Say you wanted to conquer the world. What would be the most bloodless way to do it? Assume arbitrarily high resources, but solutions that don't require absurd amounts of money, unlimited time, or absolute loyalty in hired help, are naturally better.
I'm partially asking this because I'm not sure it's possible.
Ideas?
Religion is a weapon.
Yeah, but that's an extremely long term strategy. 2000 years and still only marginal power over the state. Money has immeasurably more sway over things.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 04:19:22 PM
Yeah, but that's an extremely long term strategy. 2000 years and still only marginal power over the state. Money has immeasurably more sway over things.
Then China wins by default of it's $2.4 trillion surplus.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about existing players. I'm trying to figure out what it would take for a new player to conquer the world.
My first thought is yes, because if you do enough fiscal damage to a country I anticipate it's government will die.
:lulz:
Just remember the three B's:
Bribery, Blackmail & Business
The game is closed. New players are not allowed in.
That's why it's hypothetical, Charley. The interesting question ITT is: What are the current (world) system's practical vulnerabilities that no existing player knows to exploit, or doesn't dare?
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 25, 2010, 04:36:56 PM
The game is closed. New players are not allowed in.
They're allowed, it's just that they don't get to play with a handicap.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 04:43:21 PM
That's why it's hypothetical, Charley.
Oh, I thought it was hypothetical because you weren't actually vying for world domination.
QuoteThe interesting question ITT is: What are the current (world) system's practical vulnerabilities that no existing player knows to exploit, or doesn't dare?
I don't think there's any great secret there. Individual greed at the expense of the system is effective for manipulation. The "players" all do it, it's just a question of how much they do it. Also, they tend to have a public face, so they have to worry somewhat about PR.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 04:43:21 PM
That's why it's hypothetical, Charley. The interesting question ITT is: What are the current (world) system's practical vulnerabilities that no existing player knows to exploit, or doesn't dare?
In that case, the internet, technology and flow of information.
In practical terms, aren't they synonymous?
My first thought was AI - but Google is already aiming there, and they'll probably get there first.
A server under your control with only the information you want to go out. A series of EMP's designed to eliminate competition. Now the only information getting out is what you allow. No more open exchange of thought or ideas. No dissenting voices on a large scale. Satellite destruction would all but completely cripple most flow of governmental information. Panic would ensue as nation after nation was blinded. Paranioa would rule.
EMP's that powerful would also destroy any computers capable of reading the information you tightly control, so no one could read it. DARPA originally designed the technology underpinning the internet precisely to deal with the prospect of nukes taking out entire cities, or network nodes.
But assuming that you could target it precisely to take down just all other servers currently in use.. and some basic networking was still there.. how many EMP's would that require? My desktop computer is a server. Well, it could be. It's more powerful than whatever powers PD.com, and it's about three years old. I have apache on it already that I use occasionally for testing various things, and I have install dvds that could get me up and running with basic forum software. If you took out DNS I'd fire up bind, and pass out DVDs or usb thumb-drives for people to share and they could start resolving names into IP addresses again.
I think any plan has to assume that as long as there is electricity, and functioning hardware, there will be an internet.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 25, 2010, 05:20:55 PM
EMP's that powerful would also destroy any computers capable of reading the information you tightly control, so no one could read it. DARPA originally designed the technology underpinning the internet precisely to deal with the prospect of nukes taking out entire cities, or network nodes.
But assuming that you could target it precisely to take down just all other servers currently in use.. and some basic networking was still there.. how many EMP's would that require? My desktop computer is a server. Well, it could be. It's more powerful than whatever powers PD.com, and it's about three years old. I have apache on it already that I use occasionally for testing various things, and I have install dvds that could get me up and running with basic forum software. If you took out DNS I'd fire up bind, and pass out DVDs or usb thumb-drives for people to share and they could start resolving names into IP addresses again.
I think any plan has to assume that as long as there is electricity, and functioning hardware, there will be an internet.
Remember we are playing a 'what if' game.
Target your attacks on a weekday when the majority of people are at work and most likely many of their computers would be turned off. Make your own server one way communications only, out going.
In pre-firearms eras, the people who came the closest were the Mongols, with a mix of mobile, highly disciplined armies, state of the art captured siege weapons, using terror of the worst sort against those who resisted and rewarding those who capitulated. They also drew upon the armies of their conquered lands and used resistors/political prisoners as slave regiments.
In the modern world...well, I suggest reading up on the term "hegemony", both in its general political science and Marxist definitions, and pondering the implications of that. Francis Fukuyama suggests economic strength translated into military strength, excellence at building international institutions that legitimize one's agenda and ideological/cultural power are the smart route to conquering the world, but he predictably leaves out the heavy doses of state-sanctioned terror for those who refuse to accept the agenda in the modern context.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 25, 2010, 05:27:14 PM
Remember we are playing a 'what if' game.
Target your attacks on a weekday when the majority of people are at work and most likely many of their computers would be turned off. Make your own server one way communications only, out going.
I thought an EMP destroyed equipment whether it was on or off? Regardless, how many people turn off their modems/routers and unplug their computers from the wall when they leave for work? Anything left on standby would still be fried.
Also, servers need to receive incoming communications to send out data.
more pollution
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Say you wanted to conquer the world. What would be the most bloodless way to do it? Assume arbitrarily high resources, but solutions that don't require absurd amounts of money, unlimited time, or absolute loyalty in hired help, are naturally better.
I'm partially asking this because I'm not sure it's possible.
Ideas?
Can you define what you mean? Do you mean to shape the world into being the way you'd want it to be, or to sit in some control tower somewhere, able to control large and small events all over the world however you desire?
Here's a pretty good EMP article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
Although the electric field created from an EMP lasts for only a short time, its effects can be devastating. It is predicted that a single high altitude burst 200 miles above Kansas could propagate an EMP enveloping the entire United States. Electrical systems connected to things that can conduct current like wires, antennas, and metal objects will suffer significant damage. EMP effects on electronics include interference of radio frequency links, irreparable damage to microcircuits, and even the disabling of satellites. Fortunately, electronic equipment that is turned off is less likely to be damaged.
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp-terror.htm
Source not vetted.
You guys are thinking way too tactically. And like cheap Hollywood terrorists. Do you really think you could control the entire world without a level of consent? Have you given any thought as to how you would manufacture this?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Say you wanted to conquer the world. What would be the most bloodless way to do it? Assume arbitrarily high resources, but solutions that don't require absurd amounts of money, unlimited time, or absolute loyalty in hired help, are naturally better.
I'm partially asking this because I'm not sure it's possible.
Ideas?
Hack the database of every escort service in DC. Use said info to blackmail every powerful politician. (Sidenote: hire highly trained and unbribeable bodyguards)
Quote from: Cain on July 26, 2010, 12:10:18 AM
You guys are thinking way too tactically. And like cheap Hollywood terrorists. Do you really think you could control the entire world without a level of consent? Have you given any thought as to how you would manufacture this?
furthermore, there is such a thing as emp shielding.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 25, 2010, 05:41:59 PM
Can you define what you mean? Do you mean to shape the world into being the way you'd want it to be, or to sit in some control tower somewhere, able to control large and small events all over the world however you desire?
This. What criteria define "conquer the world"?
Okay, thinking specifically like a hollywood terrorist:
I'd create these really fantastic gifts for all the world leaders. These gifts would have to be really expensive - expensive enough that they'd actually get delivered and handled by the presidents and prime ministers and royalty.
Then everybody would get sick and I'd have the only cure! moo ha ha!
Develop a highly addictive drug. Get the general public to start consuming it by marketing it as an energy drink with vitamins, amino acids, and I don't know, hyena placenta, or whatever other unnecessary additive people are bonkers over these days.
When they're all hooked, you control them by controlling the supply of said drug.
Acquire favourably geopolitically situationed country through force or fair elections or a mixture of the two based on the local political culture and my needs. Proceed to play off surrounding nations against each other while trading with them all and, when of sufficient economic strength, start to translate that into military power of a defensive nature. Once regionally secure, I would then attempt to build on offensive military power, while decrying the unstable foreign policies of my neighbours (often caused by my indirect influence) as a need for a force for creating peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Whenever a conflict would arise, I would intervene, either covertly or (if impossible to avoid) overtly to ensure people responsive to my interests are put in positions of power. I would also use various corporate and banking entities in my home country to open up foreign markets to my influence, either through trading expensive manufacturing goods or resource extraction. I would outwardly abide by the rules and norms of international law and diplomacy, while covertly breaking them and subverting them, and use a well funded, nominally independent propaganda system to demonize my enemies both at home and abroad.
Quote from: Cain on July 26, 2010, 04:43:00 PM
Acquire favourably geopolitically situationed country through force or fair elections or a mixture of the two based on the local political culture and my needs. Proceed to play off surrounding nations against each other while trading with them all and, when of sufficient economic strength, start to translate that into military power of a defensive nature. Once regionally secure, I would then attempt to build on offensive military power, while decrying the unstable foreign policies of my neighbours (often caused by my indirect influence) as a need for a force for creating peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Whenever a conflict would arise, I would intervene, either covertly or (if impossible to avoid) overtly to ensure people responsive to my interests are put in positions of power. I would also use various corporate and banking entities in my home country to open up foreign markets to my influence, either through trading expensive manufacturing goods or resource extraction. I would outwardly abide by the rules and norms of international law and diplomacy, while covertly breaking them and subverting them, and use a well funded, nominally independent propaganda system to demonize my enemies both at home and abroad.
Now why does this sound familiar?
That sounds a lot smarter than my plan, which was to use attacks that caused maximum fiscal damage, in order to cripple governments, then supplant them. The plan had a lot of problems.
Hijack cell phone towers and manipulate people though their hand-held, seemingly grafted to their hands, technology.
Great concept for a thread, Sigmatic! cheers
Quote from: Cain on July 26, 2010, 12:10:18 AM
You guys are thinking way too tactically. And like cheap Hollywood terrorists. Do you really think you could control the entire world without a level of consent? Have you given any thought as to how you would manufacture this?
Because I'm sad to admit cannot come up with things as the scenario you just sketched, even though similar things are happening right under my nose ... :(
And I never really liked games such as Diplomacy or Risk [read: I really suck at them], so I'd rather come up with ummmm hacking Google or something :)
So maybe I should augment such a Hollywood scheme with hiring a really smart geopolitics dude, like you. Except that if the guy was really good, I'd probably end up second in command at best, or dead at
worst second-best :)
And of course the question remains, what exactly constitutes world-domination? When can you really be said to dominate everybody in the world, save absolute mind control?
So, with the goal somewhat unclear, I'll go with figuring out a way to hit information infrastructure, and hit it bad. Except that, with say, the Internet crippled and brought to its knees, you'd just get worldwide chaos, and that's a far cry from dominating the world. Maybe it even makes it harder, what do you think? Unless maybe if you'd
also have a decentralized army of highly mobile Mongol clones who'd probably do well in such a chaotic scenario.
[Or I could claim spiritual domination by proxy, since the world would be now ruled by our Goddess of Chaos? ;-)]
Is that maybe the reason why nobody does it? The lack of usefullness in worldwide chaos, not even for a bunch of crazy religious terrorists?
Because, thinking back to this essay How to 0wn the Internet in Your Spare Time (http://www.icir.org/vern/papers/cdc-usenix-sec02/), it'd require some resources, but nothing too outrageous a rich corporation or small country couldn't acquire.
And I always wondered why computer viruses and worms and botnets aren't more blatantly destructive. The main reason is of course, money. There's no money to be made in wiping 100,000s computers harddisks and crippling a good part of the Internet infrastructure. Plus, it's kind of a one-shot trick, after that your botnet is useless as well as decimated, and you can make much more money if after today's spam session you can rent it out to some other criminals the next day.
But still, with a reasonable amount of money ($100K would go a long way if I'm to believe the prices I've seen) you can rent a bunch of 0wned computers [cheaper than hiring hacker kids and 0wn them yourself, as well as more reliable] and you can get them to run any kind of code [meaning any sort of attack] and do some serious damage. You could probably still hire the hackers and have them code the most potent attack code. Destruction, data wiping and DOS is a lot less secured against than specifically gaining control [note for example how most browsers are still vulnerable to browserbombs hanging the system, while code execution exploits get fixed within days].
Another angle is, XSS/javascript worms on social networks are still very possible. All you need is one XSS hole. Usually they are just abused with relatively harmless vandalism [see the recent Youtube script injection fun by 4chan], or if someone codes a worm it's usually just a proof-of-concept [like the Samy worm], and then it gets closed quickly. But if you're quick enough you can slip in your own violent worm. Since they spread exponentially, they often cover like 60% of the active network within hours. The violent worm could then apply a browser exploit "kit" (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/01/a-peek-inside-the-eleonore-browser-exploit-kit/) and 0wn anybody who hasn't updated their system in a while. After spreading, and trying the exploits, it would employ a browser bomb technique in order to confuse and delay the user [I'm not sure but I believe a lot of kits don't think to do this]. Additionally, cleaning up after the worm is for the admin-team is about as much fun as cleaning up after an H orbital spam bombardment, you could also deploy a few "tripwires" specifically to delay the admins, as well as making the worm polymorph [if possible] in order to prevent an automated regex search/replace fixing. On second thought, all that gains you is they will probably put the network/social website into "maintenance mode" until they fix it. But you will still annoy the fuck out of them :-P
Slightly more advanced than a movieploit scheme [it would make a boring screenplay anyway], but all it gains you is an indeterminate amount of chaos, data-loss, denial of service and subsequent financial damage. And possibly not in the places where it would really count. Although goverment and corporate IT systems are surprisingly* insecure, even if they shouldn't be.
*doesn't surprise me that much anymore, after hanging around these boards for a couple of years, reading about the various levels of incompetence that rule our planet.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
What would be the most bloodless way to do it?
THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT?
It's a matter of practicality. The existing powers are much better at killing than any upstart could hope to be.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 26, 2010, 06:48:44 PM
It's a matter of practicality. The existing powers are much better at killing than any upstart could hope to be.
You give me the GNP of America, and I'll have you SWIMMING in blood & bits by next year. All these other "countries" will be falling all over themselves to pay tribute.
No nukes, either.
Yeah, I could see that. But what if you only had, mm, 100 billion to play with?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 26, 2010, 06:51:17 PM
Yeah, I could see that. But what if you only had, mm, 100 billion to play with?
How much does it take to launch a metric ton to orbit.
At a guess, given $15K/lb about thirty million dollars.
You could put 3,333 such objects into orbit with that amount of money.
Um.
I think I gotta give you that one. :lol:
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 26, 2010, 07:03:13 PM
At a guess, given $15K/lb about thirty million dollars.
You could put 3,333 such objects into orbit with that amount of money.
Um.
I think I gotta give you that one. :lol:
Yeah, now I have to look up what a metric ton of pig iron costs.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 26, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
That sounds a lot smarter than my plan, which was to use attacks that caused maximum fiscal damage, in order to cripple governments, then supplant them. The plan had a lot of problems.
Actually, put this way it sounds like the global guerrila strategy, except leave out the supplant them part.
Attacks on networks can cause a return on investment that reaches millions of percent (unfortunately that's not profit to you, that's loss to your targets, but still, very impressive)
The point is to take money, not to make money.
/Dr. Horrible
Attacking the internet is fairly difficult, it is extremely robust. Attacking the electrical grid is much easier. There are systempunkts where a few hours work and less than a hundred dollars in tools can cause tens of millions of dollars worth of damage. Internet can also be cut off by attacking infrastructure rather than software. again with a HUGE ROI.
Yeah, if you know where the underground fiber optic cables are, and can cut them without leaving clues as to where they were cut...
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 26, 2010, 10:00:57 PM
Yeah, if you know where the underground fiber optic cables are, and can cut them without leaving clues as to where they were cut...
Exactly. And honestly you don't even need to be that careful about clues as to where it was cut. They'll find it and fix it, but even that is going to cost them a lot more than you invested in cutting it in the first place, and while it is down there is a lot of business that is not being done. While they are hunting down the cut cable that took out internet service to half of the major metropolis you are drilling a hole in the water main, on the other side of town, so that the half that can get on the internet cannot take a shower.
And when they complain that they cannot bathe, you bust open a dam near the town.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 26, 2010, 10:18:45 PM
And when they complain that they cannot bathe, you bust open a dam near the town.
That's a bit more bloody and expensive, with the ROI likely to be less, percentagewise. Might be better to order five dozen pizzas for the mayor and move on to another town at that point.
Are explosives really that expensive?
I don't know if it'd be the raw cost so much as needing a lot of it.
The bombs used to bust German dams in WWII had 6600 pounds of torpex (equivalent to about 5 tons TNT).
If I had 5 tons of TNT I could probably cause a lot more chaos (Free way overpasses and rail lines both come to mind, bonus points for where a freeway passes over the rail line) than busting a dam, and the delivery for a car bomb or the like is a lot easier.
Oh well. I really just said it to be funny anyway.
A global guerrilla strategy is only useful for creating the kind of chaos where local actors can then seize power.
Unless you're only using it as a stepping stone towards ruling a country, supplying order is a better route to global power than supplying disorder.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 26, 2010, 10:49:42 PM
Might be better to order five dozen pizzas for the mayor and move on to another town at that point.
:mittens:
ORDER 100 PIZZAS FOR OBAMA
FLEE COUNTRY
Quote from: Cain on July 27, 2010, 10:44:35 AM
A global guerrilla strategy is only useful for creating the kind of chaos where local actors can then seize power.
Unless you're only using it as a stepping stone towards ruling a country, supplying order is a better route to global power than supplying disorder.
Well, network disruption could be combined with supply of alternate networks. Set up a mesh potato wireless network for instance, before cutting the internet cables. The problem is that it is far easier to spread disorder if the target is always changing, that makes it harder for the authorities to anticipate where the strike will come next, and providing a wide array of alternate networks takes a lot more time and effort than destroying the ones in place.
I'd blow up the entire thing.
It wouldn't be much to look at afterwards, but it'd be mine.