U.S. lawmakers officially authorized its army to take up so-called “kinetic military actions,” nothing more than a sad method of literally saying “war” in a manner that is a gross understatement. As always in these cases, the announcement came with no fanfare, but quietly, in a short paragraph that includes the military budget for 2012. It may be much more insidious, but not clearer. The military budget, which approved the classification of the law, states: “Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the potential for and, under specific directions, can perform offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our nation, partners and other interests, in accordance with the principles and legal systems that the Department defines for the kinetic action potential, inclusive within armed conflict and the resolution of the powers of war.”
Intentionally obscure, the text above mentions “kinetic capabilities” and “principles and legal systems.” If someone does not remember, the U.S. military intervention in Libya, in the war that sought the downfall of Gaddafi, they said it was not a “war” but a “kinetic military action.”And why call it kinetic action, and not war? Because the U.S. president has to ask Congress permisssion to declare war, he has get their authorization for that. This has not occurred with respect to Libya.
Due to the “between the lines” authorization of the above document, the U.S. president and his commander of the Army now have a free way to declare, also, a war on the Internet where they will operate without the need to follow any principles or legal systems that require permission from Congress. There are also other obscure terms, for example, what do they consider an “offensive action”? Although not specified, the Pentagon’s strategy for “security on the Internet,” is another nice euphemism.
They have been occupied in trying to define the meaning of this offensive for months. It is worth explaining that “offensive actions” may include the release of viruses of all kinds, the destruction of services and the ability to invade the energy control systems in other countries, disabling their power grids and generating complete blackouts. We stress the fact that the actions “may include” because there are no precedents in relation to net cyber war or war, and these actions can expect to receive similar responses, as with real warfare attacks, keeping in view everything that has been pointed out as offensive in this text.
This threat of war is precipitated by cyber-paranoia, prophesying all sorts of cyber-apocalypse scenarios and other cyber-deception to promote fear. There is no record of any attacks from hackers that have put anyone in real danger, not even at risk, it is “highly dependent on Internet infrastructure (Source: Cubadebate, with information on Tribuna Popular TP / ABNA – Translated from the Portuguese version by Lisa Karpova)