[94903] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Every incident is an opportunity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Mon Feb 12 17:54:53 2007
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:45:47 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Cc: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <17872.58984.733147.388150@world.std.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:12:56 -0500
Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The US
> public by and large believed, and seems to still believe (i.e., the TV
> show Jericho) that the goal of a USSR attack was purely vindictive,
> complete annhilation. Apparently Civil Defense leaned more towards
> invasion as a goal.
>
> No doubt as weapons systems evolve how you achieve one goal or the
> other evolves.
>
> Either goal leads to different targeting strategies, as possible. If
> your goal is invasion then value preservation is important (factories,
> bridges, civilian infrastructure, etc.) If anniliation is the goal
> than it's of no importance, just bomb the densest population centers.
>
Some of the time, that was the goal... It's not that anyone wanted
that; however, it was (a) achievable, and (b) it was part of the MAD --
mutual assured destruction -- deterrent strategy. One could argue that
that part, at least, worked, though I would assert that that was at
least partially by accident.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
