Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • December 24, 2025 4:06 AM

@ Weird timing, KC,

“I dont think Article 5 was designed to deal with non-state actors, or those contractors who are at arm’s length”

Nor for “cybersecurity” which, was at the time Article 5 was drawn up effectively an unknown and certainly would not have been seen in terms of an existential threat untill very recently.

Which I suspect is more indicative of a major change in the supposed “first world”, akin to a form of “societal revolution”. One that unfortunately is like “not having” the governor, relief valves, or safety plugs on a steam engine at the begining of the industrial revolution. Something that could and did give rise to a series of significant kinetic events and body parts strewn across the environment[1].

It is said that Article 5 has only been used once after 9/11. Implying incorrectly that the US reached out for help to the other NATO members.

It did not, as it had neither need nor want of such assistance. Seeing it as an impediment to what US politicians wanted to do politically and militarily before the ball stopped rolling.

Article 5 was invoked by others and practically had no consequence in the way originally intended for Article 5. That is prevent open warfare by threat or actual “collective defence”. By a form of “federation” against the direct invasion or use of hostile forces against a member nation by the forces of another initiating nation.

All sorts of “hoops and loops” had to be jumped through to give a figleaf defence for what the US intended to do which was basically commit “War Crimes for gain”.

Arguably this was a failure for both US Society and World Security. But for some in the US MIC it was immensely profitable as trillions of dollars flowed their way from direct military action and the “War on Terror” with the consequent “Security Theater”.

Which as the US has getting on for a half century of still open “War on XXX” it raises a question,

“Which XXX will be used as an excuse for a US war crime next?”

Because arguably it’s the “War on drugs” currently…

Has anyone else noted that all these “War on XXX” are directly due to the failings of US Corportism on US citizens and citizens of other nations?

I have a feeling it’s a subject that will be discussed in private conversations around the equivalent of “the coffee machine” at such NATO and similar events.

The real problem that nobody wants to talk about though is “a military federation” is not the way to deal with these “War on XXX” issues. Because the XXX almost always start out with the lack of “Policing of Crime” that in time turns crime into a useful political tool, then a weapon of the military action then actual warfare.

The way to stop it is by effective collective Policing such that the crimes can not progress into weapons.

Speaking of which, has anyone else noted that Brendan Carr at the FCC has just “fired the first shot” of what will probably become the new US “War on Drones”?

https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-foreign-drone-ban-is-here-dji-hit-hardest-by-new-fcc-rules

[1] Which tragic as the kinetic events were to those harmed and those that loved and depended on them, it in turn, turned “a closed market into an open industry”.

By legislative action that pushed through major changes as “Gentlemen of Natural philosophy” were required by law to provide rules of obayance from laws of nature. There by creating at least two new occupation domains. One by the creation of “safety inspectors” and the more interesting for societal progress “the birth of engineering” from existent Guilds, articifers, and artisans.

Something that I suspect will be forced on both Software creation and AI in the not to distant future. And with good reason, the sooner the better, as it will be a net “societal good” as it pushes the,

“Individual Rights v Social Responsabilities”

In the right direction. By creating real wealth in society. Which in turn increases opportunity, thus the velocity of progress as an “Open good” rather than a “Closed Harm”.