3 ms·
>If you treat it as a war, was it really any different? It's a huge difference. It's a game changer. The rule has been to respond in kind. In the past cyber at
by WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
>If you treat it as a war, was it really any different?
It's a huge difference. It's a game changer. The rule has been to respond in kind. In the past cyber attacks were responded with cyber attacks. Now a bomb will be dropped on the attackers. Hackers haven't gone into war thinking they are direct targets. That's changed now. Of course, that means that the targets will get better defenses but don't expect to be a supporting player and be treated as such.
At some level, it's a recognition of how much of modern society is managed in cyberspace and how much damage can be done with a cyber attack.
- int_19h 8y agoI don't think there was ever an "in kind" rule that is that narrow. I remember back in 1999 during the Kosovo war, NATO bombed the Yugoslavian Ministry of Defense, for example - and it was generally considered a legitimate target, even though the people inside weren't directly shooting at anybody. I think the broader context is important here. A cyber attack by itself does not justify this sort of response. But a cyber attack that is intended to bolster one side in a military conflict, carried out by people explicitly aligned with that side, is a part of the broader war effort. Responding to that with deadly force is still responding "in kind".