Other senior officials are skeptical of what they see as "Buck Rogers" scenarios and argue that defending U.S. computer systems is more urgent. The Pentagon is probed every day by hackers and would-be cyber-intruders, making protection of military networks the top priority, said the senior defense official.
More importantly, potential U.S. adversaries are unlikely to depend on electronic networks as much as the Pentagon does, the official said. That means defending U.S. capabilities is more vital than disrupting enemy capabilities.
"The United States, more than any other military, is a Net-centric operation," the senior official said. "Any adversary we would tend to go after -- anyone we can currently foresee -- wouldn't use it to the same extent. Therefore, defending that capability and making sure it is not denied to you -- that has to be critical."
To some, the tension over cyberspace echoes military debates through the centuries. Maj. Gen. William T. Lord, head of the Air Force cyber-effort, said that such discussions were akin to an old military puzzle known as "intelligence gain-loss."
"Do you not destroy a target because you can exploit it? Or do you destroy the target -- and lose the ability to exploit -- because troops are in harm's way?" Lord said. "That is not a debate. It is a discussion that goes on in war fighting."
Wynne agrees that there will always be such arguments. But unless the military services are given the resources to develop strong offensive capabilities, top officials will not have the option of using them, he said.
"This is all about preparedness and making sure the U.S. military is awake and alert," Wynne said. "And I say: Make sure we can do it to them before they can do it to us."
--
julian.barnes@latimes.com
