4 ms·

Jens Stoltenberg: "Cyberattacks can trigger Article 5" of the NATO charter

27 points by throwaway5752 5y ago

aluminum96 5y ago
This is seriously scary. I'd hope any NATO response to a cyberattack is in-kind, it seems really foolhardy to escalate a physical war over a cyberattack.
- politician 5y ago
  If it involves shutting down critical infrastructure, it’s the same as dropping bombs.
  - flembat 5y ago
    It very clearly is not. For example you can protect critical infrastructure by simply unplugging the Internet access to it.
    - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
      Doesn't sound critical, then.
- Proven 5y ago
jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
So who will be the new Gavrilo Princip then?
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
This has the wonderful property that proof isn't necessary. Pretty much any country can be blamed for a cyberattack so this means that NATO now has the power to declare war with anyone they want, anytime they want, for any reason they want, without provocation, by simply saying it was a cyberattack. Regardless of what Russia or anyone else is doing now, this is ripe for unlimited abuse.
- adventured 5y ago
  Only if you can convince the major members of NATO to go along with a false flag, which will be extraordinarily difficult. They're reluctant to act generally and most will require overwhelming evidence.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > NATO now has the power to declare war with anyone they want, anytime they want, for any reason they want, without provocation NATO has always had that power; NATO opponents claim that is what they actually did under the banner of “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo in 1999, but even if it isn't, they clearly could any time they had the necessary consensus.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  NATO doesn't quite work like a dictatorship with a supreme commander at the top. > NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations but their individual sovereignty is unaffected by participation in the alliance. NATO has no parliaments, no laws, no enforcement, and no power to punish individual citizens. As a consequence of this lack of sovereignty the power and authority of a NATO commander are limited. NATO commanders cannot punish offences such as: failure to obey a lawful order; dereliction of duty; or disrespect to a senior officer.[147] NATO commanders expect obeisance but sometimes need to subordinate their desires or plans to the operators who are themselves subject to sovereign codes of conduct like the UCMJ. A case in point was the clash between General Sir Mike Jackson and General Wesley Clark over KFOR actions at Pristina Airport.[148] > The NATO commander can issue orders to his subordinate commanders in the form of operational plans (OPLANs), operational orders (OPORDERs), tactical direction, or fragmental orders (FRAGOs) and others. The joint rules of engagement must be followed, and the Law of Armed Conflict must be obeyed at all times. Operational resources "remain under national command but have been transferred temporarily to NATO. Although these national units, through the formal process of transfer of authority, have been placed under the operational command and control of a NATO commander, they never lose their national character." Senior national representatives, like CDS, "are designated as so-called red-cardholders". Caveats are restrictions listed "nation by nation... that NATO Commanders... must take into account."[147] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO I suspect orders for countering cyber attacks are similar.
rasengan0 5y ago
Giles, K. What deters Russia: Enduring principles for responding to Moscow. Chatham House, 2021 https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/2021-09-23-What-deters-Russia-Giles-pdf.pdf https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/202...
sschueller 5y ago
So, I, a non party to article 5 can trigger WWIII by a clever cyber attack masked as a state actor? This is absolutely insane, we all know that it is practically impossible to prove who did a cyber attack unless the one that did it is openly talking about it.
morpheos137 5y ago
"Cyberwarfare" is massively over hyped by the media and Hollywood. Stoltenberg seems out of touch with reality if he takes what he is saying seriously. For one thing not all critical infrastructure is connected to the internet or "hackable." Nor should it be. EMPs might do massive damage to modern electrical based infrastructure but I doubt anybody would consider an EMP attack "cyber."

27 points by throwaway5752 5y ago

This is seriously scary. I'd hope any NATO response to a cyberattack is in-kind, it seems really foolhardy to escalate a physical war over a cyberattack.

politician 5y ago
If it involves shutting down critical infrastructure, it’s the same as dropping bombs.
- flembat 5y ago
  It very clearly is not. For example you can protect critical infrastructure by simply unplugging the Internet access to it.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    Doesn't sound critical, then.
Proven 5y ago

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago

So who will be the new Gavrilo Princip then?

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

This has the wonderful property that proof isn't necessary. Pretty much any country can be blamed for a cyberattack so this means that NATO now has the power to declare war with anyone they want, anytime they want, for any reason they want, without provocation, by simply saying it was a cyberattack. Regardless of what Russia or anyone else is doing now, this is ripe for unlimited abuse.

adventured 5y ago
Only if you can convince the major members of NATO to go along with a false flag, which will be extraordinarily difficult. They're reluctant to act generally and most will require overwhelming evidence.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> NATO now has the power to declare war with anyone they want, anytime they want, for any reason they want, without provocation NATO has always had that power; NATO opponents claim that is what they actually did under the banner of “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo in 1999, but even if it isn't, they clearly could any time they had the necessary consensus.
systemvoltage 5y ago
NATO doesn't quite work like a dictatorship with a supreme commander at the top. > NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations but their individual sovereignty is unaffected by participation in the alliance. NATO has no parliaments, no laws, no enforcement, and no power to punish individual citizens. As a consequence of this lack of sovereignty the power and authority of a NATO commander are limited. NATO commanders cannot punish offences such as: failure to obey a lawful order; dereliction of duty; or disrespect to a senior officer.[147] NATO commanders expect obeisance but sometimes need to subordinate their desires or plans to the operators who are themselves subject to sovereign codes of conduct like the UCMJ. A case in point was the clash between General Sir Mike Jackson and General Wesley Clark over KFOR actions at Pristina Airport.[148] > The NATO commander can issue orders to his subordinate commanders in the form of operational plans (OPLANs), operational orders (OPORDERs), tactical direction, or fragmental orders (FRAGOs) and others. The joint rules of engagement must be followed, and the Law of Armed Conflict must be obeyed at all times. Operational resources "remain under national command but have been transferred temporarily to NATO. Although these national units, through the formal process of transfer of authority, have been placed under the operational command and control of a NATO commander, they never lose their national character." Senior national representatives, like CDS, "are designated as so-called red-cardholders". Caveats are restrictions listed "nation by nation... that NATO Commanders... must take into account."[147] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO I suspect orders for countering cyber attacks are similar.

rasengan0 5y ago

Giles, K. What deters Russia: Enduring principles for responding to Moscow. Chatham House, 2021 https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/2021-09-23-What-deters-Russia-Giles-pdf.pdf https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/202...

sschueller 5y ago

So, I, a non party to article 5 can trigger WWIII by a clever cyber attack masked as a state actor? This is absolutely insane, we all know that it is practically impossible to prove who did a cyber attack unless the one that did it is openly talking about it.

morpheos137 5y ago

"Cyberwarfare" is massively over hyped by the media and Hollywood. Stoltenberg seems out of touch with reality if he takes what he is saying seriously. For one thing not all critical infrastructure is connected to the internet or "hackable." Nor should it be. EMPs might do massive damage to modern electrical based infrastructure but I doubt anybody would consider an EMP attack "cyber."