Forum Thread: Should the U.S. Hack the Syrians?

Should the U.S. Hack the Syrians?

The U.S. government is considering attacking the Syrian regime with cruise missiles and bombs in response to their using poison gas on the rebel opposition. Wouldn't it make more sense for U.S. government to simply hack the command, control and communications center of the Syrian government? It would a lot cheaper and fewer lives would be lost.

What do you think?

10 Responses

I may be a little late on this, but the point of attacking them physically is to send the message that breaking international law is not okay and will not be tolerated. How could we send a similar message through hacking them? What could/would we do that'd get the same message across and make them and other countries think twice about breaking international law?

Well, a hack on the infrastructure of Syria could send similar message. If the power and communication is knocked to the Central Command, I think they would get the message.

OTW

So you think just kind of turning the lights of or turning off their telephones for a little bit will send a good message? Obviously it would be more severe than just turning the light off but i'm just trying to see how we'd actually send the message through hacking them. Because i feel like taking out their power or communication or something, is something that would severely hurt a country like the US or something that relies heavily on technology but not too much on these countries where a good portion of the people dont even have a TV.

I may just be underestimating the power that a hack could actually do, but kind of ties into your other post on cyber warfare, that we have entered a new age of warfare, and the Syrian Electronic Army may be able to retaliate against us on the playing field of hacking.

I love the idea you presented, hacking syria instead of physically striking them, but could we actually hurt them enough? And if so, what about their retaliation, or as president Putin put it, "the new wave of terrorism" that will come from a strike on them?

those are the only questions that really plague me on the matter.

Sadly enough, there is no right or wrong answer for this scenario. Either way the infrastructure is destroyed. The only difference would be that cyber warfare would result in less lives being loss and to quote Old Snake:

"War has changed"

EDIT: To add to this, destroying the infrastructure would be a sure fired way to kill the mass population of Syria since infrastructure pertains to more than just electricity and communication. It pertains to clean water, medical attention, fire safety, and garbage removal just to name a few. So in reality, destroying a nations infrastructure through hacking is a sure fired way to assure that none of your guys are getting killed.

An effective hack could simply knock out electricity, water, sewer and communication to the Central Command. Their ability to continue the war would be very limited and few, if any, people would be killed.

Taking out the central command would leave numerous soldiers unattended to leaving the state in a form of anarchy and, for the US, would be a repeat of the Invasion of Iraq.

Either way people (innocent or otherwise) are going to die. Whether it is by the US' hands is anyone's guess really.

alright so i see it, we would hurt their governments war effort. that would be smart but what would we do about their retalliation? like when they do more terrorists attacks or hack us back? Should we just accept that "Either way people (innocent or otherwise) are going to die" like george says or is there something we can do about it or what?

because hacking would definitely have less soldiers killed but the longer term effect like that of a retaliation of terrorism may kill more lives. They will retaliate if we strike physically or technologically but what i wanna know is what we should do about it?

I'd like to politely add that a counterhack attack by the SEA would be FAR more destructive against the US' infrastructure than Syria's since, without it's infrastructure, the states wouldn't be able to support a 1/10th of it's population (and that is being generous).

it doesnt have to be by hacks though, they may just try to pull off another stunt like the twins towers, or just more bombing and terrorist acts. They dont need internet to blow up a building in america. So its not just the possibility of a "counterhack" that would be included in their retaliation.

Regardless. At the stage in the game that we are in, a cyber terrorist attack launched by the us would place us at the top of the UN's shit list so unfortunate we can't make the first attack and HAVE to wait for an attack by them first. inb4 false flag terrorism theories.

Share Your Thoughts

  • Hot
  • Active