Cyber-attack.

This is coolbert:

Here is an article from "Wired" magazine on line that describes how effective a cyber-attack by terrorists could potentially be.

"I participated in a cyberterrorism exercise held at a homeland security convention this spring in Washington, DC. Set up by the Dartmouth Institute for Security Technology Studies, the simulation was a relatively low tech affair in which hackers and other evildoers attempted to do their worst to a hypothetical New England city called Harbortown."

["I" of course is the writer of the article.]

"Annoying, but not worth creating a new military-industrial complex over."

[this is a description of what is called "round one" of the exercise. The cyber-attack is merely ANNOYING!!]

Round two, however, resulted in different results. NOT just a cyber-attack alone. A cyber-attack done in the aftermath of a crisis of some sort.

"The game couldn't end soon enough. I don't think we won . . . During the debriefing, the sim's devious creators filled us in on what we'd been up against . . . Computers don't kill people; people with computers kill people."

Cyber-attack must be considered a COMBAT MULTIPLIER for the terrorists. NOT effective as a means of attack by ITSELF. As an ADJUNCT to a conventional attack, adds to the overall effect and IS effective. Creates confusion, either by "taking down" means of communication OR BY INSERTING DECEIVING MESSAGES TO CREATE FURTHER TURMOIL AND CHAOS.

This is the sort of thing employed by both conventional soldiers on the modern battlefield, as well as fourth generational warfare [4GW] practitioners. The latter in particular, on the cheap, using laptop computer, internet connections, and various softwares, wielded by skilled computer hackers, are able to wreak havoc WHEN DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONVENTIONAL TERRORIST ATTACKS. This the simulation seems to indicate.

coolbert.