What do Russia and Rome have in common?
They both lost their empire to, among other things, a supply chain that overgrew it's bounds.
The Roman Empire morphed into the Christianized version of what we have today, the Roman Empire trained legions out of natives in France and Britain and when they withdrew the homegrown roman legions remained, clearly Celts with Roman Gear and Roman Fighting Style inherriting the societal structure and government which was and has been in the control of Rome, the Pope for many centuries, Roman Law, Roman Culture, Roman History., the presence of the Roman Empire continues today in the fact that through the Councils of Nicea and the creation of the Roman Church which copyrighted the Ecclesiastical law that has morphed directly into the UCC and they hold the copyright to all law formed from that including merchant and maritime law. The Power has always been with the Roman Empire and it has never vacated it's power to anyone.
The Russian Empire didn't get lost to anyone, and neither did the Roman Empire, other than being lost in the textbook fairy tale which never mentions the Numerous Councils of Nicea.
1.Treaties with St. Boniface and Treaties Between the Holy See and King Pepin the Short of the Franks; Pepin delivered and
defended the Papal states of the Holy See, confirming the “temporal powers” of Rome and laying the groundwork for his son,
Charlemagne, to create the First Holy Roman Empire. (751-800 A.D.)
- Charter of the First Holy Roman Empire, 800 A.D.
- King John of England breaks with the Roman Catholic Church, 1209. Edict of Excommunication of John of England.
- Treaty of King John of England, Cede to Innocent III, 1213 A.D. John agrees that England and Ireland are both “fiefs” of
Rome, and that his own crown will be forfeit to Rome if he breaks his sworn agreements favoring the Pope. - Magna Carta 1215 A.D. In signing the Magna Carta King John silently invoked the 1213 Papal agreement relinquishing his
crown to the Pope. Thereafter, all lands explored and claimed in behalf of Catholic Monarchs and including the British Monarch
as a vassal of Rome, were in fact first and wholly claimed in behalf of the Holy See, which returned a portion of the profit to the
vassal monarchs in the form of “jurisdictions”. The Holy See retained the global jurisdiction of the air, granted jurisdiction of the
land to temporal authorities (recognized monarchs), and granted the international jurisdiction of the sea to the British Crown
Temple to be administered under the ancient Law of the Sea (international admiralty) and Law Merchant (now Uniform
Commercial Code). - Charter(s) of the Global Estate Trust (1455, 1456, 1479, and 1492 et alia) by Papal Bulls, especially the Inter Ceatera of May
3 and 4, 1493, by Pope Alexander VI. - European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport,
editor, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, Washington, D.C., especially pp. 75-78.8. “The Privileges and Prerogatives Granted by Their Catholic Majesties to Christopher Columbus April 30, 1492**
Etc etc..
The line between order and disorder lies in logistics.
The fall of the Roman Empire is largely agreed to be attributed at least in large part to overexpansion.
The fall is a myth that was conveniently sold to take off the heat that carries with Conquering Empire since the control always flew downhill from Rome, and the Pope was the New Emperor. A great example (pun) is Alexander, he over-expanded, but then again he had no Logistics or Empire, he was a hoard and hardly made a lasting impact on those he invaded, yet Rome and Russia have such lasting impacts that are directly evident today and the question is largely: How can an empire succumb to "overexpansion" in so far that it essentially DISSOLVES as the myth of the fall of the Roman Empire goes. Nature Abhors a vacuum, and there is no indication there was any vacancy of power with Rome over it's Territories, the Papal Empire ruled and rules the Roman Empire Territory so Hardly Fall, real power never changes hands.
Putting our critical infrastructure online was a huge security oversight, regardless of the convenience. This essentially extended our supply line worldwide, while only offering the convenience to the intended audience. We allow ourselves to be outflanked by any enemy with an internet connection, going even further when one accounts for the possibility of an EMP device detonating and toasting our power grid. While an EMP is difficult to defend against, simple network segmentation, air-gapping critical network infrastructure, would be the same as placing our most important assets in an impenetrable fortress.
Nukes kinda invalidate any and all defenses, so going that far this has been senseless.
Yes it's a security oversight to place critical infrastructure on the WEB, but there is no Impenetrable Fortress that exists from an EMP, and clearly the Ukrainian Example was Hacked Despite being an Intranet so it seems as long as it's a Computer it's a security oversight.
What is the price we paid for interconnectivity and convenience? In 2015, we saw the first successful attack against a power grid, shutting off power to roughly 230,000 Ukrainians for 1 to 6 hours. This is a relatively short time period, until one considers that, for 6 hours, a sovereign nation did not have control of their own power grid. In 2003, a power outage in North East US and South East Canada lead to 12 deaths. While the hype over a possible cyber attack was largely overblown and entirely false, the possibility still raised questions, and proved that critical infrastructure failure can be fatal.
Eating Olives can be Fatal.
We've extended our supply lines, without extending the benefits. In war, extending the supply lines allows for our armies to march into enemy territory. In this, we are extending our supply lines into enemy territory, without a military presence to supply. This strategically makes no sense, and recent studies showing the vulnerability in our critical infrastructure, as well as proven and successful attacks against critical infrastructure, shows that this strategic oversight is incredibly costly and increasingly dangerous. Interconnectivity allows for incredible convenience, but at the price of safety and security.
Interconnectivity allows for incredible things, and there is no reason to conclude that it does so at the price of safety and security.
That is patently and dangerously false. While it absolutely allows for incredible things, there are a million reasons to conclude that it does so at the price of safety and security.
Internet of things -- connecting cameras, fridges, industrial controllers, etc. to the web, resulting in a larger target surface and a multitude of botnets, including Mirai, that cost governments and private companies billions a year.
Nuclear plants, other critical infrastructure -- while it is convenient to connect the critical infrastructure to the web, it is absolutely silly to do so. Convenience should never dictate putting citizens at risk, especially when the risk is deadly power outages or nuclear meltdown.
Hospital networks -- I get it. Paper reports are a pain in the ass. There is an acceptable level of convenience for hospital networks. But when we have heart monitors and IV pumps connected, at least by proxy, to the Web, that's ridiculous.
etc.
Don't know if this is an attempt to downplay the risk of widespread power outages or what..
Yes it's a security oversight to place critical infrastructure on the WEB, but there is no Impenetrable Fortress that exists from an EMP, and clearly the Ukrainian Example was Hacked Despite being an Intranet so it seems as long as it's a Computer it's a security oversight.
Agree with the No Impenetrable fortress defense. There isn't one, but that does not give us an excuse to put them in a hay hut. And I also wasn't necessarily referring to nukes, more non-nuclear EMP devices, which are becoming more of a threat and are much more difficult to detect and defend against.
As for your arguments about Rome never falling... That seems like a stretch. Especially a semantic one. Interesting though.
Their mere connectedness allowed for them to be "hacked" because of default credentials. Computers are not innately dangerous. Their data and connectedness to the web confer danger.
https://www.wired.com/story/hack-brief-us-nuclear-power-breach/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/technology/nuclear-plant-hack-report.html
While a Forbes article does imply that nuclear safety mechanisms are safe and secure behind segmentation and out-only network engineering, that does not protect the entirety of nuclear power plant security. The Ukranian example does not at all demonstrate that the power plants are segmented off. The mere targeting of our plants, as well as the attack on the Ukranians, would imply the opposite, that even if they are relatively segmented, there is still crossover enough for attack to be possible from the web as a whole. This is unacceptable. As for your "any network engineer" example, that's simply a falsehood. Any network engineer with any background in security would tell you that connecting it with the internet does immediately put it at some level of risk, and the data and context involve would play a part in what level that risk should be viewed at.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/12/15630354/nhs-hospitals-ransomware-hack-wannacry-bitcoin
Read only? Seems like UK at least would imply that hospital networks absolutely imply that hospital networks are overconnected. Basic security both doesn't work and is rarely implemented.
That's just blatantly dangerous logic.
Again. I'm talking about the literal fall of Rome. The Empire itself. You're using semantics to imply the existance of the Pope and the Roman system implies that Rome never fell.. That's a purely semantic argument against a point that is clearly a literal case for the fall of Rome as a ruling society and government. Rome, even if I do humor your point of the Pope still being around, absolutely does not rule France, Spain, or America. That is laughable. You're arguing using a largely semantic argument over the definition of "rule", trying to conjure up some ownership between the pope and established nations that does not exist. You're citing things, and I appreciate that at least, but your argument is still a far stretch. Rome fell. Period.