[Spooky23]

As nuclear proliferation becomes more and more common, "regular warfare" is going to become impossible.

The reality is that there isn't going to be a traditional war with any nuclear power. WW2 was the last big state on state conflict -- that cannot happen again. Since 1948, the US vs. USSR model has applied, where nuclear powers have proxy wars at the fringes with various minor states.

As nukes become available to 2nd/3rd tier states, you need lower impact fighting methods to avoid setting off a nuclear chain reaction. "Cyber warfare", IMO, is a tool in the toolbox. Instead of proxy states, we fight with proxy corporations.

[LyndsySimon]

> WW2 was the last big state on state conflict -- that cannot happen again.

Respectfully, the belief that large-scale war was impossible between modern states was prevalent prior to the First World War.

I strongly believe that there will eventually be another large conflict, and that the only reason there hasn't been one to date is because we've managed to maintain the balance between Russian and American interests throughout the Cold War.

The collapse of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of a transitional state, and we've not reached a stable balance of power since.

[Spooky23]

Perhaps "cannot" was the wrong word choice. "must not" may be more appropriate.

I share your fears and find it terrifying, as that large scale war with the technology that we have today is a profoundly more damaging thing.

[tgragnato]

Ok, but the current trend seems to suggest a strong preference for SIGINT, ELINT, ... over traditional HUMINT.

Isn't this overestimating only a peculiar aspect ?

[Spooky23]

I think what we're seeing is that "SIGWAR" is a thing. Why blow up something if you can undermine it?

If you think about it, it's similar to how the physical world evolved. I was recently up at Fort Ticonderoga, which is an example of a fort designed to resist and leverage the cannon as a defensive weapon. In Europe forts of similar design were nearly impregnable, but ultimately obsolete -- mobility and artillery rendered fixed positions useless. There's a similar thing at play here!

[tgragnato]

I am not skeptical about this concept in particular, but about the lack of practical confirmation for the results of their tools.

This is perceived (at a later stage & by the public opinion) when many in the government itself publicly question the trustworthiness of the information given.

When you're blacked out by an immense quantity of basically useless infos, you're spending money and resources in an ineffective manner.

Is all this enough to target what has to be targeted, so that you have a real balance between your effort and your results?

I don't think so, a quick look to their budget is enough for me to disagree.