The Necessity of Cyber War as a better alternative to traditional warfare
By the time our generation is done with this living on this planet, we should have found a way to flip warfare into just another computer game.
- Cyber War does not kill people but does diminish both production as well offensive capabilities of enemy.
- It destroys lesser resources of the enemy irreversibly, thus leading to increased capacity to claim damages or taxes from the loser of the conflict
- It does not motivate general population for war hysteria thus minimizing inflationary pressures
- Cyber War does not divert too many goods and services (like commodities, metals, fuels) from your economy unlike traditional warfare
- Capacity to wage cyber war needs human resources and can reduce asymmetry between nations in terms of resources available naturally or historically (like money , access to fuel and logistics, geography , educated population,colonial history )
- It is more effective in both offensive and defensive capabilities and at a much much cheaper cost to defense budgets
- Most developed countries have already invested heavily in it, and it can render traditional weaponry ineffective and expensive. If you ignore investing in cyber war capabilities your defense forces would be compromised and national infrastructure can be held to ransom
Self-defence….is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.– Gandhi.
I have been busy with some unusual projects.
Since they help pay the bills, blogging shall be sparse.
When I was doing my MBA (a decade ago), one of the principal theories on why corporations exist was 1) Shareholder Value creation (grow wealth for investors) and a notable second was 2) Stakeholder Value creation- creating jobs for societies, providing tax to countries, providing employees with stable employment and incentives, and of course creating monetary value for shareholders.
There were two ways you could raise money- debt or equity. Debt had the advantage of interest payments being tax deductible. Debt payments had to be met regularly. Equity had the advantage that equity holders were the last ones to be paid in case of closing the company down, which justified that rate of return on equity is generally higher than cost of debt. Dividend payouts to stockholders could be deferred in a low revenue year or due to planning reasons.
Or in plain English, over the long term borrowing money from share holders in lieu of stocks was more expensive than selling bonds or borrowing from the banks.
Hybrid combinations of debt and equity were warrants and debentures that started off as one form of instrument and over a period of time gave much more flexibility and risk safety nets to both issuers and subscribers of capital. Another hybrid was stock options (now considered as a default option of rewarding employees in technology companies, but this was not always the case).
The use of call and put options in debentures, and the idea of vesting period in stock options was to promote lone term stability and minimize fluctuations in stock prices, employee attrition, besides of course to minimize the weighted average cost of capital. Venture capital was another class of capital known for both huge rates of return and risk taking (?)
But in today’s world where a Google has three classes of shares, companies trade shares before IPOs, and valuations of technology companies sink and rise by huge % over weeks (especially as they near IPO dates)- I wonder if traditional theories in finance need a much stronger overhaul.
or do markets need a regulatory overhaul, that would enable stock exchanges to have once more the credibility they had as the primary sources of raising capital.
Who will guard the guardians? Their conscience- the regulators or the news media?
There are ways of raising money that are not evil.
But they are not perfectly fair as well.
Someone I know recently mentioned that I have an extensive Digital Trail. I do.
I have 7863 connections at http://www.linkedin.com/in/ajayohri, 31 likes at https://www.facebook.com/ajayohri and 19 likes at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ajay-Ohri/157086547679568, 409 friends (and 13 subscribers) at https://www.facebook.com/byebyebyer .On twitter I have 499 followers at http://twitter.com/0_h_r_1 and 344 followers at http://twitter.com/rforbusiness , and even on Google Plus some 617 people circling me at https://plus.google.com/116302364907696741272 (besides 6 other pages on G+)
Even my Youtube channel at http://www.youtube.com/decisionstats is more popular than I am in non-digital life. my non existant video blog at http://videosforkush.blogspot.com/ and my poetry blog at http://poemsforkush.wordpress.com/, and my comments on other social media, and my blurbs on my tumblr http://kushohri.tumblr.com/, and you get a lot of my psych profile.
Why do I do leave so much trail digitally?
For one reason- I was a bit of introvert always and technology set me free, the opportunity to think and yet be relaxed in anonymous chatter.
For the second reason- I am divorced and my wife got my 4 yr old son’s custody. Even though I talk to him once a day for a couple of minutes, somehow I hope when he grows, he reads my digital trail , maybe even these words, on the kind of man I was and the phases and seasons of life I went through.
That is all.