EMM 400 PARTICIPATION POSTS FOR TOPIC 2 DQ 1

docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

400

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by CountIbexMaster476

Report
EMM 400 PARTICIPATION POSTS FOR TOPIC 2 DQ 1 Hello! Thank you for responding to my discussion question and continuing the post with a fantastic question about my point of view. I also want to point out that I appreciate the compliment because I know my discussion question responses are long and seem overwhelming. Still, I have so much information I want to share and try to break it down as best as possible.  Many people confuse cyberterrorism and hacktivism because they think they have the same effect. However, Hacktivism is the nonviolent use of unlawful or legally ambiguous digital tools for political goals( Cyberterrorism how real is the threat? ).  Cyberterrorism refers to politically motivated criminal attacks against information, computer systems, programs, and data that result in violence against noncombatant targets ( Cyberterrorism: how real is the threat? ). For several reasons, cyberterrorism is an attractive option for modern terrorists.  1. First, it is cheaper than traditional terrorist methods. All that the terrorist needs is a personal computer and an online connection. 2. Second, cyberterrorism is more anonymous than traditional terrorist methods. 3. Third, the variety and number of targets are enormous. Cyberterrorists could target the computers and computer networks of governments, individuals, public utilities, private airlines, etc.  4. Fourth, cyberterrorism can be conducted remotely, a feature especially appealing to terrorists. 5. Fifth, as the I LOVE YOU virus showed, cyberterrorism has the potential to directly affect a more significant number of people than traditional terrorist methods, thereby generating more excellent media coverage, which is ultimately what terrorists want. (ILOVEYOU, sometimes referred to as the Love Bug or Loveletter, was a computer virus that infected over ten million Windows personal computers on and after May 5, 2000)  (Information used in the points came from ( Cyberterrorism how real is the threat? ))  Success in the "war on terror" may encourage terrorists to use unusual weapons, such as cyberterrorism. Thus, I believe these types of attacks will be more detrimental and become the new conventional way because it is easier for them to use, instill fear, and create chaos than the other ways. However, I still believe they will continue doing the conventional warfare they have always used beforehand, depending on the opportunity they will find if and when it's available. Therefore, the problem is to identify and address the possible threat of cyberterrorism without exaggerating its magnitude or instilling panic.  References:  Cyberterrorism: how real is the threat? (n.d.- a).  https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr119.pdf
Hello, First, thank you for reading my response and for expanding on the discussion with further information that is extremely helpful and good to know. When it comes to extreme weather, I must say that I understand how this is a perceived threat only because of climate change/global warming, especially where I live with the weird weather we've been having lately. As for AI, artificial intelligence is automating the generation of fake news. This results in a boom of web material that resembles authentic articles but disseminates misleading information about elections, conflicts, and natural disasters. I can see how you also see this as concerning because we rely on technology in today's age. Thus, one can not tell what is true or false, which leads to many adverse outcomes. Mickey, that is an excellent point regarding cyberattacks being used as one focus for military capabilities. These capabilities include but are not limited to military infrastructure, command and control systems, communication networks, weaponry, etc. However, cyberattacks can also be used in other ways, like propaganda effects. Russia has also employed cyber operations as a type of political warfare, employing propaganda to polarize communities and influence political elections. These activities included simultaneous disruption campaigns aimed at defacing websites and portraying pro-Ukraine supporters as Nazis. Hello! To attract and sustain the exposure required to instill broad fear, terrorists must carry out increasingly dramatic, brutal, and high-profile attacks. Therefore, the victims and locations of terrorist attacks are often carefully selected for their shock value. Terrorism usually seeks to destroy the public's sense of security in places they are most familiar with. Primary targets may also include buildings or other facilities that serve as vital economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military stations. The terrorist hopes that the sense of terror created by these crimes would persuade the public to put pressure on political leaders to achieve a specific political goal. Thus, I agree with you, Katherine, when you say these attacks are detrimental. These attacks must not happen because the US and its counterparts take extreme measures to ensure that security is at its finest when it comes to political symbols, places, figures, etc.
For example, we must never let something like Benghazi, Libya ever happen again, where the United States diplomatic compound and adjoining CIA Annex came under attack from overwhelming enemy forces. The reason is that despite repeated warnings from officials about the security risks in Tripoli and Benghazi, we contend that intelligence, security, and organizational flaws within the Department of State created vulnerabilities (Constantine & McMahon, 2023). These vulnerabilities led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stephens. The incident's use has hampered scholarly analysis of these failings in partisan criticism. Therefore, we learned the importance of protecting diplomatic personnel abroad in the future by having better intelligence, quicker reaction forces on standby, proper procedures and protocols in place, and many other things (Constantine & McMahon, 2023). Overall, whether it's abroad or stateside, America must always remain vigilant and be prepared for an attack specific to political symbols, places, or figures. References: Constantine, B. J., & McMahon, A. M. (2023, July 7). Diplomatic security failure in Benghazi, Libya, September 11, 2012: Journal of Policy History . Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/ diplomatic-security-failure-in-benghazi-libya-september-11-2012/ F987F63B6E012C4D75E4C2C27B1F7E27 Hello! I completely agree with your statement regarding how we all have determined how terror groups operate in terms of target acquisition and what they wish to achieve by attacking the targets they select. Therefore, as you have said, this is a prime example of something that caused political uproar in the United States. Another example I could think of was the Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) in Mogadishu, Somalia. The UN initially sent troops to alleviate the 1992 famine but later tried to establish democracy and a central government. However, UN peacekeepers came under heavy attacks and ambushed, injuring and killing many civilians and UN peacekeepers. Therefore, US troop involvement happened, and the events that occurred led to 2 downed helicopters, 18 dead, and 84 wounded US troops. The media covered this event and filmed
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
grotesque scenes in the streets where KIA US soldiers were being dragged through the streets and having their bodies mangled. The Clinton Administration made it clear not to intervene further and to pull out all US forces. However, many US citizens felt that this decision was wrong and needed to engage these enemy combatants further, not letting them get away with this behavior. Hello Michael! I completely agree with your statement regarding how we all have determined how terror groups operate in terms of target acquisition and what they wish to achieve by attacking the targets they select. Therefore, as you have said, this is a prime example of something that caused political uproar in the United States. Another example I could think of was the Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) in Mogadishu, Somalia. The UN initially sent troops to alleviate the 1992 famine but later tried to establish democracy and a central government. However, UN peacekeepers came under heavy attacks and ambushed, injuring and killing many civilians and UN peacekeepers. Therefore, US troop involvement happened, and the events that occurred led to 2 downed helicopters, 18 dead, and 84 wounded US troops. The media covered this event and filmed grotesque scenes in the streets where KIA US soldiers were being dragged through the streets and having their bodies mangled. The Clinton Administration made it clear not to intervene further and to pull out all US forces. However, many US citizens felt that this decision was wrong and needed to engage these enemy combatants further, not letting them get away with this behavior. In both situations, the terrorists operating in different areas of operations both hoped to achieve polecat uproar in the United States, which they would later find out that it was successful. Overall, US foreign policy and national security in both situations raised far more public awareness and required further negotiations relating to security and guidelines set in place or need to be put in place.
In both situations, the terrorists operating in different areas of operations both hoped to achieve polecat uproar in the United States, which they would later find out that it was successful. Overall, US foreign policy and national security in both situations raised far more public awareness and required further negotiations relating to security and guidelines set in place or need to be put in place.