Re: A weapon of massive disruption

[Haroon Meer <haroon () thinkst com>]

Hi Dave (all)

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Dave Aitel <dave.aitel () gmail com> wrote:
> So for those of you keeping up with the Prezi I'm working on
> (http://prezi.com/vunircise2q8/three-cyber-war-fallacies/)

I took a quick look at your prezi, and had 2 quick thoughts:

2 of the 3 points central to your thesis are that it is a fallacy that:
[i]  Cyberwar is asymmetric
[ii] Cyberwar is not attributable

(In reverse order)
[ii] When setting out to prove that Cyberwar _is_ in fact
attributable, you then say:
"It's not like all other WoMD are perfectly attributable"
This is true, but I guess reverses (or at least softens) your position.

To counter the fallacy that Cyberwar is asymmetric you then go on to say that:
[ii] "Less than 10M a year will get you into wherever you want"
but "Maintenance" & "Analysis" will cost carrier-class expense tickets

Ignoring the fact that a carrier seems* to cost about $4.5 Billion to
build (and many hundred million to operate), this point again doesn't
quite disprove the "fallacy". I.e. you are saying that part of it is
relatively cheap and part of it is hellishly expensive. This seems
like the sort of stuff Asymmetric Battles are made of?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier

/mh

-- 
Haroon Meer | Thinkst Applied Research
http://thinkst.com/pgp/haroon.txt
Tel: +27 83 786 6637
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave