'American Blackout': Is National Geographic's take on cyberattack accurate?

The National Geographic Channel’s fictionalized account of a 10-day blackout following a major cyberattack draws on previous events and expert opinions to paint a rather bleak picture.

How would the average US citizen cope in the wake of a catastrophic cyberattack?

Not so well, it turns out.

As the power grid goes down across the country, the streets quickly descend into chaos while consumers ransack stores for bottled water and canned goods.

Those without sufficient cash handy are quickly in dire straits, since no electricity means no credit cards or ATMs, either.

Meanwhile, the heroes of the day are “doomsday preppers” who have had the foresight to stockpile a couple years’ worth of bottled water, batteries, and military-style meals-ready-to-eat in secret underground bunkers.

This is the scenario explored in “American Blackout,” the National Geographic Channel’s fictionalized account of a 10-day-long power outage precipitated by a cyberattack. The program airs Sunday.

“Blackout” draws on previous events and expert opinions to paint a rather bleak picture, its creators say.

The film tends to endorse the maxim, widely held in national security circles, that society is roughly nine missed meals away from chaos.

After that point, people are “pretty well prepared to do whatever it takes” to meet their needs, David Lyle, the National Geographic Channel president, warned as he introduced the film at a première in Washington, D.C., this past week.

US officials have echoed these concerns. “A massive and well-coordinated cyberattack on the electric grid could devastate the economy and cause a large-scale loss of life,” warns Richard Andres, a research fellow at National Defense University’s Institute for National Security Studies.

Certainly, the average American doesn’t seem to be too optimistic about the national response in the event of, say, a major catastrophe like the loss of the power grid.

That said, 9 in 10 people in a recent National Geographic Channel survey said they believe the world will experience a major catastrophe, and of those, about one-third expect it to occur “less than a year from now.”

In case of such a catastrophe, 57 percent of those surveyed said they would turn to friends and family for help, while 14 percent said they believed the government would be “the most help.”

Three-quarters of the respondents said they believed the country will experience a “catastrophic cyberattack” in their lifetime, and more than half say they don’t think the United States is ready for it.

So just how likely is a national power outage precipitated by a cyberattack, anyway?

“Not very likely,” former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden said in a panel following the film.

That said, most of the power grid is the responsibility of the private sector, he added. For this reason, the private sector “at the end of the day is the main body” that should take the lead in national cyberdefense, Mr. Hayden said in a discussion the next day at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

It was a statement that caused a ripple in the panel as Hayden argued that “the government has to conform its activities” to enable the private sector to take the lead in cyberdefense, much like the US military takes the lead in the defense of American airspace, for example.

“We expect the government to control and defend our airspace,” Hayden said. “I don’t think that’s true – or at least it’s not as true – in the cyber domain.” 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'American Blackout': Is National Geographic's take on cyberattack accurate?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today