DOCSLIB.ORG

Is Cyber Deterrence Possible?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Air University Steven L. Kwast, Lieutenant General, Commander and President Air Force Research Institute Dale L. Hayden, PhD, Director AIR UNIVERSITY Air Force Research Institute Perspectives on Cyber Power Is Cyber Deterrence Possible? Timothy M. McKenzie Colonel, USAF CPP–4 Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jeanne K. Shamburger Names: McKenzie, Timothy M., 1969– author. | Air University Copy Editor (U.S.). Air Force Research Institute, issuing body. Carolyn Burns Title: Is cyber deterrence possible? / Timothy M. McKenzie Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations Other titles: Air Force Research Institute perspectives on Daniel Armstrong cyber power ; CPP-4. 2329-5821 Description: First edition. | Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama : Air Composition and Prepress Production University Press, Air Force Research Institute, [2017] | Series: Nedra O. Looney Perspectives on cyber power, ISSN 2329-5821 ; CPP-4 | Includes Print Preparation and Distribution bibliographical references. Diane Clark Identifiers: LCCN 2016052326| ISBN 9781585662739 | ISBN 1585662739 Subjects: LCSH: Cyberterrorism—United States—Prevention. | Deterrence (Strategy) | Cyber intelligence (Computer security)—International cooperation. | Cyberspace—Military AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE aspects—United States. | Security, International. | Information warfare—United States—Prevention. AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Classification: LCC U167.5.C92 M35 2017 | DDC 355.3/43—dc23 | SUDOC D 301.26/31:4 Director and Publisher LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016052326 Dale L. Hayden, PhD Editor in Chief Published by Air University in January 2017 Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Disclaimer Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied Design and Production Manager within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent Cheryl King the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US govern- ment agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Air University Press 600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6010 Air Force Research Institute Perspectives on Cyber Power [email protected] We live in a world where global efforts to provide access to cyber http://aupress.au.af.mil/ resources and the battles for control of cyberspace are intensifying. http://afri.au.af.mil/ In this series, leading international experts explore key topics on https://www.facebook.com/AirUnivPress/ cyber disputes and collaboration. Written by practitioners and https://twitter.com/aupress renowned scholars who are leaders in their fields, the publica- tions provide original and accessible overviews of subjects about cyber power, conflict, and cooperation. As a venue for dialogue and study about cyber power and its relationship to national security, military operations, economic policy, and other strategic issues, this series aims to provide essen- tial reading for senior military leaders, professional military education students, and interagency, academic, and private- sector partners. These intellectually rigorous studies draw on a range of contemporary examples and contextualize their sub- jects within the broader defense and diplomacy landscapes. These and other Air Force Research Institute studies are available Air University Press via the AU Press website at http://aupress.au.af.mil/papers.asp. A DIVISION OF THE AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Please submit comments to [email protected]. Contents List of Illustrations v About the Author vii Abstract ix Introduction 1 What Is a Cyber Attack? 3 Analysis of Current US Cyber Policy 5 Challenges for Cyber Deterrence 7 Final Analysis 11 Abbreviations 15 Bibliography 17 iii Illustrations Figure Spectrum of cyber operations 5 Table Deterrence attributes 3 v About the Author Col Timothy M. McKenzie is assigned to the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, California. He began his career in 1993 after receiv- ing a commission through the Reserve Officer Training Corps and graduating from Northern Arizona University with a bachelor of science degree in elec- trical engineering. He has served in a number of assignments in the Air Force’s and Department of Defense’s space acquisition sectors, including the Space and Missile System Systems Center, National Reconnaissance Office, and Secretary of the Air Force staff. In addition to space acquisition, Colonel McKenzie has conducted command and control of the Global Positioning System satellite constellation and worldwide computer security red-team assessments. vii Abstract In recent years, the importance of operating in and protecting the cyber domain has gained much attention. As long as our nation relies on computer networks as a foundation for military and economic power, our national and economic security are at risk through the cyber domain. Cyber attacks on US industry and government systems severely impact our economy and ability to execute modern network-centric warfare. Our reliance on networked systems and the high costs associated with cyber attacks have led many leaders in the US government and Department of Defense to focus resources toward developing a strategy for deterring adver- saries from attacking our networks in the first place. This effort has led to much debate about the question, is cyber deterrence possible? Deterrence in the cyber domain is drastically different and far more complicated than in other military domains (air, land, sea, and space). Cyber weapons and offensive cyber techniques are relatively inexpensive and easily obtained or developed. The number of adversary groups capable of attacking US networks is large, and our ability to deter each group will vary based on its motives and levels of risk tolerance. An effective cyber deterrence strategy must be multilayered and use all instruments of US national power. This paper discusses the dif- ficulties of deterring unwanted cyber activities, provides some realistic expectations for a deterrence strategy, and offers proposals to help mitigate the problems. ix Introduction The United States’ reliance on networked systems and the high costs asso- ciated with cyber attacks have led many leaders in the US government and the Department of Defense (DOD) to prioritize protecting our critical networked infrastructure. Part of that focus is trying to develop a strategy for deterring adversaries from attacking our networks in the first place. This effort has led to much debate around the question of whether cyber deterrence is possible. Answering this question is difficult since the number of adversary groups capable of attacking US networks is large and our ability to deter each group will vary based on its motives and levels of risk tolerance. The United States should not expect a cyber deterrence strategy to achieve the kind of results seen with our nuclear deterrence strategy during the Cold War. However, a limited US cyber deterrence strategy is possible. To be effective, this strategy must be multilayered and use all instruments of US national power. The strategy employed against one adversary group (e.g., criminal actors) will be different than that against another group (e.g., state or state-sponsored actors). This paper explores (1) the difficulties of deterring unwanted cyber activities by each group of cyber threats, (2) realistic expectations for a deterrence strategy, and (3) proposals to help mitigate the problems. Background In recent years, the importance of operating in and protecting the cyber domain has gained much attention. The US president, members of Congress, and senior DOD/military officials are keenly aware of the criticality of cyber to US national security. The 2010National Security Strategy says the following regarding cybersecurity: Cybersecurity threats represent one of the most serious national security, public safety, and economic challenges we face as a nation. The very technologies that empower us to lead and create also empower those who would disrupt and destroy. Our daily lives and public safety depend on power and electric grids, but potential adversaries could use cyber vulnerabilities to disrupt them on a massive scale. Our digital infrastructure . is a strategic national asset, and protecting it . is a national security priority.1 As long as our nation relies on computer networks as a foundation for mili- tary and economic power, our national and economic security can be placed at risk through the cyber domain. Cyber attacks on US industry and government The author wrote this paper in 2014 while a student at the Air War College Cyber Horizons program, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. 1 systems have significant impacts to our economy. As many as 500,000 US jobs are lost each year from costs associated with cyber espionage, and hacking costs the overall US economy as much as $100 billion each year.2 A compre- hensive cyber deterrence strategy is one option available to the United States for preventing or minimizing further impacts to critical US national security digital infrastructure. General Deterrence Theory To answer the question of whether cyber deterrence is possible, one must understand the theories or concepts behind successful deterrent strategies and how they apply to cyber. There is no single definition of deterrence or shortage of theories for its practical application. Joint doctrine defines
Recommended publications
  • Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress

    Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress

    Order Code RL32114 Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress Updated January 29, 2008 Clay Wilson Specialist in Technology and National Security Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress Summary Cybercrime is becoming more organized and established as a transnational business. High technology online skills are now available for rent to a variety of customers, possibly including nation states, or individuals and groups that could secretly represent terrorist groups. The increased use of automated attack tools by cybercriminals has overwhelmed some current methodologies used for tracking Internet cyberattacks, and vulnerabilities of the U.S. critical infrastructure, which are acknowledged openly in publications, could possibly attract cyberattacks to extort money, or damage the U.S. economy to affect national security. In April and May 2007, NATO and the United States sent computer security experts to Estonia to help that nation recover from cyberattacks directed against government computer systems, and to analyze the methods used and determine the source of the attacks.1 Some security experts suspect that political protestors may have rented the services of cybercriminals, possibly a large network of infected PCs, called a “botnet,” to help disrupt the computer systems of the Estonian government. DOD officials have also indicated that similar cyberattacks from individuals and countries targeting economic,
  • Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict Federico Sperotto

    Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict Federico Sperotto

    Human Rights Brief Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 3 2009 Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict Federico Sperotto Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Sperotto, Federico. "Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict." Human Rights Brief 17, no. 1 (2009): 19-23. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sperotto: Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict by Federico Sperotto* introduCtion ounter-insurgency is the dominant aspect in the United States-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in CAfghanistan, and, since the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has assumed growing respon- sibility throughout insurgents’ sanctuaries, also a mission for Europeans. According to the U.S. military, insurgency represents an intermediate step in the spectrum of conflict, which ranges from stable peace to general war.1 The frame in which military opera- tions are conducted is known as irregular warfare, a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over a population.2 This form of conflict is charac- terized by three principle activities: insurgency, counter-insur- gency, and unconventional warfare, referring to the avoidance of Association of the Courtesy of the Revolutionary Afghanistan.
  • Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W

    Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2007 At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W. Brenner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Susan W. Brenner, At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 379 (2006-2007) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9702-0379 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97. No. 2 Copyright 0 2007 by NorthwesternUniversity. Schoolof Low Printedin U.S.A. "AT LIGHT SPEED": ATTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE TO CYBERCRIME/TERRORISM/WARFARE SUSAN W. BRENNER* This Article explains why and how computer technology complicates the related processes of identifying internal (crime and terrorism) and external (war) threats to social order of respondingto those threats. First, it divides the process-attribution-intotwo categories: what-attribution (what kind of attack is this?) and who-attribution (who is responsiblefor this attack?). Then, it analyzes, in detail, how and why our adversaries' use of computer technology blurs the distinctions between what is now cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberwarfare. The Article goes on to analyze how and why computer technology and the blurring of these distinctions erode our ability to mount an effective response to threats of either type.
  • Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism

    Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism

    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 5 Number 1 Volume 5, No. 1: Spring 2012 Article 6 Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism John J. Klein ANSER, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 15-30 Recommended Citation Klein, John J.. "Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5, no. 1 (2012) : 15-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.5.1.2 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol5/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism Abstract While nuclear deterrence theory may be well-suited to dealing with nuclear-armed states, its suitability for deterring nuclear terrorism has frequently been questioned since 9/11. While terrorist organizations do not necessarily act uniformly or according to the same underlying beliefs, many of the most aggressive organizations are motivated by an ideology that embraces martyrdom and an apocalyptic vision.1 This ideology may be based on religion or a desire to overthrow a government. Consequently, terrorists motivated by ideology who intend to use a stolen or improvised nuclear device against the United States or its interests may not care about the resulting military repercussions following a nuclear attack.
  • International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed

    International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed

    INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND THE CHALLENGES OF CONTEMPORARY ARMED CONFLICTS RECOMMITTING TO PROTECTION IN ARMED CONFLICT ON THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS REPORT INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND THE CHALLENGES OF CONTEMPORARY ARMED CONFLICTS RECOMMITTING TO PROTECTION IN ARMED CONFLICT ON THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 2: CONTEMPORARY AND FUTURE CHALLENGES IN THE CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES ........15 1. Urbanization of armed conflicts ........................................................................................................ 16 A) The protection of civilians against the effects of hostilities during urban warfare ..................................16 B) The use of explosive weapons in populated areas ....................................................................................................19 C) The protection of the civilian population during sieges .......................................................................................22 2. New technologies of warfare .............................................................................................................26 A) Cyber operations, their potential human cost, and the protection afforded by IHL .................................26
  • Deterrence Theory in the Cyber-Century Lessons from a State-Of-The-Art Literature Review

    Deterrence Theory in the Cyber-Century Lessons from a State-Of-The-Art Literature Review

    Working Paper Research Division EU/Europe Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Annegret Bendiek, Tobias Metzger Deterrence theory in the cyber-century Lessons from a state-of-the-art literature review SWP Working Papers are online publications of SWP’s research divisions which have not been formally reviewed by the Institute. Ludwigkirchplatz 3−4 10719 Berlin Phone +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org Working Paper RD EU/Europe, 2015/ 02, May 2015 [email protected] SWP Berlin Table of Contents List of Figures 1 List of Abbreviations 2 Introduction 3 In theory – Deterrence theory and cyberspace 4 Deterrence-by-retaliation and deterrence-by-denial 6 In practice – Suitability of cyber: lessons and implications 7 Key challenges: Credibility and capability to display and use force 7 How to deter? Deterrence-by-denial and deterrence-by- retaliation 9 Determining the type of defence 9 Adding offence to the equation 10 When and whom to deter? Immediate vs. general deterrence and the challenge of attribution 10 What to deter? Narrow vs. broad deterrence 12 For whom? Central vs. extended deterrence 13 Conclusion and outlook 14 Annex 16 Glossary 16 List of References 17 List of Figures Figure 1: Limits to retaliation in cyberspace .................. 9 Figure 2: A possible model of escalation ....................... 11 Figure 3: EEAS figure on a possible inter-ministry division of labour ................................................................. 15 Figure 4: Risk assessment
  • In Defense of Cyberterrorism: an Argument for Anticipating Cyber-Attacks

    In Defense of Cyberterrorism: an Argument for Anticipating Cyber-Attacks

    IN DEFENSE OF CYBERTERRORISM: AN ARGUMENT FOR ANTICIPATING CYBER-ATTACKS Susan W. Brenner Marc D. Goodman The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States brought the notion of terrorism as a clear and present danger into the consciousness of the American people. In order to predict what might follow these shocking attacks, it is necessary to examine the ideologies and motives of their perpetrators, and the methodologies that terrorists utilize. The focus of this article is on how Al-Qa'ida and other Islamic fundamentalist groups can use cyberspace and technology to continue to wage war againstthe United States, its allies and its foreign interests. Contending that cyberspace will become an increasingly essential terrorist tool, the author examines four key issues surrounding cyberterrorism. The first is a survey of conventional methods of "physical" terrorism, and their inherent shortcomings. Next, a discussion of cyberspace reveals its potential advantages as a secure, borderless, anonymous, and structured delivery method for terrorism. Third, the author offers several cyberterrorism scenarios. Relating several examples of both actual and potential syntactic and semantic attacks, instigated individually or in combination, the author conveys their damagingpolitical and economic impact. Finally, the author addresses the inevitable inquiry into why cyberspace has not been used to its full potential by would-be terrorists. Separately considering foreign and domestic terrorists, it becomes evident that the aims of terrorists must shift from the gross infliction of panic, death and destruction to the crippling of key information systems before cyberattacks will take precedence over physical attacks. However, given that terrorist groups such as Al Qa'ida are highly intelligent, well-funded, and globally coordinated, the possibility of attacks via cyberspace should make America increasingly vigilant.
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J

    Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J

    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
  • What About Peacekeepers? Deterring Attacks Against Humanitarian Workers

    What About Peacekeepers? Deterring Attacks Against Humanitarian Workers

    What about Peacekeepers? Deterring Attacks against Humanitarian Workers Marcellina Priadi Uppsala University Department of Peace & Conflict Research Master Thesis Summer 2017 Word Count: 18,208 Abstract This thesis seeks to understand the phenomenon of attacks against humanitarian workers by asking: why are humanitarian workers attacked in some contexts, but not in others? By exploring the effects of deterrence as a security strategy, this thesis investigates the direct link between causes of attacks against humanitarian workers and humanitarian security. It argues that when humanitarian organisations involve peacekeepers directly in their humanitarian relief activities, this is likely to lead to a decrease in attacks. This is because peacekeepers are armed and able to function as a capable and credible counterthreat against belligerents for humanitarian organisations. A game- like theoretic model of the decision-making sequence leading up to attacks in the humanitarian space is applied to illustrate this. The theoretical argument is tested quantitatively on freshly collated data on peacekeeping activities using a negative binomial count model. Unexpectedly however, the results reveal a contradictory relationship to the hypothesis. Directly involving peacekeepers in humanitarian relief activities is associated with an increase in attacks against humanitarian workers. The surprising results are found to be significant and robust overall. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone that has assisted and supported me throughout this research process. To my classmates, for the camaraderie we have shared during this time and the immeasurable ways they have helped me to grow. To my teachers, who have challenged my thoughts and built the foundation for this thesis.
  • Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? by MAJ Lim Guang He

    Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? by MAJ Lim Guang He

    Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? By MAJ Lim Guang He February 2020 Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? DETERRENCE? WHAT ABOUT DISSUASION? By MAJ Lim Guang He ABSTRACT In this essay, the author is not attempting to redefine deterrence but to encourage readers to consider the notion of acting before deterrence—through dissuasion. So what constitutes dissuasion and why consider it? The author feels that similar to deterrence, there is no direct answer as each country has its own set of unique security challenges and capabilities. Furthermore, the issue is made more complex as nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers employ different strategies. So, in this essay, the author attempts to: (1) elucidate the limitations of deterrence theory, (2) establish a coherent trend of elements that help define the concept of dissuasion, and (3) adapt them to the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF)’s defence policy. He first begins by analysing the limitations of classical (rational) deterrence theory and its modern derivatives in the security landscape of tomorrow. He then explores the interpretations of dissuasion today and how they can be applied. Finally, the author develops what dissuasion as a strategic concept means for Singapore and how the SAF can meld dissuasion into deterrence thinking. Keywords: Deterrence; Dissuasion; Asymmetric; Hybrid Warfare; Adversaries INTRODUCTION deterrence itself: is the SAF too entrenched in its Deterrence—a word that appears in almost every deterrence philosophy to think outside of deterrence? Is contemporary defence doctrine—including Singapore’s deterrence a sacred cow that contemporary defence ‘twin pillars of deterrence and diplomacy.’1 However, thinking must always link back to? Instead of arguing the original premise of nuclear capability and/or military the evolution of deterrence further and further away superiority as the backbone of deterrence has steadily from its conceptual roots, why not argue for a eroded into the 21st Century.
  • Cyberterrorism After Stuxnet

    Cyberterrorism After Stuxnet

    The United States Army War College The United States Army War College educates and develops leaders for service at the strategic level while advancing knowledge in the global application of Landpower. The purpose of the United States Army War College is to produce graduates who are skilled critical thinkers and complex problem solvers. Concurrently, it is our duty to the U.S. Army to also act as a “think factory” for commanders and civilian leaders at the strategic level worldwide and routinely engage in discourse and debate concerning the role of ground forces in achieving national security objectives. The Strategic Studies Institute publishes national security and strategic research and analysis to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between military and academia. The Center for Strategic Leadership and Development CENTER for contributes to the education of world class senior STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP and DEVELOPMENT leaders, develops expert knowledge, and provides U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE solutions to strategic Army issues affecting the national security community. The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute provides subject matter expertise, technical review, and writing expertise to agencies that develop stability operations concepts and doctrines. U.S. Army War College The Senior Leader Development and Resiliency program supports the United States Army War College’s lines of SLDR effort to educate strategic leaders and provide well-being Senior Leader Development and Resiliency education and support by developing self-awareness through leader feedback and leader resiliency. The School of Strategic Landpower develops strategic leaders by providing a strong foundation of wisdom grounded in mastery of the profession of arms, and by serving as a crucible for educating future leaders in the analysis, evaluation, and refinement of professional expertise in war, strategy, operations, national security, resource management, and responsible command.
  • Agricultural Bioterrorism

    Agricultural Bioterrorism

    From the pages of Recent titles Agricultural Bioterrorism: A Federal Strategy to Meet the Threat Agricultural in the McNair MCNAIR PAPER 65 Bioterrorism: Paper series: A Federal Strategy to Meet the Threat 64 The United States ignores the The Strategic Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran Agricultural potential for agricultural bioter- Kori N. Schake and rorism at its peril. The relative Judith S. Yaphe Bioterrorism: ease of a catastrophic bio- weapons attack against the 63 A Federal Strategy American food and agriculture All Possible Wars? infrastructure, and the devastat- Toward a Consensus View of the Future Security to Meet the Threat ing economic and social conse- Environment, 2001–2025 quences of such an act, demand Sam J. Tangredi that the Nation pursue an aggres- sive, focused, coordinated, and 62 stand-alone national strategy to The Revenge of the Melians: Asymmetric combat agricultural bioterrorism. Threats and the Next QDR The strategy should build on Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr. counterterrorism initiatives already underway; leverage exist- 61 ing Federal, state, and local pro- Illuminating HENRY S. PARKER grams and capabilities; and Tomorrow’s War Martin C. Libicki involve key customers, stake- PARKER holders, and partners. The U.S. 60 Department of Agriculture The Revolution in should lead the development of Military Affairs: this strategy. Allied Perspectives Robbin F. Laird and Holger H. Mey Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University About the Author NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY President: Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN Henry S. Parker is National Program Leader for Aquaculture at the Vice President: Ambassador Robin Lynn Raphel Agricultural Research Service in the U.S.