A former White House counterterrorism expert has warned that the USA is very vulnerable to cyberattacks and that we are not doing enough to counter this vulnerability (see link below). He particularly fingers China as a danger to the USA, stating that China has hacked over 3,000 US companies and that it has stolen the source codes of Google and Cisco. He adds the Chinese have “cyber war military units” and have “laced the US infrastructure with logic bombs.” You can be sure these “logic bombs” will be activated at a time of China’s choosing. Unquestionably, they will be activated when the Ezekiel 38-39 Gog-Magog war is launched.
He asserts that China can “disconnect all Chinese networks from the rest of the global Internet” if it needs to do so. He cites the Stuxnet attack against Iran as an example of what “could happen to us.”
His warnings are good and timely, but I sense another agenda at work here. The link reports “Clarke recommended a bigger government commitment to cyberreserach and an effort to craft an international accord banning cyberattacks on civilian institutions such as banks (emphasis added). Any “bigger government commitment” to anything means “bigger government,” and a “global accord” sounds like more global government to me. The USA should act to protect itself from cyberattacks in its own interests; it need not wait for any “global accord” to do so. Also, it is curious that this article seems to be concerned about protecting banks more than anything else. This sounds like he is representing the interests of Babylon the Great’s big global banks. Babylon the Great is the term used in Revelation 17-18 to describe the global financial system in the latter days which is prophesied to collapse during the latter days just before the rise of the beast system. A global, coordinated cyberattack vs. the world’s banks is one more way that this prophecy could be fulfilled. A description of why the Bible uses the term “Babylon the Great” to describe our modern financial system can be found in my article, What Kind of Captivity? Clarke is also highly naive if he thinks that a “global accord” will protect the banks (or anything else) in a full-scale war. In wartime, all institutions with cybercode will be subject to attack.
The link barely mentions the Stuxnet cyberattack vs. Iran. Since it is widely-assumed that the USA and/or Israel launched the very effective Stuxnet cyberattack vs. Iran, it is obvious that someone in the Western world already has a very advanced and well-developed cyberwarfare capability. This proves the West is not nearly so weak in cyberwarfare as Clarke propounds. The West does have a very advanced cyberwarfare capability, but it was not known or demonstrated until the cyberattack vs. Iran. The Stuxnet cyberattack vs. Iran also shows that a cyberattack can be just as effective as a military attack against another nation. China should also take warning from the fact that Iran surely also thought that its nuclear-related computers were completely segregated from the outside world’s computers. China’s ability to cut itself off from the outside world’s internet connections is no guarantee of protection vs. a cyberattack. The Stuxnet attack vs. Iran just proved that to be the case.
One last thought. China’s military doctrine is often based on the famous work, The Art of War, by Sun-Tzu. One of its guiding tenets is “when you are strong, feign weakness.” However, that book was also required reading at US military academies if I recall correctly. US and western war-planners know everything that Sun-Tzu wrote. Clarke’s warnings argue that the USA is very weak in terms of cyberwarfare. Do his claims constitute “feigning weakness” even as the Stuxnet attack vs. Iran proves the West is obviously “very strong” in cyberwarfare abilities? Whoever is strong enough in cyberwarfare capabilities to launch a crippling offensive cyberattack vs. Iran almost surely also has stronger defensive capabilities than has been disclosed. Maybe the nation that invented the computer isn’t nearly as weak in cyberwarfare capabilities as has been reported. Perhaps Clarke’s warnings were part of a disinformation campaign as well as intended to be a tool to serve the interests of those who want global institutions and global government.
Read the article below and see what you think of it.