text: DHS WARNS OF POSSIBLE CYBER ATTACKS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quietly issued a security bulletin to critical infrastructure organizations warning of potential cyberattacks from Russia. The memo said, “Russia maintains a range of offensive cyber tools that it could employ against US networks—from low-level denials-of-service to destructive attacks targeting critical infrastructure.” While Moscow’s threshold for conducting an attack “probably remains very high” (AC: Russia already demonstrated its ability to selectively target critical industries and infrastructure inside the U.S. homeland. As tensions escalate in Europe, the U.S. becomes a likely target for cyber disruptions due to its support for NATO and Ukraine. Should an attack occur, expect limited to persistent disruptions to payment systems, utilities, cellular communications networks, the internet, GPS-integrated systems. Panic buying will likely induce localized and regional shortages for consumer goods and fuel. – D.M.)HAZARDS/WX: ￼￼InFocus: How Civil Wars StartI’m halfway through with Barbara F. Walter’s How Civil Wars Start, a book about foreign civil wars and some US parallels. Walter was previously a member of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Political Instability Task Force, and despite her obvious political bias, she does shed light on what’s happening in the United States today.I have three takeaways to share today:RAPID POLITICAL CHANGE: Civil wars become more likely when a country experiences a significant and rapid political change, such as an attempted transition to democracy or slip into anocracy, Walter’s term to describe the gray area between democracy and dictatorship. She cites Iraq as an example, where US and Coalition Forces attempted a transition to democracy from the Baathist dictatorship. The change was too much, too soon, she writes, which led to Sunnis and Shia fighting each other for power. I’ve written previously about how quickly American culture is changing in the cultural fight between Old America and New America. A rapid shift towards mass immigration, for instance, is a driver of anger and resentment in the United States because it most benefits a single political party. Last week, I wrote about the potential for a legitimacy crisis stemming from the Democrats’ two expanded voting bills, which for now have failed in the Senate. This would have rapidly changed voting procedures, and sparked backlash had these changes to election rules led to wide swings of the electorate or permanent, single-party political dominance. (Early Warning for 18 JAN 2022)SECT-BASED CONFLICT: One of the major arguments against a hot civil war or violent political conflict is that, other than well-known politicians, Americans can’t differentiate political ideology based on looks. Sure, there are bumper stickers, yard signs, and political clothing, but absent that, I doubt one could accurately guess political leanings based on appearance alone. Walter writes about how sectarian association was identified during the Iraqi Civil War, where Sunni and Shia factions bombed civilians, targeted political leaders, and engaged in brutal violence neighborhood by neighborhood. During that conflict, Iraqis were simply asked if they were Sunni or Shia. And, of course, there were many infamous mosque bombings where Sunni and Shia sects targeted each other.I don’t mean to be graphic or dark, but there’s little stopping future belligerents in another American Civil War from targeting civilians based on suspected political leanings. Like in Iraq, asking “Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” before committing an act of political violence could become common if we do have a hot civil war. (Or substitute political affiliation for however dividing lines break down in a future conflict.)