Everyone who is not a child knows that anything you use to achieve a constructive outcome can also be used to cause a destructive outcome.
That means anything which is
used as a tool to facilitate the work that needs to be done, can also be used
as a weapon to destroy what has been achieved. This is technology, and it has
been used as a double-edged sword since the start of Civilization.
In fact, technology was used
since primitive human beings lit up a fire to warm themselves on a cold night,
and used it to set ablaze the village of their foes. From that time to this
day, human beings have not ceased to create what nature has not given them, and
have not ceased to improve on what they created.
And so, Clifford D. May stated
a normal occurrence when he drew attention to, and complained about, “How
Russia and China weaponize technology to manipulate the masses.” In fact, this
happens to be the title of the article he wrote and published on October 13,
2020 in The Washington Times.
Since the use of technology
for good and for ill, is a reality that will stay with us as long as we have a
brain with which to think and innovate, the debate should be about how to avoid
repeating the mistakes of the past, and how to use future innovations to do
more of what's constructive and less of what's destructive.
When we think in these terms,
we need to divide the use of technology into an old era and a new era. The
predominant technology of old era was mostly characterized by hardware. It
ranged from the plowshare to the battle tank and everything in-between. As to
the new era, it is mostly characterized by software that ranges in use from
making a telephone call soliciting participation in a survey –– to the
cyberattack that can shut down the power grid of a country … and every computer
application between those two.
The development of the
hardware was, for all practical purposes, a one-sided affair in the sense that
it was the monopoly of the European West. Yes, the gun powder was invented by
the Chinese and yes, artillery was invented by the Arabs, but when all that, as
well as the alchemy of the Arabs reached Europe that was already advanced in
the mining and forging of base metals, the result was the start of the
mechanized warfare and colonialism. It was also the start of the Industrial
Revolution and the system of governance that came to be known as liberal
democracy.
Hardware is still with us and
will be forever because we are physical beings ... and fragile ones at that. We
need life support that ranges from the air we breathe to the food we eat to the
clothes we wear to the shelter that protects us, and the vehicle that
transports us; all of which are material products made by hardware. But more
and more, the word technology––sometimes referred to as hi-tech––is prevailing
over what is now called low-tech hardware. As to the hi-tech of the new era, it
consists of the software that allows even a teenager from a Third World country
to disrupt the operation of a bank in any of the advanced economies.
And so, whereas the old
technologies were the monopoly of the Europeans, the new technologies have
leveled the playing field by being accessible to anyone that wants them. And
this brings us back to the Clifford May article which gives an incomplete, even
distorted view of the new technologies' recent history. The article also fails
to suggest how to protect against their destructive potential. Here is what May
had to say in this regard:
“The Russian government's goal
is to weaken our country; to diminish America's global role. External forces
seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutions, and destroy the
faith of the American people in our democracy. These are the weapons deployed in
the wars that Moscow and Beijing are waging against the US and the West. Other
warfare tactics include cyberattacks, boosting extremist political parties, and
encouraging protests. What will it take to defend America and its allies from
such warfare, including disinformation offensives and high-tech falsification
of election results? Lots of work by a list of US government agencies have not
been up to the task in the past”.
So, the obvious question to
ask is this: Why is it that when it comes to protecting America and its allies
from cyberattacks, the US government agencies have not been up to the task?
Well, you don't have to be a genius to figure out the answer. It is that those
agencies are staffed with people of the low caliber, Clifford May level of competence.
In fact, what Clifford May has
failed to do, is identify what America is doing that prompts other nations to
want to retaliate. There was a time when America was so strong, and the rest of
the world so weak, nobody dared to stand up to America when it imposed its own
will on others. But that's no longer the case because America is no longer the
untouchable.
And so, when analyzing a
situation, the serious pundit must refrain from playing politics with the
truth. He must tell it like it is because only the truth can lead the
government agencies to make the right decisions on how to proceed and how to
protect the country.
Until this happens, America will see itself outflanked at every turn by the big and the small.