1.1f you were to describe a Freedom Rider, what words would you use? 2.Based on the film, how do you think ideas about race shaped the way people lived their lives in the 1960’s? To what extent do ideas about race shape your community today? 3.What do you think were some of the most important choices made by the Freedom Riders and others involved in the activism, based on the film? How did those choices shape the outcome of the Freedom Riders? 4.What lessons might people trying to address the issues of injustice today learn from the Freedom Riders? 5.What is the philosophy of non-violence? How did it shape the civil rights movement?
of experience as documented by Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini, Liddell-Hart, and others. Some of the kinetic warfare principles apply to cyber warfare while some principles of kinetic warfare have no meaning in cyber warfare. Some principles of kinetic warfare may actually be antagonistic to cyber warfare. The various characteristics and principles of cyber warfare are as under: Waging cyber war is relatively cheap. Unlike traditional weapon technologies, acquiring information weapons does not require vast financial resources or state sponsorship. Boundaries are blurred in cyberspace. Traditional distinctions public versus private interests, warlike versus criminal behavior, geographic boundaries, such as those between nations tend to get lost in the chaotic and rapidly expanding world of cyberspace. Opportunities abound to manipulate perception in cyberspace. Political action groups and other nongovernment organisation’s can utilize the Internet to galvanize political support. Cyber war has no front line. Current trends suggest that the economy will increasingly rely on complex, interconnected network control systems for such necessities as oil and gas pipelines, electric grids, etc. and these will become vulnerable to cyber attacks. Cyber-warfare must have kinetic world effects. Cyber warfare is meaningless unless it affects someone or something in the non cyber world. Anonymity. Cyber warfare can be waged anonymously. Anonymity is the nature of new technologies, especially telecommunications. An anonymous attack creates two problems. Not only has a state’s national security been breached, but there is no one to hold accountable for the attack. Offensive Nature. Information technology and computer systems are vulnerable by nature. Therefore, taking defensive measures against the information warfare threat will always be difficult and costly. Improving the defense of information systems also contributes to the security dilemma since decreasing one’s susceptibility to information warfare increases the attraction of using information warfare offensively. Cyberwar may have broad ramifications for military organization and doctrine. As noted, the literature on the information revolution calls for organizational innovations so that different parts of an institution function like interconnected networks rather than separate hierarchies. Thus cyberwar may imply some institutional redesign for a military in both intra- and inter-service areas. Moving to networked structures may require some decentralization of command and control, which may well be resisted in light of earlier views that the new technology would provide greater central control of military operations. But decentralization is only part of the picture; the new technology may also provide greater “topsight”-a central understanding of the big picture that enhances the management of complexity. Many treatments of organizational redesign laud decentralization; yet decentralization alone is not the key issue. The pairing of decentralization with topsight brings the real gains. Cyberwar may also imply developing new doctrines about what kinds of forces are needed, where and how to deploy them, and what and how to strike on the enemy’s side. How and where to position what kinds of computers and related sensors, networks, databases, etc. may become as important as the question used to be for the deployment of bombers and their support functions. Cyberwar may also have implications for the integration of the political and psychological with the military aspects of warfare. In sum, cyberwar may raise broad issues of military organization and doctrine, as well as strategy, tactics, and weapons design. It may be applicable in low- and high-intensity conflicts, in conventional and non-conventional environments, and for defensive or offensive purposes. As an innovation in warfare, I anticipate that cyberwar may be to the 21st century what blitzkrieg was to the 20th century. At a minimum, it represents an extension of the traditional importance of obtaining information in war-of having superior C3I, and of trying to locate, read, surprise, and deceive the enemy before he does the same to you. That remains important no matter what overall strategy is pursued. In this sense, the concept means that information-related factors are more important than ever due to new technologies Evolution of Cyber Warfare Since the early days of the Internet, there were individuals trying to compromise computer systems’ security via the network. Initially their activities were limited to defacement of web pages and motivated mostly by mere thrill seeking. In the 1990’s political activists realized the potential for publicity coming with the attacks, and defacements carrying a political message became more frequent (Hacktivism). The palette of attack types also widened greatly, most notably some of them became aimed at bringing services or whole systems down, by generating exc>GET ANSWER