As a Japanese general once said after they had attacked the U.S., “I fear we have woken a slumbering Giant!” We now see the fear of this giant by our enemies from both within and outside of the US trying to pick at us and attack while we are reeling from this virus that we are dealing with now.
One has to ask, “Is attacking to interfere with the treatment of sick U.S. citizens any different than attacking them by other means?”
Last weekend we saw the attack against Health And Human Services just as we are starting to gear up to fight the outbreak fo Coronavirus, since then we have seen massive false news spamming from foreign actors, trying to stir up panic in the U.S. at the same time, people are alarmed by the spread of this virus.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department suffered a cyber-attack on its computer system, part of what people familiar with the incident called a campaign of disruption and disinformation that was aimed at undermining the response to the coronavirus pandemic and may have been the work of a foreign actor.
“We are aware of a cyber incident related to the Health and Human Services computer networks, and the federal government is investigating this incident thoroughly,” John Ullyot, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said in a statement. “HHS and federal government cybersecurity professionals are continuously monitoring and taking appropriate actions to secure our federal networks.”
One has to ask, “If we are in the middle of a National Emergency, shouldn’t we view such an attack from any outside nation-state actor as an act of war?”
The 2011 Defense Authorization Act authorized replying up to the use of force for any cyber attack against the US by a state actor; the question has to be then asked, why aren’t we doing something?
I was online speaking with some people last night, one of them asked me, “What if it is China or Russia?”
In return, I asked, “Why is that an issue?”
If Russia or China attacked Naval Station Mayport to stop our fleet from coming to the aid of soldiers or sailers under duress in a location near the base, would we not respond in kind? So if we are watching a plague attacking the US, an attack on the very organization set to aid in our battling this plague, how is this cyber attack to disrupt our ability to act any different then physically attacking and disrupting our ability to function?
Do we attack a Chinese or Russian naval base? No, but I would have no problem with sending an AGM-158B JASSM (ER) with a B2 launching, destroy the cyber warfare unit that attacked the US, then notify the offending party, if this continues we will destroy three next time.
I am no fan of war or military action, but there are times that this is the only message that is ever heard. If we understand that this came from a nation like Iran or North Korea, I don’t care that we are in the middle of negotiations, such an attack is an act of war, should be responded to in kind, it should not matter who the attacker is.
By no means am I a warmonger, but millions of Americans and I are tired of hearing of attacks like this, then nothing is done, it is time that foreign actors learn there is a consequence to such an action.
The Question Of Price Gouging, Why Is This Unequally Applied?
By now many of us have heard of the two brothers who purchased 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer, there was outrage over this, legal authorities are looking into prosecuting this, but isn’t this just part of supply and demand? If you go into the grocery store, Toilet paper has gone up drastically in price as people are hoarding Toilet paper, the stores are making a substantial profit off of this, so why is it fair for the stores to do this and not an individual?
I know some of you are going to be horrified, you will ask yourself, “Is he saying it is OK for people to hoard and take advantage of people when they are down? I wonder if he ever heard of the golden rule?” But this is not why I am asking, I have a problem with both of these cases, I understand supply and demand, but no one says a word when the pharmaceutical companies do this, they see the need of medicine be driven up, like anti-biotics and facemasks, yet go to Amazon, you see these have jumped in price drastically, so why did Amazon shut down the brothers and not other sellers marking up face masks?
I have a massive issue with price gouging, but if we are going to demand that this be policed, then why is it not done so equally? If we are going to make such a demand of the individual, then we need to similarly demand that equal justice be dealt out to the large corporation as well, or do nothing and let the law of supply and demand take over.
Should Copyright Laws preventing 3D printing be done away with?
There are cases in Italy and around the world where manufacturers of medical supplies are not able to keep up with demand, but there is a way in some cases to meet this demand through 3D printing. This sounds like a lifesaver like we have seen in Italy where valves are being made, local hospitals are putting in orders with individuals and companies that can print out items with their printers, but what happens if the company that holds patent issues an injunction on this?
Further, what if one of these valves break, they are only designed to last 8 hours, so if one malfunction, should this company be held accountable?
In WW2 we had companies that made wash machines suddenly contracted out to make fighters, car companies tooled to start creating tanks, America has the ability, even after we have drastically diminished our manufacturing capability to build up to fight this, with the millions of 3D printing machines, if this need for lifesaving equipment increases, maybe we should wave copyright laws, but still have the company that owns the copyright to be paid for their product.
I have heard conflicting opinions on this outbreak, many times from opposing medical views. Still, we have to put laws in place to aid us in fighting either this coronavirus or setting up the ability to quickly adapt in the case the next outbreak is a black death type of event where you could see a 30 to 60% mortality rate (historians differ on the numbers, but even the lowest would break down society as we know it).
If we look at a worse case with this, you are looking at a 1.9% mortality rate. If this ends up sweeping across America, we could be looking to see a 70% infection rate. With this, you could see up to 4.5 million deaths that would disrupt society, not to mention our social cohesion.
But take this up to what would happen with a black death type of case, even if you go with the lowest figure, where adults, children, and the elderly are attacked, we would be looking with the same numbers being infected with a death rate of 67 million, this would be devastating to society, many nations would fall into complete anarchy. I would venture to say that lawlessness would almost be promised in all but a few countries, and those would have to suspend civil rights to maintain order.
This is what we need to plan for; this way, when it does strike, we can handle such a worst-case scenario, at least as best as one can, but would make dealing with something like this much more accessible.
We can say this impossible, but an excellent example of why this could be is look to ebola, if we ever had something like this that mutated to become able to spread like what we currently are experiencing, this has a mortality rate of 90%, such an outbreak would have the capability to set civilization back to the Dark Ages.
If we don’t plan for such things now, what will happen when such a situation, even if it has half of Ebola’s mortality rate? You would be looking at a 70% infection rate. With 45% mortality, you would be seeing civilization give way to anarchy as we deal with 1/3 of our population dying off.
In such an event, fear is all that rules; we need to put plans in place, so the rules set down, not fear rules the will of the nation.
This brings us back to 3D printing, the need to do away with patents in such a case. I have no problem with manufacturing paying a percentage of profit to the company that holds the copyright but has an issue with them being able to with an injunction to stop this manufacturing during the time of national emergency. If a company is ready to stop manufacturing to hold onto profit and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths occur, how are they any different then a nation who attacks a city and does the same?
I need to finish this by stating, such a law should be held with the tightest of control, this should only be able to be put in effect in a national crisis, and only be able to be held until the need is done.