Exploring the Potential of a US Cyber Force(fdd.org)
fdd.org
Exploring the Potential of a US Cyber Force
https://www.fdd.org/events/2024/03/25/exploring-the-potential-of-a-us-cyber-force/
3 comments
I think “hackers” would be gloriously irreverent enough to have a substantial positive impact on recruiting and retention.
I don't know about the Russian military*, but entertainers on the state-owned "Russia 1" channel have proposed "hacker": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrH8xyJG4rc (to the tune of "Jamaica")
* someone there chooses apt terms; the patron saint of RF missileers is Barbara: a patron saint of explosives workers (and tunnellers) whose attributes include a tower. Come to think of it, starting the October revolution with a signal from the "Dawn" cruiser is unlikely to have been a completely random choice, so the 1917 commies were already in on the game...
EDIT: even more apropos: Barbara's father was said, after her martyrdom, to have been consumed by fire from above.
* someone there chooses apt terms; the patron saint of RF missileers is Barbara: a patron saint of explosives workers (and tunnellers) whose attributes include a tower. Come to think of it, starting the October revolution with a signal from the "Dawn" cruiser is unlikely to have been a completely random choice, so the 1917 commies were already in on the game...
EDIT: even more apropos: Barbara's father was said, after her martyrdom, to have been consumed by fire from above.
It's clear that orbit is really a very different domain to recruit, train, and equip for than the air, and thus to many, a separate Space Force made sense.
Is any domain more different than the electronic domain? Recruiting, training, and equipping 'hackers' seems entirely different in all three aspects than it would for land, sea, air, or orbit.
A word on names:
I despise cyber, which sounds like marketing-speak for a cheap sci-fi movie. It's really electronic warfare, all the way up the OSI layer model from physical - such as jamming and jamming counter-measures on wireless comms, tapping cables, etc. - to network routing, to applications; and then to device hardware and software; etc. (Maybe the new Electronic Warfare service should partly organize itself according to OSI layers.) Electronic Warfare Service also is more anodyne, the best military tradition - stop glorifying and glamorizing war; humans have enough problems with those instincts; it's not a movie or anything like one.
Also, the service members need a title, like soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, guardians. (Note the awkward fit of the last one, for the Space Force - which should have been called Orbital Force - like a Marvel movie.) But what? While 'hackers' would be awesome for many reasons, obviously not that for my and other reasons. 'Engineers' isn't bad, if not entirely precise. 'Technicians'? A bit vague. Part of the problem is that IT world has always lacked a general term - what do we call ourselves, the equivalent of doctor, lawyer, accountant, plumber, ...? 'IT professional' is awkward too.