, we have produced defensive and offensive operational successes. My testimony will summarize threats and opportunities in our strategic environment, explain how we prepared ourselves to meet them and what we did, and explain our priorities for the future of a USCYBERCOM that enables our partners and acts in cyberspace to defend the nation. USCYBERCOM’s task is to plan and execute global cyberspace operations, activities and missions to defend and advance national interests in collaboration with domestic and international partners across the full spectrum of competition and conflict. Our responsibilities include providing mission assurance for the Department of Defense by directing the operation and defense of the Department’s information systems (what we call the DoDIN); deterring or defeating strategic threats to national interests and infrastructure; and helping the combatant commanders achieve their missions in and through cyberspace.
    [Show full text]