And we remember the russians had this basketball sized entity, this button neck. Wonder putting something in space is surpassed by this. And we leave with an appreciation with an understanding of the difficulty of sustainable credibility and the fragility of stability. And it was not a happy place to be at that point. It was very big just before the election and completely disappeared after the election as well and it was a meth, in fact. So in the 1960s, and what you should be thinking about here or holding onto here is the importance of the revelers to the situation that we have in northeast asia, south korea, japan, and the middle east with israel and around and perhaps others. So in the 1960s, which might be called these years, we are dealing with the credibility and the concept of stability and vulnerability. This includes flexible response which is used in two ways are least. One is in conventional forces that we have a more flexible response and its also used to cover the topics that we are talking about, which is Nuclear Weapons establishment. As he says we need, a strike capability is not limited to the response that destroyed the cities of the soviet union. And what we need is something that will be more precise and more limited. It powers the concept of this second strike and it is horrifying as it is to say. And we are planning to incinerate roughly 50 million innocent soviet civilians. I say innocent because i dont think they voted for the other people that are part of this policy. And they say this was wrong, we would in fact be better off with a more ethical and moral posture with the forces in the military and something of the industry. In this includes the maxim or air and so it is supposed to be captured in something that was e single operational plan, which would have all of the targets with a weapon her Weapon System so that when they were put before it the president in a critical moment, this push this button here and theres a problem with that, but this did not match up with response. It does essentially the same response and actually 40 years and it would begin to reflect flexibility. For the first 20 or so really didnt and there was enormous civilian damage and the second thing about this was it didnt take long for them to understand that we were expecting a forces to survive this ability to destroy them and have residual force which we can target the remaining forces and the conventional forces in the industry. It was highly likely that we have the capacity to do that damage to them and that we had a first strike capability and that is to say that we could destroy their offensive force is such that they had no means to punish us to retaliate, meaning that they had just lost deterrence. And that was a deduction and i would suggest you click this from the strategy of the 50s. In this includes in terms of our Strategic Nuclear forces. The russians were very unhappy. The second thing that made them unhappy is something that sort of rhymes with what has happened these days and it was the enthusiasm for defense. And that meant that we explored this with a number of what i would call it now architectures. And one evolved into the safeguard system and it was not designed to stop a fullscale attack. But it was intended to stop accidents, and then eventually hit upon the chinese because this might actually deal with the chinese threat. And what the actual architecture was was not appealing to everybody and it involves two missiles with nuclear warheads. The first was called a spartan missile and the idea was that if we detected this launched by the soviet union which would attack the United States of america, we would launch a warhead and it would detonate and destroy the incoming warheads. And they might possibly penetrate and there was another missile on the ground and it would go up again and get the remaining in this range. And among these people who did not think this was a good idea where the canadians. And so we left the 60s in a dominant position in the soviet concern having had a romance with this sense at the time, it was a decade of secretaries of defense and these were years of the search for credibility. It began with arms control and the first major strategic arms which i guess you could say are aimed at shaping the competition and its counterintuitively limiting the extent to which either side could defend itself. And so later its exactly what Ronald Reagan would say and the strategists were saying they vulnerability is an assurance to the other side but they can always punish us and our vulnerability is the assurance we can always punish them. Therefore we have a stable strategic relationship and the treaty permitted both sides to deploy that and the system of their choice defending one area in moscow. And that is where we had these deployed and what we were doing was making sure that we had this capability to survive and we were really in kinglike strategist. Unfortunately as we were doing this strategic thinking, this very complex thing and the treaty, we were also working on the technological innovation which was the most destabilizing of any technology that we have developed on the ground and that was the multiple vehicle and that allowed to fracture this warhead whether we have this missile and that meant that one missile could destroy a multitude of targets. And all of a sudden it switched. And he used to be that you needed to use three missiles and it was actually an advantage. And that is called stable. Once you put several warheads on one missile, youre getting an advantage and that is called the stabilizing. We deployed this and other to avoid this, others being soviet union. So this was a period in time in which we went through arms control and defense and interestingly we focus on war crimes. Were moving away from this very important concept in our lives on the middle east. And it was a minimum deterrent weapon. And this is a function really looking at these weapons as being used about what it is going to do and who will win the war. And these were not concepts that we have thought of before. We started thinking about this for adding credibility, the theory being that the credibility would lead to this stability. The counterforce to capability, the decision was all emphasized by solicitor during his time as secretary of defense. And he had many decisions in which this is part of it. We were aiming at this point that whatever was they can be targeted. And that includes the targets this in the situation and deterring the soviet union. And we were watching them, the soviets, build some very deeply buried bunkers for their leadership area and that includes the leadership world and we have worked very hard at being able to target that leadership to make sure that we knew that we could. Lots of abbesses on precision and now we are into the 1980s in the reagan years. And this includes the number of capacities. And we were offered strategic weapons on each side. And that was probably enough. And we were thinking that we had to deal with this to deter the soviet union. And of course the soviets were going head to head and they are increasing the accuracy and having high levels of fractionation per missile and it was a great intensity and concern about what all of this offensive capability meant on either side, meaning that you can target the other forces such that they cannot retaliate and cause you unacceptable damage and i know that that is a little contorted but thats how it goes. And so gorbachev hit it off and i recommend it to you. The atmosphere is very good for these two gentlemen eventually much to the horror of both these individuals it looks like theyre going to agree on the reduction in Nuclear Weapons and there was one enormous stumbling block, Ronald Reagan is deeply committed to defense and he has been briefed on star wars and he is now aware were there other principles that he can imagine and the idea that he can deploy a defense is just incredibly irresistible. And so he is thinking that if we do that is, they will not have the ability to deter us and we will, if we decide to strike them, disarm them with every residual force do we have left and will not be able to penetrate the star wars defense. Dont laugh, its serious. It is laughable in some ways. Some of you might know in this room that through the mid80s the soviets were panicked over star wars and got a lot of information. In response the United States deployed more Ballistic Missile defense. In the soviet union fell. And im not saying this as we have it in oblivion, but theres an argument that Something Like this which is not a trivial argument. So its a huge competition and with it we find ourselves in a whole new world. And so we had an International Structure which is no longer bipolar and it could be called unipolar and it appears to be part of a fundamental new world order and i love that phrase. It had military force but not in Nuclear Weapons. And this is the concept of National Sovereignty where International Technology would replace it in the book that captures a where the world is flat and Jessica Mathews wrote a piece that also predicted this world that we are moving into with military power as the decade began with this. Drove the iraqis out of kuwait. And really there was a huge unilateral reduction and nato no longer had to contend with the warsaw pact and we were not worried about the soviet union, it was gone and russia was our partner. And thus begins the first decade of the 21st century. The forcer means relevant on september 11 we discovered a newfound terrorism and we were at involved immediately in afghanistan and iraq and its conventional military force and becomes clear to the world and it has unique capacity to project the force with incredible precision. Modernization occurs but not with Nuclear Weapons but it comes with the improvement in the delivery of that projection. Sweet embrace of and ability to do it more quickly. And so we have a prompt will will strike instead of days or weeks to do this and we want to be able to do it right away. Within hours, ideally within 24 hours area and initially we had upon the Delivery Systems for Nuclear Weapons in more than one strategist lisa that has to do with the ability to deliver this and it becomes clear that many people feel that this could create ambiguity and that maybe we shouldnt use Strategic Systems to deliver a conventional things. We have been thinking of other ways of accomplishing that objective. And its still conventional and not nuclear. It is a doctrine to go along with this and it was one of preventive war that was masquerading as preemptive war and we argued that we were engaging in preemption when in fact we were not. And iraq was not about to attack us. And so while this is going on Nuclear Weapons numbers have dropped one 10th of what they were in the 1980s from 30,000 to a few thousand. And that includes strategic arms control, giving way to Obama Administration of 2010 and much diminished in Nuclear Weapons. And theres also the emphasis of the popular press, if you recollect thats, henry kissinger, george schultz, sam nunn, and others writing about this and the interesting interesting thing they say is that we are not kidding. This is not just an nbp requiring us to commit to this goal. They said that that is where we ought to be going, that is the only safe future for the world. And that is what they have said as a group. Obama makes a speech in which he says that zero Nuclear Weapons. He says that is where we are headed. And he says that this is not just rhetoric. He said we were going after the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and we were going after the cutoff treaty. And he said we would be able to adjust the fuel cycle problems which impacted the proliferation problem so we wont have to have the problem of uranium enrichment and there will be more and more reductions if necessary. And that is the first decade of the 21st century and we are now medicaid of the 21st century. I go back to georgetown and that is clearly part of it. And we have been dealing with north korea for decades. If we look at north korea now halfway through the decade, they have not been dealt with. And its following the classic pattern for Nuclear Weapons. This includes interestingly it weapon which might actually reach the continental United States with one of those weapons pretty soon. And we still will not be happy about this development in north korea. And the pakistanis, theyre mean line and it sounds very pakistani, but the mediumrange Ballistic Missiles that iran has been a part of this. And you may have heard that in 2007 the North Koreans talked about syria and they had used a plutonium production reactor and i used to talk about Nuclear Terrorism talks and the concern about the transfer of this material from one country to another. Very often we have talked about critics and thats not going to happen. Insane that we would catch the transfer that would fit in that coffee cup phenomenal Nuclear Weapons. And we did not catch the transfer of that tony them reactor. And they told us and the israelis pursued their version of nonproliferation and otherwise they have a production of this and it doesnt require it that, but this is a situation that has evolved north korea to where it is today and it right different. We have a country that is provocative to japan and also to south korea, threatening our extended credibility and we have a country that is transferring the material and the production capability and we have one that is within a matter of months and years can talk about the United States of america and and that is north korea. They are also following the classic route of plutonium and uranium. And we have heard about this also and we have heavy water Production Facility with normal conditions and normal range. Either way negotiations fail or if they succeed succeed, israel will not be happy. It has not been happy with other countries and look what has happened in iraq and syria. Em not predicting anything but making an observation. This is not a situation but a Nuclear Weapon state in the middle east. We could have a very complicated situation with the saudis and egyptians that they could not stand idly by and it could get complicated very quickly. Pakistan for about 20 years of a recessed Nuclear Weapon capability it had the capability to manufacture weapons with a series of test bet after the indian series of tests but it is a longer possible for pakistan to have a minimum capability they are adopted american policy from the 50s to be built and have tactical weapons with the fighter bombers to a table of naval platform. The triad. To have the Nuclear Weapons program in the whole world lead in the stockpile of Nuclear Weapons but our debts that puts them in the range of france and britain by the way. If you watched wilander something would notice. But at times is not what we would like. India. Packet pakistan recessed for 20 years in the it had it for 40. And deterrents was their policy. It is not any more. That is relatively new for india is also with war fighting and to the Indian Program they want to target on the east coast of china. There also deploying a triad with aircraft for Nuclear Weapons. And what had constrained india that no longer constrains for what we did. We did deal with india it tick off a list of countries that others could not do them with. But you get my point we did it deal with india that allows them to buy uranium. Now they can buy uranium for Nuclear Power program that program is off a and running as well. And china. We were in the business we marvel that chinas restraint for a very long time since the 60s. At various times they characterize themselves to have minimum deterrence. I would offer that is questionable if they have the capability to deter the United States of america. Whether or not it was the chinese and no longer there their modernizing forces they have gone to concepts of mobility and survivability it may be unclear to me it is much more robust in this decade than it ever was before. But for the apex said the argument we come to russia their tan and rested and back. Georgia, crimea, Eastern Ukraine and the baltics. The russians have noticed from the very beginning there are conventional forces between them and us what used to be the warsaw pact has switched they do not have the conventional forces to defend against a nato should they decide to invade russia. And they were impressed with our Global Strike and our continued enthusiasm for various architecture of Ballistic Missile defense him believe there could be circumstances in which either their territory or forces were threatened. This has led them to explore apparently concepts of the escalation through the use of Nuclear Weapons first three u. S. Forces allied assets including the continental United States if you did not get that that means circumstances the russians believe they could have deescalation by attacking us first with nuclearweapons of course, there would be tactical and concerned about Collateral Damage but this is new. That is troubling. And then there is us. We are modernizing hour Strategic Forces to replace a higher class of submarines lee planned upgrades we plan refurbishment of the warhead with the manufacturing complex all of this is consists consistent with reductions in the administration makes that point but there is a new need to reassure our allies for the credibility of extended deterrence and we have done that. We had to do that in europe and northeast asia. We are continuing our pursuit of Ballistic Missile defense that the theater level and at the tactical level not from what the president has said there will be no fuel bank or unilateral reductions by the United States of america. In 2015 midway through the decade issues of credibility in extended deterrence and stability for usa and russia but also of northeast asia and south asia for the middle east. Those relationships are marked with a new complexity we have multiple actors plus there are new theaters. Cyber, a space where concepts of deterrent is not easily transferable we needed new concepts we sought to worry about abstinence and unauthorized use and launch and terrorism and the use of Nuclear Weapons the improvised nuclear vice as a transfer of material or the leakage of the unintended transferor and we continue to have to worry about Nuclear Energy in the acuity there are chances for enrichment and enthusiasm for recycle you will hear about that very soon. Em with the 123 agreement is backed with our security and it is something for all of us to worry about and i hope you have a nice day. [laughter] thankyou. As we do q a please wait for the microphone because we are recording this. State your name to tell us where youre from i know everybody likes to put their questions in context but keeps that short and actually ask a question that would be great but it should relate to tonights top. Hello. I just want to comment that first of all, mcnamara lasted one year on the counterattack but in 1962 he was on the sure destruction the sec can i never heard the term extended deterrence. So would you cite a good source of history and a belt the conventional it was not about nukes. That was less and your who got into that i got deeply involved on that subject. What is a very good source for these histories . Just to beg for consideration two points. When you do things by decade it is not precise. However to push back on the flexible response he meant just for you said that was an appeal to kennedy the whole period the conventional forces that i would assert to you and hope if you go to the book whose author is that Kings College or the basic book on Nuclear Strategy he will find their properly goes to the conventional with that counterforce capability as opposed to a response that was understood. I dont have text in front of me but i believe that to be true. But we have to stay on unclassified sources this is sets good is it gets but may be off line we can talk about that more. But you had a second point . I and the retired engineer. Talk about industry and so on there are other players attacked entomb have of missile were to launch. Avenue and the answer we have spent a where of the impact and aware of work that has been done to shield against the consequences but in terms of the ability to deal but if you are correct it is one of the results of a detonation and imagine the situation of a combined attack and i am sure people are thinking that but i cannot characterize that. As a historian we appreciate your perspective history so think about your policy prescriptions for that right now . The question was how do make the history relevant to a prescription with iran . I would say we have experience with countries that pursue for more than one kind of a reason. Generally people start with it is for security to acquire Nuclear Weapons and the answer is that is just the beginning of dealing with the case. After you deal with the security issue to provide reassurances and not 90 . Because technology is unmanageable that is not it. They decided their security needs are best met with the ada dealing with north korea now tried to dissuade pakistan or iran, can you . That they dont have a security need the right away you recognize that is not what this is about it is about self perception where there is perceived to be raised israeli Nuclear Weapons program that capability been there is a desire on the part of iran to be the dominant power in the gulf as a Regional Power and hegemonic power how would that be addressed . Then there are the domestic considerations when it is offered up to us. Some of it is their because of a domestic bush. We get that from other countries were dealt with there was a time when south to rhea had a secret Nuclear Weapons program when tie one had a secret weapon program. There was a time from brazil and argentina. And history does inform us into simply address what looks to us as a great start it is much more complex going down to domestic politics. I enjoy your talk i read your report one of the jihad groups in syria killed for Syrian Nuclear engineers scientist and an iranian. What were they doing there . Not the edgy heidi group. [laughter]. You just told me something i did not know. I probably could make something up. But i should not do that for by really dont know. So what you are suggesting is to see where people are to understand what National Interests are this is a tough target. Thank you embassador. If you could elaborate what is the response from saudi arabia or egypt . The proposition is if negotiations fail to wallace standing aryans assertions that they just want their rights as of the nation to develop the Nuclear Fuel Cycle with peaceful equipment. Is this turns out not to be true among the countrys better not surprised with saudi arabia and egypt they have a special relationship with pakistan. It is clear. It is possible that relationship would facilitate a technology from pakistan on a turnkey basis to evince a nuclearweapons the know nothing in detail about the relationship that is one model the egyptian case is tougher for egypt because of the political situation far that the egyptians are experiencing to my knowledge they have not moved down with their own capability so there some years away it is questionable like egypt would do this. As a leader of the arab world to see iran as a hegemonic entity in the region and the saudis are closer they have no indigenous capability principally by the chinese that is a concern right away. And with those of a bolt the dominoes that might fall and perhaps others. I retired from the Senate Foreign relations committee. 20 years ago you briefed Senate Committees of the agreed framework for korea. You did it masterfully but the agreement still came under fire. If there is agreement with iran what would you recommend to the above administration with regards to handling congress . Kevlar. [laughter] as you have observed the agreement is not a and agreement but is under full attack by those who believe they are friends of israel. To clarify a history. There are those that will be unhappy with the verification so there is lots of room for critics 2. 0 a deal if there is one that is similar to the framework 20 years ago it was an anniversary that was celebrated in a limited way. To any deal is open to criticism because they are not perfect i very often said what is your plan . What i heard their plan it was e. Essentially we would get everything we wanted and they would get nothing if they wanted and i said next time i buy the car you can do the deal i will get it for free. This will not be easy you may notice with the election here because 20 years ago it was right before the midterms in 1994 and the democrats lost both houses and new Committee Chairs could not wait to meet me. It will be hard. Thank you so much for the presentation. You basically named to talk about countries that have Nuclear Weapons or are suspected of having having a Nuclear Weapons program except israel and the history so first of all, why and willet you elaborate the role israel would have to play with the Nuclear Weapons and in the middle east. Asia lee talk about israel if there is a reason into. Right down i invite you to come back which i suspect you will disagree with but i dont know. But the Chinese Program is related with the indians related to the chinese argentina and brazil related to each other but south africa is the mystery is still mysterious. With that Israeli Program it was not a mystery to me given in the attitude of the neighboring states and the possibility that the soviet union could turn out to be a protector of those that would be hostile to israel in which the soviet union had a potential to be an actor in the israelis as a deterrent to look at the range you can see what they are aiming at adult lee the program is driven by the Israeli Program was spent a lot of my professional career in the middle east and i dont believe this but if israel did not have Nuclear Weapons it is not clear that would have been the impact of what is happening right now. Except the rhetoric would not be there when a rhetorical point could not be made but i dont believe the iranians are driven to be Nuclear Weapons in death let me clear that up it means this program is in place to have that option so now i try to control this and take away the Israeli Program in my view not a Material Impact on what has happened with iran. Believe it fears of its security for israel. But maybe we can argue about that offline. Visit the Israeli Program dealing with security i dont think it was boris is willing to accept the referred to it frequently as an ally in the middle east. With that program had not know the exact size and the Delivery Systems as well as aircraft and Ballistic Missiles it is a substantial program. I guess you are a follower of the professor that said Nuclear Related issues are more regional and as technology has spread so has the weapon behind it. But my question with an array and she has neighbors to the east and to the west the Pakistan Program was funded through saudi arabia. There is a lot of speculation that day already have them. Said to have Nuclear Weapons to pakistan so it would make sense for areas to go after Nuclear Weapons tusis set that security with a hegemonic so with what is going on in the middle east right now the things they a cue, a network was really taken down . I assume Everybody Knows what the Aq Khan Network is . He is the father of a Nuclear Weapons program initially the enrichment part the Dutch Program that they left to take to the centrifuge with the project manager for enrichment than the network part comes in response to a lot of transfers to other countries centrifuge. And rethink to iran and north korea and libya or perhaps elsewhere. Is seen as i know less about that but i cannot say you are wrong. Commenting on the open source the like cannot say it is not. It is one of the scarier things it says you are so worried about pakistan. To be concerned about the vast and growing weapons program. But with respect to transfer like to make the distinction of your into terrorism in the pakistan nikkeis they intended that. The kitschs what could happen with the transfer of the Nuclear Weapons but theres so much material of unauthorized access. So with egypt and saudi arabia and israel can you see them sharing the technology . So as a understand it if iran gets Nuclear Weapons would israel share the technology with its arab neighbors . I find that extremely unlikely. There were good stories about israel and south africa. With the possibility that South Africans were very colluded so they could test a component of a Nuclear Weapon. That is the only sharing that i know of and i dont know if it actually happened in the literature. But i find the idea was felt to acquire Nuclear Weapons in part from me. Talk about the soviets have a neat idea to have a counter force attack. Not exactly. The theory the russians believe they could get into a situation where the asymmetric advantage with lead them to defend of the forces in the reason it escalates to have that loss at that level to have Collateral Damage in demonstrating their seriousness. Coming in with your close personal friend that counterforce attacks on the United States was responded to by the counterforce attacks from the United States. In to the innocence of iran or israel. But israel has a genuine possibility to have a deterrent threat of Counter Value and did this week to see them publish that to identify what downhill a shopping areas would be the strife floor to be Counter Value. Fifth you have confused that. Dont sit down yet. But to reserve the phrase counterforce and not talking about a russian counterforce attack third talk about half an attack on forces where they will not have an impact it its very scary stuff. It completely misreads my prospective the response to any use of Nuclear Weapons against United States of america. Into the misread before with the resolve if we were talking counterforce and what happened i hope and pray if that happened to the retaliation would go counterforce to the lee a. That shutting down the conflict. One of the things about the Nuclear Weapons that any of us looking around the room would know what Nuclear Weapons do has been lost. So i worry a great deal there are a lot of people in this great country. To do anything of counterforces it is so reprehensible to meet cannot express this. Unfortunately we have the same idea. They needed to understand there are unresponsive with the influence he has across the world to reading his statements if it is a counter force attack it is not sufficient. He has every reason to to believe including a tactical situation is a tit for tat that goddess into the concept of war fighting. Is a hero and a number of pieces the one that was best known was titled you can imagine how uncomfortable it was he believed the slow spread of Nuclear Weapons was good it is chilling to everybody even and crazy people. So the last thing he wrote before he died about why iran getting Nuclear Weapons would be a good thing. There are views here that i dont have sympathy for its allies should have no sympathy for that position. Im independent consultant if you exclude the state the distinction between the presence in Nuclear Weapons for how deterrence works Going Forward into the future . The first question i did not understand. If you exclude the declared Nuclear Weapon states u. S. , france, the five, is that distinction between thermoNuclear Weapons and Nuclear Weapons important . It is important that deterrence will not work. It is important because i said in the order of magnitude 100 times more damaging it could be more but the mounting death and destruction is massively different when we say tactical Nuclear Weapons it is the range of the system. But does not mean it cannot be thermonuclear it could be one and still be tactical youd have to design it for the yields. So this may all get lost said to focus on deterrence. This is the argument for security of Nuclear Weapons. There was a time in 1979 and i was approached by this general counsel about an article published with the progressive magazine. Should the United States for the first time in history attempt prior restraint publication . Someone who believes that my instinct was absolutely not. But at that time we have tickets. I would not have had clearance of a thermoNuclear Weapons to come out in the magazine. We knew how long it took the french. And we knew these other countries were out there it was enormously important. In the secret conceptually was put out an open literature but to what the effect . Maybe there is damage i dont know but if i hear it has claimed to have successfully detonated a thermoNuclear Weapon then said judgment is not really. I am happy about that. Because that lovell of destruction could be so much more damaging but in the terms were talking about with deterrence through it credibility i would say not much. Thank you all very much. [applause] you can see the former speaker of five 8 30 a. M. Eastern on the companion network cspan. That is for everyone. Of Glorious Service for the country the call comes to every citizen. It is the unending struggle to keep the representative. Q. Is probably the most important political figure in Wisconsin History and one of the most important of the 20th century in the United States. He was a reforming governor governor, he defined progressivism it was the first to use that to solve a identified, a United States senator recognized by his peers as with the five greatest centers in history in and stood his ground to advocate for free speech but after the civil war america changed radically of a nation of Small Farmers and producers and manufacturers from the 1870s and 80s and 90s concentrations of wealth with e. Quality and concern of the influence of money is the government. So we gave speeches all over wisconsin to go to a county fair is every event you could imagine the by 1900 he was ready to run for governor to advocate the people who had two issues. One is a direct primary goal launders selecting candidates and stop the interest specifically the railroads. The keynote speaker from the u. S. House cybersecurity summit. Michael daniel talks about cyberspace. This is 20 minutes. Good morning it is the pleasure to be here at the chamber i tried to throw in a few new things into my speech so it is not boring for you so thanks for the introduction. I want to talk today about why cybersecurity is such a hard problem well be stalled still talk about it and how we think about that and design policies to shift or address the hard problems. When you take a step back from a purely technical standpoint at its root most of the time they get into the vulnerability that we know about so the enemy is on than networks that we are well aware of the end we have a patch but we dont do it. What is the deal . From my a point of view cybersecurity is not just a technical problem. It is far more than that in fact, cybersecurity does have technical aspects but it is more than that it is an economics problem vanda business problem and is ecology and behavior problems and if this six problem rolled into one. When you combine those factors that is why it is hard for us to solve or tackle. I want to draw out what those problems are what were doing to address them. Talk about the business it economic aspect we dont understand the economics of cybersecurity very well. We have solutions that we know better out there but we cannot get people to implement them talk about cyberkgb, information sharing, Identity Management for decades. Weaknesses continue. So, and its not like we dont even actually collectively understand these facts at this point. Yes, we need to do more on education and outreach and talk to more and more larger and larger portions of our society. But, certainly, the numerous news reports on Cyber Breaches from target to home depot and other companies have really helped to raise awareness. We havent confronted the problem in terms of how people actually work on the internet. How companies actually have to behave. So until we confront those problems in terms of Human Behavior and motivation and until we confront them as a business problem and an economic problem and a psychology problem as well as a technical problem, we are going to have to continue to flail and that actually stems from the ite
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.