Outstanding. Although, truth be told, I wish they (and pretty much everyone else who wants to tell me how to live my life, or take what is mine) would just leave me the hell alone. I wouldnt care WHAT they did, as long as they stayed out of my business.

Now what do ye reckon the chances o that happenin are?

back on topic,

i think we're looking at 20th century strategies and tactics.

I'm no expert but why use nukes, when you've got a well trained hackers who can do as much damage without the risk of fallout and massive damage associated with nukes. Unless of course hackers did something to nuclear power plants, chemical plants, refineries, etc. Denial of service attacks against servers to overwhelm and crash them, hacking into networks to do all kinds of mischief, can all cause panic and damage.

Russian hackers were active during the Georgian conflict and also against Estonia. So we know that the capability exists.

Why threaten to launch a conventionally armed ICBM, which can be immediately traced back to its launching point, when a hacker can launch an attack from malware infested computers all over the world while hiding out in his mom's basement?

I think in the 21st Century most countries are very aware of the threat posed by hacking from hostile governments, security agencies and terrorists. With the amount of cyber-espionage currently practiced by a countries such as China, most countries are well versed in preventing it.

The US Cyber Command is certainly one of the biggest and most experienced. The US Army Cyber Command directs network operations and defense of all Army networks. The 24th Air Force manages cyber for the US Air Force, the Fleet Cyber Command (the US 10th Fleet) delivers cyber capabilities for the Navy and even the US Marine Corps has its own cyber command. The US intelligence community also almost certainly has a very large cyber capability.

Russia officially doesn't have its own cyber command but it has developed capacity in this area and has incorporated the cyber domain into existing doctrines of information warfare. Until 2003, activities within the cyber domain were the responsibility of the Russian SIGINT agency, FAPSI. This agency was abolished and its responsibilities divided between the Defence Ministry and the internal security service (FSB), with the latter having responsibility for investigating cyber crime. Moscow State University’s Institute for Information Security Issues conducts research on technical issues including cryptography and counts the General Staff and the FSB among its clients.

The big three European NATO powers; Britain, France and Germany; each have their own cyber command's. Britain has the UK Defence Cyber Operations Group and MI6 certainly has its own cyber capabilities. France has the Network and Information Security Agency (ANSSI), and Germany has the National Cyber Response Centre, involving Police, Customs, Federal Intelligence Service and the Bunderswehr.

Other countries with known cyber capabilities include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, North Korea, Norway, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

Looks like the Russians may be using those cyber methods already - supposedly they brought down a US drone over the Crimea and captured it intact.

Ooh, someone's going to be pissed.

Was re-reading this thread and remembered that I wanted to mention something about this comment.

If Australia has the technology to detect the B-2, what makes you think the Russians don't?
Yes the B-2 has radar-absorbent materials and a shape that make it almost invisible to conventional radar but it is not totally invisible, it has a much smaller Radar Cross Section and has the radar appearance of something like a small flock of birds rather than as an aircraft. Most radar operators would dismiss it as a false return.

But the real kicker is that you don't look for the aircraft, you look for the wake it leaves in the air, something which can be detected by weather radar. The turbulence caused by a large aircraft cannot be made "stealth" and will be detected if people know what to look for.
This capability is also possessed by Over-The-Horizon Backscatter military radar and has been known about since the late 1980s.

Newer developments in radar are making use of this concept to detect distortions in not just the airflow but in other forms of radiation such as television and radio broadcasts. The use of longer wavelengths rather than the standard radar wavelenghts has also proven successful in detecting stealth aircraft, this is how the Sertbians detected and shot down the F-117 in 1999.
Also, because all aircraft create friction with the surrounding air, it is conjectured that high sensitivity IR systems could detect the passage of stealth aircraft by the heated air caused by this friction.

The Stealth Bomber can be detected and if Australia can do it, then the Russians certainly have the ability to do it.

Sources:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=1185,962953
http://www.popsci.com.au/technology/...stealth-bomber
http://drtomorrow.com/lessons/lessons6/26.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...ealth-aircraft
http://www.cassidian.com/en_US/web/g...ns%20invisible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft

Well I think with the JORN network the Americans helped the Australians a little bit to develop it as Lockheed-Martin had a role in its development, but certainly a lot of the technology was developed by Australia. Project Dundee which tested its sensor capabilities was conducted with the US.

The Soviets/Russians have been tinkering with OTH radars as early as the 1950's. They had two early systems operating from the mid-to-late 1970's; one near Chernobyl covering the US East Coast and Europe, and another in Siberia covering the US West Coast and Alaska. How effective they were in comparison to American OTH systems is open to speculation but they were decommissioned in 1989. The Russians claim that they have an operational OTH system operating in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad (formerly German East Prussia) located between Lithuania and Poland that has a detection range of 6,000 kilometres ,which covers all of Europe and can monitor airspace between the North Pole and North Africa. They also claim to have two other similar systems in the Krasnodar region near the Black Sea and near Irkutsk in Siberia. Similar may mean less capable.

Russia also claims they have a new system called Container that has a range of 3000 kilometres. China and Iran also claim to have OTH systems, the Iranian system also has an alleged range of 3,000 kilometres and both countries almost certainly use Russian technology, probably less capable than what the Russians have themselves.

As far as I can see the implication of this is that outside of Western allied installations Russia may possibly have some capability to detect a USAF B-2 approaching Russian territory from the traditional route over Europe and the Arctic, but beyond that I doubt they could detect one or could China or Iran.

You don't need OTH radar to detect the aircraft, weather radar can be tweaked to look for the airflow turbulence that every aircraft produces. Military radar can be tuned to longer wavelengths that have a greater detection chance for stealth enabled aircraft. The most serious problem is the skill of the operators, will they recognize a signal as a flock of birds or ground clutter or as an enemy aircraft.


JORN - Quote from my post here http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4368 (reply #8)
The Jindalee Over The Horizon Radar network AKA JORN (Jindalee Operational Radar Network) had its origins in some 1950s ionospheric testing but also took into account the proof of concept for OTH work done by the USN in the 1950s.

JORN itself was largely developed in a period from 1975 to 1985 and as I understand it, there was a lot of collaborative work between the US and Australia as part of The Technical Cooperation Program (AKA TTCP).
This collaboration came about because Australia could demonstrate that their research was as mature as the US research (and therefore the US would not be burdened with a partner that would contribute little but get all the benefit).
@ Schone - With all that in mind, I would assume that the visitors you had were all part of the ongoing collaboration. You may be interested in this PDF of the overall history of JORN
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attac...izon_radar.pdf

Somehow, that just seems like cracking a walnut with a tank.