http://www.carlisle.army.mil/dime/
Most are familiar with Matt Armstrong and MountainRunner for all things Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. I strongly recommend Dennis Murphy, a professor who oversees all things IO/cyber in the Army War College program, is very active is the New/Now media area. In addition to frequent Twitter updates, he has a regular and official blog on the War College site, posting succinctly on Strategic Communication related topics. He periodically has guest bloggers.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Join linkedIn groups connected to your professional interests
Linked in offers many valuable groups in our trade where one can read, start, or join in on discussions. It flattens the connections that might otherwise be hierarchical.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Art and Science Group comments
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=1826032&goback=.gde_1826032_member_32845088
Policy, esp 'war' policy, is often driven by anticipation/expectation of public response (though many believe incorrectly that public opinion is a direct cause of effecting policy, but that is a different discussion/case study). Hence, the resulting of many self imposed instances WRT to overt influence operations. I would suggest a strawman assessment of perceived tolerance of offensive cyber ops (or aggressive defensive response to violation of our sovereignty).
This topic was discussed years ago in a class I took from Dr. Denning. The larger (and more powerful-read China) the nation, the more likely it is to act rationally with self imposed restrictions. While most nations could violate cyber-sovereignty, the first to cross certain thresholds essentially makes it vulnerable to response in kind. That nebulous 'threshold' is what is keeping rational actor states in check. Who would you deem to be 'irrational' actors?
I understand that rational actors conduct frequent if not daily intrusions/probing in others domains. In physical terms, there is a difference between spying/data gathering on a country and overt border violations.
Policy, esp 'war' policy, is often driven by anticipation/expectation of public response (though many believe incorrectly that public opinion is a direct cause of effecting policy, but that is a different discussion/case study). Hence, the resulting of many self imposed instances WRT to overt influence operations. I would suggest a strawman assessment of perceived tolerance of offensive cyber ops (or aggressive defensive response to violation of our sovereignty).
This topic was discussed years ago in a class I took from Dr. Denning. The larger (and more powerful-read China) the nation, the more likely it is to act rationally with self imposed restrictions. While most nations could violate cyber-sovereignty, the first to cross certain thresholds essentially makes it vulnerable to response in kind. That nebulous 'threshold' is what is keeping rational actor states in check. Who would you deem to be 'irrational' actors?
I understand that rational actors conduct frequent if not daily intrusions/probing in others domains. In physical terms, there is a difference between spying/data gathering on a country and overt border violations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)