3 ms·

The U.S. has changed the rules of engagment to state that any cyber attack can be met with real military counterattack. If the Russians are behind it, after be

The U.S. has changed the rules of engagment to state that any cyber attack can be met with real military counterattack. If the Russians are behind it, after being emboldened by Ukraine and Syria, the United States has to respond. I'm not saying all out war but I am saying we have to show the Russians that this affects everything we are about. It affects our businesses, our elections, and our way of life. I am saying there should be military action and if that leads to war then so be it, everyone will think twice about this sort of thing again and we will all be safer because of it.

drdrey 10y ago
> if that leads to war then so be it Well gee, slow down there buddy
JohnStrange 10y ago
That's a great way into a nuclear holocaust, and I appreciate it. I always wanted to test my prepper skills, although I have to admit that I'm not really a prepper, more like a guy who makes fun of them, and don't even own a Geiger counter (because the good ones are fucking expensive).
carbocation 10y ago
> I am saying there should be military action and if that leads to war then so be it I don't think that war with any nation, much less Russia, should ever be such a casual consideration. Measured in human suffering, military conflict is inestimably more awful than brief internet downtime.
- fowlerpower 10y ago
  Of course I agree with you but it's not about the internet downtime. It's about messing with or elections it's about the invasions. You let it all go on long enough and you will have much bigger problems in a few years time.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    Your point is completely accurate and critical to follow up on in a considered way. In the real world anyway. But unfortunately, since Thiel has invited HN to go full /pol/ the answer you're gonna get is that it's a 400lb guy on a couch saving us from the devil.
j1vms 10y ago
I disagree. A cyberattack that were a short/medium-term risk to lives being the exception to this. But a cyberattack that plausibly affects at most the economy (and a fraction of it at best), if it be so proved, should be responded in a way that affects an economy or the like. The world, as it is, already has enough human lives being ended each day or put at risk for what are often tenuous reasons at best.
codedokode 10y ago
Would not disconnecting a cable from Russia or installing a firewall be a cheaper solution?
- Jerry2 10y ago
  Their next move would be disconnecting the US. http://www.hisutton.com/Yantar.html http://www.hisutton.com/Yantar.html What then?
  - codedokode 10y ago
    I remember reading the same about american submarines installing unknown devices on underwater cables.
    - Jerry2 10y ago
      Yeah, they both do it. US has been doing it for decades, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells
rohit89 10y ago
> everyone will think twice about this sort of thing again and we will all be safer because of it. Sure. Respond to an cyber attack on infra by starting a physical war that will permanently remove all infrastructure. Its the equivalent of burning down your building because a neighbor cut your cable. War should always be a last resort - only when all other options are exhausted. Especially nuclear war.

drdrey 10y ago

> if that leads to war then so be it Well gee, slow down there buddy

JohnStrange 10y ago

That's a great way into a nuclear holocaust, and I appreciate it. I always wanted to test my prepper skills, although I have to admit that I'm not really a prepper, more like a guy who makes fun of them, and don't even own a Geiger counter (because the good ones are fucking expensive).

carbocation 10y ago

> I am saying there should be military action and if that leads to war then so be it I don't think that war with any nation, much less Russia, should ever be such a casual consideration. Measured in human suffering, military conflict is inestimably more awful than brief internet downtime.

fowlerpower 10y ago
Of course I agree with you but it's not about the internet downtime. It's about messing with or elections it's about the invasions. You let it all go on long enough and you will have much bigger problems in a few years time.
- whybroke 10y ago
  Your point is completely accurate and critical to follow up on in a considered way. In the real world anyway. But unfortunately, since Thiel has invited HN to go full /pol/ the answer you're gonna get is that it's a 400lb guy on a couch saving us from the devil.

j1vms 10y ago

I disagree. A cyberattack that were a short/medium-term risk to lives being the exception to this. But a cyberattack that plausibly affects at most the economy (and a fraction of it at best), if it be so proved, should be responded in a way that affects an economy or the like. The world, as it is, already has enough human lives being ended each day or put at risk for what are often tenuous reasons at best.

codedokode 10y ago

Would not disconnecting a cable from Russia or installing a firewall be a cheaper solution?

Jerry2 10y ago
Their next move would be disconnecting the US. http://www.hisutton.com/Yantar.html http://www.hisutton.com/Yantar.html What then?
- codedokode 10y ago
  I remember reading the same about american submarines installing unknown devices on underwater cables.
  - Jerry2 10y ago
    Yeah, they both do it. US has been doing it for decades, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

rohit89 10y ago

> everyone will think twice about this sort of thing again and we will all be safer because of it. Sure. Respond to an cyber attack on infra by starting a physical war that will permanently remove all infrastructure. Its the equivalent of burning down your building because a neighbor cut your cable. War should always be a last resort - only when all other options are exhausted. Especially nuclear war.