The military's role isn't to provide peace and justice for citizens, it's to kill people and destroy things. That's not an insult to the military, that's what soldiers will tell you; we need to be realistic about it. They should not be operating around civilians in peacetime (except in special circumstances).
What would be an example of a civil liberty violated by for instance standing up a large Brigade or service of tech soldiers who secure, patch, work to shore up our critical infra and services? + a lot of funding; we already prop up the lockheads of the country.
I agree that it seems our Gov. can't be trusted not to intrude into our communications and other civil liberties.
But this is more about industrial control, supply chains, the foundation of software etc.
The gov didn't react or try to stop speech attacks on digital platforms even though they knew it was happening. They didn't even report it was happening because of I think naive political concerns.
Personally I liken it to missile defense and other existing programs which we spend a HUGE amount of money on.
Not securing our infrastructure could have even bigger consequences.
We're already in a growing cold war, personally I think decent potential to go hot within a decade.
Even looking at the little publicly reported easy hacks the, let alone the unknown advanced capabilities of state actors, the first salvo attacks will probably wipe out a huge portion of both sides infrastructure and basic digital necessities to function in our society. At least we're getting more serious about defending space because the military has their owned assets up there.
Maybe MAD would focus these attacks on military targets but I don't trust these nation states, or perhaps our own, to limit the radius. And maybe it's not even possible with how inter connected things are.
What happens when the military believes an attack is coming from a private citizen? Can they spy on or take action against that person? Can that alleged attacker's computer be seized? On what evidence? What if the military determines that effective security means surveilling a wide area before an attack, or collecting all citizen data to have a source to search for clues in case of an attack? What if they determine, which some already agree, that the best defense is a good offense?
I'm of a mind that the security should be a regulation, and the infrastructure operators have to meet it. The NIST can develop standards and techniques, but the safety of infrastructure is part of the cost of doing business. Your plant can't be a menace to the community due to risk of explosion, pollution, etc. - it seems no different. The operators have gotten away with buying cheap, crappy IT for years. It's time to invest seriously in rigorous, quality engineering.
We have some shades of that happening already, but I imagine a future where instead of sending young people to die,warring nations wreck each others economies remotely... which again isn't too far from current day.
While there'd still be casualties it wouldn't be nearly as barbaric as current wars, more developed nations would finally have as much skin in the game as disadvantaged ones, etc.
The way I see it, the best way to discourage war is to make it unprofitable. If war just becomes directly hurting each other's ability to make money I could see war, or erm excuse me armed conflicts, getting a lot more unattractive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
People marked as casualties had to report to the disintegration chamber.
War will always be a bad thing, but putting people on the ground in a foreign land with the mission to kill others has always amplified the horrors of war many many times over.
Taking out power in half the US for a day would kill thousands, but it's the equivalent of an all out attack on the US.
Compare that to if another country were to physically commit to an all out attack and it's easy to see why this would make future wars look like minor skirmishes compared to what's happened in the past
Right now it is profitable for us to go to war. Contracts are signed, jobs are created, it is good for powerful wealthy people for the country to be at war. And if you're powerful enough the risk of retaliation is so low that it's all gain and no cost (outside of human cost which is never enough apparently)
With this type of war the equation would be switched. Going to war directly harms wealthy benefactors, who as a result of their wealth hold political influence.
We're already seeing that aren't we? Espionage at companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. It's not harming any "normal person" but it's directly hurting the pocketbooks of powerful people. It creates incentive to avoid conflict in a way that (unfortunately) young men and women dying doesn't seem to have done in the past
