3 ms·

The US and Israel had been involved in conflict with Iran for decades before Stuxnet. It's not like there were completely normal and peaceful relations until th

The US and Israel had been involved in conflict with Iran for decades before Stuxnet. It's not like there were completely normal and peaceful relations until the US and Israel suddenly released a cyberattack targeting Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.

the_af 4y ago
I'm not asking for justifications of why Iran is an exception. You can always argue that any particular case is an exception where the general rule doesn't apply. I'm talking about the general principle here. I'm saying what you are essentially claiming is "countries should respond to cyberattacks [...] unless those cyberattacks are warranted". I'm not interested in discussing whether they were warranted or not in the case of Iran.
- philwelch 4y ago
  I’m not, either. The general principle is that cyberattacks are equivalent to kinetic attacks. If they happen in a conflict where both sides are kinetically attacking each other anyway, the question of response is irrelevant, and the only question is the relative justification of either party to the overall conflict to begin with.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, so you are indeed arguing what I thought: countries must respond to cyberattacks, unless if they are somehow "justified" by other alleged aggressions. The particulars of the case you're trying to argue about Iran are irrelevant -- what matters is that you feel there are exceptions. Gotcha.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that cyberattacks are equivalent to kinetic attacks. Whether or not you’re entitled to respond is a larger question. Are you having difficulty understanding my point or are you just trolling?
      - the_af 4y ago
        I'm not trolling, and your rephrasing means effectively what I claim you are saying. I see your initial comment got flagged and you also acted very defensively when replying to others, so I'll leave you to it.
        philwelch 4y ago
        I’m just confused why you’re going out of your way to frame it the way you are. Even with kinetic attacks, it’s sometimes normal for some countries not to respond. For instance, when the US killed that Iranian general and Iran responded by launching missiles at US bases in Iraq, the US chose not to retaliate to the missile strike. That was a case where the US escalated the conflict suddenly and even after Iran’s response, there was no point in escalating further. The same might be true with a cyberattack. As I said, there are a lot of different factors involved and these are case by case decisions.

the_af 4y ago

I'm not asking for justifications of why Iran is an exception. You can always argue that any particular case is an exception where the general rule doesn't apply. I'm talking about the general principle here. I'm saying what you are essentially claiming is "countries should respond to cyberattacks [...] unless those cyberattacks are warranted". I'm not interested in discussing whether they were warranted or not in the case of Iran.

philwelch 4y ago
I’m not, either. The general principle is that cyberattacks are equivalent to kinetic attacks. If they happen in a conflict where both sides are kinetically attacking each other anyway, the question of response is irrelevant, and the only question is the relative justification of either party to the overall conflict to begin with.
- the_af 4y ago
  Thanks for clarifying, so you are indeed arguing what I thought: countries must respond to cyberattacks, unless if they are somehow "justified" by other alleged aggressions. The particulars of the case you're trying to argue about Iran are irrelevant -- what matters is that you feel there are exceptions. Gotcha.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that cyberattacks are equivalent to kinetic attacks. Whether or not you’re entitled to respond is a larger question. Are you having difficulty understanding my point or are you just trolling?
    - the_af 4y ago
      I'm not trolling, and your rephrasing means effectively what I claim you are saying. I see your initial comment got flagged and you also acted very defensively when replying to others, so I'll leave you to it.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        I’m just confused why you’re going out of your way to frame it the way you are. Even with kinetic attacks, it’s sometimes normal for some countries not to respond. For instance, when the US killed that Iranian general and Iran responded by launching missiles at US bases in Iraq, the US chose not to retaliate to the missile strike. That was a case where the US escalated the conflict suddenly and even after Iran’s response, there was no point in escalating further. The same might be true with a cyberattack. As I said, there are a lot of different factors involved and these are case by case decisions.