Re: Mutually Assured DDoS

[Gary Warner <gar () askgar com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gadi, I *HATE* it when someone throws down a challenge like "source it."
 You know some of us can't resist such things.

Posers all -- von Clausewitz didn't say it.  Most believe it was
heavyweight fighter Jack Dempsey.  But, if you do your homework, you'll
even find that HE denies saying and calls it "an overworked quotation".

At the end of his career, Jack did what many pros do.  He wrote a book.
 His book was called "Championship Fighting" (1950).

In chapter 18 "Punch Ranks First" where he says:

 "Why did I give you such a detailed education in the fundamentals of
hitting before I taught you any defensive moves?  I did it for many
reasons; but the principal reason was this: The best defense in fighting
is an aggressive defense."  BUT HE CONTINUES "That does not mean that a
'strong offense is the best defense." That overworked quotation may
apply to other activities, but it does not apply to fighting.  It does
not apply when you're pitted against an experienced opponent.  You may
have the best attack in the world; but if you're an open target-if
you're a 'clay pigeon'- you'll likely get licked by the first
experienced scrapper you tackle.  YOU MUST HAVE A GOOD DEFENSE TO BE A
WELL-ROUNDED FIGHTER. AND THE BEST DEFENSE IS AN AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE."

A few of you on the list know that I've been studying assymetric warfare
in hopes of teaching a cyberwar class on the subject someday (Cyberwar
and Assymetric Warfare).

As an American, I should mention you can find pretty good evidence for
George Washington though (found here in "The Writings of George
Washington" (p. 443 in the edition edited by Jared Sparks):

"It is unfortunate when men cannot or will not see danger at a distance;
or, seeing it, are undetermined as to the means, which are necessary to
avert or keep it afar off.  I question whether the evil arising from the
French getting possession of Louisiana and the Floridas would be
generally seen, until felt; and yet no problem in Euclid is more
evident, or susceptible of clearer demonstration.  Not less difficult is
it to make them believe that offensive operations oftentimes are the
surest, if not in some cases the only means of defence."


But let's also look at what von Clausewitz did say . . .
(von Clausewitz quotes below are from the J.J. Graham edition, because
its out of copyright and full-text-searchable online.  The Michael
Howard edition is the one on my shelf.  You can pick it up for $5 as a
used book on Amazon.)

Von Clausewitz constantly and consistently says defense is better than
offense, such as:

"Having thus defined the true meaning of the defensive, having defined
its boundaries, we return again to the assertion that the defensive is
the stronger form of making war."

(and later, also in Book 6)

"if the reverse of this has everywhere and at all times taken place,
that shows plainly that generals, although their own inclination prompts
them to the offensive, still hold the defensive to be the stronger form."

But he also argues that ATTACKS FROM DEFENSIVE POSITIONS are often
better attacks.  Statements such as:

"The offensive side can only have the advantage of one complete surprise
of the whole mass with the whole, whilst the defensive is in a condition
to surprise incessantly, throughout the whole course of the combat, by
the force and form which he gives to his partial attacks."

(From Book 6 Chapter 2, "The relations of the Offensive and Defensive to
each other in Tactics")


He continues the idea in Book 6, Chapter VIII, "Methods of resistance",
where he makes clear that there are two parts to defense, which he
characterizes as "warding off" an offender.  This warding off consists
of two states "the state of expectation and of action - which last is
always a counterstroke, therefore a reaction".   He makes the argument
that for the defender there are at least four ways to defeat the
offender, and only one of these is "the sword of the defensive". In fact
the argument of the whole chapter is that - when possible - its best to
defeat the enemy by having the defensive forces retreat into the
interior of their country where the offensive force must weaken itself,
and in some cases cease the attack altogether, without the need for a
bloody confrontation, or giving an opportunity for the defender to
attack a greatly reduced offender.

He makes very clear that once the enemy is warded off, there is great
advantage to stopping before "the reaction is carried still further, and
pass[es] into the real strategic attack" warning that "the idea of
revenge must always be at the bottom of every defensive." (the lowest
priority)

He then goes on to explain that its hard to separate this concept from
"the defeat of the enemy", but that the defensive side loses its
advantage when its desire for total defeat of the enemy transforms it
from defender into offender.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJ/X8hg79eYCOO6PsRAlMfAJ9xZ9fi8j17RpXGRDD5XSiRDM4vcACgh547
hktuFsIt5MfcmN0kk7czyR0=
=ICv8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.