Hi David G,

I didn’t expect you to explain your comments or respond to the content, this is because you borrow your opinion from others and therefore cannot explain them.

Given that you classify those who don’t agree with you as “fools, frauds and fanatics” and that you acknowledge that others likewise don’t understand you, I was just wondering if you have ever considered that it might be you that is the source of the problem rather than your audience?

If you can’t get your message through to these “fools, frauds and fanatics”, perhaps it’s time to follow your own advice and “Seek better companions”

David Stephens writes in "'Anzac', 'cyber' and 'drone' are all five-letter words" (30 July 2013) that the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may be met with conventional military force or terrorist attack. However, the use of such "drones" is less controversial in conventional warfare, rather than counter-terrorism. Stephens mentions the centenary of the landings at Gallipoli. The Turkish army used artillery very effectively to defend Gallipoli. Under Stephens analysis, such weapons should not be used, as they place the war-fighter at a safe distance from the battle. There is little difference between firing an artillery shell over many kilometers and launching an armed drone.

Stephens comments that "cyberwarriors" will be in demand in defence forces. This is about the only part of his analysis I agree with. Australian can expect any future conventional conflict to be preceded by large scale cyber-attacks designed to cripple communications and other infrastructure. Yesterday I proposed the Australian Defence Force (ADF) raise an "Australian CyberWarfare Battalion" (ACWB) of 300 personnel, to protect Australia's national information infrastructure: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2013/08/australian-cyberwarfare-battalion.html

Yes, Tom, we should start up an ACWB and put a three star American general at its head.

We might as well give the U.S. control of all of our military institutions and installations because they'll end up controlling them sooner or later!

@tomw

You'll probably dismiss this but - the answer to your prayers http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2013/jan/0124.htm . As people with such cyber skills can demand high wages in the private sector their services for the government are not cheap.

There are already uniformed electronic warfare units that interact with civilian-defence cyber.

David, thanks for the suggestion of a three star general to head the Australian CyberWarfare Battalion, but it is usual for a Colonel to head an organization of this size. Having an American military officer in charge is not out of the question, as Australia and the US often exchange personnel. As an example, the Deputy Commander for US Army Pacific Operations is an Australian General: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2013/07/australian-deputy-commanding-general.html

I don't agree with your suggestion that we cede U.S. control of all Australian military installations. Australia can work closely with allies, while retaining the capability to operate independently.

Plantagenet, yes I would see the proposed Australian CyberWarfare Battalion working closely with the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC). But as you say, people with the required skills are expensive and so the government can't afford to employ many in the centre. Thus my suggestion of using the expertise of people employed in organisations, with their salaries paid for by those organizations (they would also receive a small amount pay as military reserve personnel). There are already some uniformed electronic warfare units, but we need a lot more such people.