Nsa updates aff Tech Leadership Advantage

Cyber attacks on the horizon- threaten international escalation

Many experts reckon the first cyberwar is already well under way. It’s not exactly a “cold war,” as the previous generation understood the term, because serious damage valued in millions of dollars has been done, and there’s nothing masked about the hostile intent of state-sponsored hackers. What has been masked is the sponsorship.

Every strike has been plausibly deniable, including whitehat operations such as the nasty little Stuxnet bug Iran’s nuclear weapons program contracted a few years back. Cyberwar aggressors like Russia and China officially claim to be interested in peace and security.

The cyberwar could get much hotter soon, in the estimation of former CIA counter-intelligence director Barry Royden, a 40-year intel veteran, who told Business Insider the threat of cyberterrorism is pervasive, evasive, and so damned invasive that, sooner or later, someone will give into temptation, pull the trigger, and unleash chaos.

Effective security against a massive attack by militarized hackers is “extremely difficult – in fact, it’s impossible,” according to Royden. “Everyone is connected to everyone, and as long as you’re connected you’re vulnerable. And there are firewalls, but every firewall is potentially defeatable, so it’s a nightmare in my mind. You have to think that other governments have the capability to bring down the main computer systems in this country, power grids, hospitals, or banking systems – things that could cause great economic upheaval and paralyze the country.”

There are, in fact, excellent reasons to believe hostile governments have the capability Royden describes. Even top-level systems at the State Department and White House have been penetrated by hackers, in what appear to be exploratory operations. North Korea, a relatively small cyberwar player, did a horrific amount of damage to Sony Pictures, possibly with the help of insiders. We don’t know how many “insiders” there are. Not only is hacker warfare fought on an entirely new battleground, but it adds new dimensions to old-school espionage.

Some non-governmental hacking incidents could be a result of military hacking units polishing their skills. Last week, Penn State University announced it was hit by “two sophisticated hacking attacks, one of which cyber-security experts say originated in China,” according to NBC News. The personal information of some 18,000 students and university employees was jeopardized. The university had to disconnect its systems completely from the Internet to deal with the threat.

Unplugging from the Internet won’t be an option if systems across the nation, including vital infrastructure systems, are hit simultaneously by a massive attack.

Penn State University President Eric J. Barron put the problem in perspective by vowing to “take additional steps to protect ourselves, our identities and our information from a new global wave of cybercrime and cyberespionage.”

The extent of the risk to our nation’s physical infrastructure was highlighted when security researcher Chris Roberts was removed from a United Airlines plane last month, because he was passing his time on the tarmac tweeting about the plane’s security vulnerabilities.

Popular Science notes that the Government Accountability Office recently published a report “highlighting the potential dangers posed by hackers using commercial airlines’ onboard wireless communications networks, including Wi-Fi, as a possible attack vector.”

Roberts previously claimed to have hacked the International Space Station and taken control of its thermostat, and he thought he might have a shot at hacking the Mars rover.

Economic infrastructure is equally at risk. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis confirmed on Tuesday that its systems were breached by hackers, “redirecting users of its online research services to fake websites set up by the attackers,” as reported by the New York Times.

US government officials becoming aware of cyber terror threats but no progress being made- threats will escalate in the short term

In a wide-ranging discussion at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Thursday evening, former U.S. Defense Secretary and past CIA Director Leon Panetta reiterated his concern over the threat of potential cyberattacks against the United States. Such attacks, he said, could do serious damage to technology that runs everything from the nation's transportation system to its power grid.

"We're now seeing viruses that can literally destroy computers," Panetta told a crowd of approximately 800 people at the event, held at the Fairmont Chicago Millennium Park.

Panetta's greatest fear is that this type of destructive technology "moves into the hands of terrorists, who then don't have to come to this country to blow us up. They can basically use that kind of technology to cripple our country."

Cyberterrorism was one of many topics covered at the talk, moderator by Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and former U.S. Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Asked about the Iran nuclear talks, Panetta started by saying, "Look, I don't trust the Iranians," explaining that "they've been engaged in promoting terrorism throughout the world."

"Add to that the fact that they have developed a nuclear enrichment capability ... with 19,000 centrifuges for God's sake, and they tried to hide it from the world," he said.

That being said, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program are "obviously ... worth the effort," Panetta said.

"If they can get the kind of inspection regime put in place that really makes it clear you can go in and go where you want to make sure that they're not doing any high enrichment and you can enforce that, that would give me some comfort in whatever deal is cut," he said.

As far as Russian President Valdimir Putin's actions in eastern Ukraine, Panetta said he approves of President Barack Obama's move to impose sanctions on Russia.

"I think it's very important to be very tough with Putin at this point," Panetta said, adding that he doesn't understand the "hesitancy" in giving military arms to Ukraine.

"You're providing a lot of stuff now, you might as well provide arms as well to try to give them half a chance at being able to be successful," he said.

At the top of the discussion, Panetta detailed the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden. That operation, which Panetta oversaw as the then-CIA director, sent "a message to the world that nobody attacks our country and gets away with it," he stressed.

A good portion of the talk, however, involved Panetta expressing frustration over what he sees as a different kind of national security threat -- congressional gridlock.

Panetta said America will ultimately "pay a price" for the political stalemate in Washington, D.C.

"What I'm concerned about today is that because there's this conflict [in Congress] ... because all the rules of the game seem to be thrown out the window, that there's this kind of sense of giving up," he stressed. "And so major issues that are facing this country, there's a sense we're not going to deal with them."

"Right now we're fighting ISIS," Panetta noted, refering to the terrorist group. "We've got men and women in uniform out there putting their lives on the line and the damn Congress can't agree as to what war authority we ought to have. So the likelihood is they're probably not going to do anything ... Too often they do nothing, and we're going to pay a price for this."

Panetta, a Democrat, served in the U.S. House from 1977 to 1993, representing California's 16th congressional district. After that, Panetta was the director of the Office of Management and Budget before becoming President Bill Clinton's chief of staff from 1994 to 1997.

Out of the many jobs he's had, Panetta said he enjoyed serving in Congress the most.

"As far as the mission of getting something done like the Bin Laden mission, being director of the CIA, obviously is tremendously satisfying as well," he said. "But I have to tell you, being a member of Congress at a time when ... both sides were working together to get something done, that was great."

After the program, Panetta signed copies of his recent book, "Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace."

NSA circumvents encryption protocols

I believe we’re going to see more bulk access to our data by the NSA, because of the type of data it wants. The NSA used to be able to get everything it wanted from Internet backbone companies and broadband providers. This became less true as encryption— specifically a kind called SSL encryption—became more common. It will become even less true as more of the Internet becomes encrypted. To overcome this, the NSA needs to obtain bulk data from service providers, because they’re the ones with our data in plaintext, despite any encryption in transit. And to do that it needs to subvert the security protocols used by those sites to secure their data. Other countries are involved in similar skullduggery. It is widely believed that the Chinese government embeds the capability to eavesdrop into all networking equipment built and sold by its own company Huawei. And we have reason to suspect that British, Russian, Israeli, and French Internet products have also been backdoored by their governments.

Vulnerabilities within the government internet infrastructure make governmental cyber warfare a real possibility

Schneier, 15, fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, a program fellow at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Advisory Board Member of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Chief Technology Officer at Resilient Systems, Inc (Bruce, Data and Goliath: the Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World, Ch. 11)//AK
Vulnerabilities are mistakes. They’re errors in design or implementation—glitches in the code or hardware—that allow unauthorized intrusion into a system. So, for example, a cybercriminal might exploit a vulnerability to break into your computer, eavesdrop on your web connection, and steal the password you use to log in to your bank account. A government intelligence agency might use a vulnerability to break into the network of a foreign terrorist organization and disrupt its operations, or to steal a foreign corporation’s intellectual property. Another government intelligence agency might take advantage of a vulnerability to eavesdrop on political dissidents, or terrorist cells, or rival government leaders. And a military might use a vulnerability to launch a cyberweapon. This is all hacking.

When someone discovers a vulnerability, she can use it either for defense or for offense. Defense means alerting the vendor and getting it patched—and publishing it so the community can learn from it. Lots of vulnerabilities are discovered by vendors themselves and patched without any fanfare. Others are discovered by researchers and ethical hackers.

Offense involves using the vulnerability to attack others. Unpublished vulnerabilities are called “zero-day” vulnerabilities; they’re very valuable to attackers because no one is protected against them, and they can be used worldwide with impunity. Eventually the affected software’s vendor finds out—the timing depends on how widely the vulnerability is exploited—and issues a patch to close it.

If an offensive military cyber unit or a cyberweapons manufacturer discovers the vulnerability, it will keep it secret for future use to build a cyberweapon. If used rarely and stealthily, the vulnerability might remain secret for a long time. If unused, it will remain secret until someone else discovers it.

Discoverers can sell vulnerabilities. There’s a robust market in zero-days for attack purposes—both governments and cyberweapons manufacturers that sell to governments are buyers—and black markets where discoverers can sell to criminals. Some vendors offer bounties for vulnerabilities to spur defense research, but the rewards are much lower. Undiscovered zero-day vulnerabilities are common. Every piece of commercial software—your smartphone, your computer, the embedded systems that run nuclear power plants—has hundreds if not thousands of vulnerabilities, most of them undiscovered. The science and engineering of programming just isn’t good enough to produce flawless software, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. The economics of software development prioritize features and speed to market, not security.

What all this means is that the threat of hacking isn’t going away. For the foreseeable future, it will always be possible for a sufficiently skilled attacker to find a vulnerability in a defender’s system. This will be true for militaries building cyberweapons, intelligence agencies trying to break into systems in order to eavesdrop, and criminals of all kinds.

cyber impact = probable

Cyber threats are the biggest threat to national security – outweighs terrorism

Arce 15 - Contributing Writer at Tech Times. Nicole Arce is based in World Wide. (Nicole, “Cyber Attack Bigger Threat Than ISIS, Says U.S. Spy Chief”, Tech Times, February 27, 2015, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35965/20150227/cyber-attack-bigger-threat-than-isis-says-u-s-spy-chief.htm//DM)

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper has identified cyberattacks as the biggest threat to the economy and national security of the United States, despite the looming threats of extremist terrorist groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and the growing nuclear ambitions of countries such as Iran, China, and North Korea.

The nation's highest intelligence official told the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on worldwide threats that although America is not currently at risk for a catastrophic, Armageddon-style scenario that will cause the meltdown of major infrastructures, such as financial institutions or power grids, Clapper said government agencies and private companies in the U.S. are already being subjected to an increasing occurrence of low and moderate-level cyberattacks whose destructive effects accumulate over time to negatively impact the nation's economy and national security.

"Cyber threats to U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication, and severity of impact; [and] the ranges of cyber threat actors, methods of attack, targeted systems, and victims are also expanding," Clapper said.

Particularly of concern to Clapper is the growing role of politically motivated attacks aimed at infiltrating U.S. government and military networks. He said the cyberattacks, which come in large part from Russia, are "more severe than we have previously assessed," but Clapper did not provide more details. Aside from Russia, hackers backed by the governments of China, North Korea, and Iran have been found to target government and commercial networks "on a daily basis."

"Politically motivated cyberattacks are now a growing reality, and foreign actors are reconnoitering and developing access to U.S. critical infrastructure systems, which might be quickly exploited for disruption if an adversary's intent became hostile," Clapper said.

2ac – xt: china cyber impact

China has surpassed the US in cyber warfare – any large scale attack will be catastrophic

Copp 15 - Tara Copp is a Defense Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. She was a senior defense analyst for the Government Accountability Office, and she previously reported on the Navy for Jane’s Defense Weekly. One of the original embedded reporters in Iraq in 2003, Copp has also traveled in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East assessing DOD logistics and readiness. A Plan II graduate of the University of Texas, Copp was editor of The Daily Texan, and earned her master’s degree from Georgetown University in security studies. (Tara, “U.S. vulnerable to large Chinese cyberattack, experts warn”, The Examiner, January 21, 2015, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1647831132/C5DDD5FDA9C94A6EPQ/5?accountid=14667//DM)

China has surpassed the United States in conducting cyber warfare and one day may launch a large-scale attack that the U.S. will be unable to respond to, some of the nation's foremost national security experts warned Wednesday.

Unlike nuclear threats, where overwhelming U.S. stockpiles are considered a deterrent to China's smaller numbers of warheads, no such balance exists in the cyber realm, said Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser.

China's superior capabilities in cyber warfare create the possibility "to paralyze an opponent entirely without killing anyone -- that is very tempting," Brzezinski said at the first Senate Armed Services Committee hearing under new Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

The committee also discussed the ongoing threats presented by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, instability and developing U.S. operations in Syria, potential continued aggression by Russia and the new resurgence of violence in Yemen.

"President Obama told the nation last night that the 'shadow of crisis has passed.' That news came as quite a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to what's been happening around the world," McCain said.

Brzezinski and retired Air Force Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, suggested that the U.S. should pursue both pre-emptive and reactive cyber capabilities that would form a mutually assured deterrent to hostile cyber activity.

The nation needs to develop "pre-emptive capability that matches the actions against us ... to change the balance of power."

Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., asked the panel what the U.S. would have done if the recent cyberattack on Sony Pictures had targeted U.S. stock exchanges instead, saying it's only a matter of time.

The lack of response is similar to "England before World War II, ignoring a threat that is right before us," Donnelly said. The U.S. has "never had more warnings and done less."

Scowcroft cautioned that U.S. efforts to develop a cyber defense strategy are "still at step one. We need serious analysis" of the extent of the gaps in capabilities.

cyber impact = magnitude framing

Cybersecurity is a matter of national security – can cripple our defense systems

Blumenthal 12 – Senator. Previously, he served as Attorney General of Connecticut. (Richard, ‘Blumenthal: 'Cybersecurity Is National Security’”, Congressional Documents and Publications, proquest, July 11, 2012//DM)

The first is, most significantly, the United States today is under attack. We are under cyber-attack. The question is how we respond. It is our national interests that are at stake. And every day this nation suffers attempted intrusions, attempted interference, attempted theft of our intellectual property as a result of the ongoing attack that we need to stop and deter and answer.

National security is indistinguishable from cybersecurity. In fact, cybersecurity is a matter of national security. Not only insofar as our defense capabilities, our actual weapons systems are potentially under attack and interference. But also, as my colleague from Rhode Island said so well, because our critical infrastructure, are every day at risk. Our facilities in transportation, our financial system, our utilities that power our great cities and our rural areas, and our intellectual property, which is so valuable and which every day is at risk - in fact, is taken from us wrongfully at great cost to our nation.

The number and sophistication of cyber-attacks has increased dramatically over the past five years and all of the warnings - they are bipartisan warnings - say those attacks will continue and will be mounting with increasing intensity. In fact, experts say that with enough time, enough motivation, enough funding, a determined adversary can penetrate nearly any system that is accessible directly from the internet. The United States today is vulnerable. And to take the Pearl Harbor analogy that our Secretary of Defense has drawn so well, we have our ships sitting unprotected today as they were at the time of Pearl Harbor. Our ships today are not just our vessels in the seas, but our institutions sitting in this country and around the world. Our critical infrastructure that is equally vulnerable to sophisticated and unsophisticated hackers. In fact, the threat ranges from the hackers in developing countries, unsophisticated hackers, to foreign agents who want to steal our nation's secrets through terrorists who seek ways to disrupt that critical infrastructure.

And it is not a matter simply of convenience. We're not talking here about temporary dislocations like the loss of electricity that the Capitol area suffered recently or that our states of New England suffered as a result of the recent storms last fall. We're talking about permanent, severe, lasting disruptions and dislocation of our financial and our power systems that may be caused by this interference. One international group, for example, accessed a financial company's internal computer network and stole millions of dollars in just 24 hours. Another such criminal group accessed online commercial banking accounts and spread malicious computer viruses that cost our financial institutions nearly $70 million. One company that was recently the victim of an intrusion determined that it lost ten years' worth of research and development valued at $1 billion. That is billion with a "b," virtually overnight.

These losses are not just to the shareholders of these companies. They are to all of us who live in the United States, because the losses in many instances are losses of information to defense companies that produce our weapons systems, losses of property that has been developed at great cost to them and to our taxpayers. So we should all be concerned about such losses, as Sean Henry, the executive director of the F.B.I., has said - and I'm quoting - "the cyber threat is an existential one" meaning that a major cyber-attack could potentially wipe out whole companies. End of quote.

Those threats to our critical infrastructure, as you have heard so powerfully from my colleague from Rhode Island, are widespread and spreading. Industrial control systems that help control our pipelines, railroads, water treatment facilities, power plants are at an elevated risk today. Not at some point in the future. Today. The F.B.I. warns that successful cyber-attack against an electrical grid could cause serious damage to parts of our cities and ultimately even kill people. The Department of Homeland Security said last year that it has received nearly 200 reports of suspected cyber incidents, more than four times the number of incidence reported in 2010. In one incident more than 100 computers at a nuclear energy firm were infected with a virus that could have been used to take complete control of that company's system. These reports, these warnings go on. But in summary, the director of the F.B.I. said it best - quote - "we are losing data. We are losing money. We are losing ideas and we are losing innovation." Those threats are existential to our nation, and we must address them now. Not simply as a luxury, not as a possibility, but as a need now.

Cyber conflict causes escalation – loss of defensive capabilities and destabilization of international relations

International Security Advisory Board 14 - Federal Advisory Committee established to provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice and innovation on scientific, military, diplomatic, political, and public diplomacy aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and nonproliferation. (ISAB, “Report on A Framework for International Cyber Stability”, July 2, 2014, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/229235.pdf, p.6-8//DM)

Cyber conflict between nations exploiting any one of the three threat vectors could lead to very severe damage to the integrity of U.S. information architectures. It could damage our ability to communicate, operate, and control escalation, and our ability to preempt attacks. Cyber conflict that integrates measures across all three vectors could have a cascading impact that seriously disrupts and damages U.S. operational and commercial capacity in an unprecedented, idiosyncratic way. The damage could go to the point of making us non-competitive in markets and, in the extreme case, undermining basic national functions embedded in our infrastructure. We are actually seeing very worrying versions of this kind of campaign.

During the development of this report, the ISAB Cyber Study Group met with a number of private sector companies. Based on the compilation of cyber, corporate, and economic data, one such company has determined that nation-state threat actors are conducting anti-trust and economic schemes using cyber intrusion and exploitation as a catalyst for market entry and growth, leading to accumulation of market share. Furthermore, their research revealed that these adversaries have a broad understanding of U.S. industries, processes and systems, internal control weaknesses and the cultural and psychological nuances of the broader markets better than most operational, financial and IT executives within the affected industries. At least 25 industries and 48 companies have had indications of offensive nation-state cyber-economic activity against them within the last five years.

The potential impact of activity like this with simultaneous exploitation along all three of the threat vectors could be enormous. With Russian cyber attacks in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 executed in support of military operations, we have seen the emergence of a new offensive military potential. Attacks on critical infrastructure (which could include our monetary system and our networked electric and water utilities and transportation control facilities) made in support of an offensive military campaign -- or for purely economic, political or other gain (e.g., criminal or terrorist activity) -- could have a devastating effect on U.S. strategic capability. The challenges inherent in the increasingly opaque nature of the dynamic software combinations needed to run large systems and to counter human misbehavior make the defender’s job very difficult.

“The complexity of these scenarios, which results in part from massive interconnectivity and dependencies between systems that are not always well understood, has made it difficult to develop a consensus regarding the probable consequences of an attack.”4

The potential for international relations being destabilized due to cyber activities creates a special concern for the Department of State. The National Academies of Science pointed out that “the world is organized around nation-states and national governments, and every physical artifact of information technology is located somewhere. Consequently, one might expect cyberspace-related tensions to arise between nations exercising sovereignty over their national affairs and interacting with other nations.”5 Many scenarios are possible, among them the actions of a third party (nation-state or not) undermining the relations between two countries. For example, in a cyber attack by country A on country C using means in country B, country C might likely mistakenly blame country B, an innocent bystander. To avoid escalation, means must be found to contain the damage and identify the true nature and perpetrator of the attack.

Cyberattacks are increasingly targeting US defense secrets - this will undermine military superiority

Reed 13 - John Reed is a national security reporter for Foreign Policy. He comes to FP after editing Military.com’s publication Defense Tech and working as the associate editor of DoDBuzz. Between 2007 and 2010, he covered major trends in military aviation and the defense industry around the world for Defense News and Inside the Air Force. (John, “Here’s How Foreign Spies Are Now Getting U.S. Weapons Tech”, Foreign Policy, July 23, 2013, http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/23/heres-how-foreign-spies-are-now-getting-u-s-weapons-tech/?wp_login_redirect=0//DM)

Forget the shady middlemen; never mind the students just a little too eager to find out the particulars of engines and warheads. Today, when foreign spies want to acquire America’s latest weapons technology, they just hack into networks and steal the digital designs. 2012 marked the first time, overseas intelligence agencies used cyber espionage – rather than the old-fashioned kind — as their number one way to pilfer information on U.S. weapons.

That’s according to a new report by one of Pentagon branches responsible for preventing such spying. Not coincidentally, perhaps, half of all successful incidents in 2012 of espionage against American defense contractors originated in Asia, up from 43 percent the previous year. This report highlights what plenty of us have come to grasp intuitively, cyberattacks are steadily replacing — or at least complementing — attempts to flat-out purchase U.S. defense technology or simply ask for more information about it as the top MO of industrial intelligence operators.

This shift from overt attempts at collecting information on U.S. weapons to cyber theft means that it may become more difficult to detect when a rival is trying to gain access to America’s defense secrets. It also shows why the Obama administration has been in such a tizzy of China’s alleged industrial espionage.

According to the report from the Defense Security Service, these spies were particularly interested in gathering information on U.S. electronics; worldwide collection attempts in this sector spiked 94 percent from the year before.

A "substantial" number of those electronics were radiation-resistant electronics that can be used in nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, aerospace and space programs, according to the report.

"Foreign entities, especially those linked to countries with mature missile programs, increasingly focuses collection efforts on U.S. missile technology, usually aimed at particular missile subsystems," reads the report.

Why are nations with mature missile programs trying to steal secrets about American missile parts? To make their missiles even more deadly, of course.

"After a country masters the chemistry and physics required to launch a missiles, scientists and engineers can focus on accuracy and lethality, the desired characteristics of modern missiles," the report notes.

Getting their hands on U.S. missile parts will also help these countries defend against American weapons.

"Reverse-engineering would probably give East Asia and the Pacific scientists and engineers a better understanding of the capabilities of the targeted and acquired technology to develop countermeasures to U.S. weapons systems," reads the document.

Overall, foreign spies’ top four American targets were "information systems; electronics; lasers, optics and sensors; and aeronautic systems technologies," according to the report.

All of these are crucial parts of the weapons that have given the U.S. a clear advantage on battlefields for the last 20 years. Information systems are how the US military passes massive amounts of intelligence and communications data. Meanwhile optics, lasers and sensors are key technologies that help American drones spy on enemies and that guide its smart weapons onto targets. Aeronautic systems technologies, as you know, are the parts that make up the Pentagon’s next-generation rockets, stealth drones and fighters — exactly the types of weapons that nations like China are trying to replicate.

The report doesn’t specifically call out China as the home of these spies. But let’s be honest, the vast majority of espionage attempts originating from Asia are likely coming from China.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 335 Kb.

Share with your friends: