White House Cybersecurity Oversight

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Friday the nation's digital infrastructure is under near constant attack and confirmed he will create a White House office for cybersecurity, but offered few details of his strategy to counter threats to U.S. data systems.

Mr. Obama convened government officials and corporate executives at the White House for a formal announcement of his decision to name a cybersecurity czar, who will effectively serve two masters. The official will be on the staff of both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

The threat from hackers to critical data systems is among the "most serious economic and national-security challenges" facing the U.S. today, Mr. Obama said.

• Digits: Security Experts React to Obama's Cybersecurity Report
• Wash Wire: Obama Campaign Computers Were Hacked
• Discuss: Will a government cyber czar improve national security?

Mr. Obama revealed the computers used by his own general-election campaign were penetrated between last August and October, with hackers accessing "emails and a range of campaign files, from policy position papers to travel plans."

Mr. Obama said he will personally pick the new cyber chief, in recognition "of the critical importance" of the job. But he didn't say who would get the post.

Mr. Obama compared the failure to invest in digital infrastructure with a lack of investments in roads and bridges. But he offered few details about what he would do to change that landscape, beyond promising to develop and adopt what he called a "comprehensive strategy to secure America's information and communications networks."

Mr. Obama said the government "will not dictate security standards for private companies," but instead "will collaborate with industry to find technology solutions that ensure our security and promote prosperity." He also said he would invest in what he called "cutting-edge research and development" and an awareness campaign.

Dale Meyerrose, former chief information officer for the U.S. Director of National Intelligence and currently a vice president of Harris Corp., a communications and technology company, said one important challenge will be finding a way to persuade private companies, especially those in price-sensitive industries, to invest more money in digital security. "You have to figure out what motivates folks," he said.

Art Coviello, president of security technology specialist RSA, part of EMC Corp., said technology companies will embrace better security as a way to help their businesses expand online, but not all industries will be so eager. "At the other end of the spectrum are companies that view any encumbrances as a tax and will be negative and cynical for whatever reason," he said.

Mr. Obama sought to ease concerns among civil libertarians, pledging that the new effort will not include additional monitoring of private-sector networks or Internet traffic. He said he would appoint a privacy officer to protect the public's interests.

Government officials have been growing increasingly concerned with attacks against computers tied to the national defense network and critical national infrastructure, including the nation's electrical grids and its air-traffic control system. Attacks against private citizens are also rising sharply.

May 29, 2009 12:19 PM PDT

A cybersecurity quiz: Can you tell Obama from Bush?

by Declan McCullagh

The U.S. president has announced a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy for the federal government, saying Internet-based threats have risen "dramatically" and the country "must act to reduce our vulnerabilities."

A 76-page White House document calls for a new way of looking at Internet and computer security, saying that private-public partnerships are necessary, collaboration with international organizations will be vital, and privacy and civil liberties must be respected in the process.

Sound familiar? The year was 2003, and the president was George W. Bush, who wrote the introduction to what he called a "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace."

On Friday, President Obama announced his 76-page "Cyberspace Policy Review"--with precisely the same number of pages as his predecessor's--at an event at the White House.

While the Bush document discusses centralizing cybersecurity responsibilities in the Department of Homeland Security and the Obama document shifts them to the White House, the two reports are remarkably similar. Perhaps this should be no surprise: Obama selected Melissa Hathaway, who worked for the director of national intelligence in the Bush administration and was director of an Bush-era "Cyber Task Force," to conduct the review.

To test your political acumen, we've taken excerpts from both and placed them side by side in the following chart. Can you tell which quotations come from which administration? (An answer key is at the end.)

---

#1: Privacy and civil liberties	"The United States needs a partnership between government and industry to perform analyses, issue warnings, and coordinate response efforts. Privacy and civil liberties must be protected in the process."	"Work with the private sector to explore how best to apply technical capabilities to the defense of the national infrastructure and what legal framework would be required to ensure the protection of privacy rights and civil liberties."
#2: Sophisticated attacks	"The attack tools and methodologies are becoming widely available, and the technical capability and sophistication of users bent on causing havoc or disruption is improving."	"The growing sophistication and breadth of criminal activity, along with the harm already caused by cyber incidents, highlight the potential for malicious activity in cyberspace to affect U.S. competitiveness."
#3: Public-Private partnerships	"The federal government invites the creation of, and participation in, public-private partnerships...The government will continue to support the development of public-private partnerships."	"The federal government should examine existing public-private partnerships to optimize their capacity to identify priorities and enable efficient execution of concrete actions."
#4: Crisis responses	"Providing crisis management in response to attacks on critical information systems...In wartime or crisis, adversaries may seek to intimidate by attacking critical infrastructures and key economic functions or eroding public confidence in information systems response."	"The Federal government's obligation to protect the American people and to provide for the common defense includes a responsibility to ensure that the Nation can communicate and respond in times of crisis. The communications system itself might bear the brunt of such events and must have resilience or the capability to recover."
#5: Coordination	"The United States must improve interagency coordination between law enforcement, national security,and defense agencies involving cyber-based attacks and espionage..."	"The United States (must) achieve a more reliable, resilient, and trustworthy digital infrastructure for the future.... It presents the need for greater coordination and integrated development of policy."
#6: Critical infrastructure	"Our nation's critical infrastructures are composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance..."	"They have also become essential elements in the operation and management of a range of critical infrastructure functions, including transportation systems, shipping, the electric power grid, oil and gas pipelines, nuclear plants, water systems, critical manufacturing, and many others."
#7: Terrorists	"Malicious actors in cyberspace can take many forms including individuals, criminal cartels, terrorists, or nation states...The speed and anonymity of cyber attacks makes distinguishing among the actions of terrorists, criminals, and nation states difficult."	"A growing array of state and non-state actors such as terrorists and international criminal groups are targeting U.S. citizens, commerce, critical infrastructure, and government...Exploitation of information networks and the compromise of sensitive data...leave the United States vulnerable."
#8: International cooperation	"Enabling our ability to do so requires a system of international cooperation to facilitate information sharing, reduce vulnerabilities, and deter malicious actors."	"Only by working with international partners can the United States best address these challenges, enhance cybersecurity, and reap the full benefits of the digital age."
#9: International organizations	"We are also ready to utilize government-sponsored organizations such as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), G-8,the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), and the Organization of American States (OAS), and other relevant organizations to facilitate global coordination on cybersecurity."	"More than a dozen international organizations including...the Group of Eight, NATO, the Council of Europe, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the Organization of American States, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development...address issues concerning the information and communications infrastructure."
#10: Catastrophic attacks	"Providing continuity of government requires ensuring the safety of its own cyber infrastructure and those assets required for supporting its essential missions and services."	"The Federal government's obligation to protect the American people and to provide for the common defense includes a responsibility to ensure that the Nation can communicate and respond in times of crisis."

Answer key: All of the excerpts from the left column are taken from Bush's National Strategy document from February 2003. The right column represents excerpts from Obama's Cyberspace Policy Review document from May 2009

North Korea as a nuclear-weapons state

SINGAPORE -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued North Korea the sternest warning from Washington since Monday's test of a nuclear weapon, saying the U.S. "will not stand idly by" as Pyongyang develops nuclear and missile technologies that could threaten America and its allies in the region.

The warning came in a Saturday-morning address Mr. Gates delivered to an annual gathering of Asian defense officials here. "President Obama has offered an open hand to tyrannies that unclench their fists; he is hopeful but he is not naive," Mr. Gates said. "North Korea's latest reply to our overtures isn't exactly something we would characterize as helpful or constructive."

Mr. Gates also said that the export of nuclear material by North Korea to other states or terrorist groups would be considered a "grave threat" to the U.S. and that Washington would hold Pyongyang "fully accountable" for the consequences if such technologies fell into the wrong hands.

Mr. Gates's tough language comes as tensions continue to escalate on the Korean peninsula, with Pyongyang testing its sixth short-range missile since the nuclear test on Friday, just hours after U.S. and South Korean troops based in the south raised their alert level to the highest point in two years.

South Korean soldiers on a drill Friday in the border town of Paju. North Korea warned this week of possible military action after the South said it is joining a U.S.-led initiative to stop trade in weapons of mass destruction.. Gates's tough language comes as tensions continue to escalate on the Korean peninsula, with Pyongyang testing its sixth short-range missile since the nuclear test on Friday, just hours after U.S. and South Korean troops based in the south raised their alert level to the highest point in two years.

The defense secretary's remarks were also the latest sign the Obama administration may be reconsidering its policy of reaching out to Pyongyang for a negotiated settlement to its nuclear program.

President Barack Obama campaigned last year on a commitment to re-engage with regimes the Bush administration had considered pariahs. But asked earlier in the week whether the U.S. is considering abandoning the so-called six-party talks -- the primary vehicle for negotiations over the North Korean weapons program, through multilateral talks hosted by China -- a senior administration official said the White House was focusing on sanctions at the U.N. and would decide on the future of its negotiations with North Korea down the road.

Mr. Gates didn't specify in his address what actions the U.S. was considering to end Pyongyang's weapons program or what Washington would do if North Korea was found to be proliferating its nuclear technology.

In a briefing with reporters traveling with him to Singapore, Mr. Gates said the Pentagon hadn't changed any of its contingency planning for the region and had no intention of taking military action against North Korea, "unless they do something that requires it." He also said the administration remains committed to working with allies to develop an effective counterproliferation regime.

U.S. military officials have emphasized that despite heavy commitments of ground forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. would still be able to quickly use naval and air forces against any North Korean threat, if needed. Gen. George W. Casey, the chief of staff of the U.S. Army, said earlier this week it would take three months for the Army to be fully prepared for a conventional war with North Korea.

U.S. defense officials have said they have seen no unusual military moves by North Korea and have no plans to reinforce U.S. troops in South Korea, which now number about 28,000. But language from the Obama administration has become increasingly tough in recent days amid growing unease among American and allied governments over North Korea's motivations.

In an effort to calm anxious democracies in the region, Mr. Gates in his address reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to defend allies against North Korean aggression and said the Obama administration "would not accept" North Korea as a nuclear-weapons state.

"We will not sit idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in Asia, or on us," he said.

The administration is attempting to walk a fine line between rallying the international community to punish North Korea even as neighboring countries, particularly China and South Korea, have raised concerns about a potential collapse of the North Korean regime.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is believed by U.S. officials to be in the midst of planning for his succession following an apparent stroke last year, which has led experts to believe the Pyongyang government is increasingly weak and using international brinksmanship to shore up its domestic support.

American capitalism gone

Mat Rodina

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace

This is the old report

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/National_Cyberspace_Strategy.pdf

www.skynetdivision.net/

Pentagon plans new cyberspace war command: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare, the New York Times said on Friday.

The military command will complement a civilian effort President Barack Obama plans to announce on Friday that will overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks, the newspaper said on its website.

Citing Obama administration sources, the Times said the president will detail on Friday the creation of a White House office that will coordinate a multi-billion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers, protect systems that run U.S. stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.

The Times said the civilian office would be responsible for coordinating private sector and government defenses against thousands of cyber-attacks mounted every day against the United States, largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments.

Administration sources said the president would not discuss the Pentagon plan on Friday. But Obama is expected to sign a classified order in the coming weeks that will create the military cyber-command.

The need for improved U.S. cyber-security was driven home in April when the Wall Street Journal reported that cyber-spies had penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system.

The Times said the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.

Reuters has reported that companies in the cyber-security market range from security-software makers Symantec Corp and McAfee Inc, to traditional defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman Corp and Lockheed Martin Corp, to information technology companies such as CACI International.

The Pentagon had been working on a cyberspace strategy for several months. It was completed weeks ago, but was delayed because of ongoing arguments over the authority of the White House office and budgets for the entire effort, the report said.

Pentagon Plans New Arm to Wage Wars in Cyberspace

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare.

The military command would complement a civilian effort to be announced by President Obama on Friday that would overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks.

Mr. Obama, officials said, will announce the creation of a White House office — reporting to both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate a multibillion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers and protect systems that run the stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.

White House officials say Mr. Obama has not yet been formally presented with the Pentagon plan. They said he would not discuss it Friday when he announced the creation of a White House office responsible for coordinating private-sector and government defenses against the thousands of cyberattacks mounted against the United States — largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments — every day.

But he is expected to sign a classified order in coming weeks that will create the military cybercommand, officials said. It is a recognition that the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use — as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons — in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.

The White House office will be run by a “cyberczar,” but because the position will not have direct access to the president, some experts said it was not high-level enough to end a series of bureaucratic wars that have broken out as billions of dollars have suddenly been allocated to protect against the computer threats.

The main dispute has been over whether the Pentagon or the National Security Agency should take the lead in preparing for and fighting cyberbattles. Under one proposal still being debated, parts of the N.S.A. would be integrated into the military command so they could operate jointly.

Officials said that in addition to the unclassified strategy paper to be released by Mr. Obama on Friday, a classified set of presidential directives is expected to lay out the military’s new responsibilities and how it coordinates its mission with that of the N.S.A., where most of the expertise on digital warfare resides today.

The decision to create a cybercommand is a major step beyond the actions taken by the Bush administration, which authorized several computer-based attacks but never resolved the question of how the government would prepare for a new era of warfare fought over digital networks.

It is still unclear whether the military’s new command or the N.S.A. — or both — will actually conduct this new kind of offensive cyberoperations.

The White House has never said whether Mr. Obama embraces the idea that the United States should use cyberweapons, and the public announcement on Friday is expected to focus solely on defensive steps and the government’s acknowledgment that it needs to be better organized to face the threat from foes attacking military, government and commercial online systems.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pushed for the Pentagon to become better organized to address the security threat.

Initially at least, the new command would focus on organizing the various components and capabilities now scattered across the four armed services.

Officials declined to describe potential offensive operations, but said they now viewed cyberspace as comparable to more traditional battlefields.

“We are not comfortable discussing the question of offensive cyberoperations, but we consider cyberspace a war-fighting domain,“ said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. “We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield, which includes protecting our freedom of movement and preserving our capability to perform in that environment.”

Although Pentagon civilian officials and military officers said the new command was expected to initially be a subordinate headquarters under the military’s Strategic Command, which controls nuclear operations as well as cyberdefenses, it could eventually become an independent command.

“No decision has been made,” said Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh, a Pentagon spokesman. “Just as the White House has completed its 60-day review of cyberspace policy, likewise, we are looking at how the department can best organize itself to fill our role in implementing the administration’s cyberpolicy.”

The creation of the cyberczar’s office inside the White House appears to be part of a significant expansion of the role of the national security apparatus there. A separate group overseeing domestic security, created by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, now resides within the National Security Council. A senior White House official responsible for countering the proliferation of nuclear and unconventional weapons has been given broader authority. Now, cybersecurity will also rank as one of the key threats that Mr. Obama is seeking to coordinate from the White House.

The strategy review Mr. Obama will discuss on Friday was completed weeks ago, but delayed because of continuing arguments over the authority of the White House office, and the budgets for the entire effort.

It was kept separate from the military debate over whether the Pentagon or the N.S.A. is best equipped to engage in offensive operations. Part of that debate hinges on the question of how much control should be given to American spy agencies, since they are prohibited from acting on American soil.

“It’s the domestic spying problem writ large,” one senior intelligence official said recently. “These attacks start in other countries, but they know no borders. So how do you fight them if you can’t act both inside and outside the United States?”

Obama Integrates Security Councils, Adds New Offices

Computer, Pandemic Threats Addressed

By Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

President Obama announced yesterday that he will merge the staffs of the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council to speed up and unify security policymaking inside the White House.

The combined national security staff, about 240 people, will report to national security adviser James L. Jones.

The White House also will add new offices for cybersecurity, for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, and for "resilience" -- a national security directorate aimed at preparedness and response for a domestic WMD attack, pandemic or natural catastrophe, officials said.

"The challenges of the 21st century are increasingly unconventional and transnational, and therefore demand a response that effectively integrates all aspects of American power," Obama said in a statement.

Obama's changes to the national security structure, to be implemented over six weeks, address concerns that President George W. Bush created an overlapping White House bureaucracy by establishing the Homeland Security Council after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission, among others, recommended merging it into the NSC.

Instead, Obama will preserve the Homeland Security Council's role as the main forum for government policymaking on issues such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters and pandemic influenza. Doing so will improve state and local officials' access to the White House and does not require an act of Congress, aides said.

"The idea that somehow counterterrorism is a homeland security issue doesn't make sense when you recognize the fact that terror around the world doesn't recognize borders," Jones told reporters in a briefing. "There is no right-hand, left-hand anymore."

John O. Brennan, Obama's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, will continue to report to Jones as a deputy and maintain direct access to the president.

"There's no diminishment at all of the effort on" counterterrorism, Brennan said.

Jones and Brennan, whom Obama tapped Feb. 23 to lead a 60-day organizational review, said the changes will strengthen the White House security staff, which includes aides detailed from other departments.

Among other things, Obama is establishing a new global engagement directorate to coordinate U.S. communications with other countries and to streamline U.S. diplomatic, aid, environment and energy policies in support of security objectives, officials said.

Jones said the biggest pitfall for the new structure will be if he and Brennan "don't achieve this degree of collegiality that we've achieved," adding: "If we don't do this well . . . that will contribute to instability."

Senior lawmakers in Congress and former Bush aides generally praised the moves.

Kenneth Wainstein, Brennan's immediate predecessor, praised the administration's "inclusive" approach and said it allayed fears that changes "might diminish the perceived importance of homeland security issues."

"It doesn't bury the homeland equities," said Frank J. Cilluffo, director of George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute, who served as assistant to the president for homeland security in 2003.

However, Frances Fragos Townsend, who served in Brennan's role from 2005 to 2008, cautioned in an e-mail that he "will no longer have direct control of the resources required to the job."

"John Brennan and Gen. Jim Jones are experienced, competent professionals and they will bear the burden of ensuring the necessary resource allocations across the broad spectrum of threats against the United States," Townsend wrote.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Senate homeland security committee, said she remained "concerned" that changes may dilute the focus of Brennan and homeland security staffers.

To clear up confusion, I believe that the Homeland Security Council is or was a non-statutory, internal White House office established by Executive Order. The President may reorganize internal White House offices such as the HSC without legislation. See Executive Order No. 13228, "Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council."

For the text of the order, see: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-10-10/pdf/01-25677.pdf

Executive Order 13228 has been amended. See below from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2001-wbush.html:


* Signed: October 8, 2001
* Federal Register page and and date: 66 FR 51812, October 10, 2001
* Amends: EO 12656, November 18, 1988
* Amended by: EO 13284, January 23, 2003; EO 13286, February 28, 2003
* See: EO 13231, October 16, 2001; EO 13257, February 13, 2002

The First War In Cyberspace

By Ed Timperlake

Cyberwar is now a fact of life in 21^st Century wars. Actual and potential enemies of America already know the dimensions of Cyberwar and have moved into full combat.

With a real world combat engagement in Georgia and Estonia, the Russians have shown skill. Make no mistake; in certain arenas the Russians are smart and capable, and as the invasion of Georgia shows, ruthless. They have world class scientists and engineers. It is well known they are excellent Cyber Warfighters who have now also apparently harnessed their criminal hackers to augment their worldwide reach. This melding of Russian conventional military might with reported state sponsored criminal cyber syndicates is ominous and powerful.

The Peoples Republic of China's attacks in United States Cyberspace are well known to even casual-mail and Google users, where viruses linked by the media to Chinese sources circle and wait for openings. If the dollar value of the troves of information reported by media to be carted off by the Chinese were toted up, the number could be many billions, if not a trillion. If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could visit America in 2009 they would call the Chinese attacks Acts Of War.

America is awakened. The Pentagon is standing up a new Department of Defense major combat command This new Cyber Command will be headed by Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, who currently commands the National Security Agency (nickname "no such agency"). He will be promoted to four stars and be the first Commanding General of the Cyber Command to be Headquartered at Ft Meade, Maryland.

General Alexander, a warrior trained at West Point, has a well earned reputation as a visionary in 21st Century Warfare and the reach and power of technology. As Director of Technology Assessment, International Technology Security in the Office of the Secretary of Defense I visited and worked with the Army's Intelligence and Security Command then headed by Major General Alexander. It was clear that MG Alexander knew how to maneuver in cyberspace in cutting-edge ways.

If confirmed to his new position General Alexander will be standing on the shoulders of a giant -- his visionary fellow West Pointer Mike Wynne. Secretary of the Air Force Wynne launched the USAF Cyber Command, which created the template and many components of the new DOD Cyber Command. Secretary Wynne pronounced with clarity that Cyberspace is a war fighting domain like Air, Sea, Land, and Space, where Intelligence operations, like training, supply, and Medical operations are one component at work in the Domain

The fundamental principle of American Cyber Doctrine must emerge with focuses on Law Enforcement and war fighting, returning the Intelligence Community, which in the last century
extended into the Internet, to their primary role of cyber intelligence gathering and some cyber operations. This return to basics by the IC will be beneficial, since they completely missed the impending collapse of the old Soviet Empire and gave no apparent warning of the Russian attack on Georgia.

The two overall functions in Cyberspace are Law Enforcement and Investigation, the mission assigned to the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and War Fighting, assigned to Cyber Command. Euphemistically, it can be said the first two are engaged in Dot.Gov and Dot.Com Cyberspace and DOD warriors fighting and defending our country from foreign attack are engaged in Dot.Mil Cyberspace.

The Wall Street Journal in a headline written on August 12 2008 perfectly captures the 21st Century warfare that the Russians have apparently employed in their invasion of Georgia: "Georgia States Computers hit by Cyber attacks. " The world has seen an opening chapter on how Russian cyber war capabilities are combined with Russian conventional forces. This chapter of war is being written in blood.

In our 1999 book "Red Dragon Rising" co-author William C. Triplett II and I postulated an electronic "Pearl Harbor" with The PRC attacking Taiwan. Using all their military capabilities, for example airborne and seaborne infantry, tactical air, naval armada, other elements of the attack could include: Surprise attack, Internet attack ("Cyber Attack was not in the lexicon then), Psychological Operations, and all tools of attack. That scenario now is at the center of US war planning.

The Chinese Peoples Liberation Army can in 2009 launch a massive Cyber assault on Taiwan. Some command and control networks would be destroyed while others would be deliberately spared so they could be manipulated from the inside. Radio and television signals can be jammed and false images of calls from Political Leaders advocating surrender broadcast. Banking systems and specific accounts can be targeted. Information war could also deliberately leave some radar signals intact to warn of "virtual assaults" feeding the confusion and bringing command and control systems to a halt. Finally, Fifth columns at home and abroad can spread rumors and try and keep Washington confused.

America will ultimately win any Cyber engagement if we keep our focus and dedicate sufficient resources. Mike Wynne knew this: It can take a while for the American military to get it right, but once warriors are recruited trained and focused we have the best military the world has ever seen.

Air Force Cyber Doctrine had an extremely attractive feature, and the new DOD Cyber Command can build on it: the US Cyber Command is a military fighting force that would interest 18-year-old men and women some who are already the most computer savvy individuals in the world. These young American men and women, who really enjoy Wired Magazine, have reached adulthood with an instinctive know how on how to use computers -- for good or ill. They are perfect warriors in this brave new world.

A great American General, later President, Andrew "Andy" Jackson in the War of 1812 understood the power of innovative American battle tactics. General Jackson augmented his regulars at the Battle of New Orleans with frontier sharpshooters and pirates. The poor Red Coats did not know what hit them.

A US Cyber Command can attract our best Cyberspace sharpshooters along with swashbuckling Cyber Buccaneers. Russia, the Peoples Republic of China, Iran and others will soon have a cold dose of reality that in awaking the American sleeping giant Cyber attacks can run two ways.

Obama's Citizenship - New and Interesting

More questions, and this time some good questions.While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities. 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport,
or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling
either with a British pass port or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961,
not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speechs before Congress and the disastrous spending plans he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

Count me in as one of those inquiring minds who'd at least like to know the answers to these easily answered (by Obama) questions.

BORN IN THE USA?
U.S. bonkers for Obama birth certificate billboards
Campaign strikes chord on presidential eligibility issue

---

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – A national fund-raising campaign to erect billboards around the country questioning Barack Obama's eligibility for office was an instant hit with WND readers in its first 24 hours, said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of the company and the man who came up with the idea.

"One thing I can say for certain after Day 1 of this campaign – billboards will soon be going up around the country," said Farah.

More than $10,000 has been raised thus far from many hundreds of donors – more than enough to begin putting up the first billboards. The average donation was $25. WND will keep viewers up to date when billboards are erected.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being negotiated in Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Sacramento, San Francisco, New York-New Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other metro areas.

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."

Donations are being accepted to defray the costs of a national billboard campaign with the simple message: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."

WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 370,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore to kickstart this campaign.

Those wishing to donate by check can send them to:

WND
P.O. Box 1627
Medford, OR 97501

(Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

America Online is conducting a new poll asking readers whether they believe there is any merit to the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's citizenship – and most respondents say "yes."

There are more than 90,000 national votes in the unscientific survery. A full 52 percent of nationwide respondents believe people should be concerned about Obama's citizenship, 42 percent say the controversy has no merit and 6 percent of voters remain undecided.

In all, 44 states agree that there could be merit to the Obama citizenship controversy.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!

Among voters who said Obama's citizenship shouldn't be an issue, represented by 6 yellow states, an average only 50 percent of those states' respondents sided with Obama.

However, Washington, D.C., overwhelmingly sided with Obama – with 71 percent voting to drop the issue.

On a similar note, WND poll asked readers, "Are you satisfied Obama is constitutionally eligible to assume the presidency?" A full 97 percent of 6,000 voters said "no."

The top three answers were:

• No, if I can't get a driver's license without an original birth certificate, how can Obama become president without one?

• No, and Americans should continue to dog him about it through his term

• No, there's a reason why he's unwilling to disclose his original birth certificate

• AOL readers posted comments under its poll results, including the following:

• No, I don't think it has any merit. A birth certificate was posted on his web site showing his birth in Hawaii and a story to go with it. Those who are keeping it alive are just sore losers.
• This could be put to rest with a $10 copy from the government, and yet Obama has spent somewhere between $500,000 and $800,000 to block this. Why does he waste taxpayers money on this foolishness.
• The birth certificate thing is just more racism under a smoke screen. You birthers can keep this going as long as you want with no results, just as the "Impeach Bush" folks never got anywhere for the past 8 years.
• Why spend thousands of dollars to block lawsuits that are requesting him to do what John McCain willfully and freely did?
• It's sad that every pathetic, Republican racist out there is clinging to the hope that President Obama is not a red-blooded, red, white and blue right down to his soxs American citizen! President Obama is a God given gift to America. He has a big job ahead of him ... cleaning up Bush's mess!
• Now isn't that interesting that the slime states of the left which are in the most trouble with their budgets are the ones who think this thug is real.

By Retired Fireman

SEOUL, South Korea – The rocket launched by nuclear-armed North Korea Kim Jong Il to make demands from an international community worried that it indicates the capacity to fire a long-range missile.

Position defiant

Well, well, well…look what we have here. Seems no matter how many times the Democrats want to blame Bush and the Republicans for everyone hating us, it seems that once again, one of our enemies is showing that it does not matter who is in the White House or which political party is in control, the only thing they are interested in is our destruction, and their continual display of the methods they will use to obtain that goal.

Using the technology given to them by the oh so trusting Democrats under the Clinton Administration, Kim Jong Il, after a couple of weeks of threatening to launch an alleged “communications satellite” into orbit, and nuclear testing and more rocket launching, and after the Obama Administrations empty words and rhettoric, Kim decided to show the world that he not only knows that America, under a Democratic White House, namely a President with absolutely NO experience and who has shown a vast amount of disdain and hatred for his own military and incompetency in his position as their Commander in Chief, has once again become a “paper tiger” and would not only do nothing to stop him, but would do nothing in response to what he had planned.

There was never any “communications satellite”. What N. Korea wanted to do was demonstrate that they now have the ability to launch their nuclear armament, the nuclear armament they created thanks to the foolishness of the Clinton Administration in believing anything the N. Koreans were telling them and their foolish belief that Kim Jong Il would EVER honor a treaty with the UN, United States or any other country other than one with similar politics, and that they would not be bullied by empty threats and promises of “Kumbaya” sung with the Liberals of this nation.

That missiles did not fail. It did not crash. It did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. It flew right over Japan, one of the countries that the N. Koreans are historically against and have threatened repeatedly, and out into the Pacific Ocean, where it landed EXACTLY where it was supposed to.

Now, what about my calling Obama a wuss and calling his Administration worthless in the face of our enemies? Well, let’s just look at what Der Fuhrer had to say about this launching:

“North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles,” Obama said in Prague. “It creates instability in their region, around the world. This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon in the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.”

Wow Barry…them’s some real fightin’ words. I bet `ol Uncle Kim is just a shaking in his slippers.

There was a reason that Kim Jong Il, Colonel Qaddafi and other despots became a bit more silent and backed down from their stances for the past eight years. It is because they knew damn well that President Bush was not just a bunch of talk. The North Koreans knew that if they had done this with Bush at the helm, there would be Hell to pay for it. There would be a more than likely chance that this missile would never have even been allowed to sit one that launch pad for as long as it did, and it would never have been allowed to fuel up, and it SURE as hell would never have been allowed to launch. There was a reason that, for all his threats, Il backed down and started talks with the US and other involved nations. He knew that, under Bush, he faced the reality of being overthrown and his way of life destroyed, with freedom taking over in its place.

Not now. He knows damn well that he will be able to do whatever the hell it is he wants, whenever the hell he wants to do it, and the only thing that he will have to face, is a bunch of empty rhetoric from Obama and the idiots sitting around the table, telling each other how great they all are at the UN. This is a man that has murdered his own people…sat and did nothing, allowing them to starve to death. Yet Obama and the rest of the Liberals in this nation and elsewhere actually think that a bunch of empty threats are going to contain him. It is the same belief they hold with Islam and the madmen that operate under its tenets. “If we just talk with them, they will see the light and we will all get along in one big happy family, singing ‘Kumbaya’ and holding hands and blah, blah, blah”.

After 9-11, it was thought that this country would learn from the events that surrounded that day…namely that the world is a very dangerous place, there are very dangerous people out there in it that really, really want to do harm to the bastions of Freedom, Liberty and Democracy, and that we are no longer safe from it all in our own country…that we can and will be hit.

No. In fact, that lesson was forgotten before the first anniversary of the attacks. Now here it is, almost 8 years later and not only has everyone seemingly forgotten and dismissed the lessons of that day, they elected the exact polar opposite of what this country needs to keep it safe and keep despots like Kim Jong Il in their place and marginalized, if not altogether annhilated.

If we can make it until 2012 with this country in one piece, without an all out shooting war taking place in our own borders, and without having one or more of our major metropolitan cities ending up a smoking pile of ash and rubble, it will be a miracle.

I have given up trying to figure out just what it will take to make people realize that the “Happy Fluffy World” that the drug-soaked hippies and other freaks and assorted Baby-Boomers imagined over 40 years ago DOES NOT AND WILL NEVER EXIST! Humans on this planet have always produced evil. Words are not enough to combat evil, and just because people here think that we can all get along as one big happy family does not mean that the other 7 billion people on the face of this earth believe the same way. Capitulation and appeasement NEVER works, and only emboldens the bullies/despots/dictators.

There is a distinct type of human being on this planet that has only understood and will forever only understand one thing and one thing only…and that is deadly force or the very real threat of deadly force. They will forever take advantage of the peaceful and peaceloving and view them as weak and in need of being overtaken and controlled. Even after the world witnessed the horrendous devastation and potential of two nuclear bombs dropped to end a war, they not only built more of the same weapons, but did all they could to make them even more devastating and destructive. There are those on this planet who would be incredibly happy in seeing it and every living thing on it destroyed in the name of their god and their philosophy, and no amount of protestations, song singing or hand holding will EVER make them think and feel otherwise.

It is selfishness of the people in this country to believe that others think and feel the way we do. Selfishness and foolishness, and until these morons finally understand that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and happy thoughts, we will always be under the threat of rogue nations and murderous dictators who laugh at us when we scold them for demonstrating their military strength.

Inside America’s (Mock) Attack on North Korea

• By Noah Shachtman
• May 27, 2009
  

Even the hawks say there’s not much America can do, in response to North Korea’s nuclear test. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. military isn’t prepping for a war with the Kim Jong-Il regime, just in case.

In March, American and South Korean forces teamed up for the “Key Resolve/Foal Eagle” war game. 13,100 troops from outside Korea — and tens of thousands more, already stationed in the country — participated in the massive exercise, which focused on “deploying troops and equipment to Korea in the event of an attack,” according to a military press release.

Some U.S. and South Korean commandos made airborne jumps together from a helium blimp; others, from helicopters hovering above the Korea Strait. A third group ran a mock “operation to secure a suspected chemical weapons lab.” Unconventional weapons experts drilled in responding to a simulated strike involving “hundreds of WMD.” Navy helicopter pilots swept for mines, while Marine fighter pilots flew with their South Korean counterparts to “wipe out” simulated enemy aircraft.

The Americans and their allies kicked all kinds of butt in the exercise, of course. Other war games, testing out the North Korean scenario, didn’t end quite as cleanly. One ran by The Atlantic in 2005 forecast 100,000 or more dead civilians in the first few days. And that was if the U.S. could assemble the half-million to million troops needed for such an assault; none of the participants thought such a staggering number of troops could be gathered together, given all of America’s military commitments around the world.

Two years earlier, the Pentagon put together a very different kind of war plan for North Korea — one that didn’t involve ground troops at all. Instead, U.S. forces would lob bombs and missiles and electronic attacks in an instant “global strike.” Even nuclear weapons were considered, as part of the plan.

A similar “bolt from the blue” was proposed in a 2005 article for the Washington Post, by former Defense Secretary William Perry and Ashton Carter, who today serves as the Pentagon’s weapons-buyer-in-chief. They proposed taking out a North Korean long-range missile on the launchpad, to prevent the nuclear Kim Jong-Il from test-firing an ICBM. The surgical strike was, of course, never ordered. And the missile itself was kind of a dud.

In 2003, retired Colonel John Collins ran through the possible moves and countermoves in a military standoff on the Korean peninsula — from blockades to full-out nuclear strikes. His conclusion: “Any of the U.S. options described above could trigger uncontrollable escalation that would create appalling casualties on both sides of the DMZ and promise a Pyrrhic victory at best. Unilateral actions by the United States without unqualified ROK [Republic of Korea] agreement and willing participation every step of the way would be immoral as well as ill- advised. Inaction while Kim Jong Il develops a robust nuclear arsenal and perhaps supplies nuclear weapons to U.S. enemies, unfortunately, would worsen any future confrontation.”

North Korea Test May Trigger WAR

By Viola Gienger

May 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said North Korea’s nuclear test may present an opening for China to back a tougher response from the international community.

“Just based on what the Chinese government has said publicly, they’re clearly pretty unhappy,” Gates told reporters traveling with him today to Singapore for an annual Asian security conference known as the Shangri-La Dialogue. “It is important for the Chinese to be part of any effort to try and deal with these issues.”

China’s foreign ministry has said the country “resolutely opposes” North Korea’s nuclear test. On May 25 China agreed with the U.S., Japan and Russia to work toward a United Nations resolution censuring North Korea. Any diplomatic response and economic sanctions should be coordinated among partner countries, Gates said, adding that he doesn’t foresee military action “unless they do something that requires it.”

Potential sanctions should be aimed at the regime without causing harm to the North Korean people, Gates said. North Korea’s actions don’t require any reinforcement of the U.S. military presence in South Korea, he said. There are 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in the country.

Gates is traveling to Singapore and then to the Philippines to reinforce President Barack Obama’s message that the new administration won’t waver in the long-held U.S. commitment to Asian security. The defense assurances take on added urgency since North Korea conducted the nuclear test, its second in three years, and also launched five short-range missiles.

Seizing Weapons

South Korea reacted to the provocation by joining a U.S.- led program to seize illegally transferred weapons of mass destruction. That prompted another round of threats, with the North Koreans saying they would retaliate militarily to any such move and no longer felt bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the war between the two nations. Gates indicated he didn’t see an imminent threat.

“I don’t believe that anybody in the administration thinks that there is a crisis,” Gates said.

The events of the past week mark an escalation of tensions since last year, when North Korea refused to abide by what the U.S. said were verbal pledges to allow sufficient inspections to verify the extent of its nuclear activities. The breakdown in six-nation talks to end the atomic program followed reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had suffered a stroke.

International Condemnation

The actions have drawn international condemnation and the prospect of increased UN sanctions against the communist nation. The UN and the six-nation talks that also involve Japan, Russia, China and South Korea are still the best forum for resolving the issues, Gates said.

“I don’t want to put the burden entirely on China,” Gates said. “The reality is that while China has more influence probably than anybody else on North Korea, I believe that that influence has its limits.”

WASHINGTON, May 28 (Xinhua) -- Former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry on Thursday said that the Obama administration has to consider possible military action against Pyongyang if other coercive measures couldn't frustrate its nuclear ambition.

"I'm not recommending military action. But somewhere along in this series of coercive actions, one can imagine an escalation, and if the ones that are less do not succeed, we have to be willing to consider the other ones," Perry told a forum of the Council on Foreign Relations.

According to Perry, who had faced a similar confrontation with Pyongyang when he was Bill Clinton's defense secretary from 1994 to 1996, the Obama administration should also consider preemptive strikes to stop the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to conduct a test of a missile loaded with nuclear weapon.

"I do believe that diplomacy still has a chance of success, but only if it is robust and only if its robustness includes some meaningful coercion on opponents," he said, adding that the administrations' approach policy toward Pyongyang in the framework of the six-party talks had failed.

The diplomacy has "a much steeper hill to climb now than it did in 2003 because they now have a bomb," said Perry, adding "that option has now disappeared."

Perry's comment on the DPRK nuclear crisis echoed a previous claim made by Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who hints the U.S. military has determination and capacity to deal with any threat by the DPRK.

"The issue of a third war would be a huge challenge. We have got reserve capacity in our military, a very strong Navy, a very strong Air Force. So I would not want anybody to think that we don't have the capacity to respond," said Mullen, responding to the DPRK's announcement of nuclear test on Monday.

The North Korea nuclear crisis deepened today after the regime reportedly restarted its main nuclear reactor and threatened to attack South Korea if it joined US-led inspections of vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction.

In its most belligerent broadside yet in the standoff, North Korea warned that it would view as a declaration of war any participation by Seoul in the naval exercise, known as the Proliferation Security Initiative.

The state-controlled Korean Central News Agency quoted a North Korean army spokesman as saying: "Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels including search and seizure will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike."

The statement added that the regime no longer considered itself bound by the armistice that ended the Korean war in 1953. The demarcation line separating north from south is among the most heavily fortified borders in the world.

The latest round of provocation comes amid reports that the north test-fired two more short-range missiles yesterday, bringing to five the number of rockets it has launched this week. A South Korean defence official said the north had fired two missiles on Monday, not three as reported in the media.

On Monday, North Korea enraged the US and irritated its allies China and Russia after conducting a nuclear weapons test, its second in three years.

The UN security council condemned the test and is reportedly considering adding to the sanctions agreed after Pyongyang detonated its first nuclear weapon in October 2006.

North-south tensions have been mounting since yesterday, when South Korea said it would assist the US in intercepting ships suspected of carrying missiles.

The north accused the US, a signatory of the armistice, of "dragging" the south into the naval inspections programme as part of its "hostile policy" against Pyongyang, adding that it could not guarantee the safety of South Korean and US naval vessels sailing near the disputed western Korean sea border.

The north appeared to have made good on a threat to restart its main nuclear reactor, which it had started to dismantle two years ago as part of a now ruined aid-for-disarmament deal reached at six-party talks in Beijing.

The regime walked away from the talks and threatened to resume plutonium production last month after the UN security council condemned its test-launch of a long-range ballistic missile on 5 April.

Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper, carried unconfirmed reports that US spy satellites had spotted steam rising from the north's main Yongbyon plant. The facility is capable of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods used in the production of weapons-grade plutonium.

There were no signs that it had actually started extracting a new batch of plutonium, a process experts said could take up to a year.

Fears that the north's dormant nuclear weapons programme has been restarted were heightened by reports of sporadic activity at the Soviet-era plant in recent weeks, including sightings of vehicles carrying chemicals through its front gates.

North Korea is thought to possess between five and seven nuclear weapons and enough fuel rods to produce another bomb by the end of the year.

In Seoul, a military spokesman said the north had test-fired another three short-range missiles yesterday from a base near the east coast city of Hamhung into the Sea of Japan.

The most recent launches have been interpreted as a warning to the US not to attempt to collect radiation data from its coastline after the Pentagon sent a surveillance aircraft close to North Korean airspace on Monday.

Although the regime is believed to be some way off perfecting the technology to attach nuclear devices to its missiles, the flurry of military activity this week has increased the pressure on the UN to act quickly.

The 15-member security council condemned the test after emergency talks on Monday and is expected to meet again soon to discuss a new resolution that could include fresh sanctions.

While the world considered its response, North Korean military officials celebrated Monday's test at a sports stadium in Pyongyang. The KNCA quoted Choe Thae-bok, a high ranking party official, as saying that the test was intended to protect the country against "the US imperialists' unabated threat to mount a pre-emptive nuclear attack and [place] sanctions and pressure on it".

There was more rhetoric from the North Korean party newspaper, the Rodong Sinmun, which said the country was "fully ready for battle" against the US and accused Barack Obama of "following in the footsteps of the previous Bush administration's reckless policy of militarily stifling North Korea".