A．disrupting the enemy’s communication systemsB．damagin……
TEXT A
During the 1970’s and
1980’s political extremism and terrorism frequently focused on "national
liberation" and economic issues. The collapse of the Soviet bloc, and the ending
of its covert funding and encouragement of terrorism led to a decline in the
militant and violent left-wing terrorist groups that were a feature of the
age.
The 1990% have seen the development of a "new terrorism".
This is not to say that state-backed terrorism has ceased, but rather that the
spectrum of terrorism has widened. This new extremism is frequently driven by
religious fervor, is transnational, sanctions extreme violence, and may often be
millenialist. The new terrorism may seek out military or government targets, but
it also seeks out symbolic civilian targets, and the victims have mostly been
innocent civilians.
Growing concern about this new terrorism has
been paralleled by concern about the employment of the new information and
communication technologies (ICT’s).
ICT’s offer a new dimension
for political extremists and terrorists. They allow the diffusion of command and
control; they allow boundless new opportunities for communication, and they
allow the players to target the information stores, processes and communications
of their opponents. The sophistication of the modern nation-state, and its
dependency on computer-based ICT’s, make the state ever more
vulnerable.
The use of ICT’s to influence, modify, disrupt or
damage a nation state, its institutions or population by influencing the media,
or by subversion, has been called "netwar". The full range of weapons in the
cyberspace armory can be employed in netwar; from propaganda campaigns at one
level to interference with databases and networks at the other. What
particularly distinguishes netwar from other forms of war is that it targets
information and communications, and may be used to alter thinking or disrupt
planned actions. In this sense it can be distinguished from earlier forms of
warfare —economic wars that target the means of production, and political wars
that target leadership and government.
Netwar is therefore of
particular interest to those engaged in non-military war, or those operating at
sub-state level. Clearly nation states might also consider it, as an adjunct to
military war or as an option prior to moving on to military war. So far,
however, it appears to be of greater interest to extremist advocacy groups and
terrorists. Because there are no physical limits or boundaries, netwar has been
adopted by groups who operate across great distances or transnationally. The
growth of such groups, and their growing powers in relation to those of nation
states, suggests an evolving power-based relationship for both. Military
strategist Martin Van Creveld has suggested that war in the future is more
likely to be waged between such groups and states rather than between states and
states.
Most modern adversaries of nation states in the realm of
low intensity conflict, such as international terrorists, single-issue
extremists and ethnic and religious extremists are organized in networks,
although their leadership may sometimes be hierarchical. Law enforcement and
security agencies therefore often have difficulty in engaging in low intensity
conflict against such networks because they are ill suited to do so. Their
doctrine, training and modus operandi have, all too often, been predicated on
combating a hierarchy of command, like their own.
Only now are
low-intensity conflict and terrorism recognized as "strategic" threats to nation
states, and countries which until very recently thought that terrorism was
something that happened elsewhere, have become victims themselves.
The Tokyo subway attack by the Aum Shinriko and the Oklahoma City bombing
would have been unthinkable a generation ago, and not only was the civil
population unprepared, but also law enforcement. And this despite clear warning
signs that such attacks were in the offing.
The potential for
physical conflict to be replaced by attacks on information infrastructures has
caused states to rethink their concepts of warfare, threats and national assets,
at a time when information is recognized as a national asset. The adoption of
new information technologies and the use of new communication media, such as the
Internet, create vulnerabilities that can be exploited by individuals,
organizations and states.
Netwar should be understood as a war aimed at ______.
A．disrupting the enemy’s communication systems
B．damaging the institutions of the enemy state
C．manipulating the enemy’s means of production
D．destroying the leadership of the enemy state
