The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

The services each have their own and different standards for what it means to generate forces for cyberspace.

And understandably, the services don't prioritize cyberspace as much as they do their sort of core war fighting priorities and functions.

It's the Lawfare Podcast.

I'm Eugenie Lautry, Lawfare's

Lawfare's Fellow in Technology Policy and Law,

with Dr. Erica Lonergan, assistant professor

in the School of International and Public Affairs

at Columbia University.

We don't want to get to a point where there's a realization that,

well, maybe we should actually be organizing our forces this way

because we're not at an appropriate state of readiness

and we have this contingency or conflict we have to deal with.

Ideally, we'd like to do this now, right?

You know, before we're in, you know, some perspective conflict with the highly capable near peer or peer adversary.

Today we're talking about the organization of the US military in cyberspace and whether setting up a cyber force is the best path forward.

So there's two concepts that will underpin a lot of today's conversation that I think it would be useful to begin with. And those are a responsibility

for force generation and the responsibility of force employment. So tell us a little bit about

these concepts and how they relate to the issue that we're going to be talking about today, which is the organization of the U.S. military and cyberspace.

...