5 ms·

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

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.
i_like_apis 5y ago
A NATO war would be a nuclear war. Nobody is looking to abuse cyber attribution to start a NATO war. NATO doesn't want war, thank god. Look how many wars NATO has ever started or tried to start: zero.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Look how many wars NATO has ever started or tried to start The NATO-Yugoslavia war has entered the chat.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    NATO has entered the chat. Yugoslavia has already been chatting with some other parts of Yugoslavia.
- guilhas 5y ago
  NATO members have started many more war than any others When they defend call themselves NATO, when they attack they change their name to 'international coalition' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_military_intervention_against_the_Islamic_State https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_military_inter...

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.

i_like_apis 5y ago

A NATO war would be a nuclear war. Nobody is looking to abuse cyber attribution to start a NATO war. NATO doesn't want war, thank god. Look how many wars NATO has ever started or tried to start: zero.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Look how many wars NATO has ever started or tried to start The NATO-Yugoslavia war has entered the chat.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  NATO has entered the chat. Yugoslavia has already been chatting with some other parts of Yugoslavia.
guilhas 5y ago
NATO members have started many more war than any others When they defend call themselves NATO, when they attack they change their name to 'international coalition' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_military_intervention_against_the_Islamic_State https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_military_inter...