No, "Cybersecurity Moonshot" doesn't have some "differences". It's a completely moronic analogy. 
2/ With Kennedy's "moonshot" (and likewise the Manhattan Project), we'd solved the scientific and engineering challenges and simply needed to build the damn thing. With cybersecurity, we haven't solved the challenges yet -- we don't know how to fix things.
3/ Phishing, SQL injection, password reuse have been the source of most successful hacker attacks for the past 20 years. No, we aren't going to address that. Instead, we'll moonshot unproven things, like "quantum crypto" and 5G
4/ In other words, we need a police state like China, where even for simple things like playing online games you need to authenticate to the government so they can add your activity to their "social" score.
5/ You can tell people are hidebound morons when they can't speak without platitudes. Of course failure is an acceptable outcome. If a rocket explodes, people die. People don't die when my home router crashes.
6/ It's police-states that insist that insecurity can't be tolerated. The rest of us tolerate it. We'd prefer to live in a lax and free society, mitigating risks rather than going to far to eliminate them.
7/ I'm not joking about this "police-state" bent. It pervades this documented. They are demanding "personal sacrifices". You just think it's not "police-state" because it's just computers rather than the military, intelligence, or law-enforcement.
8/ That's what they said 10 years ago, and 10 years before that, and yet the proverbial "cyber Pearl Harbor" keeps not happening. We give these cybermongerers too much head, and ignore the poo-pooers.
9/ In other words, maybe we should temporarily suspend the constitution in favor of a charismatic leader to solve this problem.
10/ I disagree. If history has taught us one thing it's that cybersecurity improvements come from a "diversity" of efforts, not a "unity" of effort.
11/ That's how you can identify when the semantic content of a document is actually zero: when you can replace words with their opposites with fundamentally no change in meaning. Orwell described this process.
12/ I may have edited some of the platitudes on this image.
13/ These are moronic goals. The first two are opposites: a "resilient" system is one designed to accommodate a lack of "guaranteed availability". Should we take heroic and implausible efforts to protect the power grid, or promote backup batteries in every home?
14/ We already have the need for backup batteries in every home to address alternative energy whose peak generation coincides to different hours than peak usage. It's also good for natural disasters and such.
15/ As mentioned above, "fully attributable actions of users" is a horrible police state desire that does nothing to protect Americans from foreign hackers, and only threatens citizens themselves.
16/ By "protection of private information" it doesn't mean "from government", but "from Facebook". Yet vast tracks of the Internet are free only because they use private information. The fact is consumers want to divulge private information.
17/ Consumers and business already have confidence in the Internet. I know this because they use the Internet every day for consuming and businessing. There's not much room for them to use it even more than they do now.
18/ No, we won't use the existing technology we already have (like the original Moonshot), but we'll pin our hopes on unproven and frankly overhyped technologies of the future.
19/ Oh, yes, increased "segmentation" of networks is a good thing, but then you plow on with meaningless buzzards. "cryptographically assured microsegments"???? That sounds like a buzzword some startup sold you. All it needs is "blockchain" at this point.
20/ It's a sign of police-state mentality that they believe their job is to control the behavior of their citizens. Orwell and Huxley both wrote books about this. What's funny is that they are so self-unaware of how this sounds.
21/ They say "educating" but of course they mean "indoctrinating".
22/ More STEM? So less liberal-arts? "No, we need more liberal-arts too!!", say teachers. So what will you give up to get more STEM? The answer is "nothing", of course.
23/ The teachers (and their unions) oppose STEM even as they mouth platitudes praising it, like insisting on "show your work" math tests that give partial credit, while failing math students who get the right answers.
24/ The government claims credit for automobile safety, but there's really no scientific support for it. It's difficult to find clear correlations between increased seatbelt usage and reduction in deaths. Or even increased texting while driving and increase in deaths.
25/ AI AI AI AI AI. I'm really disappointed blockchain isn't mentioned.
26/ No wonder the report is full of buzzwords that seem lifted from marketing brochures.
27/ They conveniently have a glossary that explains highly technical words you might not know, like "networks", in the plain simple language that you understand.
28/ So people defend such nonsense by claiming "but they are well-meaning". No, they aren't, anymore than those who send you to Siberia for re-education are well-meaning.
29/ The Internet is safe and secure enough the way it is today. "Secure enough" means that further improvements will come at unacceptable tradeoffs. This document doesn't measure costs vs. benefits, but insists security a is a strategic imperative regardless of costs/sacrifices.
