Win a war without killing anybody

Bob Spaulding’s assignement for today: write about a national or international stake that could be solved thanks to the Internet. I already know that most part of my workmates will write about fundraisings and humanitarian causes. This is great stuff. But too many people speak about these subjects. I don’t want to join my voice to this giant cacophony.

There is a big problem that the Internet can solve. What I could call “THE” problem of the whole humanity. Darius, Cesar, Georges Washington, Churchill… all these men have arlready faced this problem.

pericles.jpg

I should put a stop to this unberable suspense. This problem is called war.

How could the Internet solve such a problem? Here are two ideas, one is quite unconventional and the second is more acceptable.

1) From Marathon’s battle to WWII, winning a war has always been a national stake… and the Internet is a good way to win a war.

It is said that one of the very good intuition of Napoléon the 1st was that an army was nothing without an efficient “backup”: sending his men away implied the creation of very efficient “lignes de liaison” to supply them with food, alcool and munitions. Conclusion: when two states are fightening against each others, it’s not only a conflict between warriors, or weapons. It’s a conflict between two “organisations” (in the large acception of the word).

This analysis of the modern war is undeniable when people study the two “world wars” (“total warfares”) or the Cold War. Warriors against warriors. Military infrastructures against military infrastructures. Ideology against ideology.

The new stake is not to destroy the other army anymore, but to demolish the ennemy’s societal paradigm.And the best way to demolish it, is certainly to attack the facilities and others civilian infrastructures of the opponent. Today, destroying an aerial antenna can be considered as an act of war… and also as an efficient way to win a war (“The bombing of Al Manar is a clear demonstration that Israel has a policy of using violence to silence media it doesn’t agree with. This action means media can become routine targets in every conflict” Aidan White, General Secretary, International Federation of Journalists – you can read all the document the previous quotation comes from by clicking here).

But let’s get back to the point. I guess you already have understood what I wanted to mean: by leading a cyber-attack against the opponent state you can easily win a war. Attack its online bank accounts, all its datarooms… and this will create a real panic able to paralyse the wole economy and to undermine the social organisation of this state.

Conclusion: if you adopt a kind of old fashion “nationalist” point of view (which is relly not mine): Internet can solve the problem of war by helping the state to win the war.

2) The second idea is more idealistic, but this is an idea I really support:

There will always be wars. This is more an easy observation than an awsome intuition. And personally I am not idealistic enough to think that people really can put a stop to conflicts. But I have beautiful dream: that one day two countries would fight against each others without deploring one dead. And it’s easy to note that a cyber attack causes maybe more victims but far less dead than a real battle.

What do you think about this point of view?

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License