Cyberattacks as Acts of War
The cluster debates whether cyberattacks on infrastructure constitute acts of war akin to physical bombings, US policies on retaliation and deterrence, and the risks of escalation in cyber warfare involving nations like Russia and Ukraine.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Exposing cyberintrusions is "an act of war"?
Taking a country's infrastructure through a cyberattack is considered an act of war. Same as if you bombed the power generation infrastructure.
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack.If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc.Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable response to abuse.
The article describes a team helping a country defend itself against cyberattacks.How is that "pressing the button on a war"?
I don't think it can be related. For one, the US was referring to a cyber sabotage operation, not an attack in the sense of "an attack against a computer system". "Attack" has two very different meanings in this context. SSHing into a server is an attack and shutting down power for a city leading to 20 hospital deaths is an attack.The original statement I could find [0]:>recommending, in response to the "most extreme case" (described as a "catastr
It seems like a fair game to me. You can always protect yourself by investing in cyber-security if you don't want to be spied on.It's not like war where innocent people die and a there's a lot of human suffering. It's just a tech race where the nations doing a good job get a deserved advantage without doing direct damage to the population.
Don't you think it could make them a target of russia's cyber warfare?
The US is currently indirectly at war with Russia... I don't understand why you think it makes sense to let someone you are basically at war with operate on your computers
Understandable complaints, but isn't the latter just standard procedure in modern cyberwarfare? I think I would be more upset if America didn't have any offensive zero-day weapons to strike with. If we only had capability against foreign companies software, everyone would just buy American and be immune.
That's a good point -- Russia doesn't want to massively escalate against the US with an all-out cyberattack. I've often wondered if total war against Russia or China would show how fragile our internet-connected infrastructure is, with e.g. important people's bank accounts vanishing with no evidence they ever existed.