4 ms·
> When we strike back, does Russia then strike back again? What does it look like after four or five volleys? Will entire power grids be down for days or weeks?
by gregmac 9y ago
> When we strike back, does Russia then strike back again? What does it look like after four or five volleys? Will entire power grids be down for days or weeks? Will the stock market crash?
And at what point, after "cyber-damaging" some piece of critical infrastructure (and/or harming/killing people), does the the other side run out of exploits and just launch actual missiles instead?
- devrandomguy 9y agoDo these missiles require a working communications network? If this goes on long enough, there might not be any way to launch them.
- rjsw 9y agoWhy do you think that different countries have put missiles in submarines ?
- SCHiM 9y agoAnd Russia reportedly even has a deadmans-switch that can be triggered by seismic activity on Russian soil and rapid changes in air pressure. I'd presume that such a system is not connected to the internet.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoAll of those systems predate the Internet, so you bet nuclear capabilities will not be affected much by cyber attacks.
- graedus 9y agoNuclear capabilities will probably not be affected much by cyber attacks over the internet. There are other vectors, but they obviously require a much more serious investment in espionage, spycraft, etc.
- pjc50 9y agoIsn't this literally the denoument of Dr Strangelove?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mrkgnao 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mortenjorck 9y agoI know not with what weapons the first world cyberwar will be fought, but I know the second will be fought with floppy disks.
- pjc50 9y agoThis is an under-appreciated point. We've forgotten all the old hard Cold War lessons about escalation. What we are seeing now is a huge expansion of deniable and proxy warfare. Everyone is still (I hope) clear that sending an actual tank division across the Polish/Ukraine border would be met with nukes. So the question is, what is the largest most damaging attack that can be carried out without reprisal, and how do the participants find this out? And of course, the ultimate in deniable attacks is one carried out by the enemy's own forces. Did cyberwarfare crash a US destroyer into a cargo ship? (Almost certainly not, but maybe next time). SWAT-ing is already established as a tactic; could suitably forged communications or "fake news" disseminated via the President lead to the SWAT-ing of a country? There are some suggestions that this applies to the Qatar situation.
- pyrale 9y ago> SWAT-ing of a country Iraq comes to mind, although the forged information came from the invading country's own services.
- pjc50 9y agoI think Ahmed Chalabi played a key role there as well, and there are suggestions that he was an Iranian agent.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y agoThere's no denying that Ahmed Chalabi was an Iranian agent of influence, but whether he was working for the Iranian clandestine services is unknown.
- marcosdumay 9y agoThat should come as a hint that state actors are not the only ones capable of deploying informational weapons.
- inetknght 9y ago> Everyone is still (I hope) clear that sending an actual tank division across the Polish/Ukraine border would be met with nukes. Only if those tanks are under foreign flags. If they're under "rebel" flags, then nobody cares.