I agree, but I also think it's an incomplete answer to the situation. I think that it's unreasonable to expect there not to be some sort of acting technology s

I agree, but I also think it's an incomplete answer to the situation. I think that it's unreasonable to expect there not to be some sort of acting technology strike force within the US government, on the sole basis that they wouldn't let themselves fall behind as a super power in this manner. For the sake of one-upmanship alone I imagine this is happening. But as to what it should be doing? That needs to be reviewed. Cyber weapons aren't traditional weapons - cyber weapons are nigh-infinitely replicable, easier to lose control over, fast and easy to redistribute, and they're just as harmful to US civilian targets as they are to political/miiltary targets. They're unconventional warfare in that once you let it go, it's almost impossible to reel it back in, and the current state of technology just lends itself to so much collateral damage by the nature of software dependencies. A lot of places have no control over the dependencies for their mission critical software, and either no money for better alternatives or legitimately no alternative. Cyber weapons are going to be a weird thing for a very long time, since they have the same uncontrollable nature that a lot of banned weapons have, but they don't have the same immediate impact or lasting effect [1] that munitions, chemicals, and so on have. The lack of an immediate real world impact (read: a 'boom' or something toxic) is going to make it a challenge for people to see how damaging this an really be. [1] - I mark this because I think it's arguable how lasting the impact for any given bit of malware can be. There can be a lot of long-lasting damage if major infrastructure pieces are targeted, or downing entire networks, ruining small to medium businesses, and so on.